![]() Historical and psychological veracity consisted basically of whatever they could get away with, based on the cynical assumption that their audience was every bit as devoid of interest in these matters as they were. ![]() On its own terms, Miller’s Crossing was the work of a pair of movie brats (both in their mid-30s) eager to show their emulation of Dashiell Hammett but, in spiky postmodernist fashion, almost totally indifferent to Hammett’s own period - except for what they could skim from superficial readings of R ed Harvest, The Glass Key, and a few secondary sources. In both craft and stylishness, Miller’s Crossing was another step forward, and even if I never really believed in either the period ambience or the characters - the dialogue bristled with anachronisms, and Albert Finney’s crime boss seemed much too blinkered and naive for someone who was supposed to be ruling a city - the film nevertheless demanded a certain attention. Raising Arizona may have had some of the same crass, gratuitous condescension toward its country characters as B lood Simple, but it also had a sweeter edge and more visual flair. The main sentiment I took away from Raising Arizona and Miller’s Crossing - their second and third efforts, both of which I stayed to the end of - was that at least each new Coen brothers movie was a discernible improvement over the last. I walked out of Blood Simple, their first feature. I’m not one of the Coen brothers’ biggest fans. With John Turturro, John Goodman, Judy Davis, Michael Lerner, John Mahoney, Tony Shalhoub, and Jon Polito. This review is also reprinted in my first collection, Placing Movies (1995).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |