No Country for Old Men exists my dude

@@hhbentee He's pretty good in True Grit as well, when I first watched it I didn't even know it was him

@@hhbentee Yes, of course Old Country exists, but it's also brutal, and doesn't get better rewatching it. It's tough if you don't want to see so many innocent characters get killed. So, impressive, absolutely, but not something I can return to. Well, that's my DNA. Oh, if we're talking Brolin, I like him in this and of course also Only The Brave and Inherent Vice. Of course, Gangster Squad he was born to be in.

It's quite good. It's visually rich, funny, and the satire is well done. I don't think it was much of a success commercially, though. Tongue-in-cheek productions are always a gamble, I guess.

@@jamesmcinnis208It did okay at the box office

Even if the subliminal messaging goes past most viewers heads, it's still a great movie about old-school Hollywood shenanigans and the communistic purge that was happening during that period

@@gazza7693 I'm not sure that "purge" is the right word. "Shenanigans" seems to work for both.

This is so much better than that lug headed Thanos movie.

sclogse1 he had to bring balance

Believe it or not that’s an actor named Josh Brolin, he’s in other movies too

@@yommish 🤓

Different character.

*discreet

It's a Respectful play on Jesus in Gethsemane, or the Temptation of Christ. Does a Hollywood "redeemer" (fixer) decide to side with the guys who want to nuke the world, or does he follow God's Will and keep on saving undeserving fools from the consequences of their sins?

I bet it's a fictitious brand, like the camera in Asteroid City. That is actually a Russian camera called a Kiev 4b. (I have one) But the prop guys relabeled it with all kinds of names on it. Even adding the Swiss Army logo.

@@sclogse1 Could be, though other watches I have seen in close-ups on film seem to be genuine or at least known brands, and I sometimes wonder if it is product placement. For example in "Falling Down" when D-Fens is told in the fast food place that it is too late to order breakfast, he glances at his watch, a Lorus, and it is just the kind of watch a character like that might have had in the 1990s - a fairly downmarket but efficient analogue watch.

It's an Easter movie made by the Coen brothers. Honestly, I could just stop there as all the explanation anyone needs. To elaborate, it's an offbeat comedy about how a devout man lives out the example of Jesus in his life. I'm curious, how in the world does it relate to Marcuse?

@@jimluebke3869 Well for one thing, Marcuse is portrayed in the movie. He's the elder in the group of communist screenwriters. He's mentioned by name and gives a short lecture about his beliefs. Marcuse was a philosopher of the school of critical theory. A main theme in critical theory is "ideology," which in this context means a set of beliefs that are so prevalent in society that we don't even notice that we hold them. According to critical theorists like Marcuse, ideology is "oppressive." An example of capitalist ideology in the movie is Mannix's devotion to the owner of Capitol, an emotional and personal (almost son-like) devotion that Mannix himself has never questioned. Mannix doesn't *have* to have this personal devotion to the owner--there's nothing in nature that dictates a worker must revere and stick up for his boss. But this kind of devotion is a part of the prevailing ideology of the 1950s. The "oppression" resulting from the ideology is everything described in the communist scenes: exploitation of workers, yada yada yada. The oppression is carried out by Mannix when he slaps Clooney in the face for talking about worker exploitation and for insulting Mannix's capitalist boss. In fact, throughout the movie, Mannix is shown to be a very effective promulgator of 50s ideology. He keeps starlet's unsavory private lives away from the press, he shuts down Clooney's socialism, he walks religious tightropes to depict Jesus on the big screen. (Religion is seen by thinkers like Marcuse as a huge part of maintaining capitalist ideology.) BUT. Mannix is unaware of all of this. He doesn't know that he's such an effective cog in an "evil, oppressive system." Even when a viewer is aware of this concept of ideology, even if the viewer is a hardened communist opposed to every facet of 1950s America, it's hard to feel as though Mannix--the champion of 50s America--is a bad person. He confesses his "sins" to his priest. He's faithful to his wife. He passes up an opportunity with Lockheed because he feels a duty to stick with Capitol. And so that's why I offered that question above: does Mannix's goodness (as evidenced by his *intentions*) transcend the fact that his goodness ultimately serves "evil" purposes? (I don't necessarily agree with Marcuse--I don't think capitalism or 50s culture is necessarily evil. But it's clear to me that the Coens do. They're mostly sympathetic to Marcuse and his gang of communists. So I do feel like the movie poses the above question even though I don't necessarily agree with the Coens' concept of evil or oppression.)

