Praising a Coen brothers' movie because it has style is like praising an ice cream because it's cold, there's got to be more. "O Brother Where Art Thou" has all the style a fan of the directing siblings can ask for, but a little more substance wouldn't have hurt the film.
Talent is a double-edged sword, the more you prove yourself capable to surprise the viewers, to mesmerize them, to please their eyes and challenge their intellect, the more they expect from your next creation. And after "Fargo", perhaps the most universally acclaimed Coen brothers' movie and "The Big Lebowksy", a bizarre take on the noir genre whose brilliance sprung lately in our minds, came "O Brother Where Art Thou". Watching it, I want to ask the two Coens "O Brothers, Where Were You?" A Coen brothers' comedy is an offer you can't refuse, but there are many ways to play comedy, goofy and borderline-parody like in "Raising Arizona", surrealistic and over-the-top like in "The Big Lebowsky", bleak and engrossing like in "Barton Fink" and "A Serious Man", or dark and atmospheric like in "Fargo", even in the so-called dramatic movies, there was also a few scenes to channel their wicked twisted of humor. But as far as comedy is concerned, the case of "O'Brother Where Art Thou" is puzzling, it obviously tries to play on the "Raising Arizona" level with the atmosphere of "Sullivan's Travels" in the background, but the humor never really manages to hit that special chord so that you can follow the story with the confidence that this is going to be one hell of a belly-laugh ride.
And it's even more puzzling because the film actually got the casting right, the first shot with the three fugitives from a chain gang running and ducking in the midst of a cornfield is like borrowed from a 30's cartoon, it successfully sets the tone, something in the line of "Of Mice and Men" and Tex Avery. George Clooney is a 'clowny' version of George crossed with a Clark Gable wannabe, his name is Everett, John Turturro is Pete, a sort of Lenny without the good heart, and Tim Blake Nelson is Delmar, a pint-sized Lenny without the strength, and none of Turturro or Nelson even tries to steal Clooney's thunder, which leaves him enough space to display his comical abilities. But there's not much given to him. For instance, there's one part where Pete asks Everett why he's the boss, Everett proposes a vote. Pete proposes himself so it all comes to Delmar, there's no time for him to come with a funny line, their first encounter: a black blind man driving a handcar on a railway.
And this is only one of the many colorful tropes of the Great Depression era, a time, full of pastoral melancholy immortalized by so great classics, interestingly many road movies: "The Grapes of Wrath", "Bonnie and Clyde", "Bound for Glory", a time made popular through bluegrass music, the sounds of banjo, sepia tones and so many visually appealing details that it's no wonder the Coen brothers decided to venture into this chapter of America and where else than Mississippi could they complete the picture with pies, long railroads, hobos in freighters, a governor who look like the KFC old man and Klan rallies? A Depression film is no depressing premise, not when it is tackled by the Coen brothers and cinematographer Roger Deakings. So what went wrong exactly?
Well, the film is said to be adapted from Homer's Odyssey. While it gives the film a certain edge, it doesn't really add much to the story as the Coen brothers reckoned they didn't read the book, so why handicapping a great premise with a needless framework. Are the Coens so uninspired they couldn't make a story of their own? In fact they did, because nothing really evokes the Odyssey apart from the Sirens' encounter, Penny, the wife, played by Holly Hunter is obviously Penelope, with her knitting habit, but what do they add up besides simply 'reminding' of the Odyssey. Take the sirens part, what does that part offer except from the recognition that they are the Sirens? I believe the film would have been more interesting had they stuck to an original screenplay, with so many great characters, they could. But the film was just so busy loosely imitating a never-read book that it created a series of events, enjoyable in their own terms but so inconsistent that even the resolutions feels a bit artificial and unconvincing.
At the end, we enjoy it for the stars, the atmosphere (some religious moments are haunting), the performances of John Goodman as Bible salesman and governor Charles Durning as Papy O'Daniel and naturally, the defining song of the film "A Man of Constant Sorrow". I would lie if I said the film wasn't enjoyable, every single department is well done but something is lacking in the whole. %aybe if it was made by other directors, we would have been less critical, the fact is the film was made after "The Big Lebowksy" and it just didn't compare. Still, as a minor offering, "Brother' is never as good as when it takes departure from the whole Odyssey's outline and its homage to "Sullivan's Travels", a film I didn't even like in the first place. Maybe that's why I'm so critical?
