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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 220895
  • Start date
It was fantastic. Coen brothers at their best and weird. What I love about great Coen brothers movies is they never treat me like I'm stupid.
 
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.
I gave you two examples (#122).
 
I gave you two examples (#122).
No, you offered one, about the King of New York, but you didn't detail any examples of these so-called themes besides "he fights racist Italian gangsters", and he wants to do one good thing for the poor. Italian gangsters being racist is the norm, is it not? If not IRL it certainly is how they are portrayed in popular media. Thus, anyone who fights Italian mobsters would be an example of a theme by this ruler. Again, this isn't detailed enough. Watch Do the Right Thing. There you observe powerful themes surrounding racism, and the theme is undeniable, not coincidental. Making characters racist is often just an easy way to get your viewers to dislike them-- to signal they are villains. You have to offer more. Likewise, giving a villain a soft spot for the poor with one complicating ambition doesn't convey some socialist, revolutionary theme. Robin Hood wasn't destroying the very communities he intended to save in order to fight the corrupt post-Crusade nobility. While I don't find the analogy inappropriate it falls fall short of a theme.

Furthermore, more importantly, you have drawn your conclusion that these metaphorical intentions didn't exist simply because he didn't voice them. That isn't adequate. If you are going to make this argument, that a theme is accidental, then you need an outright denial. First, you have to more cogently establish the theme exists. Then, you have to establish that it exists in spite of the fact it was explicitly not intended. Indeed, this is no easy task, but if you are going to make such a claim, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it. Not only did he not do that, but according to your own testimony, he was "elusive" in the interview.

Me arguing the Coens's intentions doesn't establish anything more than that. Only the Coens know their intentions. Saying that I do not know these intentions, or am not accurately reading them, is not sufficient to argue they don't exist. The very strange use of guns & gunfights figures prominently in this film. So does Christianity (as it does in pretty much every other Coen film). There's something there. My argument that these devices exceeds coincidence overwhelms your protestations that they does not.
 
I didn't consider that. But it sounds like what that character would do.
I thought about a third option too, that he shot the dog but lied about it to make the girl feel better about it. For me the mystery of wheter the dog was dead or alive was part of the cat and mouse game between the movie and the viewer, that central character dies on each episode goldmining episode making it more ambivalent and harder to predict. It lulled me into false sense of security, that maybe the couple end up happily together. Killing a dog in a movie is a big deal, so there could have been a final shot of a dog carcass in the end or something, but Coens are naturally more clever storytellers than that.
 
Last edited:
No, you offered one
Island of Dr. Moreau was an example too. I just didn’t go into detail.

about the King of New York, but you didn't detail any examples of these so-called themes besides "he fights racist Italian gangsters", and he wants to do one good thing for the poor. Italian gangsters being racist is the norm, is it not? If not IRL it certainly is how they are portrayed in popular media. Thus, anyone who fights Italian mobsters would be an example of a theme by this ruler. Again, this isn't detailed enough. Watch Do the Right Thing. There you observe powerful themes surrounding racism, and the theme is undeniable, not coincidental. Making characters racist is often just an easy way to get your viewers to dislike them-- to signal they are villains. You have to offer more. Likewise, giving a villain a soft spot for the poor with one complicating ambition doesn't convey some socialist, revolutionary theme. Robin Hood wasn't destroying the very communities he intended to save in order to fight the corrupt post-Crusade nobility. While I don't find the analogy inappropriate it falls fall short of a theme.
Sorry, but I'm not going to start arguing on what consists a theme for you. The way things are going, I don't think we'd ever get into agreement. :) I thought humanitarian gangster might have been a theme and the interviewer seemed to think so too and both of us had actually seen the movie.

Furthermore, more importantly, you have drawn your conclusion that these metaphorical intentions didn't exist simply because he didn't voice them. That isn't adequate. If you are going to make this argument, that a theme is accidental, then you need an outright denial. First, you have to more cogently establish the theme exists. Then, you have to establish that it exists in spite of the fact it was explicitly not intended. Indeed, this is no easy task, but if you are going to make such a claim, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it. Not only did he not do that, but according to your own testimony, he was "elusive" in the interview.
No, he could lie, so to prove that he didn’t have any hidden motives I’d need truth serum or something meaning, that evidince to prove there were no hidden motives is impossible to get.

