Friday, 7 September 2012
The Big Lebowski
Every time I see this film I like it more - except for last
week. Last week, having enjoyed most of the length of the film, I reached the
end somewhat disappointed. Why is this? The film is strange in more ways than
is obvious. The narration by Sam Elliott which bookends the movie, and his
brief appearance in the middle of it, is one of the more bizarre aspects. The
film could easily exist without it. Yet it is a narration which purposefully
tells us nothing, and does so from a explicitly biased perspective. We the
audience are not supposed to relate in any way with the Texan. Is he voice of
authority, morals, the outsider or society? It was something he said that left
me disappointed, but I’ll get to that later. The Dude, Jeff Lebowski, played by
Jeff Bridges, is assaulted by two men who have confused him with another Jeff
Lebowski – a far richer and more important one: ostensibly the ‘big Lebowski’
of the title. From this confusion, The Dude becomes involved in a supposed
kidnapping and ransom demand. All he wants, really, is a new rug. He has little
to no ambition or intentions. He is just trying to get by, or, as he says: the
dude abides. It feels, however, that he is a private detective in a plot from
the 1940s (something like Chinatown).
The actual private detective that he meets spells this out: he’s playing one
side against the other, in bed with everybody, including the beautiful woman.
This couldn’t be further from the truth, of course. The Dude has virtually no
idea what’s going on. It is a brilliant performance by Jeff Bridges, but we
shouldn’t forget John Goodman and Philip Seymour Hoffman (compare him here to
his role in Mission Impossible). The
music is excellent and the dialogue is a perfect example of the surreal-deadpan
style of the Coen brothers. What happens, though, at the end? The Texan’s
narration closes the film off, and it was this remark in particular that perturbed
me: ‘things seemed to have worked out pretty well for the Dude’. Did they? When
you look at it, he is actually worse off than he was at the beginning: one of
his closest friends has died, he lost his rug, and didn’t get paid anything by
Lebowski. Perhaps the comment is ironic, perhaps the Dude is happy because he
can go on bowling, living his life his way with no disturbance. It would feel
wrong if he suddenly was given a lot of money, or found love. Something here
feels wrong. Can the film be ended satisfactorily? Did the Coen brothers do the
best they could with the character and the plot they had created?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Hateful Eight
Tarantino has said he'll only make ten films, and then retire. I don't know if he still stands by this statement, and if he does we ...
-
The name may seem a bit odd, and perhaps slightly self-pitying. The reasons for it, however, are fourfold: Because I was intending at the ...
-
The third film of Quentin Tarantino is perhaps the least talked about and least appreciated. I don't remember ever seeing it at the cin...
-
Would you watch Memento in order? Perhaps you already have. Some might say the only value in the film is that of solving a complex puzzle. ...
2 comments:
It is an odd comment at the end, and I think it is designed to make you sail out of the movie on a high which is probably not there. Actually of course he gets to go back to normal which may well be what he wants.
The movie by the way that The Big Lebowski most resembles is in my opinion the Big Sleep. The similarities are way to high for it to be a coincidence especially given it's the Coen Brother's we're talking about here. Certainly worth a rewatch to get a companion blog post out of it!
Yes, the Big Sleep sounds like a better example (only saw it that once years ago with you). I was trying to think of an example but could only come up with Chinatown (not even made in the 40s!).
Post a Comment