Hail, Caesar!

Hail, Channing Tatum!

But most importantly

Hail, the Coen Brothers!

Yes folks, we're back and I'm gonna do my best to not put you to sleep even though our latest outing into Coen country might do just that for most moviegoers.

  In fact, as much as I'm going to take a dive into Caesar, I want to take this time to do something no one has ever done before and talk about a pair of writer-directors named Joel & Ethan Coen

You may have heard of them

So come join me, if you will, as I enlighten waste your time with nonsense from some of the best, bleakest, black comedy writers in the industry right now. Their style is so black in fact that most folks are mistaking their latest picture as a failed attempt at telling a story rather than a satirical depiction of a lost era of filmmaking.

  Believe it or not, even though it's being praised critically, most folks are actually hating Hail, Caesar! But it wouldn't truly be a Coen bros. movie if that weren't the case now, would it? It's been happening to their films for years; it's become a trademark of theirs; Critics seem to "get it," most audiences don't. It's one of those cases where audiences from the Michael Bay generation will claim it's boring; that "snarky, pompous critics will wank anyone who pumps out weird films with all style and no substance," and yet many other pretentious filmgoers will merely bring the films down before even watching them because they prefer art house pictures and dig "real films;"

To each their own

  But ironically, it's kind of a lose-lose situation with the Coens. They get no love from a mainstream audience and many "film student" types bash their work for being overly pretentious. It is here; right here, squeezed between those two camps, that the Coens have found their cult following which has grown large enough to drop the koolaid and join the mass media of legitimate critics who indeed wank them for every weird movie they pump out that seems to have all style and no substance. The question is, can you get on board for the actual weird pictures they put out? The ones that seem to cater to no party and adhere to just about no one at all? Can you find love in your heart for films that are so strange; so far out, that you've convinced yourself that there must be more behind the madness and sheer absurdity of this craft? If you've started answering those questions, you've begun your journey, because those are the kinds of questions where I believe that "being a Coen fan" actually begins.

  Let me start with Hail, Caesar! and then return to my point. Here are some ACTUAL reviews by REAL people, available to the general public for their latest outing:

"Haphazard and silly! [It] lacks purpose and wastes its talented cast with underdeveloped, uninteresting characters!"

"This was the single most boring movie I've ever had to sit through."

"A self indulgent piece of crap"

"I would have spent my money on almost  anything else!"

"I feel totally ripped off and want my money back. Just a bunch of crap pieced together. After that, I might not ever go to another movie." 

(And my personal favorite: )

"You will have a better time picking up litter on the side of the road. This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I feel like standing at the ticket counter to warn other potential victims. Huge waste of talent, plus my two hours. I can't think of anything positive to say. Do yourself a favor, stay home or pick up litter."

So what you're saying is, it's a Coen bros. movie

  And those were just the most recent 1-2 star reviews. This kind of backlash has been seen with the Coens before and it's always puzzled me how a movie deemed so excellent could be so poor to the public. It takes me back to a time, not that long ago, when I saw a little film called No Country For Old Men, and the experience I had with that film was the experience that made me realize what an ignorant moviegoer I once was.

  Now, I'm not putting my taste on a pedestal here folks. I've openly admitted to paying money; money from a paycheck that I've worked for, to see movies among the ranks of Transformers: Age of Extinction (which, for the record, is the FOURTH Transformers film in the franchise) and have come out on the other side NOT hating the final result (people seem to confuse entertainment with something we should dislike and I'm not about to get on that train). My taste in movies isn't necessarily deemed "bad," rather than "open to literally everything." I don't have many limits, I have almost zero boundaries, and there's not a great number of movies I'll say no to. Sure, I've become more selective about what movies to trek to the theater for but I will watch and (to some degree) accept most movies for what they are (though I have my reasons for not always trekking to the theater)

Yes, I'm always THAT a**hole

With all that to say, upon watching No Country for my first time, in theaters, it filled me with a rage that I to this day cannot describe... But I will do my best.