Nah it's precisely because I have been so admiring of most of the Coen brothers' works that I allow myself to say this one made me a viewer of constant sorrow.
Talent is a double-edged sword, the more you prove yourself capable to surprise the viewers, to mesmerize them, to please their eyes and challenge their intellect, the more they expect from your next creation. And after "Fargo", perhaps the most universally acclaimed Coen brothers' movie and "The Big Lebowksy", a bizarre take on the noir genre whose brilliance sprung lately in our minds, came "O Brother Where Art Thou". Watching it, I want to ask the two Coens "O Brothers, Where Were You?" A Coen brothers' comedy is an offer you can't refuse, but there are many ways to play comedy, goofy and borderline-parody like in "Raising Arizona", surrealistic and over-the-top like in "The Big Lebowsky", bleak and engrossing like in "Barton Fink" and "A Serious Man", or dark and atmospheric like in "Fargo", even in the so-called dramatic movies, there was also a few scenes to channel their wicked twisted of humor. But as far as comedy is concerned, the case of "O'Brother Where Art Thou" is puzzling, it obviously tries to play on the "Raising Arizona" level with the atmosphere of "Sullivan's Travels" in the background, but the humor never really manages to hit that special chord so that you can follow the story with the confidence that this is going to be one hell of a belly-laugh ride.
And it's even more puzzling because the film actually got the casting right, the first shot with the three fugitives from a chain gang running and ducking in the midst of a cornfield is like borrowed from a 30's cartoon, it successfully sets the tone, something in the line of "Of Mice and Men" and Tex Avery. George Clooney is a 'clowny' version of George crossed with a Clark Gable wannabe, his name is Everett, John Turturro is Pete, a sort of Lenny without the good heart, and Tim Blake Nelson is Delmar, a pint-sized Lenny without the strength, and none of Turturro or Nelson even tries to steal Clooney's thunder, which leaves him enough space to display his comical abilities. But there's not much given to him. For instance, there's one part where Pete asks Everett why he's the boss, Everett proposes a vote. Pete proposes himself so it all comes to Delmar, there's no time for him to come with a funny line, their first encounter: a black blind man driving a handcar on a railway.
And this is only one of the many colorful tropes of the Great Depression era, a time, full of pastoral melancholy immortalized by so great classics, interestingly many road movies: "The Grapes of Wrath", "Bonnie and Clyde", "Bound for Glory", a time made popular through bluegrass music, the sounds of banjo, sepia tones and so many visually appealing details that it's no wonder the Coen brothers decided to venture into this chapter of America and where else than Mississippi could they complete the picture with pies, long railroads, hobos in freighters, a governor who look like the KFC old man and Klan rallies? A Depression film is no depressing premise, not when it is tackled by the Coen brothers and cinematographer Roger Deakings. So what went wrong exactly?
Well, the film is said to be adapted from Homer's Odyssey. While it gives the film a certain edge, it doesn't really add much to the story as the Coen brothers reckoned they didn't read the book, so why handicapping a great premise with a needless framework. Are the Coens so uninspired they couldn't make a story of their own? In fact they did, because nothing really evokes the Odyssey apart from the Sirens' encounter, Penny, the wife, played by Holly Hunter is obviously Penelope, with her knitting habit, but what do they add up besides simply 'reminding' of the Odyssey. Take the sirens part, what does that part offer except from the recognition that they are the Sirens? I believe the film would have been more interesting had they stuck to an original screenplay, with so many great characters, they could. But the film was just so busy loosely imitating a never-read book that it created a series of events, enjoyable in their own terms but so inconsistent that even the resolutions feels a bit artificial and unconvincing.
At the end, we enjoy it for the stars, the atmosphere (some religious moments are haunting), the performances of John Goodman as Bible salesman and governor Charles Durning as Papy O'Daniel and naturally, the defining song of the film "A Man of Constant Sorrow". I would lie if I said the film wasn't enjoyable, every single department is well done but something is lacking in the whole. %aybe if it was made by other directors, we would have been less critical, the fact is the film was made after "The Big Lebowksy" and it just didn't compare. Still, as a minor offering, "Brother' is never as good as when it takes departure from the whole Odyssey's outline and its homage to "Sullivan's Travels", a film I didn't even like in the first place. Maybe that's why I'm so critical?
Nah it's precisely because I have been so admiring of most of the Coen brothers' works that I allow myself to say this one made me a viewer of constant sorrow.