Coen Brother's new NETFLIX movie - The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

[Deleted member 220895]

Well it's the only place they can go all-in without fear of censorship. Theater is so PC they would likely give Buster a 18+ rating...

Plus they dont lose money on distribution. The Coens make great movies. Not all of their movies make money, so Netflix is safer with a movie like this cuz they pay upfront.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

So I had the opportunity to screen this movie during the weekend and it just got released on NETFLIX today.



I'd say it's just about the most creative film, and darkest thing the Coen bros have done in a long time. It's also incredibly hilarious for something so dark.

Since this movie is an anthology of short stories, what was your favorite? Each story seems to be a simple to difficult moral quandary that the characters face, a lot of the time staring irony in the eyes.

I'll follow up later in the thread when the conversation begin to avoid ruining early spoilers.

Thanks for posting this. Was unawares of it’s existence. Will report back with findings.


Was disappointed with the last Coen Bros outing, hopefully this one is better.

 

[Madmick]

Thanks for posting this. Was unawares of it’s existence. Will report back with findings.


Was disappointed with the last Coen Bros outing, hopefully this one is better.

This is the Coens in peak form, Ag.

 

[Peteyandjia]

Post a "great" tom waits song and lets see what others think.

I find this to be a hugely powerful anti-war song, it kills me.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

This is the Coens in peak form, Ag.

Just finished it, very well done. The final chapter I still need to piece together better but obviously the passengers are all metaphors for something. Enjoyed the brutality, finality, and the honesty in some of the other chapters. I read your earlier post, and while I agree with some of your points I don’t agree with their point about firearms if that’s where they were going with some of it. They would be completely ignoring the other side of the story in telling it the way they do. But it is what it is.


Overall I really dig it but I don’t know how many others will dig it.


Kind of off topic but after seeing this.. these motherfuckers need to make ‘Blood Meridian’ already. They are so good at this kind of story telling that they’re literally the only ones qualified to make the film at this point. Hell, talk Netflix into doing a hand-ful episode miniseries out of it even to flesh it out.. tho I think BM would work better as a straight up film but whatever.

 

[Madmick]

Just finished it, very well done. The final chapter I still need to piece together better but obviously the passengers are all metaphors for something. Enjoyed the brutality, finality, and the honesty in some of the other chapters. I read your earlier post, and while I agree with some of your points I don’t agree with their point about firearms if that’s where they were going with some of it. They would be completely ignoring the other side of the story in telling it the way they do. But it is what it is.

Overall I really dig it but I don’t know how many others will dig it.

Kind of off topic but after seeing this.. these motherfuckers need to make ‘Blood Meridian’ already. They are so good at this kind of story telling that they’re literally the only ones qualified to make the film at this point. Hell, talk Netflix into doing a hand-ful episode miniseries out of it even to flesh it out.. tho I think BM would work better as a straight up film but whatever.

Elaborate. The Coens tend to be deeply complicated, and it's been impossible to pin down their feelings on guns across their career because they genuinely seem to understand that at times it's the only resort to righteous power; especially in the desolate north subject to prairie or tundra justice. But two more points in addition to those I raised above...

Spoiler

Notice in the 2nd vignette the banker who uses the shotguns to defend the bank is defending the money which is already a compromised symbol from a virtuous point of view. Furthermore, he fails to subdue Franco's thief with his guns. He actually ends up swinging it to knock him out with the butt of the gun, and depends on his bizarre kitchen armor ("pan shot!") to storm Franco's refuge behind the well.

In the 5th vignette, as I pointed out, the trail man's poor aim with a gun is the reason the dog escapes. He is one of the only truly good men in the whole show. Maybe the only one. He goes out of his way to make it clear to the girl that his proposal is not one of opportunistic leverage, and that he will help her reach Oregon even if she declines. He is worried she will perceive him as "hard-nosed". In replying, she accepts his proposal, says that she never perceived him as hard-nosed, points out that he makes everything easier, and makes her feel less scared and anxious (when anxiety ultimately becomes her doom). The only good man in the movie...incompetent with guns. Violence isn't what yields prosperity for the noble.

Food for thought. I'd be interested to hear the pro-gun reading.

