The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

[DavidSeven]

I kind of dug Andrew Dominik's Jesse James flick, but that might be in spite of the man's direction rather than because of it. Deakins' photography is the clearly the highlight of the piece, but even with the truly emotional imagery that the cinematographer offers, Dominik never manages to create any sort of sustained atmosphere. At the core of the film, there is an engaging story with interesting characters and the support of beautiful camerawork. However, surrounding these basic elements of a pretty great film are these little directorial missteps that prevent us from getting lost in the picture.

My main issues with Dominik's direction:


Obvious miscue: The Voiceover - Tonally off and poorly cast. Never poignant or poetic. It doesn't even match the rhythm of the film.
Speaking of poor casting: Stunt casting for meaningless roles - James Carville as a politician? Zoe Deschanel and Marie Louise Parker with about 3 lines of dialogue between the two of them? Nick Cave as a saloon singer? Yeah, a couple of these qualify as funny little cameos, but ultimately, they distract from the film.
Half-assed cues for the musical score - It's a very good score, but I doubt you'll feel that way by the end of the film. The score is thrown in at seemingly every available opportunity. Its power is destroyed before we get halfway into the film.
Directing actors - Everyone seems to love the performances, but I thought there was way too much indicating going on. How blatantly nervous can one person look before someone as ruthless as Jesse James just shoots them in the head? Sam Rockwell's performance seemed especially self-conscious. This whole "we're going to make it really obvious to the audience that we're really anxious and guilty, but Jesse James won't get a clue until the end of the film" thing wasn't working for me. I felt the same about Affleck's performance but to a lesser degree. Rockwell and Affleck are typically solid, if forgettable, so their distracting performances would seem to be a product of the direction given to them.
Getting sidetracked: The Dick Liddil short film within the feature film - I actually dug this portion of the film while it was going on, but for the rest of the film, I kept wondering where the payoff for it would come. Was it really just to set up the tiff between Liddil and Wood? You set up certain expectations for the audience when you devote a big chunk of your film to a certain thing, so you better make it payoff in a big way or at least flip it on its ass.


Now that I got that off my chest, I really don't hate or even dislike the film. Dominik has the groundwork here for an engaging picture, and Deakins does some really heavy lifting. It's just disappointing to see that Dominik had the foundation for a pretty great picture and just really misfired with his execution.

[**1/2]

[Rowland]

The problem here as I see it is that you are evaluating the film as a traditional movie/narrative, when it is in actuality an endlessly self-cannibalizing post-modern elegy, wallowing in the determinism that controls our fates contrasted with the mythologization we use to dress it up, that needs to be evaluated on its own terms. This blatant self-aware artificiality that informs the piece justifies most of your issues on thematic grounds, albeit in meta ways that someone unsympathetic to the film may deem less than convincing.

[Izzy Black]

Obvious miscue: The Voiceover - Tonally off and poorly cast. Never poignant or poetic. It doesn't even match the rhythm of the film.

The voiceover device takes an obvious cue from Days of Heaven. The voiceover is sparse, absent for large stretches of the film, and not terribly enlightening, but the intent - while at one end emphasizing the discordant and indifferent maliase as used in Malick's film - adds the kind of folk-like oratory mythical storytelling which is the crux of the film's central theme.


Speaking of poor casting: Stunt casting for meaningless roles - James Carville as a politician? Zoe Deschanel and Marie Louise Parker with about 3 lines of dialogue between the two of them? Nick Cave as a saloon singer? Yeah, a couple of these qualify as funny little cameos, but ultimately, they distract from the film.

Ed Gonzalez over at Slant describes the film in his review of There Will Be Blood as "obnoxiously postmodern and preciously aestheticized." I would agree with him on the broader sentiment, but would replace "obnoxiously" in this case with "self-consciously." The reason for this, and the reason why the film is not postmodern and aestheticized in the pejorative sense, is because the film's formal exercises is relevant to the deftly modernized theme of celebrityhood obsession. Thus, the placement of James Carville as a politician, and the others you mention, does not come off as merely pointless, but as self-conscious allusions where "acting" your vocation is much like Brad Pitt acting the celebrity.


Half-assed cues for the musical score - It's a very good score, but I doubt you'll feel that way by the end of the film. The score is thrown in at seemingly every available opportunity. Its power is destroyed before we get halfway into the film.

One could make this type of argument for a Bela Tarr film. The music plays along with the narrative. It's a tone poem, much like the latter.


Directing actors - Everyone seems to love the performances, but I thought there was way too much indicating going on. How blatantly nervous can one person look before someone as ruthless as Jesse James just shoots them in the head? Sam Rockwell's performance seemed especially self-conscious. This whole "we're going to make it really obvious to the audience that we're really anxious and guilty, but Jesse James won't get a clue until the end of the film" thing wasn't working for me. I felt the same about Affleck's performance but to a lesser degree. Rockwell and Affleck are typically solid, if forgettable, so their distracting performances would seem to be a product of the direction given to them.

I am not sure your interpretation here is sound. It never occurred to me that Jesse James was completely unaware until the final moments. Quite the contrary, even. James seemed to be aware of his culminating demise from the moment his relationship with Robert Ford begins - much like a neo-noir fatalism. He suspects Ford's disingenuous nature, but what is fascinating about the film is not the way James was slowly betrayed, but how, perhaps, he knew he was being betrayed, but still embraced the love/hate relationship regardless. It also reflects a sort of conscious despair and nauseous self-loathing. James appears disaffected by his iconic status, moving about his desolate environment with an occupational malaise, and to the point that he takes greater thrill in this twisted sort of companionship that he has with the transparent, obsessive coward that is Robert Ford.


Getting sidetracked: The Dick Liddil short film within the feature film - I actually dug this portion of the film while it was going on, but for the rest of the film, I kept wondering where the payoff for it would come. Was it really just to set up the tiff between Liddil and Wood? You set up certain expectations for the audience when you devote a big chunk of your film to a certain thing, so you better make it payoff in a big way or at least flip it on its ass.

I saw the sequence as a sort of narrative misdirection and diversion in the Rivette tradition. For a film that is already overtly self-conscious, the director decides to downplay the importance of plot by directing his curiosity toward another character dynamic to emphasize the mistrust, despair, and anxiety that continues to haunt their psyches.

[ledfloyd]

well everything i had in mind to say after reading the first post has been said more articulately by the last two posters.

this film blew me away, i was expecting it to be mediocre and it's easily one of my favorite films of the year.

[DavidSeven]

The problem here as I see it is that you are evaluating the film as a traditional movie/narrative, when it is in actuality an endlessly self-cannibalizing post-modern elegy, wallowing in the determinism that controls our fates contrasted with the mythologization we use to dress it up, that needs to be evaluated on its own terms. This blatant self-aware artificiality that informs the piece justifies most of your issues on thematic grounds, albeit in meta ways that someone unsympathetic to the film may deem less than convincing.

The film doesn't push the edge of being non-traditional enough for me to accept that we can't criticize it on any level. It's stuck in no-man's land somewhere between Malick and Costner. Yeah, there are many meta aspects of this film, but it's actually in many ways a very straight-forward and traditional movie. Dominik can't have his cake and eat it too. Regardless of that fact, the phony acting isn't blatant enough nor are the musical cues off enough for them to work on some sort of theoretical level. My only complaint about the narrative itself is limited to the Liddil segment, so I don't really see how this is defense against what I'm actually talking about.

[DavidSeven]

The voiceover device takes an obvious cue from Days of Heaven. The voiceover is sparse, absent for large stretches of the film, and not terribly enlightening, but the intent - while at one end emphasizing the discordant and indifferent maliase as used in Malick's film - adds the kind of folk-like oratory mythical storytelling which is the crux of the film's central theme.

Yeah, we're all aware of the similarity to Days of Heaven. However, the difference is that, in Malick's film, the voice of the young narrator is a tonal match for the soft, innocent atmosphere of the piece. The intent and the content of the Dominik's narration isn't really what I have a problem with; it's the execution. It's like a running trailer-guy commentary. I'm not even a fan of Malick, and I can tell that there is a distinct difference between the way he executes voiceover and how it's done here by Dominik.



Ed Gonzalez over at Slant describes the film in his review of There Will Be Blood as "obnoxiously postmodern and preciously aestheticized." I would agree with him on the broader sentiment, but would replace "obnoxiously" in this case with "self-consciously." The reason for this, and the reason why the film is not postmodern and aestheticized in the pejorative sense, is because the film's formal exercises is relevant to the deftly modernized theme of celebrityhood obsession. Thus, the placement of James Carville as a politician, and the others you mention, does not come off as merely pointless, but as self-conscious allusions where "acting" your vocation is much like Brad Pitt acting the celebrity.

