<![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, ethan coen]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, ethan coen]]> http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/ethancoen http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/ethancoen <![CDATA[How to Find God, With Your Guides Ethan and Joel Coen]]> The closest we ever came to God while watching a Coen brothers film was the time we thanked Him when The Ladykillers was over, but that's not to say we wouldn't give a fair shake to Cathleen Falsani's new book: The Dude Abides: The Gospel According to the Coen Brothers. Follow the jump for a few key dots Falsani apparently plans to connect — some a little more plausible than others — and then reach into your own filmgoing soul for the ones she sure as Hell better not leave out:

Blood Simple is the story of a man with serious doubts, and what happens when he attempts to discover what the "truth" is.

In Barton Fink, the title character, a successful New York playwright turned Hollywood screenwriter, mortgages his soul as he struggles with terminal writers block among the residents of, what may be, hell-fire, demons and all.

The Big Lebowski chronicles the misadventures of the Dude — stoner, pacifist, philosopher — as he attempts to right some wrongs and vanquish the powers of nihilism and moral turpitude.

O Brother Where Art Thou follows the odyssey (spiritual and otherwise) of three convicts, a skeptic searching for his way home and two seeking redemption from their sins.

No Country for Old Men is an epic, prophetic journey that tackles one of theology's most daunting conundrums, theodicy — if God is good, then why doesn't God intervene to stop unrelenting violence — and surmises that we don't really know what God is thinking.

Actually, we surmised a loooong time before No Country For Old Men that we may not know what God's thinking, and if there's so much as a hint of spiritual revelation in the plot of Blood Simple, we'll turn our cinephilia membership cards in on our way out of the office tonight. That said, we look forward to third-party confirmation that the woodchipper scene in Fargo is a modern metaphor for crucifixion. Or a modern revision of the story of Abraham and Isaac? Maybe we should just leave it to the scholars.

[Photo Credit: Erik Rose]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=386771&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA['Time' Mag Names 100 Most Influential, Awards High Honors To Lorne Michaels And...Peter Gabriel?]]> It's official: the world-saving baby-making duo of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are no longer mere entertainers. They are "heroes and pioneers." At least according to the categorical rankings of Time's 100 Most Influential List released today. And not only are they the most influential heroes, they're apparently more influential than Oprah Winfrey. And Tony Blair. In any case, among the "artists and entertainers," the mag happily ranks Lorne Michaels and Robert Downey Jr. high above icky Suze Orman and preachy George Clooney, but we do take issue with several other entries, after the jump.

Lorne Michaels (#58) not only ranked higher than stoner comedy overlord Judd Apatow (#61), but he also got a better writer to script his defense: his darling protege Tina Fey, rather than smushy-faced Garry Shandling, who begins his piece on Judd by saying, "I know Judd Apatow. And I know myself. And I am no Judd Apatow." Yes, Garry, we knew that already. Where've you been by the way? We kind of miss you. But as we said, we do take issue with several rankings. For example, Miley Cyrus (#59) beat out the Coen brothers (#62). While Cyrus and her Hannah Montana franchise may have generated billions of dollars, the Coens not only won four Oscars for adapting a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel and created one of the most chilling villains in cinematic history, but No Country For Old Men happened to rake in more cash at the box office ($74mm) than Miley's 3-D concert flick ($65mm). Does a newbie shilling pop songs for Disney really deserve a higher ranking than a pair of filmmakers who've earned mounds of respect for their art? Truth be told, we'd have no issue with Miley beating out the Coens had this list been established post-Topless Scandal. Apparently nude 15 year-olds "influence" the masses like crazy.

[Photo credits: Time]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=386597&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Brad Pitt Hoping To Ride His Own Silly, Coens-Movie Hairdo To Oscar Gold]]> Clearly committed to the same, ridiculous hairstyling tactics that helped to win Javier Bardem an Academy Award for No Country For Old Men, the Coen brothers put the supporting pretty-boy superstar of their next effort, the Venice Film Fest-opening Burn After Reading, in a License to Drive-era Haimdo. The wardrobe choice is guaranteed to lend even further realism to Brad Pitt's already brilliantly realized performance as a dimwitted gym employee. After the jump, via firstshowing.net, are your first looks at Pitt's Burn co-stars, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, and John Malkovich, plus a plot synopsis for the spoiler-resilient:

Burn centers on Osbourne Cox (Malkovich), who has hit a bit of rough patch. He was recently fired from the CIA and decides to write his memoirs, naturally documenting government secrets along the way. His wife (Swinton) decides to steal the material to use in their upcoming divorce proceedings, but the CD mistakenly ends up in the hands of two doltish gym employees, Chad (Pitt) and Linda (McDormand). In response to Linda and Chad conspiring to sell the material to help pay for Linda's plastic surgery, the CIA dispatches Harry (Clooney) to sort it all out at whatever the cost.

swinton-burn.jpg
clooney-swinton-burn.jpg
malk-burn.jpg

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=385464&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA["Old Country for Old Men"]]> If you weren't on Mars, you'll know that the Coen brothers' bleak thriller, starring Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin, won Best Picture at the Oscars last night. In the rush to post up the news of the award for No Country for Old Men, the New York Times made a little mistake. (Click for the screenshot.) This real-time web publishing is hard.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5003324&view=rss&microfeed=true