 

[Yotsuya]

Spoiler

In the 5th vignette, as I pointed out, the trail man's poor aim with a gun is the reason the dog escapes. He is one of the only truly good men in the whole show. Maybe the only one. He goes out of his way to make it clear to the girl that his proposal is not one of opportunistic leverage, and that he will help her reach Oregon even if she declines. He is worried she will perceive him as "hard-nosed". In replying, she accepts his proposal, says that she never perceived him as hard-nosed, points out that he makes everything easier, and makes her feel less scared and anxious (when anxiety ultimately becomes her doom). The only good man in the movie...incompetent with guns. Violence isn't what yields prosperity for the noble.

Spoiler

I think he made the story up and actually let the dog escape in purpose chasing it away with a gunshot.

 

[Madmick]

Spoiler

I think he made the story up and actually let the dog escape in purpose chasing it away with a gunshot.

Spoiler

Definitely a strong consideration, in the context of his character, suggesting that any man as nice as him was perhaps ill-suited to flourish in that environment, but even if true, it doesn't really change the reading pertaining to guns. If this, then one can argue that guns are once again a device that don't tend to serve the interests of the noble and kind folk because they don't bear the malice to use them accordingly.

There is also nothing inherently pro-gun about this reading.

Furthermore, consider this is one tiny piece of the puzzle.You read visit my more comprehensive reading of the film in post #102. There just seems to be too many incidences to be coincidence. This is why I interpret it as a theme.

 

[Yotsuya]

Spoiler

Definitely a strong consideration, in the context of his character, suggesting that any man as nice as him was perhaps ill-suited to flourish in that environment, but even if true, it doesn't really change the reading pertaining to guns. If this, then one can argue that guns are once again a device that don't tend to serve the interests of the noble and kind folk because they don't bear the malice to use them accordingly.

There is also nothing inherently pro-gun about this reading.

Furthermore, consider this is one tiny piece of the puzzle.You read visit my more comprehensive reading of the film in post #102. There just seems to be too many incidences to be coincidence. This is why I interpret it as a theme.

I just thought I’d bring that possibility up because the episode and the characters were so well written and I think that is the priority for Coens, not obscure underlying themes.

 

[Madmick]

I just thought I’d bring that possibility up because the episode and the characters were so well written and I think that is the priority for Coens, not obscure underlying themes.

The Coens are masterful enough to create fascinating characters while simultaneously devising esoteric underlying themes.

That's what separates the masters from the men-of-the-moment.

 

[Merlotte's]

Have to check it out.

 

[Yotsuya]

The Coens are masterful enough to create fascinating characters while simultaneously devising esoteric underlying themes.

That's what separates the masters from the men-of-the-moment.

I don’t mind at all for relating to themes that you find in movies by Coens, but I would personally find it uncomfortable making specific arguments about their intentions as storytellers.

 

[Madmick]

I don’t mind at all for relating to themes that you find in movies by Coens, but I would personally find it uncomfortable making specific arguments about their intentions as storytellers.

To argue otherwise is tantamount to arguing that themes happen in art accidentally. Untenable.

This doesn't mean I'm correct, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

[Yotsuya]

To argue otherwise is tantamount to arguing that themes happen in art accidentally. Untenable.

This doesn't mean I'm correct, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

First of all, sometimes the themes do happen accidentally. And yes, I can see, that you’re not uncomfortable about making claims about how Coens feel about things based on very obscure cues.

 

[GalegoREB]

In Meal Ticket there is another symbolism that haven't seen mention. In the Book of Jubilees, Cain murders his brother with a rock and the act of throwing the rock to the river before throwing the unnamed artist, which I believe was his brother, is an obvious metaphor to the Cain and Abel story that is told multiple times throughout the vignette.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Elaborate. The Coens tend to be deeply complicated, and it's been impossible to pin down their feelings on guns across their career because they genuinely seem to understand that at times it's the only resort to righteous power; especially in the desolate north subject to prairie or tundra justice. But two more points in addition to those I raised above...

Spoiler

Notice in the 2nd vignette the banker who uses the shotguns to defend the bank is defending the money which is already a compromised symbol from a virtuous point of view. Furthermore, he fails to subdue Franco's thief with his guns. He actually ends up swinging it to knock him out with the butt of the gun, and depends on his bizarre kitchen armor ("pan shot!") to storm Franco's refuge behind the well.