This is a reach. Of the people I named, Carville is the only one here that could possibly be considered a true celebrity in the sense that you're talking about here, and even that's a stretch. Did he really want to use names like Cave, Parker, and Deschanel to further cement his commentary on celebrity? If you say so. Even if that was his intent, it goes back to what I was saying in my previous post; Dominik doesn't take it far enough.



One could make this type of argument for a Bela Tarr film. The music plays along with the narrative. It's a tone poem, much like the latter.


I haven't seen Bela Tarr, but there's little that's poetic about how Dominik brings in the music here. No rhythm. No consistency.



I am not sure your interpretation here is sound. It never occurred to me that Jesse James was completely unaware until the final moments. Quite the contrary, even. James seemed to be aware of his culminating demise from the moment his relationship with Robert Ford begins - much like a neo-noir fatalism. He suspects Ford's disingenuous nature, but what is fascinating about the film is not the way James was slowly betrayed, but how, perhaps, he knew he was being betrayed, but still embraced the love/hate relationship regardless. It also reflects a sort of conscious despair and nauseous self-loathing. James appears disaffected by his iconic status, moving about his desolate environment with an occupational malaise, and to the point that he takes greater thrill in this twisted sort of companionship that he has with the transparent, obsessive coward that is Robert Ford.

This is a very good and thoughtful interpretation and an acceptable one too. However, it doesn't really explain these actions from the perspective of the Ford brothers. People just don't act this way. There's little subtlety in these performances. Is it because, as Rowland claims, an example of the artifice and self-consciousness that Dominik was trying to convey? Or was it just poor guidance from the director? I don't know. It didn't completely work for me.




I saw the sequence as a sort of narrative misdirection and diversion in the Rivette tradition. For a film that is already overtly self-conscious, the director decides to downplay the importance of plot by directing his curiosity toward another character dynamic to emphasize the mistrust, despair, and anxiety that continues to haunt their psyches.

I liked the segment on its own, but the idea of it became distracting as the film progressed. Perhaps that's my own problem, but it's just another example of the kinds of things that kept me from being submerged into this picture.

[Boner M]

Well, I agree about the score, which is Dominik's only real misstep in my eyes... otherwise I don't have much to say that Israfel and Rowland have already. Adding to what the former said about the voiceover, I'll copy and paste from old-school MC again:

"I actually thought the hyper-literal narration was a great touch once I got used to it, and complements the demystification of the James legend that Dominik is aiming for. It's very much in tune with the pseudo-poetry of the dime-store novels that romanticised James and his escapades, but when coupled with the images we're seeing the effect is entirely different. Yeah, it does somewhat kill the poetry in some of images by telling us what we should be seeing, it's distancing and distracting - even the tone of the voice lacks authority, charisma and command. But the film is more a dirge than a reverie, and I think it fits in with that doomy sense of inevitability. I'd say it's an example of when telling instead of showing becomes a form of showing in itself."

Also, Affleck's performance = forgettable?!

[DavidSeven]

Well, I agree about the score, which is Dominik's only real misstep in my eyes... otherwise I don't have much to say that Israfel and Rowland have already. Adding to what the former said about the voiceover, I'll copy and paste from old-school MC again:

"I actually thought the hyper-literal narration was a great touch once I got used to it, and complements the demystification of the James legend that Dominik is aiming for. It's very much in tune with the pseudo-poetry of the dime-store novels that romanticised James and his escapades, but when coupled with the images we're seeing the effect is entirely different. Yeah, it does somewhat kill the poetry in some of images by telling us what we should be seeing, it's distancing and distracting - even the tone of the voice lacks authority, charisma and command. But the film is more a dirge than a reverie, and I think it fits in with that doomy sense of inevitability. I'd say it's an example of when telling instead of showing becomes a form of showing in itself."

Wait... what happened to the guy that wrote this:


I went to see The Assassination of Jesse James again, and I dunno... the narration bugged me a little more this time even though I understand it's purpose and still think it's quite subversive, ditto for the stereoscope shots, and the score felt more monotonous; kinda like a warmed-over version of Cave and Ellis' far superior one to The Proposition. I guess my main complaint is that it all feels a little too calculated, and so obsessed with the idea of demystification that it loses a much needed sense of mystery itself. Still a very fine film, but the performances and Deakins are the true auteurs here; Dominik's work is impressive and I look forward to what he has next, but he still has yet to truly find his groove. Baby steps, baby steps...



