El hombre que nunca estuvo

I get that the cinematography is wonderful and noirishly stylish, but the basics of the story just don't hold up.

A man commits a murder - actually it's self-defense - nobody sees him at the scene but his fingerprints are all over the murder weapon as he makes no attempt to hide what he did. He leaves the scene in a bit of a daze. He expects to be picked up in days if not hours after the crime, and then two officers show up at the barber shop where he works. But they appear only to tell him that it is his wife who has been picked up and charged with the crime.

He and his wife's brother mortgage their business to hire an expensive attorney. The expensive attorney says that it will be a challenge to save her from either life in prison or the chair. And yet, nobody saw her at the scene of the crime, her prints can't be on the murder weapon because her husband's prints are on it, and she was passed out drunk all evening at the house. The only thing they have is that she cooked the books at the store where she worked for the victim. Embezzlement? Yes Murder? No.

So the husband confesses in the presence of the wife and the attorney that he did it. But the attorney says nobody will believe him because of the lack of evidence. Yet there is a complete lack of evidence that his wife did it and yet THAT is an airtight case? I can't take this seriously. Maybe I'm not supposed to.

If this is supposed to be a stylish looking film with great cinematography and attention to detail on the Cold War era interiors and settings, then it succeeded. If it is the story of a man's bleak existence in which everything he tried to do to break out of that existence blew up in his face, well that succeeded too. I just think that the legal aspect of the story - which is a big part of the thing - is not the least bit credible.

I'm sorry, but I like my black and white black and white - ESPECIALLY in a film that sets out to be the most pure film noir of all. The shadows should be, simply, black, not black tinted with dark green. The greys should be, simply, grey, not pearl grey or slate grey or any of the other shades of paint-catalogue grey that are the result (I presume) of trying to make a black and white film without using any actual black and white film. I don't know the precise technological explanation; I do know that the film would be at least twice as good if the Coens would simply take the master print and transfer it to whatever material they use when they screen, say, "Double Indemnity". This is not hyperbole.

Not that it's not good already. Joel Coen, who in "O Brother, Where Art Thou" showed himself to be one of the few living directors capable of fully exploiting colour, shows himself here to be one of the few living directors capable of fully exploiting light and shade. I particularly liked the scene where the defence lawyer explains why if we look at something too closely, we fail to see it, while his face (and only his face) is bathed in JUST enough too much light to prevent us from seeing it properly. It sounds academic, but it works: the Coens never use an idea if they can't make it breathe.

As a rule, first-person narration breathes life into books but kills films - with the exception of one genre: film noir. And the Coens understand why it works, when it does, in this rare exception. Like most noir protagonists, Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thornton) is almost perfectly uncommunicative: neither his conversation nor his actions tell us anything about him. We need direct access to his very thoughts, put into words, to be able to understand what's going on and to appreciate his story. And it's only fitting that we're allowed to listen to him as HE takes stock of his own story, for the very first time, now that it's all over. -And maybe the Coens don't even need this justification. Ethan has written what may be the most delicious, perceptive and apt first-person voice-over the genre has seen.

"The Man Who Wasn't There" is not as magnificent an achievement as "Barton Fink" or "O Brother, Where Art Thou" - but then, no noir film is. (It's really a constricting genre; Billy Wilder's finest works aren't noir, either.) The fact that there are so many good noir films should be regarded as a miracle. Here is another miracle.

I haven't seen too many films by the Coen brothers(Ethan and Joel Coen)... in fact, this and Intolerable Cruelty are the only ones I've seen. I decided to see this after hearing many positive things about it, and finding out that it's a tribute to the old 'noir' films of the 40's and 50's. I love noir films, and neo-noir films are often great as well. So I decided to see this film, and I'm am very happy that I did. The plot is great... something that we all can relate to, and yet very recognizable for noir... which is quite impressive, since many noir films suffer from the plot being of limited appeal(the P.I./detective who gets *the* case, etc.). The pacing is excellent. I wasn't bored for a second. The atmosphere of the film is great... very dark and moody, even in the humor. The acting is great... Thornton, McDormand, Gandolfini, Johansson, Shalhoub... everyone is great. Billy Bob Thornton's character is easy to relate to(who hasn't felt that their life wasn't going anywhere, at one point?) and his narration as well as flawless performance is part of what makes the film noir... his character talks very little, but the voice-over and his subtle acting(which includes very little dialog) is great and he carries the movie perfectly. The characters are all well-written... there was only a short period where I didn't entirely understand a characters actions, but this was more because I hadn't thought that much about this particular character than a lack of credibility, character-wise. The story is great... it has some very interesting twists, and it holds your interest and entertains you for the entire run-time of about 1 hour and 45 minutes. The humor is good, but there is fairly little of it in the film(considering that this is what the Coen's are well-known for... well, part of it, anyway) but all of it fits perfectly. Much of it is dark, like the rest of the film. I watched this on a DVD which I borrowed from the library, and when I was about to start the film, I noticed that there were two disks... one in black/white, and one in color. I thought for a while, considered which would be better, but then I remembered that this is a homage to noir films... and, possibly more importantly, the directors intention is to make something that looks as if it could have come from that period where those films were at the peak of popularity... and why would I want to go against the directors intention on a film? That would negate the very point of watching it. All in all, if you're a fan of the Coen brothers directorial style or neo-noir/film noir, you'll most likely love it as much as I did. If not, maybe you can just enjoy the great acting and atmosphere. And if not that, the film probably just isn't for you. I recommend it to any fan of the Coen brothers and of film noir/neo-noir. Fans of any of the actors might also like it. Just be prepared; it is quite dark, and many will not like it simply for that. If you believe you can sit through this film, you definitely should consider it. 8/10

