Talk:Coen Brothers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Critics on The Man Who Wasn't There: IIRC Ebert and Maltin both liked it a great deal until the curve at the end, then felt cheated. Many commented about how there was less perceived condescension in this film than in the Coens' others. I should start collecting these trivia tidbits so I can add them in less of a vague & unattributed way, without having to do research. --KQ 18:57 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)
Interesting article, but the flow is confusing. Might be better to make the descriptions of scenes stand out from the regular text in some way. —Mulad, May 30, 2003
- Great stuff, but somehow I feel that the only reason I understood all of the article, esp. the scene references, was because I'd seen (almost) all of the movies. - Rbs 07:28, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)
The article needs to discuss the themes of the films. I'd add something, but my opinion is probably not NPOV. I think thsee films are highly stylized stories that are meant to give the viewer the impression that they are about something deep, without ever actually being about anything. Tim
- Possibly true, but I very much doubt that accusing them of a sense of haughty superiority is NPOV. Koyaanis Qatsi 06:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] comedies?
Can you really call Fargo a comedy? It doesn't really have all the aspects of one, so far as I know...
- What are the aspects of a comedy, exactly? A bulleted list would be best. ;-) ... FWIW, I consider Dr. Strangelove dreadfully dull and unfunny, but I'm perfectly content to let people call it a comedy. (and, for that matter, Adam Sandler movies too). Koyaanis Qatsi 06:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Fargo is a drama, but has a lot of dark humor in it. I don't like classing movies into a certain category, so let's call it a dark dramedy, sound fair? As for Strangelove, the doctor himself was pretty hilarious, but that's just the genius of Peter Sellers. 67.71.79.79 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought Fargo was hysterical, and a masterpeice of the black comedy genre. I laughed through the whole thing.
[edit] Article title?
Given the MoS preference for using the 'most common name', shouldn't this be at Coen Brothers, which gets 200,000 hits, with the redir from Joel and Ethan Coen, which only gets 31,000. I mean, is there any opposition, so we can avoid the overhead of 'requested page moves'? Niteowlneils 00:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea. Tarnas 00:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've made the move per this discussion, since there was no dissent. CynicalMe 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crisis
Deleted a reference to the Eisenhower era as a time of American crisis, as it is generally considered to be quite the opposite. SS451 09:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I took out Raising Arizona and Blood Simple from the passage about their films being set during American Crisis, since to be fair at the time they were set in the time period when they were made, so it wasn't exactly as conscious a decision like the other movies in the passage- Julian Diamond 22:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Raising Arizona is set in 1980 or '81, and was made in '86, so it's not quite the "present day", for whatever reason.
24.193.227.46 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)sean
-
-
- This section has been deleted likely because it contained no sources.--Opark 77 07:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Plot Revelation
Realize that one shouldn't read a bio on filmmakers without expecting to be exposed to some storylines, but the passage under 'Violence': "The Ladykillers all of the main characters die in an attempt to dispose of a body" seems to be overly informative. Please review and amend if you agree.
- (would deem this revelation totally acceptable had I directed myself to the movie itself, and not the filmmakers)
[edit] Two entries?
Say, is it really a good idea to have one entry for siblings? Has this been discussed somewhere before? I mean, we don't have one big entry for all of the Bush siblings (I mean George W. Busn, not his daughters) JackO'Lantern 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blood and Guts?
I don't think this an overly important stylistic device used by the Coen Brothers. I think it's a little bit exaggerated to say that the Coen Brothers "show a fascination with blood and vomit". Any opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wutschwlllm (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 April, 2006 (UTC).
- In the Coen brothers biography by Ronald Bergan there are whole sections devoted to supporting the claim of brothers' obsession of vomit and blood - but as the article is not referenced, there is no way to tell if that is the source used. There is vomiting in Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Hudsucker Proxy, Fargo, and even in one of their childhood movies with their Zeimers friend (The banana Film), according to the book (page 58, paperback). On the other hand, the claim about blood and gut obsession hardly needs to be proven, as in Blood Simple there is a 20 minute brutal, guts-out, vomiting killing scene. I believe that overexcessive graphical imagery of that type is one of the main distinctions of the brothers' style that should be emphasised. But, my point of view is hardly neutral, as I wrote about brothers for my graduate thesis. A-Doo 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Disguised cuts"
What are currently described as "disguised cuts" in the article are really called match cuts by any film editor, and the listed examples are not to hide necessary splices, but intentional juxtapositions. Rewrite or remove, but it's bunko as it stands. Chris Stangl 06:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] There IS death in O, Brother....
What happens to John Goodman?
[edit] Article title: decapitalize 'brothers'?
Shouldn't 'brothers' be decapitalized? Kent Wang 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)