Review of The Man Who Wasn't There (2001) by Viginti T — 07 Jun 2009

This Neo-Noir from the Coen brothers is steadily becoming one of my all time favourite films with each watch as its depth and brilliance increase exponentially. The lack of any tension or surprise after so many watches is actually a positive as the film?s banality is magnified which helps magnificently the films surface plot of a realist take on original noir tropes, complete with all the mundane minutia of murder and blackmail never usually put on the screen. Given this concept it is only fitting then that the protagonist is just as plain, Thornton?s Ed is the everyman exaggerated. He is to the outsider an unremarkable and uninteresting kind of man and acts appropriately speaking very little and only ever acting in response to events, never as an initiate. This of course would sound simply like both a boring character in an altogether boring story but in fact the opposite is true. Ed?s bare and basic nature is hybridised with an absurdity, perhaps even surreality with his passive nature breaching the lines of believability as he faces off against a string of events as mysterious as they are mediocre.

It?s rather interesting then to see the differences between Ed?s internal and external characters as the voiceover, perhaps inspired by Jacques Carcanogues? speech on exercising the interior, is so profound and peaceful that it draw us in to his side but ultimately it is irrelevant to his reality. I would love to see the film without the voiceover one day; I think it would brilliantly skew all the films relationships and meanings of which there are many. These range from the familiar like modern alienation (See what they did there, with the UFO?s?) and under the surface homosexuality through to the much more complex themes of Camus-esque existentialism and the nature of reality itself. Any of these readings could support an immensely deep analysis but it feels wrong to do so given Freddie?s, and the films, mantra of ?Observation changes that which is observed?. So we can?t really know anything about the film as any meaning found would alter the source, well that?s the gist of it anyway. I don?t however totally agree as there are some facts about this film that I find irrefutable regardless of Heisenberg?s hypothesis.

Firstly the film looks extraordinarily beautiful; the black and White cinematography is stunning as the Coen?s visual inventiveness and Noir?s psychologically potent photography are combined in the more than capable hands of Mr Roger Deakins, DOP extraordinaire. Secondly the acting is top notch with Thornton the obvious standout; although the young Scarlett, the ineffable Polito and the whip witted Shaloub more than hold their own among others. The most credit though has to go to the writing of the Coen brothers, from the overall inventiveness of the story to the individual scenes , they hit every note; the dialogue is perfect, the characters unique, the jokes funny, the soul moving, they hit every note. Ultimately this is however an elusive film, I feel like I am pulling it towards me with every viewing but like in a dream I know I am never really any closer, that I am never really going to catch it in my grasp, but then that?s half the fun. The chase, the search, the unknown. Whatever it is and whatever it all means I am sure of one thing, I am an enthusiast.