Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:06 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple 
Author Message
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7287
Location: Easton, MD
Post 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
Welcome to the fifth 'meeting' of the club. The next one will be on
June 8th when we'll discuss Ride the High Country. After that I'll open up another thread for suggestions so we can come up with three new films for upcoming meetings, and Phil can shit all over everyone's picks. But for now, the Coens' debut: Blood Simple.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Blood Simple. (1984) **

There are some critically well-regarded movies that you dislike that you feel you just "didn't get." Often you feel a bit guilty, like it's your fault that you couldn't appreciate what everyone else in the world knows to be a masterpiece. On the other hand, there are other such movies that you dislike that you know you're in the right about. In this case you often end up resenting everyone else who esteems the movie, since they clearly missed the boat. Or so it is for me anyway.

Blood Simple, my friends, falls firmly into the latter camp. I don't want to be too stubborn about this because the whole point of a movie club is to discuss the film's merits, but fellas, this is not a good movie. It's probably not the worst thing the Coens have done, but it's a deeply flawed film.

The main problem with the film lies with the writing. There's a crackerjack neo-noir film at the core of Blood Simple, but someone forgot to tell the Brothers Coen that characterization is crucial to this type of story. You know what's great about Double Indemnity? How well Wilder puts you in Walter Neff's shoes. We really get to know him, and it makes the film very involving. Imagine Double Indemnity without Neff and Dietrichson so fully realized, or Chinatown without vulnerable Jake Gittes at the center, or the Last Seduction without poor deluded Mike Swale. Great thrillers make us care deeply about the danger the characters are in, thus ratcheting up the suspense. Good thrillers at least provide us with identifiable leads, and bad thrillers are content to put cardboard cutouts through the paces. In this sense, Blood Simple is a terrible thriller....

John Getz's Ray is blandness personified. His only defining trait is his southern accent. He's cold, flat, and entirely without affect. Why Frances McDormand would find him more appealing than her husband I have no idea. Speaking of McDormand's Abby, she's also a complete void. Does she fear her husband's wrath? Crave love and affection? No not really--she just acts to move the plot along. Dan Hedaya, who is described as "anal," mainly just scowls and glowers a lot. Thank God for Emmet Walsh: he's the only character with a heartbeat, and the film only comes alive when he's on screen.

So we get to watch these cardboard characters go through the motions of what could easily have been an engaging neo-noir. Everyone feels like they're acting because of a screenwriter's pen. When John finds himself presented with Dan Hedaya's corpse and Abby's gun, does he think to himself "Well gee this woman doesn't seem capable of cold-blooded murder?" Nope, he just assumes she did it and a minute later he's cleaning up the evidence to keep the plot moving. Oh yeah, and then he goes borderline insane. The insanity at least gives him a character trait, but it doesn't seem plausible considering the ONLY thing we know about him is that he's stone-faced and solid.

I saw Blood Simple originally four years ago and really didn't like it. I watched it again for the club with some reluctance (because it's a bad film) but with some faint glimmer of hope. I hoped that I would find more to like in the film after a second viewing. Well that didn't work: it's an indifferently acted (again, Mr. Walsh excepted), poorly-developed, middling thriller that never really involved me in the slightest until the final 10 minutes. However, I still have hope that maybe one of you fine people will find something of merit in the film. So please, tell me:

What on earth is so special about this film other than the four letters that comprise the director's last name? Bring it

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue May 25, 2010 8:04 am
Profile
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
Oops, that was an unexpected start for the thread on a movie, which I thought would be met with general appreciation in this forum. I'll need to rewatch it with JamesKunz's comments in mind soon.

I watched Blood Simple for the first time about two years ago and don't remember it very well - which isn't a good indicator of quality, generally speaking. However, I liked it at the time and thought it was good, although far from the Coen's best. Perhaps, JamesKunz is pointing out a general flaw in movies by the Coens, though: Often enough, their characters are mere caricatures and primarily seem to serve the machinations of the plot (often enough at the expense of the characters).