Also, Affleck's performance = forgettable?!

Not here; just in general. His performance here is unfortunately memorable for how overly mannered it is.

[Boner M]

Wait... what happened to the guy that wrote this:
I have movie-moods. Today I'm in a "D7 is wrong" mood.

[DavidSeven]

Today I'm in a "D7 is wrong" mood.

Of course by "today," you mean "every day," and by "I'm," you mean "everyone's."

[Sycophant]

Of course by "today," you mean "every day," and by "I'm," you mean "everyone's."I think the first opinion I ever saw you post was one I agreed with. Despite everything that I've seen you post since then, that first impression has stuck.

I should be seeing this movie soon.

[Boner M]

Of course by "today," you mean "every day," and by "I'm," you mean "everyone's."
Pity repped!

[Rowland]

The film doesn't push the edge of being non-traditional enough for me to accept that we can't criticize it on any level. I didn't mean to imply that it can't be criticized on any level. I can't imagine any film being so untraditional as to somehow negate any potential criticism.
It's stuck in no-man's land somewhere between Malick and Costner. Yeah, there are many meta aspects of this film, but it's actually in many ways a very straight-forward and traditional movie. Dominik can't have his cake and eat it too. Regardless of that factWhich fact? That Dominik can't have his cake and eat it too? Why can't he fetishize a "straightforward" movie with layers of synthetic artifice, especially given that such an approach ties in directly with its thematic bedrock? And besides, I'd argue that the narrative is far from straightforward, eschewing many of the traditional genre tropes and narrative beats in favor of portentous romanticism and psychologically confrontational tableau swathed in shadows, observing as the machinations of fate unfurl like a set of dominoes.
the phony acting isn't blatant enoughI suspect that this may simply be an issue rooted in taste, but I can imagine an argument being made that the movie is populated with men uncomfortable in their own skin, all too subconsciously aware of the schisms between the perceived, the projected, and the reality, manifested in anxious behavior. I read an analogy somewhere that watching the movie was like witnessing aliens pretending to be men, or something to that effect, which I suppose may be apt, though I don't necessarily see that as an inherently negative impression.
nor are the musical cues off enough for them to work on some sort of theoretical level.This on the other hand, I simply don't agree with. I felt the motifs were plenty varied enough, and the score's constant presence underscores the forward march of history and the tragedy therein, inducing something of a trance state that complements the hyperreality of the piece. At least for me.

[ledfloyd]

Yeah, we're all aware of the similarity to Days of Heaven. However, the difference is that, in Malick's film, the voice of the young narrator is a tonal match for the soft, innocent atmosphere of the piece. The intent and the content of the Dominik's narration isn't really what I have a problem with; it's the execution. It's like a running trailer-guy commentary. I'm not even a fan of Malick, and I can tell that there is a distinct difference between the way he executes voiceover and how it's done here by Dominik.
My first thoughts regarding the narrator was that he sounded like the "viewers like you" guy on PBS. Once the movie got going I began to think it was intentional. I believe it's purpose is to make you think of PBS documentaries you may have seen on Jesse James, or to give you the impression that you're watching one. I think it's a very effective mechanism since the film itself is more or less a criticism of the way we canonize folk heroes.


This is a reach. Of the people I named, Carville is the only one here that could possibly be considered a true celebrity in the sense that you're talking about here, and even that's a stretch. Did he really want to use names like Cave, Parker, and Deschanel to further cement his commentary on celebrity? If you say so. Even if that was his intent, it goes back to what I was saying in my previous post; Dominik doesn't take it far enough.
That's true, Carville is the only one that jumped out at me. I can't even identify Nick Cave and I'm sure most people can't. I was thinking perhaps much of Parker and Deschanel's performances were lost in the cutting room. I think that's more likely than it being stunt casting.

As far as the score, I had no problems with it, in fact I ran out and bought it shortly after watching the film.

[Qrazy]

The voiceover device takes an obvious cue from Days of Heaven. The voiceover is sparse, absent for large stretches of the film, and not terribly enlightening, but the intent - while at one end emphasizing the discordant and indifferent maliase as used in Malick's film - adds the kind of folk-like oratory mythical storytelling which is the crux of the film's central theme.

