BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Man Who Wasn't There

 
 
rizla mission
12:16 / 28.10.01
Why no discussion of this truly excellent film?

For my money, the Coen Brother's best.

Brings together all the best themes and ideas of all past Film Noir perfectly, and only occasionally lapses into retro pastiche.

Acting is superb throughout.

Deeply depressing and uncomfortable AND laugh out loud funny, often in the same scene.

Everytime the scene changed in the last 45 minutes, I wanted the film to end because it was perfect as it was and I felt that if they carried it on any longer they might spoil it. But every new chapter was even more impressive than the last.

In a just world, this would have 'Oscar winner' written all over it.
 
 
CameronStewart
15:33 / 28.10.01
This is the second time in a row that a Coen Bros. film has opened in the UK before it has in North America.

I don't understand.

I saw the trailer for this in front of the execrable FROM HELL and it literally gave me shivers of delight. Absolutely cannot wait to see it.
 
 
Bear
20:49 / 28.10.01
Just saw the movie a couple of hours ago.. excellent stuff, looks stunning the bit with the bar, I want to get it framed

Wouldn't go as far as to say its their best, but I just love the big lebowski..

wonder how their next one will do with Brad Pitt..?
 
 
CameronStewart
09:17 / 29.10.01
If you're referring to TO THE WHITE SEA, I recall reading that it's no longer in production...
 
 
Bear
09:35 / 29.10.01
Oh well, just have to see what they think up then... according to my source perhaps the new Police Acedemy movie, heard they're the new choice after Willian Shatner turned it down..
 
 
Seth
09:35 / 29.10.01
I just saw this yesterday. What an immense fucking film.

I agree with what everyone has said about this so far. It’s just fabulous: a funny, moving film noir farce with a liberal dollop of quantum physics thrown in.

We left the cinema with three irresistible compulsions:

Must smoke.
Must check hair (even though I have next to none).
Must be quiet.
 
 
Bear
09:35 / 29.10.01
I know what you mean about the smoking.. kinda like Dennis Hopper in True Romance...

But the film is terrific.. still thinking about it today and I think it'll be running about my head for awhile yet
 
 
No star here laces
12:00 / 29.10.01
I tried smoking the way he does, with the fag hanging down and to the side, after leaving the film. It only looks cool with american cigarettes with the white filters, unfortunately, with our brown-filtered tabs it just looks seedy.
 
 
Seth
12:23 / 29.10.01
Seedy is cool.

Linguo is dead.
 
 
Bear
12:27 / 29.10.01
alright then - i aint the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, and I'd be the first to admit it so i have no real problems about asking - what the hells with the ufo's?

I have a few theories but I don't want to start yacking on because I'm probably well off the mark..

What do you reckon they meant really?
 
 
rizla mission
13:47 / 29.10.01
The UFO was the one element I wish they'd left out - kind of overdoing it on the period detail I think.
"Hey it's the 50s, let's have us some post-Roswell B-movie cold war invaders style paranioa!"
 
 
Hush
04:49 / 01.11.01
Aridity is a term used to characterize a spiritual defect; often used of priests who have lost contact with the world of sense and feeling, priests who perhaps ought to be monks, or worse, have lost the sense of God's love. The use of monochrome throughout this film is, as in Rumblefish, an expression of this. Unlike 'Rumblefish' there is no respite.

This is a film about aridity, about a man who has completely lost contact with the world to the extent that he doesn't regret that loss. A man who is so detached that he isn't there. Aridity literally means dryness, and of the two things that motivate him in this film the one that enables there to be a plot is his encounter with Dry Cleaning, a new concept that oddly engages him. 'No water' say's the salesman who later dies by drowning.

The other engaged is with Beethoven, being played well, but completely without passion. The other key use of Beethoven in the Coen's canon is at the end of 'Raising Arizona' . Haven't worked out quite how that links yet except that that film too is about aridity ('her womb is dry and barren place...') .

