The Man Who Wasn't There STARRING: Billy Bob Thornton, Frances McDormand, James Gandolfini, |
||
Steven Snyder |
|
Links |
| “The Man Who Wasn’t There” is a strange mix of talent and destructive arrogance. It is made by the Coen’s brothers, the brains behind “The Big Lebowski” and “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou,” both very entertaining works, and the less successful but more critically-acclaimed “Fargo.” They seem to be putting out more and more films every year, and, honestly, have gotten better with each successive attempt. “The Man Who Wasn’t There” is a film about a man that has never been paid a second thought. Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thornton) is the town barber, working where he is because his wife’s brother owns it. He doesn’t really love Doris (Frances McDormand), despite his pitiful attempts to explain that he does, and watches her flirt with his friends, get drunk at weddings, and he shaves her legs, very undramatically, on her demand. He’s with her, for lack of a better explanation, in an attempt to avoid boredom. Then one day, he has a chance to make something of himself. He hears a slick salesman detail the futuristic process known as dry cleaning. He sees an opportunity and he takes it. He blackmails his friend out of money using his friend’s affair with his wife. His friend finds out, and Crane must ultimately kill him in self-defense. His wife’s affair, and her business association with him leads to her arrest for the crime and Crane suddenly starts his trip on the slippery slope of trying to escape from this nightmare unharmed. He befriends the daughter of a lawyer (“Ghost World’s” Scarlett Johansson), finding solace in her piano playing, trying to escape from the pain he has brought to so many in his attempt to be somebody. Crane attempts to retreat into his anonymous barber world too, but it doesn’t work. He attempts to show the lawyer’s daughter his love of her talent and of her, but is unable to follow through. As piece by piece falls around him, the audience cannot help but feel sad for a man who, through wanting so little, ruined so much. Similar to “Dancer In The Dark,” this movie is all about taking an innocent person and watching them as they destruct. The conflict I mentioned earlier is what intrigues me so much about this film, however. Thornton is amazing. He has a gravitas not seen in years in film. It may be the defining part of his career, as he proves the depth of his abilities. And, the entire film is truly engrossing. There is a noir style here, with the powerful woman, the innocent man in over his head, that is captivating. We cannot look away; we want to see if Crane can pull it off. Yet, in the midst of scene-to-scene greatness, there is a silliness in the story, and in the characters that just doesn’t work. There is a cynicism that forms towards Crane, as he drifts further and further from his “ordinary” origins that seems to contradict the bond that’s forming between him and the audience. Then again, that may be the point—as he become less lovable, less empathetic. Still, these elements create a tension that may turn many off. The actual presentation of the film, in black and white, is gorgeous. Cinematography Oscars all around, as far as I’m concerned. If only the Coen’s could have allowed the story to gain momentum when the audience’s interests bumped up a notch. It feels dragged out, as Crane drifts further from us, and by the end, while the music, the filming, the acting, and the story’s origin has hooked us, the tempo, which promised something great at the end, let us down. So, as happened with “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou,” timing affects so much of this film’s success. Yet, if patient, the film works. If not expecting the traditional final stand-offs in other noir hits such as “Goodfellas” or “Chinatown,” it succeeds. Its disjointed nature, however, will prevent it from becoming the classic that, up until the last half an hour, it seems to be. These boys have talent though, I will never say otherwise. Much like David Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive,” the flaws are evident, but the ride is intense. And, in rating the movie, one cannot only focus on secondary analysis, but admit to a film’s ability to engross, entertain, and move. As you leave this film, you’ll be scratching your head with one hand, and wiping a tear with the other.
Comments by David Johnson The Cohen brothers should have stuck to making movies like The Big Libowski. Comedies, without an intention to do anything else. Although The Man Who Wasn't There has some brillant direction. Being a theatrical lighting designer, the use of light occasionally reminded me of the lighting in Citizen Kane -- striking, deliberate, and wonderfully insightful. In a lot of ways the film used the feel and style of the movie very effectively. Black and white is an excellent forum to work with, but to some people can simply end up meaning nostalgic. They just made it seem interesting. However, I could not get past the absolutely horrible script that the movie was based. Regardless of execution, and ability to create the movie in the medium they chose, I doubt that the movie could ever get past the plot. The plot is campy with deep rooted seriousness. Yes the underneath everything, I thought the movie was trying to say something. At it's heart the movie had a very intriguing plot about a husband who get fucked simply by trying to blackmail his wife's lover. For a man who really wasn't there, he made a lot of impact in the world around him. And yes, he is an interesting character -- who at the end thought the aliens were going to come take him out prison. I've always hated the freaky scene that lies somwhere in every French film. The entirely out of place, grossly misplaced scene where a monkey with a helecopter hat flies into the room, to remind the young author of his past kind of scenes. They detract from the movie, and imediately break the respect you have for the characters. It's hard to take anything that happens in the movie seriously because each of those scenes tend to ruin the films credibility. The same thing is true of The Man Who Wasn't There. Throughout the movie there are scenes which accomplish nothing in the movie, yet are so totally absurd that you can't help but laugh at the movie. It's like breaking the imaginary 4th wall in theatre, used effectively it can bring the audience into the play, used too much, or poorly, it tends to destroy the suspension of disbelief that the audience has built up. I think the Man Who Wasn't There could have been a good movie, and I think the Cohen brothers have made progress. It's better than the shallow Fargo, and the misguided Oh, Brother Where Art Thou. Eventually I believe the Cohen brothers will make a truly great movie, but for now they need to get off their pedestal and learn a little.
|
|
Other
Reviews |