I am not sure your interpretation here is sound. It never occurred to me that Jesse James was completely unaware until the final moments. Quite the contrary, even. James seemed to be aware of his culminating demise from the moment his relationship with Robert Ford begins - much like a neo-noir fatalism. He suspects Ford's disingenuous nature, but what is fascinating about the film is not the way James was slowly betrayed, but how, perhaps, he knew he was being betrayed, but still embraced the love/hate relationship regardless. It also reflects a sort of conscious despair and nauseous self-loathing. James appears disaffected by his iconic status, moving about his desolate environment with an occupational malaise, and to the point that he takes greater thrill in this twisted sort of companionship that he has with the transparent, obsessive coward that is Robert Ford.


Except it works in Days of Heaven because it's the voice of one of the major characters. Here it just seems like it's employed for elucidating purposes and as forced meta.

I agree with your second paragraph.

[Rowland]

I agree with your second paragraph.Yeah, I thought this point was made rather clearly, especially during the titular scene when James not only leaves his gun belt sprawled out in the open, he even sets himself up as a sitting duck by standing on the chair with his back turned to clean the picture (of a horse, which his head notably crashes into upon being shot).

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I thought this point was made rather clearly, especially during the titular scene when James not only leaves his gun belt sprawled out in the open, he even sets himself up as a sitting duck by standing on the chair with his back turned to clean the picture (of a horse, which his head notably crashes into upon being shot).

Yeah, plus he also sees the reflection in the picture. My interpretation of the character's psyche, was that he was tired of who he'd become. He was tired both of worrying about betrayal and of having to ferret out and kill would be betrayers, former friends. He was tired of his celebratory status as outlaw, always running, never at peace.

He let Ford be not only his executioner, but also his judge and jury and more importantly his inheritor. 'Do you want to be like me, or to be me?' It was not that he trusted Ford or even that he would have a friend be his murderer. He both distrusted and disliked Ford, but he also disliked himself. So when he sees the kind of person, a person he disdains... who would choose him as his idol... his self-contempt is cemented still further. Beyond that, he knows that Ford will gain nothing by his death. What Ford will inherit is the role and burden of the immoral celebratory. By killing Jesse James, in the manner that he did, Ford will become only a heroic villian, just as Jesse was. Jesse is giving Ford his mantle, a hollow one.

Which is not to say that Ford deserved that mantle or that Jesse is the victim here or his outlaw status romanticized... I think the film cautions against this, and the potential for the demonization of Ford. Ford was no more or less a coward than Jesse who shot Ed in the back... and yet public perception and the mistaken romanticization of the 'outlaw' made him so.

[DavidSeven]

Yeah, I already mentioned that I agree with the interpretation. However, it still doesn't explain the outward expressions of guilt and nervousness from the Ford brothers. Perhaps it was just the means to an end, but it didn't ring true for me.

[Raiders]

I like the film more than you D7, but to make you feel a little better I agree with some of your complaints. That's uh, got to count for something.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I already mentioned that I agree with the interpretation. However, it still doesn't explain the outward expressions of guilt and nervousness from the Ford brothers. Perhaps it was just the means to an end, but it didn't ring true for me.

I know, just getting some tangential thoughts out. I didn't really mind their overt displays of nevousness but I agree with you that the direction wasn't all that strong. The mise-en-scene seemed fairly lacking to me.

[DavidSeven]

I like the film more than you D7, but to make you feel a little better I agree with some of your complaints. That's uh, got to count for something.

It counts for a lot right about now. Anyway, I hate to be the overwhelming voice of dissent here, because I didn't outright dislike the picture. In fact, I don't think it's much less respectable than say No Country for Old Men or There Will be Blood. However, my appreciation for this picture was always held at a distance, whereas I felt emerged in the experience at occasions during the other films. Flaws are always easier to point out than positives, but Jesse James is definitely an interesting film in many respects.

[Qrazy]

It counts for a lot right about now. Anyway, I hate to be the overwhelming voice of dissent here, because I didn't outright dislike the picture. In fact, I don't think it's much less respectable than say No Country for Old Men or There Will be Blood. However, my appreciation for this picture was always held at a distance, whereas I felt emerged in the experience at occasions during the other films. Flaws are always easier to point out than positives, but Jesse James is definitely an interesting film in many respects.