  I read these reviews for new Coen movies and I laugh at the young ignorance of these poor, uneducated swines who don't appreciate the picture. Then I think to myself, I can't be a hypocrite. I used to BE one of those swines; to some degree, I'm STILL one of those swines (I still have no backbone towards Oscar-friendly flicks like The Theory of Everything, Amour, Lee Daniels' The Butler, or The Kids are Straight but We're Not The Kids are Alright [or maybe I'm just discriminative towards cripples, old people, black people and gay people, c'mon folks, STOP TAKING MY WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT, I LOVE EVERYONE]). No but really, I have a selective taste and I can admit when I'm ignorant and wrong (it usually comes out later as you're about to find out) but normally I'm open to most movies and with that said, there is no one on the planet who despised No Country more than me. I didn't just hate the movie; I was obnoxious about hating it. I can't quite put my finger on what it was, but I'm sure it was the lack of an ending that fueled the furious flame in my ignorant heart. I pretty much boycotted the film and was absolutely OUTRAGED when it took home Best Picture that year.

For the record I still think this should have won

  I don't know what it was that made me so angry towards the film; again, probably the lack of ending, but it was a film I quite literally never forgot. To this day, No Country holds a special place in my heart for the years of absolute hatred and disgust I had towards it. It made me so angry that I couldn't stop thinking about it (a trait that would later plague me with every one of their films that I watch); I thought about everything regarding the film: Javier Bardem's stern, cold acting (and that goofy haircut); the quiet, drawn out tension; the gritty cinematography. There was just something about it... It was actually something excellent. And I think I was so in denial, because of the end result, that I didn't realize that this movie I was watching was actually better than I had thought. Way better. In fact, years later, having actually rewatched it with a totally new lens in focus, I think it's safe to say that No Country For Old Men might actually be the Coen bros.' magnum opus and the film might actually be a legitimate masterpiece

Don't roll your eyes yet, we're only just getting started

  What can I say folks? I was wrong. SO very wrong. And it's because the film stayed with me; It stayed with me so long that I actually HAD to watch it again to see if it was really as bad as I had made it out to be... And it wasn't. Not even a little bit. The end result was good. REALLY good. In fact, it was SO damn good that it completely reevaluated my entire Coen bros. experience. What movie did I watch in 2007? Whatever it was, it wasn't this movie I was watching today. It compelled  me; it drove me; it inspired me. It was the first time I actually realized I was having a love affair with the Coen bros. and it all started with the Old Men.

probably one of the more inappropriately suggestive sentences I've ever written.

  I don't know what it was inside me that actually made me wake up but I'm 97% positive that it was because I dropped the Hollywood ending; I had completely abandoned the notion that movies not only needed Hollywood endings but endings at all. Because if there's one thing Coens are NOT known for, it's endings. Don't get me wrong, their endings are purposefully crafted to be exactly the way they are, seeming empty and often very void but they're completely purposeful with every film. They're designed to get you thinking about the whole experience rather than focusing on a big finale. And little did I know that the way No Country made me feel, almost 9 years ago (blows my mind to think about), would affect the way I would watch and rewatch all of their films until they made sense to me, even of it was just on a personal level.

  And while the No Country experience was the first time I woke up to the real talent of the Coens and finally thought "I got it," I hadn't realized just how expansive their universe truly was. To date back, I've always had a special place in my heart for Fargo, and my mind was blown when looking at it as a black comedy rather than an oddly placed thriller (it's still both but the black humor is a huge chunk of why that movie is what it is), and of course almost everyone can agree on The Big Lebowski, but the Coens run a LITTLE deeper than the thick skin they wear with cult favorites and Oscar nominated spotlights. Over the last few years I dug deep into their resume and have seen just about everything they've had to offer (even though Hudsucker Proxy is nearly impossible to hunt down) and honestly, I'm a changed person for having watched their films.

  And as much as I can get on board with more of their mainstream stuff (if you can even call any of it mainstream) it baffles me that there aren't more people talking about the brooding, black and white throwback to classic film noir with barber Billy Bob Thornton in The Man Who Wasn't There; people aren't mentioning the fact that the True Grit remake is not only far superior to the original but it's one of the best modern Western films we've ever had; and no one seems to remember that the recent Inside Llewyn Davis was literally one of the best movies of 2013.