The scene I remember best and most fondly (a minor scene at best), happens at the beginning of the movie, when the black bartender of a hillbilly club jumps onto the bar (close up on his trainers), puts a coin in the jukebox and hops back over the bar. Cue a Four Tops song. Normally, I don't like this type of 'race relations humour' at all, but it is played in a very understated way and filmed elegantly.


Tue May 25, 2010 9:41 am
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7287
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
Unke wrote:
The scene I remember best and most fondly (a minor scene at best), happens at the beginning of the movie, when the black bartender of a hillbilly club jumps onto the bar (close up on his trainers), puts a coin in the jukebox and hops back over the bar. Cue a Four Tops song. Normally, I don't like this type of 'race relations humour' at all, but it is played in a very understated way and filmed elegantly.


The black bartender is actually one of the only characters I liked. A movie with him and Emmet Walsh would have been much more interesting

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue May 25, 2010 8:37 pm
Profile
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
'Blood Simple' is a fine film, but it will never be worthy of the masterpiece status it is occasionally accorded; in my opinion, it is the most visceral, but consequently, least subtle, of all of the Coen's major efforts. It is at times extremely clumsy, features what is a powerful but overused soundtrack, and the character motivations are very murky and dictated by the plot, not motivation or even common sense. The final set-piece, while setting up a delicious coda, is ridiculous - especially with regards to the villain's whereabouts and method of attack. It is at odds with the film's understated style, and it essentially degrades the plot into formula filmmaking. The only trite element that the final standoff lacks is Clint Eastwood screaming right-wing platitudes to Mr. Walsh from the window-sill.

Besides all of that, it is still arguably the most accomplished American film debut of the 1980's.


Tue May 25, 2010 9:48 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7287
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
Evenflow8112 wrote:
'Blood Simple' is a fine film, but it will never be worthy of the masterpiece status it is occasionally accorded; in my opinion, it is the most visceral, but consequently, least subtle, of all of the Coen's major efforts. It is at times extremely clumsy, features what is a powerful but overused soundtrack, and the character motivations are very murky and dictated by the plot, not motivation or even common sense. The final set-piece, while setting up a delicious coda, is ridiculous - especially with regards to the villain's whereabouts and method of attack. It is at odds with the film's understated style, and it essentially degrades the plot into formula filmmaking. The only trite element that the final standoff lacks is Clint Eastwood screaming right-wing platitudes to Mr. Walsh from the window-sill.

Besides all of that, it is still arguably the most accomplished American film debut of the 1980's.


I'll take Say Anything easily, even if the Coens subsequent output has been more impressive

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue May 25, 2010 10:26 pm
Profile
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
That doesn't count, in my opinion. Crowe was a proven commodity by then (at the very least, he had already written a modern classic) - 'Blood Simple' was the Coens' first effort in every meaning of the term. Nevertheless, it 'Say Anything' was an assured directorial debut, albeit one that was made after years of screenwriting success, budget inflation, and arguably a good deal more coaching than the Coens were provided when making their fist film.


Tue May 25, 2010 11:00 pm
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
I'm watching this tonight, so I'll reserve judgement on the totality of the film until tomorrow (however, having seen it before, I can say I like it quite a bit more than Kunz). The point of this post is to ask James and Phil if they are familiar with the term "blood simple"? The term is used to describe the mindset of people in violent situations. Some people lose their shit, so to speak. All ability for rational, sensible thought is gone. Hence, they go blood simple.

I ask about and explain the concept because it seems you both had problems with the character's actions not making sense. They are supposed to have gone blood simple in the film, rendering an analysis of their actions in terms what what makes sense vs what doesn't moot. Now, if you want to say that's all one big contrivance, which Phil alludes to, that's fair. I'll watch the movie tonight with that thought in mind.


Wed May 26, 2010 8:57 am
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
Sorry for the delay folks. We had a snap national election on Monday. I guess the Prime Minister thought people liked him. Poor guy could not have been more wrong. The opposition ended up winning in a landslide :D Anyway...back to movies.