@@bens5859 From your response it looks like Marcusian ideology is oppressing you. ;) - Mannix' temptation to go work for Lockheed shows he is absolutely questioning his place in the world. It's the question the entire story hinges on. - Watch the big "he almost had it" scene a little closer. Look at all the different people involved in making that scene, from the extras to the stagehands. That's a LOT of people. They're all there earning their pay, and if the disgustingly entitled writers got what they thought was "fair" instead of the "evil" studio, the studio wouldn't be able to make those workers' payroll. - Mannix is clearly an extremely devout Christian, to the point that his own confessional priest (representing the structure of religious authority) says he's overdoing it. Far from "walking a religious tightrope", Mannix' interest in getting Christ right (an extremely difficult topic) is motivated from internal piety. - Mannix is obviously more interested in the people than money. He requests the ransom for Clooney's character without a second thought, or (iirc) calculating whether it's worthwhile in terms of net budget. Mannix is a kind of redeemer, saving foolish and morally bankrupt people from their sins, regardless of cost. - Marcuse and his gang of communists are hysterically (if subtly) satirized in the movie, presented as completely untethered from reality, and victimized by their own devotion to their ideology. (The money they wanted to be paid is lost at sea, in an attempt to dedicate it to their ideology.) All the time you spent studying Marcuse was time wasted. I'd recommend forgetting all of it, and reading books from the Western Canon instead. Start with the Bible, if you like.

@@jimluebke3869 "Start with the Bible if you like." Sheesh man, no need for cattiness here, we're just talking about a movie. And I said that I don't personally subscribe to Marcuse's views. (Even if I did, it would be odd to criticize me for it since you clearly don't even know what Marcuse believed.) Mannix's decision seems to hinge on the question of "do I fulfill my duty even though it's difficult?" It's not so much "is my role at Capitol actually perpetuating an oppressive socioeconomic system?" I'm not sure Eddie is the actual Christ in this movie. I think he might be a red herring. The real Christ might be the communist spy (Channing Tatum.) Isn't he, after all, portrayed as a selfless hero in the scene with the submarine? He drops the briefcase full of cash to save a puppy who chases him onto the sub. And let's not forget, *he's on a boat in the middle of a lake with about a dozen of his disciples. When the submarine surfaces, the waters get choppy and his disciples freak out while he remains calm.* Sound familiar? Eddie is clearly a true religious believer. However, in the scene with the priests, I feel that he's in a less pious mindset. He seems like he just wants to get the priests' blessings in order to make the picture. But there are clues in that scene that might indicate a genuine desire for priestly approval. (Although, as a Catholic, I don't know why he would care for any of the priests' opinions apart from that of the Catholic priest.) The communists are satirized a bit. I got a kick out of the scene where the communist's sigh with disappointment when the briefcase full of money sinks to the bottom of the sea. But I think, at least relative to most movies, these communists are valorized. They're cast in a mostly positive light.

@@bens5859 I think the Coen brothers might have a soft spot for fellow scriptwriters (especially ones who came under heavy fire from non-creatives, even if that was well deserved). Although the fact that the Coens produce their own work gives them a better perspective on how many people contribute to making films, in addition to the writers. I was depending heavily on your own description of Marcuse's point of view in my critique there. I've heard of him in terms of Critical Theory as well. It strikes me that his over-emphasis on power as an explanatory tool in human relations, may well stem from his being a sociopath, unable to understand any human emotion other than the will to power. In any case, his school of thought is extraordinarily corrosive. Its teaching and practice costs humanity far more than it benefits us. The only reason to spend time learning about it is to be able to counter it both constructively and destructively. Not a big fan. I'm much more of a fan of this movie. It's a brilliant riff on Easter themes. It's refreshing to see that getting some play in modern culture. With the current ideological bent of Hollywood, it has to be cryptic, but I'm glad it's there.