Mellotron Sounds

The Man Who Wasn’t There
Director: Joel Coen
Released: Ocotber 26, 2001
** 2.5/5
 

 
I don’t think I really care much for Billy Bob Thorton. Granted, I haven’t seen a lot of the movies he’s known for. Well, maybe most of them: Bad Santa, A Simple Plan, Monster’s Ball… (I know. They’re Netflixed.) But still, from what I have seen, he seems to always play something of an exaggerated version of himself–and here a duller, more monotone version. As if being dull and monotone work as some fastpass to appearing tragic, or at least dramatic. As if they were the obvious foundation sounds of tragedy’s voice. Is it just me?

But it wasn’t just Thorton that put me off about this movie. It was that very deliberate Coen pacing, something akin to the way they shot Blood Simple. Tonally the two are completely different, but there’s a similar stageyness there. Blood Simple had it in the constant incompleteness of each character’s knowledge, the confusion that kept the film off a certain kind of kilter. But here, I don’t know, maybe it’s the black and white, or maybe the narration. It’s something slow and conscious–maybe the tacked on allusions to aliens and abduction, or maybe having an anti-character as a main character.

But I can’t say I “disliked” The Man Who Wasn’t There. In my movie log it’ll go down as one of those that has something say, one that did something very specific, but just didn’t relate to me. Maybe it’s a time or context thing. Who knows.

What stands out are the performances of Tony Shalhoub (Monk) and James Gandolfini. Every time one of these actors are on screen the movie feels alive, not so caught up and cerebral. And I realize for both movies I’m something of a minority, but this and Blood Simple share a theme that I like but a consciousness of method that I just can’t behind. Both explore the inability to communicate, to relate to others or ever feel in control of your life or relationships. But they get there more through form than content, through elaborate plotting that leads in circles, to endings that end but don’t answer any of the characters’ questions. The characters lives in each are completely wasted, and for nothing, because they couldn’t find the words, couldn’t connect. It’s a theme I love thinking about after the fact but one I find dull and anticlimactic getting to.

Guess I’m just more a character guy. I respect the catalyst as character thing, the no-character as character idea. But, call me old fashioned, I want to see the lack, feel it and not just “get” it…if that makes any sense. And here I don’t. The Coens love the technical side of film, they love speaking through form, and that’s fine. But I think I’ll always prefer a compromise.

Next Coen: Intolerable Cruelty

–
Doing a couple reviews now I’ve realized that I kinda hate writing them w/ an included synopsis of the movie, as if no one’s ever seen what I’m talking about. Really, a lot of people probably haven’t seen something like The Man Who Wasn’t There, but it is almost ten years old, and doing the whole “about a quiet, disillusioned barber looking to finally make something of his life and blahblahblah…” thing just feels too much like a book report to me. Like I’d be mimicking what a review is “supposed” to sound like.

So I think I’m just gonna always write them as if the reader is on the level. Especially since I’m doing a whole Coen Bros filmography thing here. It’s better to just assume that whoever’s reading is also following along with me. And to write each review as if it were its own totally separate entity seems to be missing a lot of the point just for the sake of looking “complete.”

This round is pretty sloppy, no doubt. I decided way too late to write on each movie in the line, I didn’t introduce the director and his work beforehand and I’m setting parameters after the fact. But now I know. And next time (for maybe John Hughes or Danny Boyle or Ang Lee), it’ll all be more organized.