PeachyPete wrote:
I'm watching this tonight, so I'll reserve judgement on the totality of the film until tomorrow (however, having seen it before, I can say I like it quite a bit more than Kunz). The point of this post is to ask James and Phil if they are familiar with the term "blood simple"? The term is used to describe the mindset of people in violent situations. Some people lose their shit, so to speak. All ability for rational, sensible thought is gone. Hence, they go blood simple.

I ask about and explain the concept because it seems you both had problems with the character's actions not making sense. They are supposed to have gone blood simple in the film, rendering an analysis of their actions in terms what what makes sense vs what doesn't moot. Now, if you want to say that's all one big contrivance, which Phil alludes to, that's fair. I'll watch the movie tonight with that thought in mind.


I wasn't aware of the phrase myself so I'll keep that in mind when I watch it tonight.

For what it's worth I saw this years ago and gave it a high-ish 8/10. It's middling Coen Bros for me. I wonder if I'll feel the same after a rewatch. Anyway, I saw it on cable. Now I'll be watching some director's cut. No clue if it's what I already saw or not.

Also, didn't Ebert write a glowing review of this when it came out? I seem to remember reading something after my first viewing.


Wed May 26, 2010 3:32 pm
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
ed_metal_head wrote:
Also, didn't Ebert write a glowing review of this when it came out? I seem to remember reading something after my first viewing.


Ebert's original review for those interested:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19850301/REVIEWS/503010302/1023

And here is his Director's Cut review from 2000:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000714/REVIEWS/7140301/1023

The first review gives very little of the plot away. The second addresses the problems James and Phil had with the film but gives a bit more of the plot away. Both are 4 star reviews.


Wed May 26, 2010 3:48 pm
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
What's so special about Blood Simple besides having "Coen" plastered over its credits? Personally, I thought it was one of best written films the Coen's have done, right behind Fargo and possibly doubling with No Country for Old Men, the latter of which originally came from the pen of Cormac McCarthy, matching him is no easy feat. The plot really is so simple and forthright, yet so densely woven together; not only do the characters not quite know who did what but neither do we, and the Coen's accomplish this all without cheating. Maybe the characters aren't as developed as those in Fargo or even No Country, but in my opinion they aren't dull (the husbands willingness to have his wife and her lover killed makes your why would she want the "dull" lover instead question rather moot Kunz, no offense) and they in no way detract from this fine film. Yes James, quite a fine film.

The films sets up all the qualities that would become staples of the best Coen films: an impeccable sense of time and place, deliberate pacing, overarching themes of violence and human nature, etc. The film was made on a very low price tag yet never feels restricted by its modest budget, it was made a good twenty-five years ago yet doesn't feel aged, hell, it still looks good too. Even if this wasn't their first film when they made this back in '84, it would be pretty damn impressive from simple a filmmaking perspective, as well as the Coen's masterful plotting, which, as with L.A. Confidential, harkens back to the good old days of the film noir.

I guess I can understand your problems involving the characters James. Neither Getz nor McDormand's characters are fully rounded because we are not deeply involved in their lives, but instead into this singular (albeit complicated) conflict that stemmed from one bit of deception involving McDormand's monogamy, which is wisely left unseen by the Coen's. While other directors may have gone for developing these people fully, maybe showing McDormand and Hedaya's marriage before she cheated on him, maybe her meeting Getz and their initial encounter, Joel and Ethan start the film after all this; Hedaya is a hateful and vengeful man and McDormand is ready to leave her loveless marriage. By the films climax, whether or not we knew these people outside the films specific plot, I actually cared what happened to them and was rooting for their survival or demise; that is more than I can say about some so called "character studies." I also don't believe Getz's character went crazy either, although he was having a hard time dealing with his situation, thats perfectly understandable.

So I guess the effect of these characters is a matter of opinion as to how it plays on the film. Your opinion James is that this pretty much ruined the film, mine is that it didn't. I said all this without even mentioning M. Emmet Walsh, who was downright creepy and wonderfully effective as the films villain. Blood Simple is quite frankly, an excellent film, one of the best of the Coen's considerable cannon, and one of the best films I've had the pleasure of seeing from the 1980's.

**** out of ****


Thu May 27, 2010 1:53 am
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
I thought I was the only one.

