I love the Coen Brothers. They are the best directing duo in screen
today and one of the best directors of all time (if you count the
two of them as one single, creative entity, which I do) and this is
their best film.
Or so they say.
Personally, this is one of my lesser favorites in the Coen Brothers'
film canon.
Why? Well, here it is: I think the Coens are at the top of their game
when dealing with the sort of quirky, oddball material that most directors
would not touch with a ten foot pole. And most directors shouldn't
touch them with a ten foot pole. Stories like "Blood Simple",
"Raising Arizona", and "Barton Fink", well, those
type of stories can be told by the Coen Brothers with the sort of
wit, whimsy and immeasurable skill that others can't quite match.
The Coen Brothers can take a tale like "The Big Lebowski",
which would have been painfully over-quirky in anyone else's hands,
and make comic gold out of it. They have a way with those sort of
odd characters that no one else can match.
All that being said: "Fargo" is a little too straight for
a Coen film.
Don't get me wrong, it's still great. The austere cinematography,
the little touches that make the characters human (the polka poster
on the wall of Macy's boy, for one thing, and the way Macy gets frustrated
while scraping his window, for another), the plot and the way it turns
and twists like a jungle snake. I love how it is set in a setting
and landscape that most other films pretend don't exist. Why is it
that every film has to take place in either New York City or L.A.?
Are those the only two places that exist? I love the haunting visuals
of the film and the sparse and beautiful music.
But for all that, I still think it isn't much more than "Blood
Simple" set in Minnesota rather than Texas, and with fewer plot
twists. The Coens have used the idea of kidnapping so many times.
It was done better in "Raising Arizona" (and to brazenly
hilarious effect). Granted, these are two different films and every
time the Coens thoughts turn to kidnapping, it is in a totally different
way than it was in their previous films. Yet, for some reason, it
all seems like familiar ground. It has the usual, dark ironic twists
of fate. It has Steve Buscemi (again).
But what sets it apart from all the Coens other films is Margie. God,
I love Margie. Frances McDormand brings this character to life in
a way that few actresses ever have. This is not a performance. It
is a metamorphasis. It's simply breathtaking. Much has been said about
it, and none of it was overpraise. She is the main reason the movie
works.
Another reason the movie works so well: William H. Macy in the role
of Jerry Lundergard. You see this man for what he is: a sad, tragic
loser. We don't know where his desperation springs from. We don't
know why he is in the situation that he is. But he is there and he
is very, very desperate. You feel sorry for the poor schmuck at the
same time you hope that Margie can clip his wings before things get
too far out of control. In fact, I think that his performance is right
up there with McDormand's. He deserved to win his award. Or, at least,
have a tie between him and Norton.
Actually, I don't really know why I don't like this movie as much
as everyone else. The Coens have done some of these things before,
but it all seems fresh again here. Maybe I just want another comedy
along the lines of "Raising Arizona". Maybe I'm just too
hard to please. But I know that it didn't quite get under my skin
and make me an addict the way many other Coen films have. I know that
it didn't involve me as thoroughly as others. Yet I still find myself
popping it in and smiling at Frances's performance. I still love the
realism of it. And I still think it is probably the best film of 1996.
And I still think that you should all run right out and rent it. Because
my reasons for not rating it higher are quite unexplainable, even
to me. Perhaps I just expected way, way too much.
