The Coen Brothers Drank Paul Thomas Anderson's Milkshake

Let it be said: Paul Thomas Anderson wuz robbed. No Country For Old Men is a fine film and well worth seeing, but There Will Be Blood is a masterpiece. What a weekend! The finest movie of the year was overlooked for Best Film and Best Director. And if that weren't enough to bear, Ralph Nader's at it again. He's becoming the Gloria Swanson of Presidential politics. He's ready for his close-up, CB.

I didn't engage in Oscar predictions this year, despite my uncanny record of accuracy (well - once), because I hadn't seen all the nominees. But I have seen No Country, and it's no contest. It's compelling to watch and brilliantly filmed, with some terrific performances (including Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Rodger Boyce, and a stunning turn by Barry Corbin.) But it loses some energy as it goes along. It also seems to fall prey to that postmodern idea that it's somehow unhip or unartistic to give audiences a satisfying ending.

And I'm one of the very few who thought that Javier Bardem, a brilliant actor, was unsatisfying in the villain's role. Anton Chigurh was much more terrifying in the book. There's goofy as frighteningly crazy, and there's goofy as ... well, goofy. I thought the portrayal fell into the latter category.

Not that I'm anything but a huge Coen Brothers fan. I'm a shameless devotee. The Big Lebowski's one of my favorite films, and I've watched it ... well, quite a few times. It's filled with brilliant throwaway lines, including one the Huffington Post's own Tom Hayden should appreciate. That's the one where The Dude says he helped write The Port Huron Statement - but not "the compromised second draft."

If that weren't enough, our childhood Rabbi and close family friend Jerry Lipnick moved from our hometown in Utica, NY to Minneapolis and became the Coen family's rabbi. They've honored him more than once by naming a character Lipnick. So we're stepbrothers, or something. But I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

There Will Be Blood was gripping and brilliant, from that first twenty-minute scene without dialog all the way through to the end. (Well, except for one scene where it went off-track. No spoilers here. Let's just say that the 'milkshake' scene didn't work for this writer -- but every other frame did.)

Paul Thomas Anderson did something brave. He made a movie that didn't rely on the vocabulary of earlier directors and genres. He wasn't channeling John Ford, or Akira Kurosawa, or Alfred Hitchcock. He wasn't trying to borrow from film noir, or Hong Kong action films, or 1930s serials. People have made great films that way, but Anderson went a different route. He worked strictly in his own voice, which was a choice that showed courage and integrity.

And performances? Daniel Day-Lewis earned his award, but Paul Dano's stunning work didn't even get him a nomination. What's up with that? Dillon Freasier was terrific as Plainview's son, and so was David Willis as Abel Sunday. All in all, this film was underappreciated by the Academy.

As for Ralph Nader, what can we say? He deserves a Lifetime Achievement Award for his early work, but there comes a time to bow out gracefully. Even those who think we need a third party have no reason to vote for him, since he's never used his campaigns to catalyze a third party movement. They're vanity projects, pure and simple. He's trying to drink the Left's milkshake. He's become Harold Stassen without the glamor, Lyndon La Rouche without the gravitas.

Ralph, if you think we need a third party, build one. But please, no more campaigns that take Republican money to promote your name and face. Otherwise we'll be forced to conclude that politics hasn't gotten big. You've gotten small. Last Night's Oscars demonstrated that one unsatisfying election in 2008 is more than enough.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[expatstudent]

I agree with this blogger about the disdain for the postmodern ending of No Country for Old Men, but like the ending of There Will Be Blood, it's allegorical.

I also agree that There Will Be Blood is more satisfying as a film. I also agree that Paul Dano was fantastic and deserved an Oscar nomination, but Anton Chigurh is clearly an allegory for all terrorists (which I thought was most clear in his scene with Josh Brolin's wife whose character name I can't remember). But There Will Be Blood shows extraordinary depth in the understanding of Capitalism in the US.

HOWEVER, according to imdb, this movie has several other influences from directors http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469494/trivia
Note especially how the final scene was directly influenced by Kubrick.

[heywhat]

I'm a big fan of the Coen brothers and Paul Thomas Anderson but please - can we dispense with the word "brave" when speaking of writing unless the person being spoken of is a dissident risking prison or death?

