Author: Tony

^3rd in this series of four Modern Black & White movies

Release date:               11/2/01

USA Films

Directed, Written and Produced by:

Joel Coen

Ethan Coen

Cast:

Billy Bob Thornton     Ed Crane

Frances McDormand  Doris Crane

Michael Badalucco     Frank

James Gandolfini        Big Dave Brewster

 

Initial comments by the hosts:

Sam thought the movie was “decidedly meh.”  Darrell thought it was pretty good.  It had a slow pace but eventually got into the story.  If you’re a film buff, you’ll really like it; he liked the cinematography.  Tony thought it was a good noir picture but the story ambled along without any deep meaning.  Sam thought that the movie meandered through the story just like Ed Crane meandered through his life.

Tony thought Billy Bob Thornton was fantastic, Frances McDormand was great (she successfully created a very unlikeable character) and he always enjoys James Gandolfini and this movie was not a letdown.  All the performances were equally solid.  Darrell talked about how every other character was over-animated against Ed Crane’s cardboard cut-out character that everything and everyone moved around.  Lena (from the chat room) thought that Ed Crane literally looked like cardboard and Darrell added how Crane’s suit was always pressed, his barber’s smock was tight and neat, adding to that appearance.  Sam loved Richard Jenkins’ Walter Abundas character.  They also talked about how the relationship between Ed Crane and Birdie Abundas seemed to be developing into something weird (romance or father/daughter or both?), until you realize that each of them has developed that into a completely different relationship than the other.

Tony enjoyed all of the performances.  Sam didn’t think McDormand was that great in this movie (or Fargo).  Lena mentioned (chatroom) how Frank (Badalucco), was more like a character in a play, and Tony added that since Ed is so quiet, the others have to have something to do or say to fill the void.  They also discussed the narration and even though not all of the hosts are fans of narration, they agreed that it was necessary in this kind of film.  Telling the story would not have been as successful without Ed Crane’s narration.

Darrell brought up the use of light and shadow.  The movie was shot in color and then transferred to black and white, and Tony questioned the intention of doing it that way.  Darrell explained how, when you shoot in color, you can then adjust all of the black and white shadow patters and you can do more with that than if you shoot in straight black and white.  It’s also more difficult to shoot in black and white.  Darrell also brought up the scene where Big Dave’s widow visits Ed Crane’s house and how, in her shots, she was in stark contrast to the darkness of then night behind her and when the shot turned back to Ed, you see all the moving shadows of the leaves.

Sam thought that, in general, the movie was a great representation of the late 40’s/early 50’s.  Tony and Darrell disagreed on the life that Crane was living.  Tony thought Ed Crane was content with his miserable life but Darrell thought that he was dying but didn’t know what to do.  Sam countered with the fact that Crane seemed to stumble through his entire life, not actually making any choices but letting the choices be made for him.  When Crane made his big “decision” in the movie, is it because he truly wanted to change his life or is it because, after finding out that his wife isn’t who he always thought she was, this was just one more decision that was placed into his lap for him to simply follow, just like everything else?  Even in the scene where Crane stabbed Big Dave, was that simply a reflex reaction of self-defense or was that Crane taking some kind of a stand with his own life?  In turning their discussion to the perspective of Big Dave, it was brought out how Ed Crane comes across almost as cold and heartless.  The argument easily goes both ways.

Tony thought that Ed Crane’s biggest failing was that he truly believed that he was invisible and that he could get away with things because he thought people didn’t notice him.  Inasmuch as he was part of the background, he was always acknowledged, he was always noticed.

Who is this movie for?  Film noir fans, Billy Bob Thornton fans, Coen brothers fans.

Joel and Ethan Coen came up with the story for The Man Who Wasn’t There while working on The Hudsucker Proxy.  During a barbershop scene, they saw a poster of 1940s haircuts and developed a story about the barber who cut the hair in the poster.

In the scene where Scarlett Johansson’s Birdy character is playing the piano for him, Thornton made it look like Ed Crane had an erection.  When the Coen Brothers later found out, they made it clear that Ed would not be aroused in the scene.

Your Producers for this episode were:

• Tony
• Darrell
• Sam

This episode was recorded: 2/8/2012

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

^2nd in this series of four Modern Black & White movies

Release date: 4/2/99

Zeitgeist Films

Directed by:

Christopher Nolan

Written by:

Christopher Nolan

Produced by:

Emma Thomas

Jeremy Theobald

Peter Broderick

Cast:

Jeremy Theobald         The Young Man/Bill

Alex Haw                    Cobb

Lucy Russell               The Blonde

John Nolan                  The Policeman

 

Initial comments by the hosts:

Sam wasn’t really all that interested until the last eight or so minutes, and then it ended up being an OK movie, not a great movie (Tony was convinced that Sam would change his mind by the end of the discussion… he did not).  He thought it took too long to set up the premise and he also thought some pieces were sloppy (fight scene) and some of the cuts were not very good.  Jill agreed in that parts of the movie were slow, but overall, she liked it.  She knew it was going to follow the same formula as Memento (Christopher Nolan’s 2^ndfull-length film) so she was already looking for clues as she watched.  The idea that he made this for 6 million dollars with only two or three takes per shot and the way he had the film structured, which was relatively new at the time, solidified Nolan as a genius filmmaker to her.

Darrell liked it and thought it was a nice tight little drama.  He said that you can get a lot out of this film.  Tony also really enjoyed it, too. He said he could completely see how Christopher Nolan got every other job he ever got after Following.  Watching it through a 2^ndtime, he saw how many little things were laid out from the very start.  Nothing is actually hidden, but it’s obfuscated by the nature of jumping through time.  Tony also said he almost wished they hadn’t reviewed Clerks earlier so that they could compare the two to show what a great director (Nolan) can do against what a great writer (Smith) can do.

The hosts all thought that the acting as a whole was OK, unimpressive, passable.  Alex Haw (Cobb) was the best actor of the bunch. As for Lucy Russell, they all pretty much agreed that she was probably very lucky in that her bad acting played well into the cold character she portrayed.  Jill countered that female characters in film noir usually aren’t multidimensional characters.  Tony added that they tend to play damsels in distress, vamps, ice queens… and she played all three of those, but still all “cold”.  Lucy Russell’s character struck Sam as a more jaded Ilsa from Casablanca.  Darrell said to keep in mind that she’s playing The Blonde as cold because she’s setting Bill up, but she truly cold/stoic throughout the scene.

Jill thought that she was dressed in black in every scene except the one when the gangster is leaving the house and she’s waiting for Bill to arrive, in which she’s dressed in white.  Sam said that she’s also in a white shirt in the last scene when she tells Bill how he’s been set up.

Cobb tells Bill, as they’re going through someone’s apartment, “You take it away… to show them what they had,” and this is the recurring theme in the movie.  What Bill doesn’t realize is that Cobb is flat-out telling this to Bill that this is what he’s doing to him, but Bill doesn’t realize this until the end.  Bill only sees what’s going around him and not what’s literally being put right in his face.  Tony brought up that it’s similar to what M. Night Shyamalan does not too long after in The Sixth Sense, when the boy tells Bruce Willis that he sees dead people.  They don’t know they’re dead yet, but they are.  The boy is telling Bruce that he’s dead but he doesn’t see the big picture right that’s right in front of him.

It’s a very short, compact movie; 70 minutes long including the credits.  Sam notes that the ending is very abrupt.  All the “webs” that are set all comes together in the last eight minutes and then it’s over… nothing extra, noting unnecessary.  Tony compares the ending of Following to the ending to Usual Suspects, differentiating by adding that the ending of Usual Suspects almost feels like a “cheat.”  The audience never sees any of the clues in the Usual Suspects until they’re all laid out at the end, as opposed to Following, in which the clues are throughout the movie.  The audience is shown the clues and they get to enjoy the discovery of piecing it together themselves. The audience is not given this opportunity in The Usual Suspects.  The beauty of Following and The Sixth Sense is that you can go back and see the clues that you might not have caught the first time, the clues that were easily glossed over until the ending is fully presented.  It’s an intellectual puzzle for the audience to solve.

Sam thought that Following was more of a master’s thesis, so to speak, that sets the style for Christopher Nolan films.  Sam is still not convinced that this was a great film.  Ultimately it was slow and it came together too quickly at the end.  He thought it didn’t have the amazing visuals (Batman Begins), the creative storytelling (Dark Knight) or the jaw dropping reactions (Memento) of Nolan’s later films.  In essence, it’s like watching his first “student film.”  You can see a lot of artistry and craftsmanship in this first film.

Even though Nolan chose to film this in B&W, for budgetary reasons, but none of the hosts can imagine this film in color.  This is the resume for the rest of Nolan’s career.  This is the film in which you can see what he has to offer in all of his later films, in how he tells a story both visually and through dialogue; it’s creating his brand in the same way that Do The Right Thing IS Spike Lee and Clerks IS Kevin Smith.

Jill mentioned how the movie was shot on Saturdays because everyone (cast and crew) had full time jobs.  The cost of making the film ($6 million) came out of Nolan’s pocket.  Darrell brought up how Nolan had the actors were made to practice their lines so that he would only have to have one or two takes per scene, to conserve film and time.

Bill’s apartment, with the Batman sticker on the door, was Bill’s real apartment.

Christopher Nolan came up with the idea for Following because his home had been broken into and he wondered what the people thought as they went around looking at his belongings.

As Nolan’s debut film, it was designed to be as inexpensive as possible to make.  He mostly used available light to save on the expense of professional lighting equipment.  Apart from providing the script and direction, Nolan also did the photography, editing and production himself.

Your Producers for this episode were:

• Tony
• Darrell
• Jill
• Sam

This episode was recorded: 2/1/2012

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS