I'm hesitant to respond. I feel like I can't win in this situation. Like if I don't respond, I lose, and if I respond I'm a hypocrite. (Having said, "I opt out.") Though, the thread has kind of fizzled off into a state of non-existence anyway. So, I'm not hijacking anything - I don't think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, have I seen it in it's entirety? No, I haven't. I'm not ashamed to admit when I'm wrong: I said earlier in the thread that I was "sure I'd enjoy it"; yet, after watching the first two episodes I genuinely have no motivation to continue. It's not my cup of tea. But, then, nor is the genre. I got sucked into Breaking Bad. Now, in retrospect, it's plainly obvious that the show is/was a piece of sensationalized shit... I guess I knew at the time, too, but I didn't want to know.
Television is so polished, these days, it's like a designer drug. They've got it down to a science. There always has to be this balance, that keeps you coming back. They never give you too much and always promise more. Breaking Bad was well acted and the cinematography was great. Same goes for what I saw of Fargo. I understand where the appeal lies, don't get me wrong. (This was, incidentally, never something I actually questioned - implicatively or otherwise.)
The thing that disturbs me, now, is: how many seasons are you willing to watch? Assuming, hypothetically, that the quality remains constant. I mean: would you watch forty-eight seasons? Or just two? Or three? I'm so sick of American TV shows going on and on, that I flat-out don't want to watch them anymore. It occupies too much of my time... and, in the end, it's meaningless. I mean, it's highly polished - sure. But, it's just mindless entertainment like Breaking Bad.
I have all these people telling me I need to watch this and that. Game of Thrones. Orange is the New Black. True Detectives. But, none of it really interests me. I am genuinely amazed by how many people tune in to Game of Thrones. When did generic fantasy shit become super popular? Is it because of Lord of the Rings? (Fuck, those movies are garbage.) Or, is it just because it's SO highly polished.
I'd rather watch a show that isn't polished, that has some thought behind it. I'm not opposed to high production values, or good acting. Don't get me wrong. I liked "Enlightened", by Mike White and Laura Dern - for example. But, it was multi-functional - being both entertaining and thought provoking.
I didn't watch all of Fargo, so let me ask you (rather than assuming):
1. Does the show provoke any serious thought?
2. Does it delve into any issues that you care about, in a way that hasn't been done countless times before?
3. How does it resonate, post finale, intellectually (or spiritually, if you prefer)?
Someone said, in response to "Why was this made?" - maybe, because they needed 10 hours to explore something that couldn't be explored in 2 hours. I'm paraphrasing, so I apologize if I'm butchering anybody's words... The thing that stood out to me about that comment was the 10 hour part.
4. Why would I want to watch a 10 film, that is - by all accounts - marginally better than the original film?
5. What is so complex and involved that it needs 10 hours?
6. Would you watch five sequels to Fargo?
7. If they (not the Coen brothers) wrote and directed five sequels to Fargo, in one year, would anyone watch them? I mean, if five sequels came out in a single year, wouldn't you object to that?
8. If so, what's the difference? I mean, wasn't the original film self-contained? (It achieved what it set out to achieve in 2 hours and a follow up was unnecessary.)
There's this weird overlap between the standards of film and television. Everybody thought Breaking Bad was amazing because it existed in the same medium as Australia's Funniest Home Videos, CNN and Alf. Honestly, if this was a series of films: it would lose money. I don't understand why (as far as the Coen Brother's artistic integrity is concerned) this was ever produced. Nor do I understand why people (myself included) apply double standards to the quality of film and television. Especially considering the fact that, with internet distribution being the predominant form of distribution in both industries, there is no longer any difference between F & TV.
cinema is filled with characters who do things i would no do. that's part of what makes it interesting. i don't go to movies to see myself.
What LostBoys said was (paraphrasing again, sue me): Fargo (the film) was low brow. And I agree. Your response doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I get that you were literally responding to one thing he said about Buscemi and Stormare's characters. The gist of his comment (as I understood it) was not that they (Stormare/Buscemi) were acting unlike him (or you). Rather, that their actions were out of place (and/or unjustified) in the context. They behaved like that, not because they had naturally been developed to behave like that. Not because it had been established as believable. No. Like you said, it was funny. For you. Personally I find a lot of the Coen Brother's humour to be a little forced and pseudo-intellectual. If you strip down their almost-Shakespearean use of language (Hudsucker/Fink/Lebowski) and tone down the absurd over-acting of many of their regular cast members (Clooney/McDormand/Goodman), what are you left with?
Their work is mostly polish, like Quentin Tarantino.
Humour is subjective. I took objection to your response to LostBoys. "Sorry you missed the jokes." It seemed a little nasty and patronizing. And, the thing is, he didn't miss the jokes. Some people just don't like heavily pregnant cops who are unrealistically stupid, with slapstick expressions printed on their face saying the word 'YA' like a 1980s gameshow catchphrase. Doesn't mean he missed anything. McDormand's performance in Burn After Reading & Fargo, are genuinely cringe-worthy. (For me.) They aren't funny. At all.
His character was a stupid, tight arsed little weasel. It's funny.
Sure, okay, it's funny. But what kind of funny? That was the overall point being made. Is it hi-brow or low-brow? (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with either, of course.) I would, however, like you to entertain the possibility that there are - perhaps, just perhaps - too many idiots in Coen Brother's films... and that the plight of the fool is not the height of comedic sophistication...