Posts
2007: Coens Score With A Cattle Gun
Before moving on to my actual comments regarding Golden Palm and Best Picture Oscar winners of 2007, I have two important introductions to make: First one is the poll that you undoubtedly noticed at the sidebar. I just thought, rather than merely lecturing here about which film was 'greater' each year, it's better if I include the public opinion in the whole thing. Along with my own picks (which is still what's going to be reflected to the scoreboard - sorry folks) it will be interesting to note how the public agrees/opposes with me. And in case of an opposition, I am planning to defend rather than dictate my choice which I believe is an attitude that has a higher potential for quality material.
Also introducing Mr. Cihan who is going to be a guest commentator for Cannes vs Oscars series from now on. He's an old friend who was kind enough to take the time to help me carry our lengthy and conflicting discussions to The Long Take. Most of the time, we have the same amount of passion and interest for movies but dramatically contrasting opinions; which made me think it would be nice to emphasize once more that differences are not to be feared or held back. I truly believe his contributions will make the whole discussion more fruitful.
Anyway, to the movies.
I think everyone can agree that 2007 has been a momentous year for filmmaking. Since the beginning of the award season we have been exposed to one great film after another; and I was awestruck by the sheer speed with which I was bombarded with movies that I could easily call 'masterpieces' . I'll do the Shining List for this year later on which will cover all these films in more detail, but I must admit this first entry for Cannes vs Oscars was indeed a very tough call - when you think you have two flawless movies at hand, it's never easy to decide which one is better.
Before evaluating further, here are the results of the latest poll:
Before evaluating further, here are the results of the latest poll:
Total Number of Votes: 97
No Country For Old Men: 71 (73%)
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days: 26 (27%)
The film is powerful also because it's capable of making the audience feel the exact same emotions that the characters are experiencing. An overall feeling of uneasiness is what marks this experience, which is only reasonable considering the story it's telling. It's Requiem for a Dream without all the make-up, which means it's a huge success because without the aid of music and visual alterations, it's much more difficult to absorb the audience.
Thanks to our recent listing in IMDb Hit List, we had a record number of participation for this poll, which I hope will turn into a consistent number. Or even increase. I can't say it has been a close race this time, in fact Cristian Mungiu's film was falling too far behind until the last few days, after which it was able to garner some amount of votes. But it could never gain the lead and eventually the majority's preference for 2007 turned out to be Oscar-favorite No Country For Old Men.
I am always thrilled when I hear Coens are working on a new project, although they greatly disappointed me twice in a row with Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. So when I heard they were making a new crime/thriller that would be released towards the end of the year, I remembered my then-favorite Coen film Fargo and immediately got excited again. The film was at the center of my attention for such a long time that when I was finally watching it, the characters felt like some distant relatives that I finally could get to know better.
On the surface, No Country For Old Men is nothing short of a perfect thriller. Coens' masterful use of wide angle shots, crimes taking place against the backdrop of barren landscapes, their eccentric but still convincing characters and the lack of a soundtrack combine in a unique, almost Kubrickian way to form one of the most original films in quite some time. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey it's a rare living proof that high pace is not the only salvation for thrillers. Deeply analyzed characters, tense conversations and meticulously planned long takes can also work. We get to watch three main characters (Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, Anton Chigurh and Llewelyn Moss) and a supporting one (Carson Wells) that seem to be equally competent to survive in the cruel environment of West Texas. They are equipped with impressive practical skills and experiences, pursuing a goal worth far more than the everyday tools that they make use of. When a film presents equals trying to outsmart each other (e.g. The Departed) the audience connects to not one but all of the adversaries, which definitely increases the sense of thrill that film is capable of delivering.
However the true value of No Country For Old Men lies within what it's trying to say on a much deeper level. In this sense, it's quite similar to Barry Lyndon which, contrary to popular belief, is not about the 18th century Europe, Seven Years War or the rise and fall of an Irish rogue but rather the nature of human existance and how it's totally meaningless on the macro scale. Without this existential undertone, Kubrick's film is just another technically-impressive costume drama. Similarly, No Country For Old Men is as much about chance and its cruel games on human life as it is about the lost two million dollars. 
On this totally different layer, the film connects with one of our deepest fears; the collective fear that life is a sum of probabilities, a sequence of endless possibilities and a huge game of chance rather than the work of a pedantic mastermind. If this is our nightmare, Anton Chigurh is the incubus. He is 'evil' and 'horror' personified.
In another level, the movie also connects to the fear of old age. It's a relentless celebration of youth, much like Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray; and the tragedy that is confronted by the Sheriff stems from his old age, the incapabilities brought along with it and nothing else. The film (and especially the final scene) is empowered by Ed Tom's initial denial, his struggles to overcome the slow realization that he cannot avoid later on and the eventual confession followed by his melancholic retirement. Tommy Lee Jones is probably at his best when delivering, with subtle intonations in monologues and narration, his character's doubts and fears that he did not fully honor the position he inherited from his father. I think he deserves as much credit as the audience-and-critic-favorite Javier Bardem, whose charm is less subtle but equally powerful. Further thematical analysis will reveal that No Country For Old Men indeed exceeds the boundaries of a typical drug-related crime movie at many different points. The scope of its themes goes as far as the ultimate questions regarding life and death.
