Skip to main content

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
(2018)

(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
"You seen 'em, you play 'em."

In the opening and closing chapters, the tales explicitly draw attention to the weights and measures and overriding system in which mere mortals operate, although tonally they’re not remotely bedfellows. Ballad is gleefully flippant and irreverent, even to the point of its protagonist's death, at which point Buster sprouts wings and a harp – in spite of being a mass killer – and ascends to the heavens, singing away just as before (perhaps he's granted admittance through the pearly gates because he has a good voice?) 


As the introductory tale, Ballad might be considered to wrong-foot the audience, so frivolous and playful is it, accompanying singing cowboy Scruggs, who talks to the camera à la another famous Coens cowboy (Sam Elliott in The Big Lewbowski), complete with same kind of delicious verbiage ("Known to some as the San Saba Songbird, I got other handles, nicknames, appellations and cognomens" – he objects to the label misanthrope). Tim Blake Nelson, previously of O Brother, Where Art Thou? makes for delightful casting as the unlikely crack shot gunslinger (I could see Bruce Willis pulling this part off with aplomb, back in his Moonlighting and Bruno days – equally, there's more than a hint of a Three Amigos-era Martin Short). 


Buster's a parody of the fastest draw in the West, maintaining the same cheerful disposition even when weaponless and faced by an armed Clancy Brown in a saloon (the solution is a hilariously bloody visual gag x3), or called to a duel with Brown's brother (Jefferson Mays), during which he shoots off his fingers before using a mirror for a final deadly trick shot. When Buster's subsequently bested in a duel, he’s philosophical ("Can't be top dog forever"), he and the victor engaging in a duet as he flies off; the implication is that, while the rules of the West are readily acknowledged, they’re also superficial and equivocal, such that, once in the hereafter "we can shake our heads over all the meanness in the used to be".


In Ballad at least, then, death is treated as irreverently as its central character; it's almost the classic reductive Coens pose, in fact, where by drawing attention to their "theme" in the text, they eliminate any further discussion of it. It's only as elastic as the story itself. And in this case, the story's a hoot.


Near Algodones
"Pan-shot!" cried the old man.

There's further flippancy in the James Franco-starring second instalment, although it's of a less overtly glib nature. This and the subsequent tale are the most to-the-point in the telling, taking the form of a narrative setup and subsequent punchline, with little room for anything else. Franco's Cowboy robs a bank only to be met by a surprisingly robust response from Stephen Root's Teller, suited up with a series of protective pots and pans: "That pan-covered son of a bitch back at the bank don't hardly fight fair in my opinion".


The joke here is that, having been granted a miraculous escape from the hangman's noose when a Native American war party make short work of the lynch mob – they leave him hanging – he is rescued by a "drover", arrested for rustling and returned to the gallows once more; we assume the dopey Franco must have some rare luck, like Tuco in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ("First time?" he blithely asks a fellow guilty party), but when the lever is pulled, that's it for him. It's an effective rug pull, in that we're expecting something more; fate is arbitrary and inconsistent. Root's eccentric teller is the highlight of this one, though.


Meal Ticket
"The quality of mercy…"

The bleakest of the sextet, as Liam Neeson’s impresario tours towns with a limbless performing artist (Harry Melling, best known as Dudley Dursley). Aside from his performances, which consist of recitations from the classics, the Bible and the Gettysburg Address to varyingly sized audiences, the proceedings are near silent, so there’s mundane repetition to the (lack of) developments. 


I was looking for a clue to the connection between these two characters, or how Harrison ended up in his state, but none is forthcoming; as such I wondered at the visit to the prostitute, where she asks "He ever had any?" and Neeson replies "Once". Did he mean he "generously" paid for him once, or is there a more sinister story behind it? I suspect, though, it's as simple as it appears, particularly given the title. The impresario has wearied of the burden of Harry, such that when he comes across a mathematical chicken ("The calculating capon! The pecking Pythagorean!") wowing the crowd, the equation is simple; a human life is worth less than that of a chicken, particularly when it fails to bring the punters. So Harry is thrown from a bridge into the river below and the chicken takes his place in the back of the wagon. 


It isn't a particularly nuanced or satisfying tale, exerting the force of a blunt instrument. But it does emphasise a different tack in terms of the morality of the yarns. Where in the first two, outlaws could be regarded as receiving their comeuppance, here, unless there's information withheld from us, an innocent party is coldly dispatched for pecuniary gain, and there's no consequence for the guilty man concerned.


All Gold Canyon
And in all that mighty sweep of earth he saw no sign of man nor the handiwork of man.

Another perspective might be seen to intrude in the fourth tale, based on a Jack London story. For the most part, it plays out with the slow, sure pace of its predecessor, as the inimitable and always authentic Tom Waits – a gold prospector – sets to work in an idyllic valley ("Where are you, Mr Pocket?") There's every indication that the surrounding environment reluctantly endures his presence and returns to its carefree existence when he is gone.


But being one who spends much of his time alone in the wilderness, Waits has built his own codes and superstitions, which may or may not be valid; his decision not to steal an owl's eggs, given how it is giving him the eye (well, bar one: "How high can a bird count, anyway?") appears to earn him a favour later, when, after being shot in the back by a "measly skunk" (Sam Dillon) the owl hoots at a crucial moment, distracting the measly skunk.


One might suggest the prospector is merely the least destructive party, then, but the justice at work here isn’t about how right or wrong the man attempting to steal from the prospector is; it's based on how respectful of the valley the prospector is.


The Gal Who Got Rattled
"Mr Arthur had no idea what he would say to Billy Knapp."

Like the third chapter, this tale – by some distance the longest at forty minutes – features characters undeservingly undone by cruel twists of fate, but succeeds much better thanks to an engrossing plotline that shifts focus several times before its wagon train reaches its destination.


The quote under the introductory illustration for this one is also the final sentence in the story, a clue that the gal of the title (Zoe Kazan’s Alice Longabaugh) may not be making it to the end. In a sense, there is a law at work here, but it’s the one of the West, defined, as with the Neeson story, as dividing the weak from the strong; Alice has no agency of her own in a harsh climate, and with the sudden death of her brother she is at the mercy of the kindness or cruelty of those she encounters.


It's also the brothers' most blackly comic tale, pulling shifts in who we think is the protagonist and who is actually in control of events. It looks as if a tentative romance between Alice and wagon train handler Billy Knapp (Bill Heck) may resolve her problems, but it’s a prospect that doesn't please Billy’s colleague Mr Arthur (Grainger Hines), who will be left in the lurch if Billy settles in Oregon. And then there's her (brother's) dog, President Pierce, taken by Billy to be put down because of his barking, with Alice's blessing. The President manages to escape, and Alice discovers him watching prairie dogs; if not for President Pierce, Alice and Mr Arthur (who notices she’s missing and goes to find her) wouldn't have been attacked by Comanches, and Alice wouldn't have mistakenly thought Mr Arthur had been killed, so following his instructions to shoot herself to avoid capture ("She hadn't oughta to have did it"). 


One might read this as a crafty plot on President Pierce's part; he and Mr Arthur return to the wagon train together, while Billy, who conspired with Alice in the hound's destruction, is left with nothing. Is it coincidental that after both the Coens and Wes Anderson mistreated cats in recent movies (Inside Llewyn Davis and Grand Budapest Hotel respectively) they should make ones this year in which dogs are granted a free pass? Probably. Also of incidental note, the protagonist of Suburbicon was Episcopalian, and so is Zoe Kazan here. I'm sure they just like the sound of the word.


The switch in perspective that comes in this final sequence is deftly achieved. Peripheral character Mr Arthur moves to centre stage and his orderly approach to a deadly situation of Comanches on the warpath, juggled with the humour of them also falling down prairie dog holes, makes for a first-rate action sequence. Kazan delivers a memorable and affecting turn, although President Pierce is ultimately going to get all the sympathy votes. Because he's a dog.


The Mortal Remains
We know him, only at the end.

As with All Gold Canyon, The Mortal Remains offers a non-human perspective on life and mortality. It's also by far the most horror-tinged of the anthology, not in graphic content, but thematically. Indeed, I was reminded of the framing story to Vault of Horror (1973) – SPOILERS for it in the rest of this paragraph – in which five strangers find themselves in a gentlemen's club upon disembarking a lift; there's no way back into the lift, so they tell each other tales while waiting for help; when the lift door finally opens, there's a graveyard on the other side, into which they disappear as they exit (they're damned souls required to tell the story of their evil deeds for all eternity).


The Mortal Remains isn't quite as elaborate in purpose, but it's essentially a similar setup, of a party conveyed to hell/the afterlife, in this case a stagecoach consisting of Tyne Daly's proper Christian Mrs Betjamin, Saul Rubinek's cheeky Frenchman René, Chelchie Ross' Trapper and Brendan Gleeson and Jonjo O’Neill's reapers (which the Trapper takes to mean bounty hunters on account of the body on the roof).


There isn't much more to it that that. Rubinek was magnificent in a magnificent western, of course (Unforgiven) and following her outrage at the Trapper's assertion that "People are like ferrets", René has mischievous fun suggesting Mrs Betjamin’s clearly demarcated account of good and evil may require further contemplation on her part, and perhaps she should consider what her husband gets up to on all those lonely business trips ("Take it easy. He's just a Frenchman!" exclaims Gleeson when she starts hitting René). Gleeson and O’Neill make a good double act ("We're a duo, a tandem, a team"), and there are allusions to the purposeless of the whole shebang, as with the opener ("I do like looking into their eyes as they try to make sense of it… All of it").


It's a neatly told tale then, and likably performed, but you could hardly argue that it's particularly original.


Overall:

Has an anthology ever been made that wasn't uneven (well, there are probably some that are outright dire, but I'll exclude them for the sake of looking for positives)? The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is at its weakest engaging in a singular, extended sick punchline (Meal Ticket) and at its best when allowing the brothers to unleash their most unfettered comedic sensibilities (Scruggs) or giving themselves the time to let a tale breathe with additional melancholic complexion (The Gal Who Got Rattled). I doubt that this will be many people's favourite Coen Brothers movie – like the previous Hail Caesar! there’s a sense they know they're making something that's largely inessential, even unto themselves – but it still provides an effective primer for their range and versatility.



The tales in descending order of ranking:

The Gal Who Got Rattled
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
All Gold Canyon
The Mortal Remains
Near Algodones
Meal Ticket

Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.