If I was to rank Coen Bros. films, Blood Simple would be dead last. Easily. Most people, I think, aside for film critics, discovered Blood Simple after the Coens found success as fantastic filmmakers. I can't help but wonder if some of those people simply feel dirty criticizing the Coens. Blood Simple is very "blah".


Thu May 27, 2010 4:50 am
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7287
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
JJoshay wrote:
, yet so densely woven together; not only do the characters not quite know who did what but neither do we, and the Coen's accomplish this all without cheating.


Yes we do. Marty wants Ray and Abby killed but Loren realizes it will be easier to kill Marty (while framing Abby) and thus fakes the murder of the lovers, mortally-wounding Marty after taking the money but accidentally leaving his cigarette lighter and a copy of the forged photos. Ray comes in a minute later and sees Abby's gun, thus assuming she killed Marty. He buries the evidence, including a still-breathing Marty, and goes promptly insane. Meanwhile Loren is desperate to cover his tracks and kills Ray, but get shot by Abby. All of this is made fairly explicit to the audience. It's not like The Big Sleep or anything.

JJoshay wrote:
While other directors may have gone for developing these people fully, maybe showing McDormand and Hedaya's marriage before she cheated on him, maybe her meeting Getz and their initial encounter, Joel and Ethan start the film after all this; Hedaya is a hateful and vengeful man and McDormand is ready to leave her loveless marriage. By the films climax, whether or not we knew these people outside the films specific plot,


It's not that the characters aren't developed "fully," it's that they're not developed in the slightest. Marty glowers a lot, Ray is blandness personified, and Abby is a black hole. I don't need their life histories, but jeez would a single hint as to their character be too much to ask for? In Fargo, Marge's husband Norm and Jerry's son Scotty are fairly minor characters, but they're each far, far more human than anyone in this film. Hell so is Vernon T. Waldrip in O Brother Where Art Thou, and he's purely a caricature. This may be an auspicious debut for the Coens-as-directors, but it certainly isn't for the Coens-as-writers

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu May 27, 2010 8:21 am
Profile
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
JamesKunz wrote:
JJoshay wrote:
, yet so densely woven together; not only do the characters not quite know who did what but neither do we, and the Coen's accomplish this all without cheating.


Yes we do. Marty wants Ray and Abby killed but Loren realizes it will be easier to kill Marty (while framing Abby) and thus fakes the murder of the lovers, mortally-wounding Marty after taking the money but accidentally leaving his cigarette lighter and a copy of the forged photos. Ray comes in a minute later and sees Abby's gun, thus assuming she killed Marty. He buries the evidence, including a still-breathing Marty, and goes promptly insane. Meanwhile Loren is desperate to cover his tracks and kills Ray, but get shot by Abby. All of this is made fairly explicit to the audience. It's not like The Big Sleep or anything.


Agreed. I think we know exactly who did what. The characters in the film don't, but the audience does. That's probably my favorite thing about the film. We're watching these people do terrible things based on faulty or incomplete information. We watch a tightly knit, but simple, story unfold in a complex manner and it has everything to do with people and their miscommunications.

I disagree with the notion that the writing is subpar. Plot-wise it's fantastic. Like I already said, a simple story is made complex and it is clear as to why and how that happens. Ebert's review calls the plotting logical. I wouldn't say that since the characters are acting out of fear and paranoia (common in film noir, more on that later), but I understand what he's getting at. You know why each character is doing what they're doing, even if it isn't the smartest thing in the world for them to do what they're doing. I think that's a fairly difficult thing to pull off. I'll agree that the characterizations aren't anything special, and can be seen as a fault. I don't condemn the movie completely for it though, because the Coens did craft simple characters motivated by simple needs/desires. There isn't anything particularly complex about anyone in the film - even the most interesting character, Loren, isn't motivated by anything other than greed. That said, these simple characters serve the simple nature of the story. When they fuck up, the story gets fucked up.