However the true value of No Country For Old Men lies within what it's trying to say on a much deeper level. In this sense, it's quite similar to Barry Lyndon which, contrary to popular belief, is not about the 18th century Europe, Seven Years War or the rise and fall of an Irish rogue but rather the nature of human existance and how it's totally meaningless on the macro scale. Without this existential undertone, Kubrick's film is just another technically-impressive costume drama. Similarly, No Country For Old Men is as much about chance and its cruel games on human life as it is about the lost two million dollars. 
On this totally different layer, the film connects with one of our deepest fears; the collective fear that life is a sum of probabilities, a sequence of endless possibilities and a huge game of chance rather than the work of a pedantic mastermind. If this is our nightmare, Anton Chigurh is the incubus. He is 'evil' and 'horror' personified.In another level, the movie also connects to the fear of old age. It's a relentless celebration of youth, much like Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray; and the tragedy that is confronted by the Sheriff stems from his old age, the incapabilities brought along with it and nothing else. The film (and especially the final scene) is empowered by Ed Tom's initial denial, his struggles to overcome the slow realization that he cannot avoid later on and the eventual confession followed by his melancholic retirement. Tommy Lee Jones is probably at his best when delivering, with subtle intonations in monologues and narration, his character's doubts and fears that he did not fully honor the position he inherited from his father. I think he deserves as much credit as the audience-and-critic-favorite Javier Bardem, whose charm is less subtle but equally powerful. Further thematical analysis will reveal that No Country For Old Men indeed exceeds the boundaries of a typical drug-related crime movie at many different points. The scope of its themes goes as far as the ultimate questions regarding life and death.
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days tells an equally merciless story in a smaller scale and with more emphasis on emotions. It's Nicolae Ceauşescu's 1980s Romania, where we have a young, pregnant woman who has neither money nor legal permission to have an abortion. She also does not have the incomprehensibly enthusiastic family, the weirdly appropriate adopting couple and the inexplicably easy pregnancy period that Juno had; so everything turns into a real drama.
The recent Romanian directors, such as Cristi Puiu, Cristian Nemescu, Corneliu Porumboiu and our guy Cristian Mungiu (so much for similarity in names), have roots in the Italian neo-realist movement of 1940s, with their stark realism, stories inspired by the serious national problems and lack of eye candies, artificial sets & stylized lighting. That's probably why I like to group the likes of 12:08 East of Bucharest, California Dreamin' (Nesfarsit), The Death of Mr. Lazarescu and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days together and call them 'Romanian Neo-Realists'. As a brief reminder, here are the other main ideological and stylistical characteristics of their Italian ancestors that I think also applies for the Romanian directors in question:
01. A new democratic spirit, with emphasis on the value of ordinary people.
02. A compassionate point of view and a refusal to make facile (easy) moral judgments.
03. A preoccupation with Italy's Fascist past and its aftermath of wartime devastation (or, in our case, a preoccupation with Romania's totalitarian past and its aftermath of economical devastation).
04. A blending of Christian and Marxist humanism.
05. An emphasis on emotions rather than abstract ideas.
The recent Romanian directors, such as Cristi Puiu, Cristian Nemescu, Corneliu Porumboiu and our guy Cristian Mungiu (so much for similarity in names), have roots in the Italian neo-realist movement of 1940s, with their stark realism, stories inspired by the serious national problems and lack of eye candies, artificial sets & stylized lighting. That's probably why I like to group the likes of 12:08 East of Bucharest, California Dreamin' (Nesfarsit), The Death of Mr. Lazarescu and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days together and call them 'Romanian Neo-Realists'. As a brief reminder, here are the other main ideological and stylistical characteristics of their Italian ancestors that I think also applies for the Romanian directors in question:
01. A new democratic spirit, with emphasis on the value of ordinary people.
02. A compassionate point of view and a refusal to make facile (easy) moral judgments.
03. A preoccupation with Italy's Fascist past and its aftermath of wartime devastation (or, in our case, a preoccupation with Romania's totalitarian past and its aftermath of economical devastation).
04. A blending of Christian and Marxist humanism.
05. An emphasis on emotions rather than abstract ideas.
06. An avoidance of neatly plotted stories in favor of loose, episodic structures that evolve organically.
07. A documentary visual style.
08. The use of actual locations--usually exteriors--rather than studio sites.
09. Use of conversational speech, not literary dialogue.
10. Avoidance of artifice in editing, camerawork, and lighting in favor of a simple "style-less" style.
07. A documentary visual style.
08. The use of actual locations--usually exteriors--rather than studio sites.
09. Use of conversational speech, not literary dialogue.
10. Avoidance of artifice in editing, camerawork, and lighting in favor of a simple "style-less" style.
(taken from Wikipedia, 'Italian Neorealism' entry)
The only thing that consistently bothered me about Italian neorealists was the adamant use of non-professional actors and how it never seems to work; and it seems to be the only thing that is abandoned by their Romanian counterparts, which is a plus.
