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

[AGGAMEMNON66]

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?"

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.

I’d also point out that in the 1st chapter in the saloon.. Joe (I think that’s his name) is armed -and I don’t think that’s meant to show the establishment being unable to enforce its laws. I think it may be pointing out that criminals do not care about laws (again, the nature of people). It’s also a common pro-gun stance/argument -all laws do is punish those who obey them.


But again, I’m not so sure the Coens are using this film to make any direct statements about guns more than the nature of people. But it’s an interesting take on your end.

 

[Yotsuya]

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.

I rewatched Ferrara’s King of New York some time ago. You might have seen it, but it’s about a ruthless gangster (Christopher Walken) who in very cool and in some ways almost heroic character. For example most of his crew is black and he fights against racist Italian and Chinese mobsters. He also wants to use his money from selling drugs to build a hospital in poor neighborhood. There is a Robin Hood vibe. After the movie I watched an interview with Ferrara. The interviewer made her best effort to get Ferrara to talk about the themes of the movie and say something positive about Walken’s character along those lines. Ferrara was being very elusive, but he ended up saying three things: 1) He wanted to make a cool movie that would be popular with kids (and make as much money as possible). 2) New York was flooded with coke back then (which, knowing Ferrara, means, that he was doing a lot of it when writing the script). 3) He wanted to write a character, that was a complicated megalomaniac. To me it was obvious, that the interviewer expected Ferrara to say something about healthcare or racism and I kind of expected that myself too. Instead I found out, that the movie was actually in many ways a product of Pablo Escobar.

Reading interviews by Coens I find them even more elusive than Ferrara about the themes of their works. Correct me if I'm wrong about this. After watching The Ballad of Buster Scruggs I ran into an analysis like yours which made very strong and specific claims on what Coens were trying to say with this movie. I found it annoying and considered it a pretty bad case of mind reading. As I said, I don’t mind at all for relating to themes that you find in movies by Coens, but I don't like people making specific arguments about their intentions as storytellers. Long time ago I wrote a review on Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) regarding it's parallels with the cultural evolutionary roots of morality and the perils of monopoly on violence, but I made it clear, that I was not saying that Wells, Stanley or Frankenheimer intended those themes.

 

[Peteyandjia]

knowing Ferrara, he was doing a lot of coke when writing the script

Just a note: Abel Ferrara didn’t write King Of New York, his longtime collaborator Nicholas St. John did. He writes most of Ferrara’s movies.

 

[Yotsuya]

Just a note: Abel Ferrara didn’t write King Of New York, his longtime collaborator Nicholas St. John did. He writes most of Ferrara’s movies.

I think they collaborate on scripts. It's been a while since I saw that interview, I got an impression, that main character was partly/largely Ferrara's creation.

 

[Peteyandjia]

I think they collaborate on scripts. It's been a while since I saw that interview, I got an impression, that main character was partly/largely Ferrara's creation.

Abel no doubt puts his spin on things, I just never see Nicholas St. John get enough credit for writing all of those classic Ferrara movies. He is the Paul Schrader no one ever talks about.

Also I’d love to check out that interview if you happen to have an easy link, but if not don’t worry about it.

 

[Yotsuya]

Abel no doubt puts his spin on things, I just never see Nicholas St. John get enough credit for writing all of those classic Ferrara movies. He is the Paul Schrader no one ever talks about.

Also I’d love to check out that interview if you happen to have an easy link, but if not don’t worry about it.

It's on Arrow Video bluray. Same label has great stuff on Driller Killer bd too. I think the creative input goes both ways. Ferrara and St. John pretty much flipped a coin on which should start directing and which should become the writer, so you're right, that it could have easily been the maybe equally talented St. John becoming famous. There were really close since teens and originally wanted to become rock stars, but thought making movies was the easier route to get money and fame.

Ms. 45 bd by Drafthouse Films has really good extras on Zoe Lund btw.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I rewatched Ferrara’s King of New York some time ago. You might have seen it, but it’s about a ruthless gangster (Christopher Walken) who in very cool and in some ways almost heroic character. For example most of his crew is black and he fights against racist Italian and Chinese mobsters. He also wants to use his money from selling drugs to build a hospital in poor neighborhood. There is a Robin Hood vibe. After the movie I watched an interview with Ferrara. The interviewer made her best effort to get Ferrara to talk about the themes of the movie and say something positive about Walken’s character along those lines. Ferrara was being very elusive, but he ended up saying three things: 1) He wanted to make a cool movie that would be popular with kids (and make as much money as possible). 2) New York was flooded with coke back then (which, knowing Ferrara, means, that he was doing a lot of it when writing the script). 3) He wanted to write a character, that was a complicated megalomaniac. To me it was obvious, that the interviewer expected Ferrara to say something about healthcare or racism and I kind of expected that myself too. Instead I found out, that the movie was actually in many ways a product of Pablo Escobar.

Reading interviews by Coens I find them even more elusive than Ferrara about the themes of their works. Correct me if I'm wrong about this. After watching The Ballad of Buster Scruggs I ran into an analysis like yours which made very strong and specific claims on what Coens were trying to say with this movie. I found it annoying and considered it a pretty bad case of mind reading. As I said, I don’t mind at all for relating to themes that you find in movies by Coens, but I don't like people making specific arguments about their intentions as storytellers. Long time ago I wrote a review on Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) regarding it's parallels with the cultural evolutionary roots of morality and the perils of monopoly on violence, but I made it clear, that I was not saying that Wells, Stanley or Frankenheimer intended those themes.

I’m torn here. I get your point, but part of giving ones opinion on the theme of any art work has guessing what the artist is trying to convey built into it.


You can say ‘this is just my take’ .. but it’s still ‘your take’ on what the artist is saying. I almost feel like you want the ole ‘..but I’m just sayin’...’ added or something.


Either way, good shit all around. I like reading people’s interpretations on various films I dig. It adds to the experience for me personally as long as the thoughts are well put together. And you and @Madmick have constructed your thoughts well here imo.

 

[Jumpy]

I really enjoyed it. Haven't quite finished yet. The story with Liam Neeson is fucking dark.

 

[Yotsuya]

I’m torn here. I get your point, but part of giving ones opinion on the theme of any art work has guessing what the artist is trying to convey built into it.


You can say ‘this is just my take’ .. but it’s still ‘your take’ on what the artist is saying. I almost feel like you want the ole ‘..but I’m just sayin’...’ added or something.


Either way, good shit all around. I like reading people’s interpretations on various films I dig. It adds to the experience for me personally as long as the thoughts are well put together. And you and @Madmick have constructed your thoughts well here imo.

Difference is, that when one discusses a theme, then one makes a case for the thoughts inspired by the movie, but when one insist that, the director agrees with those thoughts and that it’s the correct way to interpret a movie, then it’s about adding his authority to your cause.

Now if the director is someone like Tarantino, who is very vocal about his opinions, it’s not a problem, because he’s often pretty clear about his agenda. Then there are directors like Tarkovsky, who make their movies into kind of aestethic intellectual and philosofical puzzles. Coens on the other hand seem to avoid being vocal and their movies are more driven by the story and the characters than the content. They could have underlying stuff in their movies, that reflects their opinions on society or they could just enjoy telling stories that are often provocative.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Difference is, that when one discusses a theme, then one makes a case for the thoughts inspired by the movie, but when one insist that, the director agrees with those thoughts and that it’s the correct way to interpret a movie, then it’s about adding his authority to your cause.

Now if the director is someone like Tarantino, who is very vocal about his opinions, it’s not a problem, because he’s often pretty clear about his agenda. Then there are directors like Tarkovsky, who make their movies into kind of aestethic intellectual and philosofical puzzles. Coens on the other hand seem to avoid being vocal and their movies are more driven by the story and the characters than the content. They could have underlying stuff in their movies, that reflects their opinions on society or they could just enjoy telling stories that are often provocative.

I guess I disagree that Mick is saying that this is 100% what the Coens are saying. Personally, I read it as Micks opinion of what they were putting out there.

 

[Yotsuya]

I guess I disagree that Mick is saying that this is 100% what the Coens are saying. Personally, I read it as Micks opinion of what they were putting out there.

I don’t know about the level of certainty, but I think the debate was about it is reasonable to try to intepret the thoughts of Coens from underlying cues in this movie.

 

[Andersons Foot]

Spoiler

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

I didn't consider that. But it sounds like what that character would do.

 

[Broken arrow]

I almost turned it off during all the singing in the first story but I’m glad I stayed. All the others were great

 

[Yotsuya]

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.

I hadn't given much thought of his repertoire before this, but now that I think about this, I did get the feeling that Impresario was envious of the Artist in a way and Cain and Abel is all about envy.

 

[Madmick]

I watched the last vignette again last night, and I'm still pretty hopeless. I might need to read the Bible again.

 

[Madmick]

I don’t know about the level of certainty, but I think the debate was about it is reasonable to try to intepret the thoughts of Coens from underlying cues in this movie.

It's absurd to assert that themes happen accidentally.

Even if I'm not reading them correctly, the fact that America/The West, Guns, Justice, and Death are major, intentional themes is too readily apparent to be denied. There are far, far too many instances of them being revisited for it to be denied, or dismissed as coincidence.

 

[My2Cents]

Didnt really like it tbh

 

[Yotsuya]

It's absurd to assert that themes happen accidentally.

Even if I'm not reading them correctly, the fact that America/The West, Guns, Justice, and Death are major, intentional themes is too readily apparent to be denied. There are far, far too many instances of them being revisited for it to be denied, or dismissed as coincidence.

Not all themes happen accidentally, but trying to get a Coen-blessing for pro/anti-gun argument seems to me like seeing picture of Jesus on a toast and saying that it’s a miracle.

 

[PlayswellwithLawnDarts]

Felt sorry for the limbless dude. You could see the despair on his face. Wonder if he's really limbless in real life.

Chicken was more likeable

 

[Madmick]

Not all themes happen accidentally, but trying to get a Coen-blessing for pro/anti-gun argument seems to me like seeing picture of Jesus on a toast and saying that it’s a miracle.

You haven't been able to successfully cite and substantiate a single example of an accidental theme.

A theme isn't a singular unintended sign, contradiction, or implication. They don't just haphazardly materialize as a consequence of telling a story.