The Flying saucers symbolize imagination, passion and escape. The one truly passionate character in the film (other than the talking barber brother in law in the courthouse scene) is Big Dave (How I regret seeing that Pot Noodles advert) the alien abductee. He reminds me of Muntz, from 'Barton Fink' whose passions are dangerous, violent dark and engaging, and based in a gift for betrayal. He is the man who was there and left sperm and blood behind him to prove it.

In the end the protaganist simply dies because he refuses engagement. The prison doors open, the escape craft is waiting but he walks back into prison and locks the door behind him. The fantasy scene, while he recovers consciousness is a clear indicator why. He imagines life is back to normal with his wife alive, and their live of dull indifference and minor irritation has resumed. I presume he feels he might as well not be there.

My question is this. The Coen's have been repeatedly been described as cold, ironic stylists. Is this film a sort of self parody in reponse to this? Certainly their trademark static camera's with objects moving across the field of vision are there (the wonderful slomo car crash is minimalist excellence) and makes me wish they were given AI to complete. This is certainly their most Kubrikian film, and the car journey back from Sacremento and the piano teacher is clear homage to Kubrik's 'Lolita'. The tone of the film is very close to that of the collection of short fiction published two years ago, which I thoroughly enjoyed, partly because it evoked a feeling of monochrome literature. If this is the case, what will there next film be? My guess is something rather more lurid, with a science-fiction theme more fully developed.
 
 
rizla mission
11:12 / 01.11.01
That's an excellent interpretation if I do say so myself.

Personally, I've never seen the Coens as 'cold ironic stylists' - all of their films deal with heavy emotions of some kind, and - except when it's done on purpose - are far from cold.
The Man Who Wasn't There could be seen as an extension of the same atmosphere they created in Fargo - that of strong, ugly, confused emotions hidden underneath a mask of minimalism and, for want of a better word, politeness. And that in itself is one of the defining characteristics of Film Noir..

and, oops, better stop before I get into Film Studies essay mode.

i think their next move might be another 'serious' kind of film - afterall, having made both Big Lebowski and O Brother.. in recent years, they're still one behind in the thriller/comedy ratio..
 
 
Bear
11:26 / 01.11.01
I done liked the purty shadows...

very impressed also with that opinion, anyone read the review in the big issue?

think he compaired it to furniture if i remember correctly
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
21:59 / 05.11.01
Saw this the other night. Liked it... was perhaps mildly disappointed, but then I do hold the Coens to a ridiculously high standard. And this promised so much... I'm not entirely sure it delivered all of it. Still, it made me realise that I'd happily pay to watch Billy Bob Thornton smoke cigarettes and cut hair in black and white for two hours. Maybe that would have been a better film. Kidding.

quote:Originally posted by Luke Wing:
Big Dave... is the man who was there and left sperm and blood behind him to prove it.


Ah, but isn't Big Dave one of at least three characters in the film who could be "The man who wasn't there" - he wasn't where he said he was in the war...

quote:In the end the protaganist simply dies because he refuses engagement. The prison doors open, the escape craft is waiting but he walks back into prison and locks the door behind him. The fantasy scene, while he recovers consciousness is a clear indicator why. He imagines life is back to normal with his wife alive, and their live of dull indifference and minor irritation has resumed. I presume he feels he might as well not be there.

That's an interesting interpretation: I took the UFO prison sequence to be the fantasy, and the scene after the car accident to be a flashback. The flashback to Ed's life with his wife gives it a slightly different spin to the one we had looking at things from his perspective: we realise that, y'know, this guy really isn't very bright, and that his wife looked out for him, keeping him from the mercies of conmen - which is off course how he gets into the whole mess.

As for the UFOs - I think this relates to the scene near the end where the lawyer played by Tony Shaloub is delivering his closing address, trying to make the jury think that Ed Crane is "modern man", everyman, a man out of place, a victim of circumstance, etc. This is something that the movie has been tempting us to believe, as well - but, it's suggested, this is bullshit. Everything that happens to Ed is in fact the result of his own actions - he sets things in motion by making a bad choice (both in the sense of stupid - of course Big Dave would figure it out - and morally wrong), and events just play out from there...

But Big Dave's scarily unbalanced wife believes that there's s something else going on: a conspiracy. People want to believe in a bigger picture, they want to believe that they don't have to take responsibility for the consequences of their bad choices - which ties in to what Ed's talking about in his final monologue, when the UFO appears to him in prison - I *think* (and this is where I'm a bit dubious about the film's ending) that he's come to take a kind of responsibility for his actions, and no longer needs the get-out clause of such an explanation. But I'm not sure.

Really good point about dry cleaning / aridity, Luke - I hadn't noticed that. God, but the Coens are clever bastards. I've noticed that if you watch their best films repeatedly, you see more and more stuff like that (with The Hudsucker Proxy being my favourite example - all those circles, karma, the great wheel...). Might have to watch this one again soon, too.


P.S. Anyone here seen Big Night? Do you think it was deliberate that here, the Tony Shaloub character is obsessed with food, after playing a chef so well in that film?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
11:00 / 06.11.01
Luke and Fly: great interpretations - thanks. I particularly like the way that the more you think about it, many characters are people who aren't there - they're either represented by something, or they're almost negative in the personality stakes - it just adds more to it, I feel.

Don't have a lot more to add, but I don't think this was a cold, or an ironic film. I just don't feel that from it - it seemed, in terms of composition, to be very personal, yet managing this while staying quite remote. The failing of it, I thought, was that sometimes it was too submerged for the sake of it - unlike Fargo's moments of stillness that always seemed to be laden with some emotion, this flick sometimes seemed to lack an emotional punch. Or else, it was just slow . Whatever way, I thought it was one of the most attractive films I'd seen, visually - and remain creeped out by the eyes on Big Dave's wife. I need to see it again, though she scared the fuck outta me.

And yes, I now want to take up smoking and work on my tonsure. And get one of those sharp suits.
 
 
Fiction Suit Five
18:25 / 06.11.01
I posted a coupla weeks ago recommending that everyone see this film, having seen a preview (you can read my review in th Hackney Gazzette, Londonsters). So there.

I think there are definite parallels with TMWWT and From Hell (the book...). Moore's parallels with Koch's Circle in the Dance of the Gull Catchers, and the Coen's usage of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, both used to comment on complicated murder mysteries, the nature of investigation and truth... the more a thing is examined, the less easy it is to understand. The Noir/B movie/Lolita/paranoia stuff is beautiful embellishment. And what a fine actor Billy Bob turns out to be.
 
 
rizla mission
11:18 / 07.11.01
um, yeah.

There's an awful lot of depth to this movie, isn't there.. I think I might see it again.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
11:31 / 07.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Fiction Suit Five:
And what a fine actor Billy Bob turns out to be.
Pushing Tin notwithstanding, I've always thought him to be pretty damn good. If you've not clocked Sling Blade, you really, really should...
 
 
Hush
15:34 / 07.11.01
Thanks Flyboy for highlighting a personal weakness of mine, viz- I can never credit people with being stupid. It never occurred to me that Mr Second Barber was simply thick. I had him down for a zen like calm and a bit unworldly. Perhaps like so much Coen boy's stuff the ambiguity is deliberate.

Further ambiguity in the uncertainity of what is flashback and what is fantasy. Possible Coen answer 'it's all film'!

Two tips for you.

1) Read the short fiction by Ethan. It's very close to TMWWT in tone.

2) Quiz question 'Who does Hi (in Raising Arizona) work for, when he is drilling holes in sheet metal?"
a: Hudsucker Industries (its on the pocket of his overalls)

Do you think he was thick as well?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:50 / 07.11.01
Hi: yes.

Norville Barnes: no.

It occurs to me that the not-all-that-bright man (either genuinely dim or just apparently so) is often central to Coen films... the main guy in Blood Simple, Hi, Norville, William H Macy in Fargo, the Dude, all three convicts in O Brother... and if they're not slightly dim, then they fuck up a lot (Barton Fink, Tom in Miller's Crossing). Some of them are loveable decent types who triumph deservingly, others fools who meet a bad end - and some, like Ed and Gabriel Byrne's Tom - are more ambiguous than that...
 
 
Hush
05:01 / 08.11.01
We're getting close to the idea of the holy innocent here. The Dude is certainly that, if that is someone who wanders through life, enduring all sorts of trials, without being corrupted by the world, or even really being aware of the shit they are in. It's as if having a private and unselfish agenda is in itself a protection against a corrupt world.

It's possibly this that links Coen world to Laurel and Hardy, as well as the usual juxtaposition of angry fat guy with naive skinny guy (cf especially Barton Fink, but also the breakout bros in Raising Arizona).

What is striking about this use of the fool is that generates a sense of disengagement which allows high drama and comedy to sit side by side without lurching into sentimentality in the way Hollywood usually does.
 
 
rizla mission
10:49 / 08.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Luke Wing:

It's possibly this that links Coen world to Laurel and Hardy, as well as the usual juxtaposition of angry fat guy with naive skinny guy (cf especially Barton Fink, but also the breakout bros in Raising Arizona).


My brother's critique of TMWWT:
"I wish they'd stop using that troupe of loud fat men in every film. They're getting old."
 
 
Hush
12:32 / 08.11.01
Tell Mr Pussy Cat that the Coen Bros are really lanky guys with long hair, and their use of fat dudes shouting is a critique of mid western values. So its cool.
 
 
rizla mission
12:55 / 09.11.01
well that's what I think, y'see. They had a nice dichotomy going in the barbers shop between the loud, fat man and the quiet, thin man. They always use the loud, fat men in interesting ways, or give them lots more character than most directors, making them into tragic misunderstood figures instead of merely goons - see Walter in Big Lebowski or the bank robber in O Brother.. .

Further pretentious Coen Bros. dissection:

I saw The Man Who Wasn't There again last night (I was kind of forced to by friends really, but I hardly put up much opposition to handing over of a second £3.60, fine film that it is).

When I did Film Studies at college, we studied Film Noir because, as my teacher put it, there are loads more sub-texts and interpretations you can drag out of them than most films. And the Coens have followed their exageration of the Noir conventions all the way through by giving TMWWT so many fucking sub-texts you could calculate them on a spreadsheet..

The best thing I picked up on the second viewing:

Near the start, when Ed has his odd philosophical insight into hair (and isn't there a bit in all noirs where the central character has an odd philosophical insight and then never mentions it again?), he says (para-phrasing); "the hair's part of us, it just keeps growing, and we keep cutting it off".
And by the end of the film, he's inadvertantly cut off every single person, possession and location that made up the life he had at the start of the film AND all trace of his attempts to create a new life during the film..

The second best thing I picked up on the second viewing:

For some reason, the final execution scene - the totally white room, the row of men looking on through the tiny window, the bucket & mop - strikes me as so Burroughs-esque it hurts, a feeling accentuated by the fact the the executioner looks exactly like William Burroughs. Who was of course 'il hombre invisible' - the man who wasn't there!
 
 
Ellis
09:29 / 12.11.01
Was Doris and her boss' affair actually confirmed? I have an ickle feeling (probably wrong) that it was the other barber (off the practice) who was screwing his wife...

Something to do with hs becoming an alcoholic when Doris died...
 
 
Bear
09:29 / 12.11.01
Thought that the other barber was her brother? but then you still might be on to something...theories about incest have popped up before in their movies....
 
 
Hush
09:29 / 12.11.01
Was the affair confirmed?

I was uncertain after my first viewing but convinced after the second, it pretty much was confirmed in the conversation between Ed and Dave before the fight, and strongly indicated by Doris's reaction to the news that Big Dave was a huge fantasist.
 
 
CameronStewart
09:41 / 27.11.01
>>>Who does Hi work for when drilling holes in sheet metal? Huducker Industries.<<<

Hudsucker Industries also gets a mention in Crimewave, a little-known film written by the Coens and directed by Sam Raimi.

Just saw TMWWT last night. I already want to see it again. Spot-on observation by Ian Jones that it's a very Kubrickian film...
 
  
Add Your Reply