In the 5th vignette, as I pointed out, the trail man's poor aim with a gun is the reason the dog escapes. He is one of the only truly good men in the whole show. Maybe the only one. He goes out of his way to make it clear to the girl that his proposal is not one of opportunistic leverage, and that he will help her reach Oregon even if she declines. He is worried she will perceive him as "hard-nosed". In replying, she accepts his proposal, says that she never perceived him as hard-nosed, points out that he makes everything easier, and makes her feel less scared and anxious (when anxiety ultimately becomes her doom). The only good man in the movie...incompetent with guns. Violence isn't what yields prosperity for the noble.

Food for thought. I'd be interested to hear the pro-gun reading.

I’m not disagreeing with your assessment tho, I’m disagreeing with theirs. Demonizing an object is stupid imo. Demonizing people and their choices would be a better point on their end. But honestly I need more time to digest what I’ve seen, maybe even a 2nd viewing because upon the 1st viewing I didn’t feel they were trying to say anything about guns -I felt most of their points were aimed at the nature of people (a theme that plays out in almost every Coen project) and they used symbols like guns which are a known commodity in the taming of the west to make those points. But I don’t know if there is any direct statement about guns themselves in there. If so, it’s a dishonest take on the reality of gun ownership.


America’s ‘infatuation’ with guns is more a manifestation of media hysteria than an actual reality. For them not to have any commentary in their film about that side of it is dishonest, if they are in fact trying to portray the gun in the manner you suggest.


American news media has created a culture of paranoia over an issue that effects far less than 1% of its population even tho a much greater % actually keep and bear arms. They do this because it drives ratings and helps push agendas and ideology. Politicians jump on these issues too for similar reasons. But I don’t want to side track this thread too much.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

In Meal Ticket there is another symbolism that haven't seen mention. In the Book of Jubilees, Cain murders his brother with a rock and the act of throwing the rock to the river before throwing the unnamed artist, which I believe was his brother, is an obvious metaphor to the Cain and Abel story that is told multiple times throughout the vignette.

The Gold Miner story has an Easter egg type reference to this vignette too when the prospector is taking the Owl eggs and ponders.. ‘how high can a bird count anyways’


Now I need to rewatch to see if/when/where each vignette winks at the others..

 

[Andersons Foot]

I'm about to go grab some food and start this up

 

[Andersons Foot]

I can't believe the guy with Liam Neesons is Dudley Dursley from Harry Potter.

 

[Madmick]

First of all, sometimes the themes do happen accidentally.

Give me an example.

You haven't formed a counterargument. Perhaps you haven't considered that not everyone finds idea as obscure as you do.

Spoiler

Why is that guy shooting Franco down with a gun?It's bizarre. It's a bizarre moment. When you see things that are this bizarre is when you should be paying the closest attention with masters like the Coens. They are tipping their hat. They are trying to get you to ask, "Why?"

I’m not disagreeing with your assessment tho, I’m disagreeing with theirs. Demonizing an object is stupid imo. Demonizing people and their choices would be a better point on their end. But honestly I need more time to digest what I’ve seen, maybe even a 2nd viewing because upon the 1st viewing I didn’t feel they were trying to say anything about guns -I felt most of their points were aimed at the nature of people (a theme that plays out in almost every Coen project) and they used symbols like guns which are a known commodity in the taming of the west to make those points. But I don’t know if there is any direct statement about guns themselves in there. If so, it’s a dishonest take on the reality of gun ownership.


America’s ‘infatuation’ with guns is more a manifestation of media hysteria than an actual reality. For them not to have any commentary in their film about that side of it is dishonest, if they are in fact trying to portray the gun in the manner you suggest.


American news media has created a culture of paranoia over an issue that effects far less than 1% of its population even tho a much greater % actually keep and bear arms. They do this because it drives ratings and helps push agendas and ideology. Politicians jump on these issues too for similar reasons. But I don’t want to side track this thread too much.

Agreed. As much as I love the art, and the craft of their emotive tapestry, I care neither for the politics of it (nor postmodernism). Yet that speaks to the Coen's brilliance as craftsmen. In spite of myself, I adore the stories.

Also, don't overlook that I may be missing some nuance:

Spoiler

It may not be that they are necessarily anti-gun, but that they are signaling disgust with the American obsession & abuse of guns. We are so enamored with them we use them for all the wrong reasons, and often inappropriately, which results in comedy at a minimum, and tragedy at a maximum.

I also love the bizarre fact the banker is seemingly immune to guns. "Pan shot!" Those ultra-wealthy can't be taken down by guns. It's not an effective attack against them. It's little touches like this that keep me coming back for more.