I found this to be a pretty interesting film by the Coens'. I was well aware of the ability to do noir, as evidenced by 'Blood Simple', as well as many-layered, dialogue-driven narratives as in 'Miller's Crossing.' But what I found intriging about this movie was that it was about inconsequence. Billy Bob Thornton's character, Ed Crane, is similar to William H. Macy's in 'Fargo.' Both have unsatisfying positions in lowly lives. Both had received their jobs by "marrying" into them- Ed at the Barber Shop, and William's at the car dealership. The difference is, whereas the kidnapping plot is sought out in "Fargo", the blackmailing plot falls into Ed's lap by sheer choice (luck? fate?)

Ed's just a guy who wants to improve his lot in life- nothing too different then you or me. His wife's affair simply gives him the opportunity to do so. He didn't mind the infidelity, it is after all " a free country." But, of course, if she was faithful, there would be no noirish plot to pursue, correct? Quiet ambition drives Ed. After the dry-cleaning attempt goes sour, he sets his sights of Scarlett Johansenn's (who is quite remarkable) character's piano playing ability, in hopes of becoming her manager and "making enough to get by."

Thornton's "Ed Crane" really is the man who wasn't there. He sits- nearly brooding- quietly, observing life laconically. I actually found this movie quite sad. In the end, the only one who cares about his story is a men's magazine. And that's another big difference from 'Fargo" in which the pregnant Frances McDormand curls up with her husband, and you feel as if everything is just right in the world. That feeling is definitely lacking from "The Man Who Wasn't There."

Some viewers in the theater I saw it at said it was "the funniest movie they've seen all year." Sadly, I think they're missing it. Most of the humor is typical Coen's deadpan, but it is mostly generated from a tone of unease and tension. It's clever, but you waon't be slapping your knees like in "Raising Arizona" or "The Big Lewboski."

Instead, you'll just be intrigued by the wonderful story that the Coens- who have become quite the master of their craft- have weaved in this beautifully textured, perfectly cast, and incredibly nuanced film.

The 2002 Cohen brothers film is a delight. "The Man Who Wasn't There" combines everything I like in the Coen brother's unique way of telling a story. From the comic of the situation witnessed in the famous "O Brother Where Art Though" (2000) to the originality of the scenario seen in "Barton Fink" (1991), not to mention the singularity of the characters and their lack of control over the situation in the excellent "Fargo" (1996), all those "hints" have been gathered to built this well thought story. Joel and Ethan directed and wrote this picture about a bored and boring chain-smoking barber admirably played by Billy Bob Thornton (best role for this under-rated actor)who blackmails his wife's boss and lover for money to invest in dry cleaning. As you sense the plan goes terribly wrong. I believe this story is a pretext to show us how little is our grip on the reality of our lives. And to demonstrate how justice easily becomes a comico-pathetic masquarade when given by men. On the contrary true Justice eventually lies in the wrinkles of men's destiny. As a conclusion you are better off expecting a landing of an alien spaceship than a fair and clear trial in a court of law. Whether we agree or not to this demonstration, it does not take away the pleasure of watching these terrific actors putting into play the original and dark scenario of the two brothers. Billy Bob Thornton is a master portraying to perfection Ed Crane (the laconic barber). Since Dead Man (1995) I don't recall a lot of movies where directors have capitalized on his enormous talent. Frances McDormand (Doris Crane) is as usual fantastic. We remember her in Wonder Boys (2000) and of course as the sheriff in Fargo (1996). Here she plays wonderfully the barber's wife going from bitterness to sorrow. Some characters can be seen as "cliche" like Freddy Riedenschneider the lawyer played by the good Tony Shalhoub, however they are all enjoyable to watch: James Gandolfini is terrific as "Big Dave" and Jon Polito very colorful as Creighton Tolliver, not to forget the very talkative and sincere Michael Badalucco as Franck Raffo or the great job done by Scarlett Johansson in the role of Rachael 'Birdy' Abundas the not very straight and quiet adolescent you would expect. The Black and White picture is more an artistic exploration from the Coen brothers and I don't think has anything to do with the chosen period (late 40's). However the black and white picture is very well shot by Roger Deakins and impose tremendously well Billy Bob Thornton's character and therefore never becomes a burden for the audience. "The Man Who Wasn't There" does not belong to any genre in particular. The Movie is made of a myriads of genres and characters that the Coen brothers have managed to master throughout their career of story tellers. The movie is a "film Noir" but not only, it is a dark comedy but not only, it is a light thriller but not only, it is shot in black and white but still have colorful characters, it tells a simple story of a laconic barber but there is more to it, eventually Justice will prevail but not the way we think it will. In the end it is a unique movie and in times where everything seems to look the same this movie becomes a true jewel.