Review: Inside Llewyn Davis

Year: 2013 (U.K. Release 2014)

Directors: The Coen Brothers

Screenplay: The Coen Brothers

Starring: Oscar Isaac

Synopsis is here:

Ask me to describe the Coen brothers and the first word that comes to mind is American.  For 30 years, their particular brand of storytelling has an uncanny knack of detailing small time Americana and personage in such a way that bleeds authenticity. The most popular example for many is of course Fargo, which has often been summed up with the now iconic “funny looking” sequence. It’s the kind of “funny because it feels real” moment that often appears in the brothers films, grounding the film no matter what hysteria occurs around the characters.

The second word would have to be moralists. As explained exquisitely by Tasha Robinson in a recent article of The Dissolve, the brothers seem to have their own rules about them that their hapless characters are fools to break. One of the reasons people appear to enjoy the Coens is down to the knowledge that no matter how despicable the likes of Jerry Lundegaard or Barton Fink can be, there will be comeuppance and it will be severe.

On the surface; Inside Llewyn Davis is no different from other Coen accounts, but there’s one ingredient that separates it: isolation.

I found Inside Llewyn Davis to be the Coen’s loneliest feature, one which has a character whose dismissal of moral high grounds set by the Coen’s universe, has landed him in a cold, bleak and penniless urban purgatory. Even those who know Llewyn aren’t really friends, more acquaintances that he’s allowed to use their couch for a couple of days.

Filmed in a near washed out grey, in an alien looking New York, some of Llewyn’s misdeeds are mentioned in hushed tones in tiny coffee shops, while past grief is hinted at but left to interpretation. A tragedy is mentioned involving Llewyn’s ex singing partner and there’s an underlying (and unsurprising) feeling that Llewyn’s ego may have played a part in it. This is not to say that the pain he brings to his folk music is crocodile tears, far from it.  But the emotion he feels while he strums his guitar almost seems to play into the circular nature of the narrative; an endless ring of distress with only his own thoughts for comfort. They bring little.

This odyssey of the common man lends itself a lot to the brother’s 1991 acclaimed black comedy Barton Fink. Llewyn, like Barton, believes that his work is made to touch the inner essence, yet he spites/screws himself when faced with the idea of commerce.  Oscar Isaac plays Llewyn with impeccable timing, whether on the guitar or sniping acquaintance. Both Llewyn and Barton are non-conformists with the uncanny ability to self sabotage themselves, even when they finally reach any sense of self realisation.

I found myself more struck by Inside Llewyn Davis more than expected. I expect great craftsmanship from the brothers and their crew, but despite the typical, cynical nature of the piece I found the film to have a yearning with it that is often considered missing in the Coen’s pieces. And like how so many people have mentioned; it’s obviously something to do with the cat and what a viewer believes it represents.   

After watching Inside Llewyn Davis, I found myself in three different conversations about the Coens. Within those conversations I’ve heard them being considered pretentious or that they lack depth. Sometimes it’s hard not to feel like that as their films often feels like they’re mocking their characters, running them within a booby trapped hamster wheel. Strangely, I don’t find them any more pretentious then the characters of George Lucas. Both work around worlds of exact good and evil and while you could say the Coen’s planet is a little more skewed, the forces of nature seem to be just as adequate.   

Inside Llewyn Davis expresses that Llewyn is nearly always master of his fate, but it is one he himself sabotages. The problem is in this world the consequences hold no scrutiny. It’s no surprise that people are running cold on the Coens, when they’ve shaped their selfish characters and cold worldview so well, how can you be shocked? But there is something about how the folk song soars and how much Llewyn needs to keep hold of that damn cat that belies the film’s hidden heart. 

Review: Side Effects

Year: 2013
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Screenplay: Scott Z Burns
Starring: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Channing Tatum, Catherine Zeta Jones

Synopsis is here

If the rumours are true (and the interviews point towards yes), it seems that Side Effects will be Steven Soderbergh's final theatrical feature. Threatened once before but now looking much more definite, the announcement is an intriguing one. At age 50; the chameleon-like director still looked like he had a lot more in him. This said, the film maker has stated he is tired of the format and would rather spend his time painting.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. A television interview on CBS with Quentin Tarantino had the motor mouth director mention his worry of becoming "out of touch" as he got older. Some could say that he may have a point. There's nothing wrong with going out on a high, and while others may draw attention to some elder statesmen who have placed some decent turns in their career "twilights". I doubt many would pick those later films over the likes of Taxi Driver, Manhattan, One Flew over the Cukoo's Nest, M.A.S.H and the list goes on.