Literally incredible

  There is so much more going on in the Coens' work than people actually realize. Sure they get recognized for Oscars almost every season they put out a picture (Except for Llewyn Davis, which is ironic considering, again, it's probably one of their best films) and yes, they're recognized for their diversity in their style but what they DO with their diversity, in their craft, is literally genre-defying. They are literally reinventing the wheel for comedy; black comedy; shedding light on some truly dark situations; creating fusion of an all star cast and ACTUALLY making them work together almost flawlessly (and making you laugh).

  And don't get me wrong, it's easy to resent the Coens because people like me talk about them in this way and many people don't agree with. Hell, it's easy to hate the Coens because there's people who would very strongly disagree with everything I'm saying right now. But it's also very easy to actually love the Coens once you give into their weird method of filmmaking but not all of their films are pleasing by a long shot. There's essentially a few categories their films fall under: The dramatic (No Country, True Grit), the screwball (Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona), the darkly humorous (the entire resume) and the weird. I guess the "weird" could still be measured under comedy since most of the films in said leftover category at least try and be humorous. And I guess two of the most primary examples of this sub-genre would be the back-to-back Burn After Reading and A Serious Man.

  Now you can't really just call them "weird," and be done with it. They're definitely shooting for humor, especially Burn but I think the film doesn't resonate well with people because many of the jokes don't seem to land. Now, a Coen bros. movie having jokes that don't land is vastly different from a Kevin Hart movie having jokes that don't land. The brands of humor couldn't be more opposite. Because when a Coen bros. movie is being billed as a comedy, it's never going for slapstick gags that wait for a thunderously audible laugh were it a sitcom with a laugh track. Coens brand dark humor for a reason. Many, MANY folks won't find their films funny because they're not always laughing out loud when much of the time the situations are funnier than any given sight gags that exist purely for belly laughs. And as much as Burn tries to go for the gags in a much more obvious way...

I mean, just look at Brad Pitt in this movie

 ...it's the notion of idiotic characters hunting down and protecting what they think is an important piece of government propaganda that makes the film funny. It's a funny situation even when the events aren't (and towards the end, events go down hill and fast) but the more baffling of the films being a comedy, and DEFINITELY billed as being more strange, even in its sole placement for being a comedy, is A Serious Man. Because outside of it being arguably the most depressing Coen bros. film, A Serious Man is also probably the most bleak. I don't mean bleak in the No Country sense where evil constantly has the upper hand because at least that was an intense thriller. Serious Man is bleak because it's too real. It plays out like it's a comedy but it exists in a normal suburb following a very regular Jewish man and his family but the guy's life absolutely sucks, and watching him drag through it is ridiculously saddening and uncomfortable, and I guess that's where the humor lies. In fact, Serious Man might be the Coens' defining film for capitalizing on black humor, because Serious Man is a comedy at the end of the day and to be able to laugh at a man whose life is THIS bad, must make one at least a LITTLE cynical inside, in order to truly enjoy it. Yes it plays out the "we can't explain why bad things happen in life" metaphor enough that it feels like it's bashing you over the head, but the pretentious notion of relying only on uncertainty is the point

Exactly

  But among the mentioned flicks, there's even another sub-category for the Coens and it's the one that holds The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty.  It's a category I can't quite peg and I'm fairly certain that it's the category between these two films that Hail, Caesar! lies. While Ladykillers is closer to tone with Burn After Reading, while being simply not as funny (though there are glimpses of brilliant potential from the leads paraded by a remarkable, villainous, mustache-wielding Tom Hanks), it's actually closer to the 90s children's film Mouse Trap more than a traditional Coen bros. film (think about it for a sec...), while Intolerable Cruelty is more of a complete satire on the typical, crappy, modern romantic comedy genre.

  The reason I call out these two flicks specifically is because they're nearly disliked by just about everybody. In comparison to the rest of the resume, these two flicks more than the rest are not just forgettable; they're just not very good. But as any real fan can blindly admit, there's enough to like about both that they'll gladly add it to their Coen collection. They know that amongst all of the flaws, the Coens at their worst are still better than many other films at their best. The problem with finding a mass audience is that very few people seem to actually understand the reasoning behind their craft and this seems to be the case with Caesar more than probably any other Coen bros. film to date; more than Ladykillers; more than Intolerable Cruelty.

