Skip to main content

Elaborated re-post: Not watching your own movies

Any good interview, even one that’s entirely friendly on the surface, should have a slight adversarial quality, since the reporter and the subject have inherently different goals. The Coens don’t always suffer fools gladly, but they give good copy, even in one-word answers to questions that don’t interest them. (“Do you get excited about the Cannes competition?” one reporter asked them. “Does that get your heart pumping?” Ethan Coen: “No.”) Over the years the Coens have developed a routine that lies somewhere between practiced shtick and a psychological coping mechanism. Ethan, the younger, shorter, lighter-haired brother, delivers brief responses, often glib or acrid in tone, and then the taller, older and more loquacious Joel bails him out, expounding generously on the original question or diverting it into friendlier terrain.
[. . .]
Well, I feel like one aspect of that is that your movies almost always reward a second viewing. There’s always stuff I didn’t see or didn’t understand at first. Which definitely isn’t true of most movies!
J.C.: That’s a marketing trick!
E.C.: We endorse it! [Laughter.] But, my God, we don’t watch our own movies. No. You work on it for a year, a year and a half, and especially by the final stage when you’re fussing over every little thing — and we cut them ourselves — and everything is problem-solving, fixing stuff up. There’s a job involved, and beyond that when there’s nothing to be done, why would you look at it again? I mean, you know how it comes out. ("Joen and Ethan Coen: 'My God, we don't watch our own movies!'" interview with Andrew O'hehir, Salon.com)
- - - - -
Emporium

"Don't watch our own movies"

I hate that answer; it's designed to make them seem remote from us, as if we're rabidly chasing down appetites they're removed from. There's no way they haven't replayed the experience of making the movies—key scenes, reverberating portrayals—many times, even as they go about their next projects. Piecemeal, over time, they've seen them as much as any of us ... I, personally, would have made this clear. Join the rest of us, Coens, and particular yourself from there. It'd be more interesting. 

        

Graham Clark

I hate that answer; it's designed to make them seem remote from us

Or it's just the honest truth.

And they don't need to make themselves seem remote from you; they are remote from you.

        

Emporium

@Graham Clark They don't watch their own movies, but they know that by saying that that they're going to seem as if they dump everything they've done without a need to look back ... this draws us to envy and be in awe of them (they're very psychologically sophisticated people). I think part of them likes to pretend they've garnered some kind of enlightenment, but won't from within their cloaks, show it to us. Someone ought to chastise them for their limiting tendency to withhold, and me, Emporium, just did my limited bit. 

Also, I enjoy their movies. They're different from me, can show me things about people that'd learn and excite me a lot; but they're not all that remote from me, good sir. 
        

Graham Clark

but they're not all that remote from me, good sir.

They are indeed all that remote from you, and you know it. Hence the resentment:

this draws us to envy and awe them (they're very psychologically sophisticated people). I think part of them likes to pretend they've garnered paradise (or at least, enlightenment), but won't from within their cloaks, show it to us. Someone ought to chastise them for their limiting tendency to withhold

        

Emporium

@Graham Clark Graham, do you cling to the authorized, so to make fun of those below? I'm always willing to re-fresh my take, but I seem to remember that was the fit you unfortunately found you belonged to. 

        

Graham Clark

Graham, do you cling to the authorized, so to make fun of those below?

No, but I do have an unfortunate compulsion to make probably futile attempts at encouraging those below to do something more productive with their time than nip at the heels of the angels.

but I seem to remember that was the fit you unfortunately found you belonged to.

What?

        

Emporium

@Graham Clark My art is different from theirs, but they are amazing. Still, they withhold, and it's meant to draw ... but frustrate. And just as your everyday average Magna Carta human being — with a nifty, remote, admittedly "you-denying" pseudonym — who'd prefer none of us had too much a taste for heights and angels (that was the real 60s, after all), I'm for sure going to point that out. 

Andrew's piece had it that if we were left with only the younger, we'd be warranted to mob at and burn them — did you catch that?

* * *

rdnaso

@Emporium Nothing ruins the fun of watching a movie more than working on it. At the end, just like they say, everyone's just trying to get it out the door on time and all too aware of everything that could have been done differently and better. I doubt that novelists spend much time reading their own novels either: too busy working on the next one. Mailer claimed to not read at all: "I'm more a writer than a reader." Poets though - they read their own stuff compulsively... 
        

Emporium

@rdnaso @Emporium If that were generally true, by now it wouldn't be a surprise to learn they don't watch their own — in fact we'd be surprised if they did. I think many creators know that it sounds sort of masculine to always be onto the next work, and feminine, to admit watching the whole film with an audience is a rewarding good time. They toss things off as soon as possible and don't look back, while we, their dependents, indulge. Masculine to our feminine. 

Emporium / Patrick McEvoy-Halston



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…