[strifeknot]

No Country for Old Men is a vapid, adolescent celebration of badassery while pretending to be a profound commentary on violence. It reminds me in this respect of Fight Club, another film that romanticizes strutting machismo and senseless violence while pretending to critique it.

[pchdriver]

I left No Country For Old Men thinking it was just about perfect. But while I loved the first and last scenes of There Will Be Blood, I found almost no forward momentum in between. Obviously don't want to use spoilers to make my point, but there was a general lack of narrative direction in the sprawling, unfocused story, and a series of small, anti-climactic resolutions that gutted any sense of ongoing tension for me. At certain times it was impossible even to guess where everything was going, and I eventually became indifferent to what would happen next. Which was disappointing, because the picture had many moments of brilliance.

[Jacee]

I am not in agreement about No Country being a fine film. It was an OK film at best, more flawed than fine. Cohen brothers film fan here. But No Country was bleached out and blah and boring.


Just as Scorsese's Departed was no where near a Best Picture, neither was the Cohen's No Country. There are similarities here that the Academy better figure out and soon.


Unless the Academy thought it was directorial brilliance to make a psycho killer boring, lazy and predictable. A dull, gimmick ridden psycho killer. Killing wasn't interesting enough. The Cohens had to give the guy a bag of tricks to keep the audience amused-a shitty hair cut, a quarter and a air gun thing. By the end, it was a big yawn that he showed up to kill the young girl. This wasn't stage craft-it was over kill. Just like with the Departed. Over kill.

The movie seemed to devalue what was potentially good-Josh Brolin's sexy and stupid everyman hero for what was annoying-Bardem's ugly and cartoon drawn killer. Tommy Lee was pointless, was that the point? Woody showed up for no reason and left for no reason. Was this supposed to be profound?

Was this the point? Life is a thin pool of stupid and annoying characters that bumble along like pin balls in search of a bag of dirty cash? OK. I guess so, and...we haven't seen better versions of this same story before? With more interesting, less lazy characters?


In the end, I thought No Country was as dull and gimmicky as the Cohen's acceptance speech. The Cohen's looked as if they didn't give a shit about the Oscar, too lazy to care much. The movie seemed to do the same thing, it was too lazy to care much. It was as if the movie and the Cohens were taking a piss on the Academy and the viewers. Its time both the Academy and the viewers get a little self respect.


The last two years of Best Picture and Best Director-were not. And they wonder why the Academy Awards looses viewers every year.

[Jacee]

my apologies...Coen not Cohen.

[williamwilliam]

Robbed he was not.

While there are many wonderful things about There Will Be Blood, the idea that this is a solid whole, let alone a masterpiece, is I think a bit of hyperbole, however understandable given the indisputable fineness of so many of its parts.

As far as Anderson's vision springing full fledged out of no where...

As others have already rightly pointed out there's Malick before him, and the appropriation of Huston's persona from Chinatown, and perhaps something also of his storytelling from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and more so Wells' from Citizen Kane, (despite the profound difference in form).

But, Kubrick is also a proud parent here:

See, for instance Barry Lyndon re. the dynamics of ambition and nominal "fathers and sons". Or, for an example of style, compare the final shot in There Will Be Blood with its jarring and darkly funny musical cue and abrupt cut to end credits, to something like the last shot of A Clockwork Orange, or other instances of the classic Kubrick closing signature move. Surely, if anyone here was robbed, it was Stanley.

But, There Will Be Blood doesn't fail as a "masterpiece" because Anderson and his collaborators live and breathe in the same film culture we all do- that would hardly qualify as a complaint.

There Will Be Blood fails as a "masterpiece" entirely on its own terms, however gloriously.

[voodoolock]

IMHO, as a California history buff i was looking forward to There Will Be Blood, and found the first half of the film beautifully directed, enthralling, gripping, etc, but the 2nd half digressed into a competition of scenery munching between Daniel Day Lewis and Paul Dano. Both of their performances could have used some tempering, to say the least, but equally disappointing was the lack of historic references and scenery in the 2nd half. Almost to the point of claustrophobia, the scenes were relegated to interiors as if the production company had run out of $. Sadly missing were the scenes of a burgeoning Southern California landscape, enriched by the oil industry. This backdrop not only belonged in the film, but would have also helped to offset the excessive emoting on the part of the two male leads.