So Soderbergh has decided to end the career here. Not with a bombastic, mega multi dollar showcase (imagine Ocean's 14), but with a tightly controlled psycho thriller which highlights not only the assured direction of the director, but the themes that have followed him throughout an industrious career. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who noticed that a few of the films revelations rely on sex, lies and videotape.

Sharply placed against the backdrop of big pharmacy and insider trading, Sodenbergh carefully blends topical issues to create near plausible horrors. Before the outrageous mechanics of the final third take hold, we are exposed a nightmare of dubious after effects, presumed wrong doings and shady double takes. Framed in a dreamy soft focused haze, nearly every shot in Side Effects (Sodenbergh lenses' the film under the name Peter Andrews) layers a tinge of self doubt within a viewer. You notice that much like a drug addled mind, the world around these characters are blurred and obscured. Sometimes only the character is in focus. Yet even so, their words bring no clarity. 

Soderbergh's tricky thriller does much to prime us correctly so even the films more lurid moments later on have a feeling of plausibility. This has much to do with the films two leads as well as its smart direction and scripting. Jude Law hasn't been this watchable for years, getting the subtle ruthlessness of his character down to a tee. Yes, he comes to the aid of an ill woman, but like a Coen's movie, notice just how quickly he's willing to snap at the dangling carrot. Rooney Mara is even better. Showing her display in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo wasn't a fluke, she acing every scene with the ability to managing to be scared and scare at the same time.

Whether or not Soderbergh leaves the cinematic world, he has undoubtedly made a sizable dent in it. Side Effects shows the work of a craftsman: assured, accomplished and solidly built. He could be tired of the format; he could hold the same fears as Quentin. Either way his swan song makes sure he goes out flying. 

Review: Seven Psychopaths

Year: 2012 (Viewed at the London Film Festival)
Director: Martin McDonagh
Screenplay: Martin McDonagh
Starring: Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Tom Waits, Christopher Walken.

Synopsis is here:

After taking my podcast co-host on a needless, round about trip of the London West End to find a bank, we took our seats for our final film of the London Film Festival: Seven Psychopaths, the second full length feature from Martin McDonagh.. The reason I had to find a bank was so I could pay for the tickets, the price of the tickets were...more than your usual cinema venture. But when it's the European Premiere and features a talk with the director, you have to consider you don't get such things with an illegal download.
This is not a statement of confession, more a painting of a scene. It's certainly worth paying more to sit with an excited audience and laugh, giggle and guffaw at McDonagh's latest feature. A violent and offbeat tale of writers block, dognapping and gangsters, Seven Psychopaths is Pulp Fiction by way of Adaptation and Barton Fink. McDonagh's himself stated that the only real influences were Peckinpah and Malick (?!) but it's hard not to think of Kaufman and the Coens (The movies is scored by Carter Burwell) as the film goes on.

Frantic and madcap in its telling, Seven Psychopaths slides from flashback to present day to imagination without a moment’s notice. A film about losing focus which is constantly trying to distract with its famous faces and near meta aspects of plot. It can't be too much of a coincidence that Farrell, known for his risqué past, is shown here, as a wannabe Hollywood writer lost amidst a haze of hard liqueur. A man who could do really turn out a good piece of work as long as he keeps focus. It feels like McDonagh isn't just picking him due to In Bruges.

Farrell's role of straight man is sometimes a little caught up in the craziness of it all, which could be part of the fun. However for all its anarchic glee; the tale does like to go off on tangents, feeling frayed at the end, and coming off like Adaptation's brattier cousin. Kuffman's sublime comedy about "the process" has a deft of touch and sympathy that Psychopaths doesn't. Not a deal breaker by any means, but it does make you notice that Psychopaths suffers from some slight overkill. The film is just a tad too into itself to have a boarder scope.

I shouldn't be knocking too hard on the film which gives us the best Christopher Walken performance in years. Once again, Walken shows why he is rewarding in scenes of both menace and mirth, and does so with an ease that allows one to forget that they actually saw him in The Stepford Wives (or Balls of Fury for that matter).  It's difficult who steals the most scenes between himself and Sam Rockwell, whose balls to the wall performance climaxes a sequence of utter madness. Not to spoil things, but heads have not exploded that well since Scanners. Woody Harrelson sweeps things up as the films loopy antagonist.

For a film that is as all over the place such as this one (we go from dognapping to taking class A's in the desert with a lot of murder inbetween.) The film is never disengaging, like In Bruge, the films dialogue laddish, often ponderous dialogue sparkles, and the film keeps a certain amount of earnestly, despite it's know it all vibe. Like many festival films the film doesn't linger in the mind much, however, it's clear from the offset this isn't a film made to be heavy or filling. Like a grubby lads stag weekend in Magaluf, there's fun to be had, but you might have to be in with the crowd from the start to be comfortable with the injokes.

Review: No Country For Old Men

Year: 2008
Directors: The Coens
Screenwriters: The Coens
Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, Kelly Macdonald

*Note: Spelling to be edited.


With an Ending that will frustrate as much as it will inspire, No Country For Old Men sees the borther Coen going back to what many have said is a return to form. After the lukewarm reception given for The Ladykillers, the brothers became hard to trace, however the Coens are directors who make films for themself. Love them or hate them, the don't make cookie cutter material for everyone, thats why we have the Waynes Brothers.

The Coen's latest film is a Western which deals with a cat and mouse plot involing Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) who discovers a brotched drug deal in the desert. He finds the money from the deal and decides to take it and run. However a hitman (Bardem) who has escaped arrest is asked to claim the money back and will stop at nothing to get it back. Sherrif Bell falls in on the plot and gets on the case to try and intervine.

Thats a fairly basic synopsys of the film. Hardly a film that should last over 2 hours long when explaned like that in this day and age. The Coens however are big fans of the odd and unconventional and their "crime film" is a metaphyical story about fate and running from it.
I watched this with my girlfriend who HATED the movie. she found it way too long, many scenes meaningless and the story dull. She couldn't get why certain scenes were in there. I can understand what she means. You see scenes that just wouldn't be in a lesser film. However these scenes are nessercery to the film as the film is not about the surface story it's about the characters, it's about what they say, what they do, how and why.

Other films would short cut across the aspects that the Coens use to make the film stand out. The audience would place their focus on the "good guy" and the money and not spend time with him. Desire + Goal = Get there. But No Country is a intense character study which tells us that the world can still be a lawless place and that the future is an uncertain one.

The scenes are meticulous and done in such a fine detail it's impossible not to admire, even if you dislike the movie. Characters sound like people and act like people, not like robots who enter scenes explain the story to the audience (like they can't see it on the screen) and then head to the next scene. The Coens way of telling the story in No Country is lyical and realistic. The scenes my girlfriend pointed out as meaningless are not to me because they are there to advance the characters not the next plot point. Ethan and Joel wish for you to spend time with their characters. The money and the goal isn't the important thing it is what these people are doing.
The performances have had many a superlative thrown at them and it's easy to see why. Bardem plays his role not just as a villian but a 3-dimentional one. He is not dimissed as typical Micheal Myers type, but as almost as death himself, the look in his eye is one of absolute malviolence.

Brolin also has an engaging presence in the lead role. Brolin manages to balence small town nauces with smarts as well. He does a fine job carry most of the time, much of it saying very little. Something that people see less of as for the need to have characters talk contasntantly. Tommy Lee Jones is brilliant as the well worn sherrif, his voice perfect for the witty dialouge that transpires throughout the film while Kelly Macdoland is almost unreconizable as Moss' wife. Expect an amusing cameo from Woodly Harlison also.

The film (shot by Roger Deakins) is goregous to look at, with many moments re-capturing the feel of old westerns perfectly. I probably won't see a better looking film at the cinema this year. Add this to the small time dialouge, attenion to detail and lycial pace to the movie and you have another piece of Coen brilliance. No Country is intense and brutal in the right places, smatt, witty and in love with it's characters.

The ending will piss people off but it doesn't matter. The Coens wish to show of their love for small town America and how complex life gets when people try to choose their fate.