The genius of 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days is how it uses so little editing and cuts, telling so much with a static camera. Basically, the film is a clever montage of a handful of long takes, where Cristian Mungiu places the camera in such a critical location that shows us exactly what we need to see for a long time - nothing more, nothing less. The film tells a horrific story but it's neither a euphemism nor an exaggeration. I am not a particular fan of static camera in movies because mostly I think it's an unnecessary sacrifice of an expressional tool; however Mungiu escalates this style to new heights. The angle of the camera in every single scene is extremely important and nothing seems arbitrary. I'm guessing it must have required meticulous planning because I don't remember seeing so much through an immobile lens, maybe except for a couple of Tarkovsky films.
The only thing that consistently bothered me about Italian neorealists was the adamant use of non-professional actors and how it never seems to work; and it seems to be the only thing that is abandoned by their Romanian counterparts, which is a plus.
The genius of 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days is how it uses so little editing and cuts, telling so much with a static camera. Basically, the film is a clever montage of a handful of long takes, where Cristian Mungiu places the camera in such a critical location that shows us exactly what we need to see for a long time - nothing more, nothing less. The film tells a horrific story but it's neither a euphemism nor an exaggeration. I am not a particular fan of static camera in movies because mostly I think it's an unnecessary sacrifice of an expressional tool; however Mungiu escalates this style to new heights. The angle of the camera in every single scene is extremely important and nothing seems arbitrary. I'm guessing it must have required meticulous planning because I don't remember seeing so much through an immobile lens, maybe except for a couple of Tarkovsky films.
The film is powerful also because it's capable of making the audience feel the exact same emotions that the characters are experiencing. An overall feeling of uneasiness is what marks this experience, which is only reasonable considering the story it's telling. It's Requiem for a Dream without all the make-up, which means it's a huge success because without the aid of music and visual alterations, it's much more difficult to absorb the audience.
Both movies definitely have a lot in common. Aside from the abrupt and powerful endings, lack of music and disturbing themes, they are extremely similar in the sense that both are minimalist films; they rely on the power of simplicity rather than fancy tricks. Considering the fact that No Country For Old Men was much more accessible by the audiences since it was 1) an American 2) crime movie 3) with well-known actors, I kind of expected it to win this one. If one does not delve into the stylistical and thematical depths with patience, it's easy to think that 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days is actually a crude and boring drama, without much going on. It's not an iceberg like No Country For Old Men is; nothing is visible above water while Coens' film is an absorbing thriller even if you choose to ignore everything else. I only agree with the results of the poll because I think No Country For Old Men gives a slightly more satisfying cinematical experience than the Golden Palm winner and that it's richer on the surface. Coens' maturity is indisputable while there is still room for Romanians to rise further with their style. I'll repeat myself to sat that it's still a very close call because both films are flawless and revolutionary. It is Mungiu's misfortune that his masterpiece was released in the same year as Coens', not in the sense that he would've won an Oscar or more money if it wasn't for No Country For Old Men but it would've been easier for 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days to be the critics' favorite in another year.
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
10/10
No Country for Old Men (WINNER)
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
10/10
No Country for Old Men (WINNER)
10/10
2 comments:
It is difficult to compare the two simply because you have apples and oranges. Different countries, different styles, different stories, different themes...they share some similarities but on the whole are wildly different.
I would also hazard a guess that "No Country" won simply because of familiarity. It's likely that the majority of the "No Country" voters have not even seen "4 Months," which isn't out on DVD yet and had a pitiful theatrical run.
Regardless, wonderful thoughts on these two films. "No Country" certainly has at its heart a fear that fate dictates our lives - not God nor even ourselves, but blind, pitiless fate.
I'm not sure, however, that "Requiem" and "4 Months" are really that similar. "Requiem" is much more epic and Shakespearean in it's tragedy. The characters start out positive, hopeful, with dreams of being on television and starting fashion businesses. They quickly spiral downwards into an ever darkening abyss until each of their lives have been utterly destroyed in the most cruel of ways. "4 Months" is much more slice-of-life and subdued, much less epic in scope. At the end their lives are not better than they were previously, but they're not significantly different. They still live in Romania with all of it's restrictions, and although they have been damanged emotionally, t hey will sweep it under the rug and go on with their lives. The characters in "Requiem" will be doing no sweeping.
If "Requiem" is a full on plane crash, "4 Months" is a minor car crash.
Evan, I agree that No Country and 4 Months have huge differences but to me, it's always more satisfactory to find similarities, common grounds or at least relevances between two movies. In this case, I have noted the ones that I found interesting, that should not necessarily discard the obvious differences.
When I mentioned Requiem, I was only referring to the fact that both movies create a genuine feeling of discomfort in the audience. If the similarity is perceived to be in the storyline and the overall style, then that is a misstatement on my part.
Thanks for the constructive comments. By the way, I never thought Requiem as a Shakespearean tragedy; a precise observation I must say.
Post a Comment