Intolerable Cruelty, Again

I saw a press screening of Kill Bill tonight, but before I write about that, I want to say something about Intolerable Cruelty. Before the film, a fellow outside the theater was talking about the Coens' films - he said that Fargo and Lebowski were the best, and that he had trouble getting into O Brother, which I can understand as I share his sentiments. He had seen IC and was generally favorable, though noted that it was a fairly understated comedy from the bros. I'll try to see the film tomorrow, but I wanted to bring up the NYT review of the film, specifically this section:

The Coens, bless their hearts, are too smart to apologize for avarice — it's what gave screwball comedies a kick, and sends this movie straight to your head. Keep in mind that it's only a minor rush, but a rush nonetheless. It has a Jell-O-shot smoothness that makes you a little dizzy afterward in recollecting how assured and unremittingly smart "Intolerable Cruelty" is. The second word in the title is a little too apt; this movie should pack a license to kill.

Now, I *think* this qualifies as a mixed metaphor, but far more important is this: what the holy fuck does this mean? Is this favorable? Unfavorable? Muted praise? Does this express a complex reaction to the film, or is it a convoluted bit of writing that says as little as it seems?

The first sentence follows an idea from the previous paragraph (or, if you are a dickless fuckface, graf) which takes Brian Grazer to task for giving greedy characters in his previous screwball comedies "hearts of gold." That is, those films copped out in the end by sentimentally making their characters more likeable, showing that they're not bad people after all. What this has to do with screwball comedies of the past is beyond me.

I'm no expert in the genre, but the ones I have seen don't seem to focus exclusively on issues of greed or avarice. I mean, Ball of Fire certainly has money in it, but the fire and verve has less to do with bankrolls and more to do with Barbara Stanwyck seducing an uptight Gary Cooper with her foot. My personal favorite screwball, The Lady Eve, has Stanwyck yet again going the foot seduction route, this time with Henry Fonda. In TLE, Stanwyck plays a con woman who tries to hoodwink Fonda but eventually falls in love with him. That is, she's an avaricious firebrand who comes to have a more complex, human, and sympathetic attitude towards others. Which is rather not the point of the ludicrously-named Elvis Mitchell's review. Avarice was not the sole motivator in screwball comedies, and those films were quite successful in creating more complex characters out of proto Gordon Geckos. I think Elvis' beef with Brian Grazer has to do with Grazer making shitty, sentimental movies, but he confusedly wrote it as a laughable universal statement that's as true as it is coherent.

As for all the talk of killing and getting buzzed on jello shots, I have no fucking idea what he's saying. In the context of the rest of the review, probably not much.

I have more bones to pick with the NYT, specifically their Kill Bill review, but I'll save that for a Kill Bill entry.

Posted by mattb at October 10, 2003 05:00 AM