Reflecting current trends in America's consciousness

Rating: 8/10 (7 August 2008)

One common thread running through roasts of this film is that it betrays viewers out of a satisfying ending. Critics moan about the supposed trite nature of the plot, which for them only boils down to glamorized bloodlust. There is nearly an equal amount of rah-rah rhetoric.
This film disappoints or confuses shallow movie-goers while wowing sycophants because of who America is in 2007/2008. We are divided between those who refuse to find ingenuity in anything unconventional on the one hand, and those who gush with joy over any social critique on the other.
Ironically, the movie itself reflects precisely those fears and frustrations, as well as our culture's celebration of egotistical courage and insanity.
Tommy Lee is the embodiment of the fears of a dying generation that is overwhelmed by the deluge of changes taking place in the world, mostly criminal in kind. His ultimate resignation reflects the threadbare nature of those who have become so paralyzed by the futility of doing good in today's world that they succumb to their desperation and bow out.
He is of the generation that is flummoxed by the ambiguous nature of morality in our present culture. He spends plenty of scenes commenting on brutal events in 1980 and how perplexing they are. The viewer is supposed to agree, feel dazed themselves, and to imagine how much worse things must be now.
Does he have his regrets about not engaging the wickedness? Of course. But he sees that it would be as silly as putting Sugar Ray Robinson while suffering from diabetes and Alzheimer's, who is said to have once "embodied the essence of the sweet science", in the ring with the ear-biting thug Mike Tyson at his violent peak.
The sheriff is factually outmatched and knows it, Whereas his Uncle, because of his hubris, ran head-on into destruction. In fact, every victim in this film seems to be taken by surprise by the tidal wave of unscrupulousness that pummels them. Though ashamed, this sheriff is more self-actualized than any idealists.
One dark side of our culture is seen in the blind greed of the hero. We're supposed to ask ourselves why we hope he gets away with it, why we desire that he beat the insane villain in a showdown. Unreflective Americans don't. They just want Brodin to kill the "bad guy" and get away with the money. Doesn't it matter that it's drug money? The one-dimensional person is being criticized for his double-standards, which the Coens know they will be employing upon viewing this. Why are most of the angry critics of this film so betrayed by an off-screen resolution of such a questionable hero? Instead of wondering about our feelings of betrayal, the spiritual bankruptcy of our society consumes us. We are merely angered that we didn't at least get to see him go down with a fight.
But note that our hero is a Viet Nam vet. He represents a generation of idealists who end up hospitalized and cheated out of their stand off. Though skillful and tough as hell, the spirit of the Viet Nam soldier was ultimately crushed, because he never got to face an identifiable enemy. We made them bleed a little in Nam, but the ghost-like enemy just stitched itself back up. So we lost our focus, became disorganized and intoxicated.
Harrelson's character is similar, yet at another level. He's no underdog VN Vet. He represents the hubris of shrewd underworld gophers entangled by greed. He and those who hired him get what they deserve: a brief introduction, moment of fame, speedy trials & executions.
The psychotic killer in the movie simply reflects what our country and culture is trying to process at present. He is 9/11, every tsunami, earthquake, hurricane, the L.A. riots, and an amalgam of Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and the Iceman all balled up into one.
He's insane, it seems. But is his killing indiscriminate? Or is there some perverted rhyme and reason to it? He reminds me of the grim reaper, who comes and goes, exacting judgment on those who dare toy with Â– or even moralize over - the forces empowering him.
Insane, wrathful, yet determined destruction is what he embodies. Why stand in the path of a tornado? You'd have to be colossally dumb, have your own death wish or simply be self-righteous, proud and angry yourself to do so. Which is why most of those who meet him bite it.
Still, one reaps what one sows. The motto the villain lives by punishes him all the same: freak car accident.
But evil, although slowed by injury, somehow feels unstoppable in today's world. The villain meanders off. What chief device does ruthlessness use to distract witnesses? Bribery. Blinded by their greed, two boys in one scene no longer care about what they've witnessed or what it might mean. They are shown tugging on a hundred dollar bill.
The Coens show us these uncomfortable truths about ourselves and about our violent, greedy society in a crisp, harsh way. The set feels and looks beautifully gritty, the characters are believably dumb, greedy, proud, violent and exhausted. It's an interesting movie that relies much on Hitchcock-style suspense and cinematography.
The only reason I'd give it an 8+ instead of a nine or ten is that I am annoyed when street shoot-outs do not attract attention. A number of car crashes and gunfights are lengthy enough to have drawn some kind of crowd but don't, whereas when necessary (rag in gas tank in front of pharmacy), they do.
Aside from these insignificant annoyances, the content and tension in this film is well-placed enough so that anyone in their right mind would be able to see what this film is saying, why it is almost "important" and how it received the accolades that it did.