  Hail, Caesar! almost plays out like one big inside joke between Joel & Ethan (and George). Yes, it's a satire (and I'll get there in a moment) but it also feels like an experiment more than anything else. Believe it or not, the film isn't the "Find George Clooney" plot the previews lead you to believe. Of course that's the major plot point but in a bizarre fashion, much of the film takes place on different film sets in the 1950s simply showcasing the lifestyle of a past era of directing, while a flustered (but brilliant as always) Josh Brolin stresses about potential plot crises. And to throw it in that last sub-genre, it's definitely weird. But it's not just weird, it's baffling. There are scenes where we watch struggling actors read their lines, go through different takes, and drag feet on set over and over and much of the time the camera will just hold on one moment to prolong the awkwardness of that specific moment. There are moments SO drawn out, in fact, that you almost wonder if the Coens are trying to prank the audience to see how long it will be before people start checking their watches (this is clearly where all the backlash comes from). There are characters who are absolutely pointless to the story; they serve quite literally no other purpose other than to showcase the era the Coens are clearly having a gay old time trying to lampoon. But I think that's the point. The film is much more a showcase of another time of filmmaking than a mystery and yet, the mystery aspect kinda ties in the reminder that this was a vastly different time period than we expected and not simply a walk into the 1950s. Yes, the film drags and the film has scenes and characters that exist for literally no reason, but once you start to give into the goofy atmosphere of it all there's actually quite a bit to like here and the leader of the brigade in all things likable is none other than America's sweetheart Channing Tatum.

Yes, him

  Now before you tell me I'm wrong, consider this. Many actors out there have potential and NOT many of them tackle their TRUE potential. It took Matthew McConaughey nearly TWO decades of crappy rom-coms before stepping out of Kate Hudson's shadow proving to be literally one of the better actors working today. And it's no fault to the man; it just took him a while to find his footing. Now, could it be argued that 21 Jump Street was Tatum's door to real talent? Absolutely. The guy has starred in movies billed as "romantic comedies" (or just Nicholas Sparks movies that are supposed to be strictly romantic but are so bad they're funny?) but who knew the guy was actually FUNNY? He showed a hint of his true talent on Jump Street but I honestly think we've only seen the beginning of Channing's talent and I could not be more serious. The dude has some real charm and in 2014's Foxcatcher he held up his drama-face better than expected. 

But you may not refer to him as Golden Eagle yet

  I'm not saying Channing's worthy of Oscars but there's clearly something about the guy that just works when used correctly and if there's one reason to see Hail, Caesar! no joke, see it for Tatum. It's not necessarily his best role but the Coens have seemed to tap into his boyish charm; his ability to come across as "masculine" yet flamboyant; a people-pleaser but a possible bastard deep down, and they've not only unlocked the man's talents but they showcase every side of him overall better than almost any other writer-director to use him. While Jump Street gave us idiotic laughs for Channing, the Coens use him for dark reasoning in their humor and it REALLY works. His character is almost closer to Tom Hanks' in Ladykillers yet fronting an undercover bouncy, comedic relief in the way they got Brad Pitt to in Burn After Reading. He's almost evil enough to twirl a villainous mustache,

almost

   And he's likable enough to lead a Broadway musical. And clearly the Coens have some form of love for musicals because when they parody the "big musical numbers," specifically Tatum's big group of sailor singers, the film shines in that way we're both laughing with and at the Coens, making us wish they'd actually write a legitimate musical and this marks the first point in the film where our faith is restored that MAYBE (just maybe) this flick won't be such a drag after all.

  But all it to say is, Tatum doesn't necessarily carry the movie, but he's easily the most likable performance. He ties in some pretty dark themes regarding 1950s communism that I'm dying to talk about but I'd be spoiling the film since none of the trailers allude to these story lines. It's a small blurb but it's another reminder that the Coen's films, no matter how pointless they seem, all have some agenda, even if that's not the agenda you were hoping for or even expecting, walking into the film.