Both films had their flaws, both had their points of brilliance, but No Country was definitely the more consistent film, and the acting was far better, quite probably the result of the way the Coens continuously work with their actors.

[NABNYC]

Congratulations to the Coen Brothers. I haven't seen their recent movie because people warned me it was way too violent for my tastes. But I've liked their other films, so congrats.

As for the nominees for best director, some things remain the same. Where are the women directors? Why is it all men nominated for best director? Does anyone in this entire industry make any effort to tear down the barriers so women can move into director's positions? It seems the answer is no.

So the "Best Director" should have an asterisk next to it: Best white male director, since everyone else was excluded from participation.

[mbafromharvard]

Sorry, but you are completely wrong.

Blood is essentially a cross between Citizen Kane and Treasure of the Sierra Madre, done in the style of Terrence Malick. PTA is a master at mimicking other masterful directors, many of which you obviously don't know if you didn't see the Malick connection in Blood.

No Country is two parallel stories, one an allegory for the other. To direct that structure on the screen would (I think) be no easy task, and the Coens did it flawlessly. Their awards were well-deserved, and (for once) the APMAS made the right choice.

[RJ Eskow - Huffpost Blogger]

Terence Malick - very hip catch on your part, if I may presume to say so. I thought of him, too, especially in the wide-open-sky shots. But I think Anderson found a voice of his own (hey - like Hillary!) with a mise-en-scene to match. (Not to go all Cahiers du Cinema or anything.)

As for the Coens - hey, like I said, love 'em. But I didn't see No Country the way you did. That, as they say, is what makes horse races.

[EdwardEdwards]

Speaking of hip catches, did you realize that Daniel Day Lewis was doing a dead on impersonation of John Huston? As brilliant an actor he is, it was a little weird to see this 'impersonation' as a best actor win.

Still, it was the best part of the movie. The story was a rambling mess, and the climactic scene an assassination... so that the feature would finally end.

It wasn't a masterpiece. Not by a longshot. But it could have been, if less self indulgent.

I also felt it lacked the majesty of Malick.

Anderson's theft was PUNCH DRUNK LOVE, which isn't overlong by three seconds. A clean, tight story, with flourish and daring.

[mbafromharvard]

ok - you're hipper than I thought.

BUT - it's not just the wide open spaces. The first 20 minutes of Blood is VERY reminiscent of Malick's opening of "Days of Heaven". No (or little) dialogue, though the story is advanced clearly. Again, PTA does it well. It's just been done before.

Also, the third act of Blood conks out. It's not very inspired.

[orangeviolet]

Isn't Anton Corbijn a photographer/director? Perhaps you meant Anton Chigurh?

[RJ Eskow - Huffpost Blogger]

Uh-oh, you're right. If I'm going to make a stupid mistake, I guess it might as well be a well-informed stupid mistake.

I'll fix if now. Thanks!

[CitizenE]

Over the course of years, it has struck me that again and again, however glamorous and mostly right the Academy Awards gets it, there are a lot of bandwagon politics involved.
I can think of a number of films that won an Academy Award that did not deserve it--Crash being the most egregious in recent years--a film cribbed from every LA/ ensemble cast movie of the past twenty years, and unredeemably unrealistic in the idea that everyone including a man that had just point blank shot at a child gets off.
This year it made me sad that Into the Wild was left out of consideration, the cinematography was beautiful, and unlike the fashionable cynicism of our day, the film took the tragedy of real values and gave them a transcendant meaning. The cinematography alone should have been awarded, and the direction given its just due. But while previously in fashion, Sean Penn has left the popularity building.
Of course the worst error of this type was when Spike Lee's 25th Hour, the most important post 9/11 film ever made, was overlooked not just in the nominations, but the award itself, which it richly deserved, simply because of the Director's lack of incrowd status.
The Coen Brothers, who have made a name for themselves working in the cynical and gratuitously bloody end of a "sandbox" are film's current darlings, but personally I find their work endlessly boring--ho hum--who cares.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Let it be said: Paul Thomas Anderson was not robbed.
There Will Be Blood is a fine film and well worth seeing (once), but No Country For Old Men is a masterpiece.