Delayed Reaction: The Man Who Wasn’t There

Premise: A small town barber gets caught up in a murder investigation.

 

On a fun note, this is my last Coen Brothers movie. I’ve now seen all 19 (including The Tragedy of Macbeth). There are a few that I barely remember and need to see again like Raising Arizona, Miller’s Crossing, Barton Fink, and Intolerable Cruelty, but dammit, I’ve seen them. Retention wasn’t part of the assignment. The Man Who Wasn’t There is easily among my least favorite of theirs. That is a high bar, of course.

 

The word I always default to with the Coens is “idiosyncratic”. It’s hard to imitate that tone. When they try to tamp it down, I don’t tend to care for the results. That’s why The Tragedy of Macbeth left me cold. Blood Simple feels a little anonymous. No Country for Old Men is arguably the exception to the rule, but a lot of the reason that works is that they somehow channel that same energy into menace. The Man Who Wasn’t There is similar to a lot of their movies on the surface. It’s a noir crime movie with colorful characters. Where it differs is that instead of being a neo-noir, they are making a straight-up film noir. It’s like they shot every scene, told the actors “Now let’s do it again but with less”, and used the second take for every time. I found it dull in a way that Coen movies never should.

 

Side Rant: I’m getting really bored of the “black and white” cheat code to an Oscar nomination. That’s the only Oscar this film was nominated for and it’s a reminder that we’ve been playing this game for decades now. Can I please get the rules of what makes good Cinematography? I’m pretty sure black and white films keep getting noms because black and white is striking. I don’t think that’s all there should bed to it. Or is it similar to loud movies getting sound nominations? I do think The Man Who Wasn’t There is a good looking movie. I’m just annoyed at how transparent the logic is for praising its cinematography.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don’t Recommend