  In the end, Hail, Caesar! becomes much more of a political commentary on the time period and because we're talking 60 years ago, the themes feel often goofy and theatrical. And I do believe that's definitely part of the plan with the film. It's so engrossed in the atmosphere of stagey, 1950s theatrics that there's a breaking point, with whatever little of the story is presented, where you question what's actually part of the story and what's part of the fictional film sets? Yes we leave Hollywood and we head to ambiguous locations looking for Clooney but because the feel of the film is so droll in the way that many 1950s films actually are, it makes the scenes that are more "serious" come across stagey and comical. Again, I really do believe this is the Coens' entire intention and it harks back to the idea of Hail, Caesar! playing out as sort of one big inside joke.

OMG WE'RE SO FUNNY

  The end result of the film almost plays out as if one of the brothers lost a bet to the other and had to take as big of an all-star cast and do as little with a script as humanly possible and STILL see if it would do well. And when I say that I'm not at all bashing the film. Is it one of their weaker pictures? Absolutely, but from an average moviegoer's perspective. As someone who desires to be in on the joke, the movie's ridiculously appealing because at bare minimum, at least it's an depth look into legit 1950s filmmaking that glorify the lost days of Charlton Heston swords & sandals desert epics, as told by the Coen bros. In fact, it could be argued that the film could even be retitled "a comedic look into the 1950s (as well as The Future)... as told by the Coen bros." and it would sell the actual premise of what's going on in the film's atmosphere more than that glorious trailer had everyone rushing out to see what the fuss was all about (it's such a good trailer). Because for the Coens, I like to believe that they didn't want a fuss; they wanted to prove that they, sometimes, just do weird sh*t for whatever personal reasons tickle their fancy and they wanted to see what fans would actually stick around and see what they were trying to do with the material given.

  Perhaps I am looking way too into it. Or perhaps I'm in denial. Maybe in my transformed age of blindly walking into a Coen bros. film expecting to be impressed no matter what (something my 18 year-old self would have kicked my ass for saying), I've tried to pick apart Hail, Caesar! more the average moviegoer and maybe (just maybe), I'm getting in too deep because in the end, it probably is only a look into 1950s filmmaking (as told by the Coens) and by trying to make it out to be more than that, I'm the one the Coens are playing the joke on. (I'm the chucklehead) Maybe the Coens aren't smart enough to come up with a plan like that, to turn their fans on their own heads (or to fool me); maybe the Coens LITERALLY just wanted an excuse to make a satire on the Heston days of filmmaking but have fat Jonah Hill be in it for no reason.

WHO KNOWS

  Either way, if you're really a Coen bros. fan you'll find something to love about Hail, Caesar! because you don't need reassurance. You've loved them all along; you loved them when A Serious Man ended with a tornado and you loved them when No Country cut to black (even though it might take nearly 8 years for you to appreciate it); you loved them even when Marlon Wayans was essentially just playing Shorty from Scary Movie in The Ladykillers; 

I mean, let's be honest

 You loved them when they did only ONE short segment of Paris je t'aime (Paris, I love you); You MIGHT even own the DVD just for that segment; You loved them when no one else loved Intolerable Cruelty; not even yourself. And more importantly, you love them for just how dark Barton Fink gets; you love them for the nostalgia of Blood Simple, even if you don't know why it's nostalgic; you love when you discovered that O Brother Where Art Thou is just a folk tale retelling of The Odyssey; you love the lack of a Hollywood ending, or an ending at all; you love how they changed the game with dark humor and you love what they've done for cinema all these years.

  Yes folks, I'm wankin' um pretty hard right now but their latest outing reminded me just how different the Coen brothers' take on films really are and I'm reminded me why I love them. I love their work; I love their weird and darkly humorous contribution to the film industry and I will continue to love and look forward to their future films, even when their films about The Future are as baffling and as strange as Hail, Caesar!

"It's a prestige picture"

  
  They're not always easy to decipher but even when they're almost putting you to sleep, The Coen bros. still know how to pump out a movie that's different than the rest of the pack; films I continue to come back to and return to over and over again. It's a little alarming that so many films so dark and bleak and cynical can create so much joy in my heart but it's not just me; I'm not the only one who views their work that way; they have a following for a reason, and it's only now that I'm really just starting to figure out what that reason is... Even if I sometimes worry about it too much.

The Dude abides.