In the Coen canon Blood Simple serves as a stylistic precursor to their later works. Many of the same themes and techniques used here are used throughout their filmography. For instance, the plot centers around a quest for money (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men) and is set in a specific region of America (pretty much every movie they've made). They frequently use an animal motif in their films as well that appears for the first time here. Of course, there's also their trademark "grizzly violence". It isn't as stylized here as it is in other films (my guess is due to budget constraints), but there's sudden, jarring, and unsettling violence shown. They use the plot mechanism of unleashing evil from a singular, misguided source. This is seen in Blood Simple when Marty hires Loren to kill his wife. The whole plot, and the force of evil that is Loren, unspools from that. Marty has unleashed Loren on the world the movie inhabits. This is similar to how Jerry Lundegaard unleashes Carl and Gaear in Fargo, how Nathan Arizona unleashes Leonard Smalls in Raising Arizona, and how Steven Root's character unleashes Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. It's a device the Brothers use to point out that it is people who are responsible for the evil in the world, not an inherent fault in the world itself. This thought brings me to my next point.

Above all else, Blood Simple touches on what I see as the Coen's main theme running throughout all of their films. They're almost obssessed with the humanity involved in how people treat one another. I want to keep this focused on Blood Simple, so I won't go into how this thought applies to almost every one of their films. I will say that an analysis of each individual film with that thought in mind would likely prove to be very interesting and eye-opening. Typically in film noir, it is the world that is presented as the driving force for evil and corruption. The people are seen more as victims of circumstance. In this sense, the Coens are revisionists in their noirs, particularly in Blood Simple and Fargo. In both films it is the people who are presented as evil and corrupt, not the world (Fargo takes place in a snow filled, white landscape, which I see as a symbol for purity).

In Blood Simple, like I said earlier, when the people fuck up, the story fucks up. What I mean is when the characters in the movie make mistakes, the story becomes more convulted because of those human errors. Ray and Abby begin an affair, which, understandably, infuriates Marty. Marty hires Loren to kill them, which sets everything else in motion. Ray and Abby don't communicate effectively which leads to more confusion, mistrust, and ultimately death for Ray. There isn't one thing that happens in the film that doesn't stem from a decision a person (or people) made. These people aren't victims of their environment or circumstance. They're all 100% responsible for what happens to them and those around them. It isn't the world that is corrupt, it's the people in the world that are corrupt. The people don't have any humanity, they don't treat each other with compassion, or care. They are only concerned with what's good for them. They're completely selfish.

For a debut film, Blood Simple, while not perfect, is damn good. I always found it interesting and compelling, even if the individual characters weren't the most exciting. It's an incredibly stylish (I didn't even go into the camera work - it's pretty awesome), revisionist, taut noir. I very much enjoyed the movie on previous viewings, and I very much enjoyed it this time around.


Thu May 27, 2010 11:41 am
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
Excellent analysis PeachyP, and I concur. Blood Simple was my first exposure to the Coens, and it definitely made me look forward to their subsequent work, which has not let me down. I remember thinking "Wow, this is their FIRST movie!?" when I watched it. Little did I know what was to come. I would really like to see this again. I can't believe I don't own this film, what is wrong with me?

For me, BS is right up there with Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Raising Arizona, NCFOM, Barton Fink, Big Lebowski and O Brother Where Art Thou as Coen Favorites.


Thu May 27, 2010 12:06 pm
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
JamesKunz wrote:
John Getz's Ray is blandness personified. His only defining trait is his southern accent. He's cold, flat, and entirely without affect. Why Frances McDormand would find him more appealing than her husband I have no idea. Speaking of McDormand's Abby, she's also a complete void. Does she fear her husband's wrath? Crave love and affection? No not really--she just acts to move the plot along. Dan Hedaya, who is described as "anal," mainly just scowls and glowers a lot. Thank God for Emmet Walsh: he's the only character with a heartbeat, and the film only comes alive when he's on screen.


I think it's good sport to find some common ground so I'll say that I agree with you on the acting. Getz and McDormand are rather uninteresting. I'm not too familiar with Getz as a lead, so that wasn't necessarily surprising. McDormand, however, is a fine actress so it was surprising to see such a bland performance. On the other hand, M. Emmet Walsh was fantastic. The movie gets a lot of its creepiness and black humour from his performance. Pity that no-one found it award worthy.