Me arguing the Coens's intentions doesn't establish anything more than that. Only the Coens know their intentions. Saying that I do not know these intentions, or am not accurately reading them, is not sufficient to argue they don't exist. The very strange use of guns & gunfights figures prominently in this film. So does Christianity (as it does in pretty much every other Coen film). There's something there. My argument that these devices exceeds coincidence overwhelms your protestations that they does not.
Yes, as I have said before, it is possible that they have those intentions, but I don’t think it’s likely and I think that your findings are too vague. Agree to disagree?
 
Island of Dr. Moreau was an example too. I just didn’t go into detail.

Sorry, but I'm not going to start arguing on what consists a theme for you. The way things are going, I don't think we'd ever get into agreement. :) I thought humanitarian gangster might have been a theme and the interviewer seemed to think so too and both of us had actually seen the movie.

No, he could lie, so to prove that he didn’t have any hidden motives I’d need truth serum or something meaning, that evidince to prove there were no hidden motives is impossible to get.

Yes, as I have said before, it is possible that they have those intentions, but I don’t think it’s likely and I think that your findings are too vague. Agree to disagree?
Certainly this is an agree-to-disagree situation. These are interpretations of the implicit.

Nevertheless, you haven't offered a compelling argument against guns as a theme, nor have you offered a more compelling theory for the bizarre/unexpected manner in which they are repeatedly presented throughout the film.
 
Nevertheless, you haven't offered a compelling argument against guns as a theme, nor have you offered a more compelling theory for the bizarre/unexpected manner in which they are repeatedly presented throughout the film.
I have not, because I’m not interested in that theme and because it’s not what this discussion was about for me. I could point out lots of stuff you haven’t addressed at all relevant to my point of view, but I’m not going to, because were talking past each other too much.
 
Last edited:
I have not, because I’m not interested in that theme and because it’s not what this discussion was about for me. I could point out lots of stuff you haven’t addressed at all relevant to my point of view, but I’m not going to, because were talking past each other too much.
It's not that I'm talking past you. It's that I'm not hearing any strong, interesting arguments from you. It's mostly a timid defense couched in uncertainty.
The "cat and the mouse game with the viewers", for example. What game is that? The movie is dark. It doesn't shy from being dark, and it doesn't strain to promise you anything more optimistic.

The second "the kid" asks Buster Scruggs, "Do you need a count?", just as Buster did earlier in that vignette, we knew he was doomed. From that moment on it becomes increasingly obvious we are going to be subjected to a bleak set of stories that end badly for the protagonist. As you mention, the only one where this isn't the case is the gold miner's story, and this should provoke the viewer to ask the question, "Why did he live when everybody else died?" As a device it's certainly useful to keep the viewer on his toes, but there are other ways to keep the story unpredictable, including the outcome of those that follow it, while still killing the protagonist. Maybe it's a comment on chaos, or (as it is perceived by us) the arbitrary nature of providence. I have provided a compelling argument to explain this. You have offered nothing but, "Because we didn't expect it." The number of things we might not have expected they could have told us are limitless.

For example, in Meal Ticket, there is never a sense the story will end well. The expectation is that it will somehow end badly for them both. The surprise is that it is only for one, and at the hands of the other. One of my expectations is that Liam would die while drunk and whoring, perhaps by some savage gunslinger as a result of that, and then our helpless cripple would helplessly rot.

Nothing you have said has made sense of anything, or offered any meaningful insight. For example, why does Buster Scruggs wear a white hat, and why does the kid who kills him wear black? These aren't accidental archetypes being referenced. You can't passively dismiss this stuff.

Instead, you offer a third potential interpretation for the botched President Pierce euthanization which (we know for a fact) was objectively wrong, and pointless to mention after the fact. He didn't kill the dog and lie about it: full stop. A good storyteller will almost invariably keep a story interesting by keeping it at least somewhat unpredictable, because they must, but it isn't the viewer's expectations who are constantly being foiled in this film- it is the characters'. For example, that incident concludes when he says to the girl, who is only elated because her own expectation was just unfulfilled, in seeking to curb her inadvisable optimism, "I do not think you will see President Pierce again." Both of them manage to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

It reminds us of Buster thinking he is going to be digging another grave to employ an undertaker just before he is killed.