Really? I don't think it's anywhere near the level of the other two and I don't think the other two are masterpieces either.

[Rowland]

Also, while this doesn't seem to be a common response, I found the movie uncommonly humanistic. One of the more baffling tricks Domink achieves here is how successfully he imbues his overtly self-conscious epic about the blurring of history and myth with a tangible humanity. By the end of the haunting coda, the cumulative effect bowled me over.

And for all the talk of how unnecessary the narration was, a reasonable complaint given the common dogma that the technique's general purpose in movies is to serve as a narrative crutch for poor visual storytelling (a notion the application of narration here cleverly plays upon), I thought it was eloquently written, as was the dialog throughout. I loved simply listening to the characters speak, as their dialogs were expressive without playing as overwritten or the product of a single voice, and Dominik had enough confidence to pace them by their individual metronomes.

[Qrazy]

And for all the talk of how unnecessary the narration was, a reasonable complaint given the common dogma that the technique's general purpose in movies is to serve as a narrative crutch for poor visual storytelling (a notion the application of narration here cleverly plays upon), I thought it was eloquently written, as was the dialog throughout. I loved simply listening to the characters speak, as their dialogs were expressive without playing as overwritten or the product of a single voice, and Dominik had enough patience to pace them by their individual metronomes.

Hmm, personally I didn't think it was that well written (the narration).

[DavidSeven]

Really? I don't think it's anywhere near the level of the other two and I don't think the other two are masterpieces either.

Don't get me wrong; I like those other two films more too. However, I think there's much to appreciated and criticized about all three.

[Qrazy]

Don't get me wrong; I like those other two films more too. However, I think there's much to appreciated and criticized about all three.

Agreed.

[Izzy Black]

Yeah, we're all aware of the similarity to Days of Heaven. However, the difference is that, in Malick's film, the voice of the young narrator is a tonal match for the soft, innocent atmosphere of the piece. The intent and the content of the Dominik's narration isn't really what I have a problem with; it's the execution. It's like a running trailer-guy commentary. I'm not even a fan of Malick, and I can tell that there is a distinct difference between the way he executes voiceover and how it's done here by Dominik.

I have not read any opinions on this forum regarding this film that may be listed elsewhere, so I was not aware of the consensus on the Days of Heaven connection. In regards to the narrator's voice, if you are adressing aesthetic or timbral merits, I am not too concerned with this. The intention and the application of the narration is similar to that of Days of Heaven. Perhaps Days of Heaven remedies this sparse narrative dissonance by way of the narrator's voice, but the execution of the narration I am not sure is terribly different from Dominik's use. I find it quite comparable, and if we are all aware of the apt comparisons in voice over, this would seem to me as the major connection.


This is a reach. Of the people I named, Carville is the only one here that could possibly be considered a true celebrity in the sense that you're talking about here, and even that's a stretch. Did he really want to use names like Cave, Parker, and Deschanel to further cement his commentary on celebrity? If you say so. Even if that was his intent, it goes back to what I was saying in my previous post; Dominik doesn't take it far enough.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say Carville is a celebrity playing a celebrity. I would not exactly call him a celebrity in the first place. I said he is a politician (or campaign strategist) playing a politician. The effect here is decidedly meta, and mirrors the same relationship that a larger than life modern celebrity such as Brad Pitt has with playing a larger than life celebrity of another time. It is people acting their vocation - or perhaps, not so much acting, and all of which plays into the film's central theme and explorations. I am not quite sure how I am reaching with this. It seems clear to me.


I haven't seen Bela Tarr, but there's little that's poetic about how Dominik brings in the music here. No rhythm. No consistency.

This begs the question though. How does it lack rhythm and consistency? I believe your argument was that the music was fairly pervasive throughout the film, so it seems consistent in that respect. As to whether it lacks rhythm or not depends on one's conception of its contextual and thematic use here. Rhythm is not some idle objective property. In the case of Tarr, music creeps into the scene with usually just a 4 note score that is played for large stretches of the film, but other times, in similar sequences, the film is completely silent - no music. Most agree Tarr's use of music has a particular rhythm, but the effect is not cued based on some specific time-variable, or a particular structural sequence that should denote when the music should come in or not. It is relative to the desired effect.


