Friday, November 13, 2009

Targets

In the comments of Dave Kehr's most recent entry, Kent Jones asks:

I wonder: are the Coens really satirists? One powerful characteristic of their work is self-containment. Every film presents us with a completely self-contained world with its own rules, its own peculiar shared argot. Whenever I watch one of their movies, I feel like I’m looking inside a snow globe, but I don’t think it’s just a reflection of condescension or smug superiority. They seem obsessively devoted to confounding expectations, and that plays out partly in the way they twist a little here and tinker a little there and invariably come up with something out of Lewis Carroll.

I don't think that the Coen Brothers are just satirists and I agree that the various patterns and organizational strategies hidden in their movies is what makes their work interesting and rewarding. I do think that what makes them satirists has to do with their point-of-view towards their characters, in general, and less to do with having any specific targets, but, that said, the movies do have targets.

Not a comprehensive list:

Raising Arizona - baby mania
Barton Fink - the movie business, idealistic writers
The Hudsucker Proxy - big business, fads
Fargo - capitalism
The Big Lebowski - David Mamet
O Brother, Where Art Thou? - the intersection of American politics, folk culture, and popular culture (see also Nashville)
Burn After Reading - the US intelligence establishment
A Serious Man - the search for meaning

2 comments:

  1. I like reading these posts here, but you should participate in the actual Kehr comment threads! It would be even more interesting to read others' responses.

    Or not. I once (tried to) defend the Coen brothers there, and quickly got frustrated, so I understand either way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I posted a modified version of this comment at Dave's blog, but decided to put it up here, too, because it's easy for stuff to get lost in conversation over there.

    I am a little bit in awe of the regulars over there, in terms of their depth of knowledge about film history, so I often feel any contribution I could make would be redundant or imcomplete. But that's not always the right attitude to take about conversations about art. Sometimes you have to jump in the deep end!

    ReplyDelete