Review of The Man Who Wasn't There (2001) by Ryan M — 21 Aug 2010

7.9/10.

While not amongst the Cohen Brother?s best films, ?The Man Who Wasn?t There? is still a very, very entertaining homage to neo-noir films. It may not be as mediocre as some of the Cohen Brother?s lesser efforts, but then again it has enough style to be a true film from the dynamic duo. So how can a black and white film be effective even now? Well, I?ll tell you why. I would not have enjoyed the film any other way. Since Joel and Ethan Coen are a great pair of directors, they both seem to be comfortable with the choices that they make. Perhaps they thought, ?Hey, this would look and feel better in black and white? before putting the film together, although then again maybe it just happened. Nevertheless, I was pleased with the result. ?The Man Who Wasn?t There? delivers what you?d typically expect out of a Cohen brother?s film: Excellent cinematography, fine story-telling, flawless casting, and stylish directing. Despite how much you anticipate seeing each of these things, they still seem like relatively NEW ways to experience a Cohen Brother?s film. I mean, this is not a perfect film because it simply does not have perfection written all over the black and white landscapes. It is often times beautiful, and certainly unique, but what the hell. I?m sorry to say that it?s not always brilliant, but in succeeds in being so most of the time. So basically, this is a film with an awesome name that happens to be pretty awesome as a film alone. My most recent awesomely named cinematic encounter was ?The Men Who Stare at Goats?, and I think most of us know how well that turned out to be. I think I also mention ?The Men Who Stare at Goats? because some have compared it to some of the Cohen Brother?s notable works. I see no similarities, unless you?re talking about ?O? Brother Where Art Thou?, which isn?t even a genuinely good Cohen Brother?s film. But luckily, ?The Man Who Wasn?t There? is a film with character, style, and plenty of classic film moments that feel refreshingly familiar.

?The Man Who Wasn?t There? is a story of a quiet barber named Ed Crane, who feels as if he lives a far too simplistic life. In short, he feels like life has more potential. He?s not particularly happy, although he is married. The only drawback there is that his wife is currently cheating on him with a man named ?Big Dave?, and Ed sure as hell knows of it. But one day, fate is on ol? Ed?s side. One day, a man named Creighton Tolliver comes in for a little trim. He tells Ed that he is looking for investors in the currently undiscovered technologies of ?dry cleaning?. At first, Ed doesn?t take the offer, but soon enough he reconsiders. When he consults Tolliver, he is asked to fetch some money. Looking back on his wife?s unfaithful actions, Ed thinks of it as an opportunity to blackmail ?Big Dave? to get a good amount of cash for the investment. Sure enough, he blackmails Big Dave, although things get really out of hand from there. We are first made to think that Dave doesn?t have a clue just who blackmailer is, although soon enough he ambushes Ed. In an attempt to survive the night, Ed stabs and accidentally kills ?Big Dave?, although his wife eventually takes the blame for it. From then on, it?s all guilt, anxiety, and eventually court for or old buddy Ed. Now, this is a worthwhile story. At moments, it is simplistic, although it seems to have a deeper meaning to it than we?re made to think. Nevertheless, it?s really entertaining and pleasing, despite the uniqueness of the color. It shouldn?t matter though. I mean, the characters in this film are nothing short of incredible. Every piece of dialogue uttered in this film is completely perfect, and Ed in particular is a real character. So this is a pleasant night at the movies, no doubt. I find it hard to dislike a film like this, and I imagine that some may even adore it completely. But it is a beautiful film, so I don?t blame them.

Billy Bob Thornton does some amazing acting for once. His character is complex and likable from the start, which indicates alone that Mr. Thornton has dedicated himself to a role and a character more than he ever has before. There?s something above Thornton?.everything he does in the film, that steers him closer and closer towards what I?d call an easy Oscar nomination, if not an easy win. Francis McDormand is as lovely and solid as always, although I feel as if she almost always plays the same darn character in every film I?ve seen her in. No matter, she?s a good actress all around, and there?s definitely a certain amount of appeal to her. Michael Budalucco is good for his role by all means. He?s just there to be liked, and he certainly is a real character. None the less, he can?t measure up to the awesomeness of Thornton?s performance. James Gandolfini is good for the time that he?s there, in the film. I like him as an actor, and nothing has changed at all. Joel and Ethan Cohen know how to cast their stars perfectly. They can also manage to throw in several great cameos from Scarlett Johansson and Richard Jenkins. All together, it?s satisfactory stuff, and is not to be missed.

?The Man Who Wasn?t There? is a paragon of visual delight. It?s black and white, for Christ sake. But that?s hardly the point. Apparently this wonderful movie was shot in color, but brilliantly transferred to black and white. It was a darn good decision by all means, considering that the film manages to look great without genuine color. It?s as well shot as any good Cohen Brothers film. The camera angles are filled with wonder and finesse, and the black and white coloring pretty much adds on to the rich, addictive style of this fine drama. It looks good, and feels good. Luckily, that?s pretty much all I asked. The music is also fine, considering most of it is instrumental and classical. It fits in with the setting and overall ?feel? of the film quite nicely, which would probably explain why this film is so great in the first place. The production design is as great as one would hope it would be. Joel and Ethan Cohen recreate the 40?s on a nice visual level that captures the rather lifeless style of a barber?s life in the process. The set looks impressive, although you can?t always tell (with all the black and white coloring, not that anyone?s complaining). I mean what the hell. See it as you will, but I think this is a damn fine homage to classic film noirs.

While not completely excellent, I will say that I really enjoyed myself while watching ?The Man Who Wasn?t There?. This is a well made, well written, and superbly acted film that stands out amongst most nods to film noir. At times it feels uneven and not as pleasurable, but for the most part it is well shot, well played fun. It?s abundant with typical Cohen Brothers flourishes, and always takes itself seriously at a good pace. It may not please everyone, and then again it may even shock some with its brilliance. As for the R rating, I have now lost all faith in the MPAA. This film is not bad or inappropriate enough for a rating such as that. There?s one scene of violence, a sexual reference, and some mild profanity. Does that make up that rating? You tell me, people. I?m sure most will agree that it does not in any way do so. But anyways, I?m kind of getting off track. Perhaps that is a sign that I should hang up the ol? coat, call it a night, and let you be on your way. But I will leave you with this here statement: No matter what you interpret it to be at first glance, give ?The Man Who Wasn?t There? a damn good shot, because after all it is worth it. It?s not a bad movie; it?s not an amazing one. It?s just a good one that really works, and that?s what I?ll leave you with for now.