I'm also happy to say that rewatching the movie didn't change my opinion of it either. I loved it both times. ;)

The set-up is a little slow, but after that it's pretty riveting. The screenplay may be more straightforward than the rest of the material, but I still think it's pretty good. Ditto for the direction, which is often superb. Some of the camera movements are a little overdone, but other than that minor complaint, the direction is spot on. That's pretty clear in the two most memorable scenes: the burial and the scene at the end. Both of those are executed perfectly: the camera movement/placement, use of music and editing all combine to create real tension. If the rest of the movie was as good as those scenes I'd give it a perfect score without any hesitation. As it stands, it's still a strong 8/10.


Thu May 27, 2010 12:52 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7287
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
Pete I always appreciate reading what you have to say, even when I disagree. And in this case, of course, I disagree with everything you have to say.

Nah just kidding. I like your point about evil being unleashed by people, though it's slightly undercut this time by the fact that Marty doesn't have Jerry Lundegaard's banal bourgeois quality, but is just as evil as Walsh's hitman, if not more so. Nevertheless, a good connection methinks.

The place where I diverge from your viewpoint most strongly is the movie's plotting. As far as I'm concerned a lot of the plot's happenings require leaps of logic Ray's sudden decision to hide the body without a moment's hestitation always struck me as false or at least hurried. Loren's sniper antics might be dramatic but they don't suit his character or the plot. Where is he shooting from? Does he seem at all like the type of person who would snipe from rooftops? I don't think so.

None of those are major complaints, and in a greater film I might not even mention them. But if you've got nothing in the way of characters you need a clockwork plot, and Blood Simple's doesn't make the grade.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu May 27, 2010 12:56 pm
Profile
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
Someone once made the point that the Coens use pretty much the same scenario for every one of their films: A protagonist (usually aloof) gets in way over his head.

I think that's a fair statement. It's a testament to their skill that their movies have so much thematic overlap and yet each of them feels so different.


Thu May 27, 2010 1:17 pm
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
Thanks for the kinds words MunichMan and JamesKunz.

JamesKunz wrote:
The place where I diverge from your viewpoint most strongly is the movie's plotting. As far as I'm concerned a lot of the plot's happenings require leaps of logic Ray's sudden decision to hide the body without a moment's hestitation always struck me as false or at least hurried. Loren's sniper antics might be dramatic but they don't suit his character or the plot. Where is he shooting from? Does he seem at all like the type of person who would snipe from rooftops? I don't think so.


I tend to agree on Loren's sniper tactics. Seems a bit theatrical and a bit out of place.

As for Ray's decision, I actually like it. I wouldn't have made the same decision, but I can easily see why he did. He panicked (seems silly to have to add a "k" to a word without one to make it past tense, no?). He saw Abby's gun, thought she did it, and either didn't want her to take the blame, or didn't want to get blamed himself once Maurice came into the bar. In a panicked state it makes sense for someone to decide to dispose of the body. Again, not the decision I would have made, but I think its a possible one (but not reasonable) for someone to make.

ed_metal_head wrote:
Someone once made the point that the Coens use pretty much the same scenario for every one of their films: A protagonist (usually aloof) gets in way over his head.

I think that's a fair statement. It's a testament to their skill that their movies have so much thematic overlap and yet each of them feels so different.


Great point. They use a lot of similar tactics/techniques but each film feels distinctly unlike anything else they've done.


Thu May 27, 2010 1:46 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7287
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
ed_metal_head wrote:
Someone once made the point that the Coens use pretty much the same scenario for every one of their films: A protagonist (usually aloof) gets in way over his head.

I think that's a fair statement. It's a testament to their skill that their movies have so much thematic overlap and yet each of them feels so different.


I also think it's a fair statement. Like Hitchcock and "the wrong man," though he branched out more.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu May 27, 2010 2:06 pm
Profile
Post Re: 5th Meeting of the Reelviews Movie Club: Blood Simple
What do you guys think of the final shot? The one with Loren starting at the underneath of the sink and the water dripping?


Thu May 27, 2010 3:37 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr