By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 3 cats
Director: Joel Coen
Starring: Adam Alexi-Malle | Billy Bob Thornton | Frances McDormand | Scarlett Johnansson
Country: united_states
Year: 2001
Running time: 113
IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243133/reference
Bob says: “I think it’s fair to say that the Coens are brilliant, and they have a great understanding of the cinema. The problem is that they know it, and they have a tendency to be intellectual snobs. Their films mock their characters and their audiences. Don’t get me wrong – I’ll see anything they make, and I’m usually more pleased than disappointed, but I imagine if I ever met them, they’d really grate on my nerves.
“In the case of THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE, I think they took their tendencies a little too far, as they did with BARTON FINK. There’s a lot of admirable stuff in both of those films, but I don’t think the Coens took either of them seriously. They made these films in order to show the rest of us how damned smart they are. THE MAN… is beautifully shot, and there are some excellent performances, but I was completely unable to connect to any of it. It’s just too intellectualized, detached, and studied to elicit anything from me beyond an appreciation for how intellectualized, detached, and studied it is, and that just isn’t enough.”
Diane says: “I think I’m agreeing with most when I say that the perfs and cinematography of the Coens’ latest were great, but it all made for an average movie. (The SF Chronicle says that most of the movie seems like a collaboration between Billy Bob and the cinematographer.)
“I’ve been thinking about the character of Ed Crane. The shot that sums him up is the one in which he’s smoking a cigarette in black silhouette ignoring his sexy wife soaking in the tub behind him: the ‘man who wasn’t there’ is invisible and passionless. I found the Birdy subplot meaningful: all those setups to make you think he’s after her sexually, and you find he’s not. (Does anyone disagree?) Crane’s a Teflon man–doesn’t respond to attack, isn’t held responsible for anything–until he gets the blame for something he didn’t do. Then he says he’s going to tell his wife the things that couldn’t be put into words–is this the real change in Crane’s character?
“I loved the b/w and the lighting, but did find the surrealistic photography of the final scene to be too jarring.”
Ellen says: “I thought the cinematography was outstanding and it will definitely get a nomination from me for that category. I also loved the use of black & white, light, and texture. I also liked the film for a while. I thought it was great and then it sort of lost it for me. I’m not sure when that occurred. The close-ups of Thornton and the whole style of the film just started to weigh on me.
“We did hear comments (from an unnamed source) at the theater regarding the character of Birdy and but I disagree and feel she played a role in the film. I thought her purpose was to show that Thornton’s character did have a soul somewhere and that he could respond to something with emotion – in this case Birdy’s music. Otherwise, he would have been a complete automoton. I, too, was not sure if there was going to be a sexual element to the relationship but I was glad to see that there was not.
“I loved the character of Big Dave’s wife. Her few small scenes were a great laugh and good comic relief. I could have done without the continuation of the UFO theme, though – it didn’t do much for me. But, then, I don’t think it would be a Coen film without some kind of freaky plot line.” 3 cats
Hilary says: “Stylistically, it’s a stunner. This has been a great year for neo-noir, THE DEEP END and NOVOCAINE both immediately spring to mind.
“As discussed by many before me, Roger Deakins’ cinematography is simply beautiful, perfectly in keeping with the film noir genre. And if Billy Bob doesn’t have the perfect face for noir — I think he’s found his ideal medium. After this performance, I’m ready to forgive him in PUSHING TIN.
“I’m ashamed of myself for not predicting the ending, got a bit side-tracked by the bizarre true Coen Brothers subplots that stacked up in the last part of the film. Overall, the film was missing something, remained a wholly character-driven story, despite all the plot. However, those were some great characters to be drawn in by; besides Billy Bob’s stand-out performance, I particularly enjoyed Tony Shalhoub and Michael Badalucco.”
Jane says: “I have enjoyed many of the Coen brothers films, particularly FARGO and O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU, but this film left me cold. I admired the cinematography and art design very much; but found myself unable to care about what happened to these characters. I was shocked the film received so much acclaim. A side note – the plot turn involving Frances McDormand’s character at the end was predictable and unnecessary, and I can’t believe they resorted to using that tired story device. I guess I expect a lot of these filmmakers, and am harsh in my assessment of their films when I notice any commonly
used techniques.”
Laura says: “Billy Bob Thornton gives an Academy award worthy performance with a character who barely speaks outside of his perfectly delivered narration. His conservation of movement can alternately make him appear somber or bring a laugh. Tony Shalhoub (THIRTEEN GHOSTS) is hilarious as hot-shot lawyer Freddy Riedenschneider, who spits out words like bullets. Katherine Borowitz (ILLUMINATA) brings the spacy acting style seen in so many Lynch films to department store heiress Ann Nirdlinger, who believes a UFO siting caused the government to kill her husband, Big Dave. Richard Jenkins is notable in a small role that helps define the small town Americana of Santa Rosa.” 3 cats
For Laura’s complete review: “http://www.reelingreviews.com/themanwhowasntthere.htm”
Nathaniel says: “I’m seriously unschooled in the film noir genre but I quite enjoyed this film. Loved the cinematography (breathtaking) and the performances (Frances McDormand was terrif as usual) and Billy Bob Thronton really surprised me… I’ve never been a fan but I have to say that he was excellent here.”
Robin says: “The Coen brothers don’t always produce gems in their filmmaking endeavors but their movies are always interesting. Their best work, FARGO, is a brilliant combination of terrific acting, a solid screenplay, outstanding techs and the deft directing/producing hands of Joel and Ethan. Other works, like BARTON FINK and THE HUDSUCKER PROXY, are less compelling though still the solid efforts of a pair of talented individuals. THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE isn’t the hands-down
masterpiece of FARGO, but it certainly is one of their better flicks to date and is a wonderful entry into the pantheon of modern film noir.” 3 1/2 cats
For Robin’s complete review: “http://www.reelingreviews.com/themanwhowasntthere.htm”
Scot says: “I thought that THE MAN… had all the elements of a classic noir film: milquetoast hero, no morally upstanding characters, strong b/w contrast visually and morally, and all of that. But it totally lacked suspense. Several twists happen in the plot but there is absolutely nothing to keep you on edge in advance. That’s why I couldn’t connect to it, personally.”
Stephen says: “If THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE seems to be primarily of bleak, black comedy, it does not achieve its purposes with cheap shots at its target. It is clear from the care Deakins takes with his lighting, production designer Dennis Gassner takes with his sets, and the Coens take with all the details of this wonderful artifact, that it is a loving labor of reconstruction of the best of a classic style. This film will surely become a classic itself, and on its own terms.”
For Stephen’s complete review: “http://www.stephenbrophy.org/review/ind/manwhowasnt”