Review of The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) by Caitlyn M — 28 Oct 2009

The Coen brothers are my favorite filmmakers working today. Their films work on multiple layers, channeling a unique aesthetic that combines classic film with a darker, more opaque form of storytelling that has inspired much of the modern indie. They don't simplify, but they utilize simplicity. They allow the viewers to take in their gorgeous visuals, interesting characters, oddball humor, and for fans like me, it is only after a couple of viewings that I really try to dig into the thematic gold mine that the majority of their "serious" films are. For the first few viewings, it is almost too easy to sit back and be overwhelmed by the strength of their craft.

I'm not saying The Hudsucker Proxy is one of the Coens serious films. Its references to the past classic screwballs would almost hint that it is in the same vein as Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, and Burn After Reading. I would actually say it is the place where their works like Fargo and Miller's Crossing meet those films, and I don't understand why critics have failed to notice what an achievement that is.

Like the Coens' more prestigious works, The Hudsucker Proxy is an artistic creation of unparalleled vision. Roger Ebert criticized the combination of a fifties world and thirties deco art. I don't understand why such a combination can't work. It's drop dead gorgeous, so why mess with it. I think the general consensus on the movie can be summed up in that way. The critics didn't like the lack of character. But the characters are briliant parodies of the screwball genre, and their actors play them so well. It's enjoyable to watch the characters, so why on earth would you hate on them? The story is occasionally muddled, and tries to do too much, so the critics say. However, how many movies get away with doing too little. You know what? I don't think the movie tries to do too much. I think its themes put a universality on the idea of free creativity, and I was blown away by the way the Coens melded those ideas into an engaging film. I just don't understand why people with visions far less interesting than the Coens' have to impart their own qualifications on such genius. Why can't we meet a film where its at, especially when its creators have taken us so many wonderful places, before and since.