Here’s a quick quote from Roger Ebert’s review of The Invention of Lying:

“The Invention of Lying isn’t strident, ideological or argumentative; it’s simply the story of a guy trying to comfort his mother and perhaps win the woman he loves. Gervais, who co-directed and co-wrote with Matthew Robinson, walks a delicate tightrope above hazardous chasms.”

I like this quote because, even though I’d argue that the movie is a bit ideological, I get what he means: that it’s not ideological like religious fanatics or politicians are ideological, like born-again Christians or elitist atheist “intellectuals” are ideological. That it might have an agenda, be making some pretty strong, er, suggestions, but it isn’t making them in an aggressive way, a way that alienates. Which is why I liked the movie so much.

To me, the whole film’s set-up, by basically debunking God-based religion, kind of creates this contemporary, modern-man’s, science-age religion in its place. One where we can have a sense of humor about tradition; put the commandments on pizza boxes; break it all down and say, “Look, this is all pretty ridiculous – but so what?”

It just comes down to morality. And at the movie’s core, it’s about striving for happines and goodness, treating people well, ignoring other’s rules and following your heart. The universe may not be run by a “Man in the Sky” but it is still ultimately moral. It’s demystified, sure; all the grand white robes and mountainsides are gone. But isn’t the message the same?

Just a few extra thoughts.

When you get a chance: Take a look at Ebert’s fantastic blog. It’s not just about film. He writes about anything, his history in journalism, his youth in Chicago, joining AA and taking his last drink. Very interesting stuff. He updates every couple of days.

Why beat around the bush? Intolerable Cruelty is stupid.

Silly, maybe that’s a better word–more PC. But the idea’s the same. It’s a comedy that’s only rarely funny and a romance that’s only sometimes charming. About the “game” of marriage and divorce, it deals in caricatures and plot-turns to make its point, when maybe all it really needs to be is quirky and lovable. Look at something like Sleepless in Seattle.

I’ve talked before about a “consciousness” I notice in the Coen’s work, a kind of dishonesty between what it is they’re doing and what they’re showing us that often keeps me from connecting. But I don’t think I ever really nailed my meaning. But Ebert did. I think he got it just right when he wrote:

“Plots like this have fueled lovely screwball comedies, and Intolerable Cruelty is in the genre, but somehow not of it. The Coens sometimes have a way of standing to one side of their work: It’s the puppet and they’re the ventriloquists. The puppet is sincere, but the puppetmaster is wagging his eyebrows at the audience and asking, can you believe this stuff? Joel and Ethan are bounteously gifted filmmakers, but sometimes you just want them to lay off the irony and climb down here with the groundlings. Their Fargo was a movie that loved its characters, and it’s one of the best movies I’ve ever seen.“

I couldn’t agree more. And I couldn’t say it any better. Intolerable Cruelty fails because it’s never completely genuine, always a wacky kind of tongue in cheek, relying on exaggeration for laughs because it doesn’t trust its characters enough to get them without it. It isn’t because of poor acting or crappy writing, but because it mocks its players, turning its story into a kind of emotionless circus. The Coens are better, every time, when they’re on the level, friends with their characters, inside of their story–Fargo, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Big Lebowski. Not when they’re on top of it, separated and pulling the strings.

Bottom line: If it’s a romantic comedy you’re looking for, go see (500) Days of Summer. If it’s a Coen movie, you’re better off with…really, any other one.

Next Coen: The Ladykillers