Ahhh, Fargo. If only all movies were this good. I remember seeing this film for the first time on DVD about 6 years ago and I knew right then and there that it was a masterpiece.
Story: Check.
Editing: Check.
Acting: Check.
Directing: Check.
Cinematography: Check.
Masterpiece: Check.
But seriously, Fargo is just awesome. And man, I love awesome movies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Masterpiece? We've used that term so much now that I'm no longer sure how I define a masterpiece. I don't think this quite achieves 'masterpiece' status for me though.
I had no idea you were such a big teaser, Andrew. You had better watch your back, funny guy. Sooner or later, you're going to slip up and admit that you like something like "Delta Farce" or "The Master of Disguise," and I'll be here to make sure you pay for it. ;)
i love how your posts create all this controversy. Nonetheless, i'd love to hear what you really think about this film. Also, as a side note: This film is not far from masterpiece range for me. It has terrific acting across the board, fascinating characters, great writing, great story, great editing, great cinematography, etc. Of course, there are VERY few films that critics unanimously call masterpieces. i suppose we all have our own criteria.
with all due respect
(this now allows me to say whatever i want...)
;)
(this being directed to Andrew...but open to all to read and respond to)
i feel like i was pretty thoughtful in my post. of course i also added how i felt about the film...but i feel like i analyzed aspects of it pretty deeply. and a lot of what i wrote about the humor was in response to other posts (the beginnings of conversation/discussion/analysis). the other contributors also focused on a lot of the character development and general theme and so forth, with no comments, response, or discussion in general...
i tried to gear my post in response to other posts while adding my take on the film and its details to evoke some discussion...i didn't see any comments or conversation spark from your direction, other than a very short synopsis of your take on Fargo being a moral tale...
and finally your post is sans-analysis and thought (although, NOW i do understand the humor in it, i originally didn't though...i guess i just don't know how to detect your sense of humor...especially via digital medium...)
So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm ready for discussion/analysis if you are...let's see it...and if you don't feel like the posts are digging very deeply, why don't you call people on it, or respond with questions or with a thought provoking post of your own?
p.s.
and how can you criticize other people's posts when you yourself have not yet posted on any of the films?
well, other than the back and forth arguments about whether or not "The Dark Knight" qualified as a masterpiece.
Uh oh, Andrew. I think Travis is calling you out, Bro. ;)
(I can't thank you all enough for taking this blog so seriously.)
I, too, think my post about "Fargo" was sufficiently analytical, Mr. James.
And I agree with Travis. I'd be happy to have you dig deeper any time you think I haven't covered a film well enough. That's ideal, in fact.
This is precisely why I invited all you passionate, opinionated hot shots to write on this blog: As a movie critic, I want to be able to have these kinds of discussions (or FRIENDLY battles) with the likes of you folks.
Nevertheless, there are a few contributors whose only qualification for writing on this blog is that they're lovers of film. Indeed, these few writers have made no claims of being experts in film. So, when a writer posts subjective impressions or descriptive reactions about how the film affected him or her, I think there's also value in that post, as well as the more academic ones.
After all, if I were a filmmaker, I'd be interested in hearing how certain films affect viewers.
In any case, Mr. Andrew James, you're the official Considering the Cinema gadfly, which is a most valuable position, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Let's hear your thoughts on "Dancer in the Dark." Bjork is waiting to hear from you.
This is a slightly edited version of what Torben B. wrote above. The author's initial meaning is preserved and in tact. (Sorry, rules are rules):
Torben B. wrote:
Yeah, you a**hole. ;)
Correction: That's "intact," one word.
;)
Love you too Andrew...
I hope things are going well on your shoots.
What are you shooting for, the Cleanflix doc???
Good luck!!!
i've never enjoyed rules. i try to break them when possible --- within reason, of course. Will someone explain to me the difference between a**hole and the obvious counterpart? It's just that this flippin' hysteria over freakin' explicit language is some confusing shiz. Language is just so darn vast and heck if i understand why i adhere to "curse words" that find themselves in our lexicon of "dirty words" because they stem either from the yucky mortal body or religious roots. Oh golly, i'm such a monitor lizard (does it count if i use the equivalent of the "F" word from the Thai language?)!What if i'm quoting dialogue from a movie? Is it okay then? :)
P.s.
i love u all.
Here here.
I've also never understood the urge of trying to censor words with an asterisk, or with the substitution of a few letters, or any other symbol for that matter. If everyone here is more comfortable and/or OK with the rule, I totally respect that. (It doesn't need to be pointed out that the films we are watching have a great deal of profanity...well, there, I just did point it out...)
;)
Having stated the above...I firmly believe that censorship communicates the word even more obviously, which actually gives it more power by making it taboo. (So, for us trouble makers, this can be a lot of fun to play with.) I feel this way about all censorship actually. When something is censored, the imagination usually assumes the worst, or is at least right about the real thing that is under censorship, and in the case of the word (or image, or object), it is only referring to something we are thinking in a certain learned context, so the "damage" ends up being the same or worse. We invest power and meaning into words, images, objects and actions...they don't contain power in themselves. I can't help but think of George Carlin's (RIP) legendary bit titled "7 words" now...if you haven't heard it, look it up on YouTube right away...it's great fun, and great insight into language/censorship, etc. Lenny Bruce was also did an incredible job (repeatedly) of playing satire on censorship, and illustrating how it doesn't "work", and how it is arbitrary/silly.
Very kindly yours...Grabloid
Post a Comment