The problem with Mike Yanagita. Is there one? I have to admit, first off, that I had not fully comprehended the dimension Alex points out. However, is the very fact that I didn't notice it important? Richard Kelly (the director of Donnie Darko) spoke on Radio 4 about Fargo and a full transcript of the interview is available here. He says "So the Mike Yanagita scene is actually really, really important on a character level. On a plot level, it’s superfluous and it’s just the Coen Bros. just being weird or self-indulgent maybe". In a way then, Alex and I agree. He was thinking of character, I of plot. But I remember in this viewing of the film thinking 'why is Marge going back to see Jerry?'. I couldn't figure out why. Now it makes sense. But is this sense far to formulaic? Is it overly contrived? My very inability to figure it out points to that conclusion, for me. It's not obvious to the audience. It alienates them. The scene with Mike seems strange and out of place. When people criticise my writing for certain things I sometimes say 'well I meant to do that', and they reply 'it doesn't matter if you meant to do it or not, it's bad'. Is this the case here? I think so. I think it is a very clever moment. Marge realises she can't trust people and so goes back to Jerry. But that is an internal reaction and we are given no indication of it. I don't think it would've taken much to give us some help here. This could've been done much better, I think.
Also, Alex asked a question which he didn't answer: 'But will the changes in her appreciation of others affect her much more over the course of her life even though everything seems the same at the end?'. I think the answer is no. I think this is the importance of the line about stamps that I mentioned. She tidies things up, but never really realises anything herself.
3 comments:
I think your point about criticism is the most important here. Basically if you a smart viewer of large number of films didn't get the point of Mike's character then the film fails. It doesn't matter that the Coens planned for it to be obscure if you didn't get it then it didn't really work.
The thing I think that's happened here is that they made the mistake of having the needs of the character override the plot. She had to be quiet and not necessarily get the situation she'd landed in. But here the penny does drop, and she does get something. Perhaps just an insert of her on the phone to norm saying she was staying out for an extra day and why.
And yet I don't think the character would actually do this. She wouldn't want to speak ill about Jerry until all of the facts are in. She just had a hunch. Perhaps a bigger re-write where the other cop came down with her and she could turn back to him and say something like, "I think we're going to have to go and see Jerry again". But then the conversation on the phone would still have been private.
In effect to fix the plot they would have to break the character. She would probably have had to have said something about the case to the women on the phone. And breaking characters seems to be something the Coens seem very reluctant to do.
When filming a scene with Peter Stormare he said the line, "I want pancake house". And one of the Coens came over and told him it was, "I want pancakes house". When Stormare asked what difference it made the Coen responded that it was just the way the guy said it. As though the character actually existed and was being quoted verbatim.
I think the interesting thing about the Coens is that they don't really seem to make films for anyone other than themselves. And it's more luck than anything else that any of them have been accepted by an audience.
As one extra note the information I got about Richard Kelly came from the directors commentary of Donnie Darko which was very interesting.
You certiainly get that sense of character dominance in 'The Big Lebowski'.
I just searched Richard Kelly and 'Fargo' on Google and came up with the Radio 4 thing, so presumed that's where you'd heard it. Maybe he has a different emphasis in the commentary?
but that Herr Detective would have required me to have known that Kelly had an opinion. But yes I take your point.
Different emphasis? I'm not sure. I remember listening to the commentary and finding it interesting and I remembered that factoid, but assign motive retroactively would be tough. Maybe it's time to watch Donnie Darko again? And find out what the point of his character is.
Post a Comment