The final vignette includes dialogue where one of the bounty hungers (likely angels/demons) accompanying the three passengers as they are ferried to the fort/afterlife specifically talks about how he loves looking into the eyes of his bounty after they are bashed on the head, realize they are dying, and are then trying to make sense of their death...but he cannot be certain if they ever do. After all, he says ironically, he is only watching. Even more ironic, on a meta-level, he goes on to talk about how people are easily distracted by stories because they themselves always perceive stories to be about someone else. This is how they are ambushed and surprised; because they do not realize they are in the story themselves.

I find it terribly interesting that at the beginning of the film, the end of Buster's vignette, he slowly ascends to heaven while playing the harp (another stereotype), as it seems, and certainly conforming to what expects; then, at the end of the film, one of the last images we see is of the two bounty hunters carrying the wrapped corpse up the stairs. We are led to believe in that story he did something terrible, "Judging by what they are paying for him," but then, why would he be ascending? Perhap "they" refers to heaven, not hell, who wanted him dearly. Alternatively, per my original reading, if Buster is a bad guy who wrongly perceives himself to be the good guy, solely because of his code, perhaps this is one more way in which the Coens are telling us that he is damned.

Maybe the most sensible reading of all is that they intend to warn us that nobody really has any damn clue where they are headed, and that's precisely the point. We aren't in charge of that decision, if it is truly made, after all.[/quote]
 
Last edited:
Just an odd note, but I'm pretty sure someone sings in all 6 vignettes.
 
If you ever rewatch it sometime, I’ll be curious to know if you share the more positive 2nd look.

Well, you hold the distinction of being only the second Sherdogger to get me to rewatch a movie. The first being the dearly departed Shadow Priest, after his ravings about The Village.

One viewing is usually all I need to know what I think about a movie. In this case, like with The Village, I guess maybe I liked it 5% better the second time around.

I still liked Meal Ticket, The Girl Who Got Rattled and Buster Scruggs the best. I still found the final vignette to be fairly tedious, despite being excited to see Tyne Daly and Chelcie Ross with the chance to do some quality work. I found some moments in it to enjoy more this time around though.

The movie is getting some very high praise in some circles, and while I liked it, I really just see it as a very well-shot, well-acted, non-scary Western version of Creepshow. Some chapters better than others. Certainly worth watching but also fairly easy to forget about.
 
It's not that I'm talking past you. It's that I'm not hearing any strong, interesting arguments from you. It's mostly a timid defense couched in uncertainty.
The "cat and the mouse game with the viewers", for example. What game is that? The movie is dark. It doesn't shy from being dark, and it doesn't strain to promise you anything more optimistic.

The second "the kid" asks Buster Scruggs, "Do you need a count?", just as Buster did earlier in that vignette, we knew he was doomed. From that moment on it becomes increasingly obvious we are going to be subjected to a bleak set of stories that end badly for the protagonist. As you mention, the only one where this isn't the case is the gold miner's story, and this should provoke the viewer to ask the question, "Why did he live when everybody else died?" As a device it's certainly useful to keep the viewer on his toes, but there are other ways to keep the story unpredictable, including the outcome of those that follow it, while still killing the protagonist. Maybe it's a comment on chaos, or (as it is perceived by us) the arbitrary nature of providence. I have provided a compelling argument to explain this. You have offered nothing but, "Because we didn't expect it." The number of things we might not have expected they could have told us are limitless.

For example, in Meal Ticket, there is never a sense the story will end well. The expectation is that it will somehow end badly for them both. The surprise is that it is only for one, and at the hands of the other. One of my expectations is that Liam would die while drunk and whoring, perhaps by some savage gunslinger as a result of that, and then our helpless cripple would helplessly rot.

Nothing you have said has made sense of anything, or offered any meaningful insight. For example, why does Buster Scruggs wear a white hat, and why does the kid who kills him wear black? These aren't accidental archetypes being referenced. You can't passively dismiss this stuff.

Instead, you offer a "third" interpretation for the botched President Pierce euthanization is objectively wrong, and pointless to mention after the fact. He didn't kill the dog and lie about it. A good storyteller will almost invariably keep a story interesting by keeping it at least somewhat unpredictable, because they must, but it isn't the viewer's expectations who are constantly being foiled in this film- it is the characters'. For example, that incident concludes when he says to the girl, who is only elated because her own expectation was just unfulfilled, in seeking to curb her inadvisable optimism, "I do not think you will see President Pierce again." Both of them manage to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

It reminds us of Buster thinking he is going to be digging another grave to employ an undertaker just before he is killed.