This is a very good and thoughtful interpretation and an acceptable one too. However, it doesn't really explain these actions from the perspective of the Ford brothers. People just don't act this way. There's little subtlety in these performances. Is it because, as Rowland claims, an example of the artifice and self-consciousness that Dominik was trying to convey? Or was it just poor guidance from the director? I don't know. It didn't completely work for me.

The point I was trying to establish is that the anxiety was not made blatantly obvious to just the audience, but to James as well. They were explicitly transparent and fickle in their schemes. This is important, I think, because it overstates their cowardice, single-mindedness, obsession, and transparency. Yes, ostensibly this may not make for particularly engaging characters, but in the larger context of the film's conceit, premise, and possibly, its critique, then I think much is revealed about the nature of how people act over celebrities and how people deceive themselves. Are they caricatures, as you might be implying? I am not so sure. I find them relevant and true to a particular cultural pretense. Yes, this mostly comes down to which side of the fence you fall on, but I am not sure calling it poor direction is correct, insofar as the actors were not misguided in terms of what the director was trying to achieve, but you could say it was poor vision, possibly, yes. In that case, I tend to differ.


I liked the segment on its own, but the idea of it became distracting as the film progressed. Perhaps that's my own problem, but it's just another example of the kinds of things that kept me from being submerged into this picture.

It is one of the important elements in the film that allowed it to break its identity from conventional narrative, which was an important qualification for the film to establish so as to further its thematic goals. I can see how unconventional narrative can seem digressive, pointless, and distracting to some, much is the case for the many critics of directors like Antonioni and Rivette, but I find the purpose here sound, and whether or not it met your cognitive expectations or value requirements is understandably a concern, so long as we acknowledge the intent here was self-conscious. I accept that the film, on many levels, did not work for you, and such is the case for many films and most people, but the focus of my response was in regards to addressing the elements in the film which I think had a specific intent that you may not have considered.

[Izzy Black]

Really? I don't think it's anywhere near the level of the other two and I don't think the other two are masterpieces either.

I find the other two far inferior.

[Izzy Black]

Except it works in Days of Heaven because it's the voice of one of the major characters. Here it just seems like it's employed for elucidating purposes and as forced meta.


It is meta, yes. I do not think it forced - not anymore so than in Days of Heaven's case. Often times anything that is self-aware or meta comes off as forced. The same type of criticism was made of the tracking-shot in Atonement, but we could do the same thing with Welles' shot in Touch of Evil.

[Duncan]

It is meta, yes. I do not think it forced - not anymore so than in Days of Heaven's case. Often times anything that is self-aware or meta comes off as forced. The same type of criticism was made of the tracking-shot in Atonement, but we could do the same thing with Welles' shot in Touch of Evil.

Btw, you ever read my eventual response to Atonement? It was like a month after we had that long digression about Days of Heaven.

[Izzy Black]

Btw, you ever read my eventual response to Atonement? It was like a month after we had that long digression about Days of Heaven.

Nope. I'll dig it up.

[Melville]

I think my response is closest to Rowland's. I loved the layering of storytelling styles: on the surface is a somewhat fatuous pseudo-debunking of the Jesse James myth--a debunking that actually replaces one myth with another, using the epic cinematography and stereoscope images to craft a nostalgia-tinged High Romance about James' and Ford's tragic downfalls; the narrator, seemingly mimicking Behind the Music (or, better yet, Behind the Laughter), perfectly suits this style. But, as Rowland noted, below that surface we have a genuinely moving story about these characters. More thoughts later.

[Melville]

My favorite scene: Ford washing his face outside while his brother sits nearby looking despondent. The scene cuts between the brother and close-ups of Ford splashing his face with water, almost in slow motion (maybe it actually was in slow motion?)... then, for a split second, we see a shot from Ford's perspective, showing his hands approaching and then blacking out the frame. The rhythm of the scene does an amazing job of evoking Ford's mental state, one in which he is displaced from himself, almost lost in a trance. And it works beautifully with his desire to control the narrative, as well as with the conflation of his viewpoint and that of the narrator/camera throughout the film.

[Sycophant]

What a strange and fascinating film. Also, entertaining and beautiful. I'm still working some thoughts out (who knows if I'll actually get around to writing them down; I'm just working on internal coherence), but I will say that the scene Melville cited was one that really struck me while I was watching it.