The final vignette includes dialogue where one of the bounty hungers (likely angels/demons) accompanying the three passengers as they are ferried to the fort/afterlife specifically talks about how he loves looking into the eyes of his bounty after they are bashed on the head, realize they are dying, and are then trying to make sense of their death...but he cannot be certain if they ever do. After all, he says ironically, he is only watching. Even more ironic, on a meta-level, he goes on to talk about how people are easily distracted by stories because they themselves always perceive stories to be about someone else. This is how they are ambushed and surprised; because they do not realize they are in the story themselves.

I find it terribly interesting that at the beginning of the film, the end of Buster's vignette, he slowly ascends to heaven while playing the harp (another stereotype), as it seems, and certainly conforming to what expects; then, at the end of the film, one of the last images we see is of the two bounty hunters carrying the wrapped corpse up the stairs. We are led to believe in that story he did something terrible, "Judging by what they are paying for him," but then, why would he be ascending? Perhap "they" refers to heaven, not hell, who wanted him dearly. Alternatively, per my original reading, if Buster is a bad guy who wrongly perceives himself to be the good guy, solely because of his code, perhaps this is one more way in which the Coens are telling us that he is damned.

Maybe the most sensible reading of all is that they intend to warn us that nobody really has any damn clue where they are headed, and that's precisely the point. We aren't in charge of that decision, if it is truly made, after all.
[/QUOTE]
Yep, still 90% babbling away past me. You didn’t get my points? Don’t worry, it’s not the end of the world. Let’s move on.
 
Yep, still 90% babbling away past me. You didn’t get my points? Don’t worry, it’s not the end of the world. Let’s move on.
Not sure which of your points you believe haven't been addressed-- either acknowledged, countered, or outright refuted, but ironically you have ignored and avoided addressing almost any of mine. What did I miss?

It's impossible to advance a dialogue when someone offers nothing more than a combative tapout.
 
Not sure which of your points you believe haven't been addressed-- either acknowledged, countered, or outright refuted, but ironically you have ignored and avoided addressing almost any of mine. What did I miss?

It's impossible to advance a dialogue when someone offers nothing more than a combative tapout.
As I’ve already tried to say, I’m not making further arguments or pointing out old ones, because I’m not interested in arguing with you. I thought I was being clear about that, but looks like I wasn’t.

I have written over 500 movie related posts here and had many arguments with many different posters. Some have ended in compromise and some in uneasy truce, but they all have ended in a clean break as far as I can remember. This is the first one that had no end in sight because your arguments make no sense to me and feeling seems to be mutual, so I’ve been trying to put a stop to it for the last three messages. I lost my temper writing the latest reply, so sorry about that. Now let’s stop this nonsense. :)
 
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.

Yeah I'd agree with that very much, the Coens have I think always been focused mostly on the central drama of their stories and characters. The worlds they create have a lot of depth to them but they tend to serve the basic story rather than some wider theme or politics.

There a great example of I films that are mostly apolitical but still manage to tell intelligent stories. Millers Crossing for example, my favourite film from them is not just a nice gangster thriller with a smart plot but also an interesting story of friendship and honour. How the former can end between Tom and Leo but the latter can still exist whilst Caspar's desire to try and see the world in a more simplistic fashion typical of many gangster films causes him to become unstuck.
 
Last edited:
This is a masterpiece.

The casting is phenomenal.

The the costumes are impeccable.

The script is one of the best I've ever seen. Nothing seems too much or too little. Everything sounds authentic.

The set is perfect, authentic - just like the costumes.

Honestly, this collection of stories gave me faith that entertainment isn't dead quite yet.

Yeah all of the pieces are dark - except one (I won't give that away).

But yeah, I was shocked with this production. WAY better than I expected.

10/10 for what it was.
 
By the way, for people that like films like The Grand Budapest Hotel and others by Wes Anderson, IMO this movie kicks those out of the water.
 
I've still to watch the last story but my favourite was the story about gold. It was great

The amazing thing is (having done some prospecting myself), the methodical approach to finding a vein was accurate. Further to this, the setting for that piece was also perfect. It's like the writer actually researched the subject. Again, like the other actors in all of the vignettes, the choice was perfect.

Also, this was the one story that didn't end in tragedy.
 
Great movie! Last story was a bit of a letdown though. All Gold Canyon was my favorite.

The script of the last story was actually really good too. I mean the story was as well, but the articulation and characters were great.
 
Back
Top