Television Fargo

[psood0nym]

^Fargo, the TV show, often operates as a decades-hence update/tongue in cheek meta-commentary on the story and themes of the film. Things can't be told "exactly" as they occurred, as is insisted on during the lead-in text, since the story quickly delves into symbolic content and omniscient narrator territory that no essentially fact-based account could ever justify. Knowledge that the Coens fibbed about the basis of the original story is in keeping with this highly self-aware approach. The writers assume that if their viewers aren't clued in already, their expectations will have been primed from reading reviews beforehand. It's a smart, hip show. Just look at the industry names affiliated with it.

As for "why" it's good: there's the agreement of critical and popular consensus, tight interweaving of themes and story elements from the film into the show, high caliber performances, etc. These sorts of things are all there ever is to make the case that an artistic work on film is "good," and Fargo has them.

Why make it? Because it's an homage to a contemporary classic, on whose framework can be hung artistic explorations of American culture that have interceded since, with all the self-referential, cannibalistic fervor that propels so many in vogue approaches to storytelling.

 

[AmorRoark]

They may say 'ya' in Minnesota, but McDormand was playing it up for laughs. And, personally, I find accent-related humor to be one of the lowest forms of throw-away gag. Like Julianne Moore's Boston accent on '30 Rock'. At the time, people said to me: "but, that's how people from Boston talk!" ... Well, no. It isn't. It's overdone for humorous affect, which is fine for a disposable sitcom episode or two. But, it's not the making of a great film.

I will respond to your 2 questions I deleted from this reply but I honestly only have time to reply to this before work.

I know people from Boston and I know people from Minnesota. The Boston accent in 30 Rock is not funny or even close to how people talk from there so I completely agree with that criticism. Its 'humor' wasn't funny or accurate.

I honestly believe the Fargo film accent was different. If she grew up outside the 'city' she could very possibly talk like that. The Coens grew up outside Minneapolis. They know how people talk and it IS how they talk. Have you been there? Outside maybe a major metro area? If so, you would probably agree.

 

[ForEverAfter]

That was a really well articulated justification. (Perhaps a little over-done, though...?)

For the record, I never asked "why is it good". That's too easy a question to answer. Never said the film or the TV show were not good, either, nor did I imply it in any way. So you sort of asked yourself a question, then answered it.

Why make it? Because it's an homage to a contemporary classic, on whose framework can be hung artistic explorations of American culture that have interceded since, with all the self-referential, cannibalistic fervor that propels so many in vogue approaches to storytelling.

This is just fluff. No offense. But: long words, little substance. It reads like the verbal ramblings of a skilled bullshit artist, as recorded by a court stenographer. To someone else it might come across as a compelling argument, but to me it's a cop-out. Skip the high-tier vocabulary and re-answer the question. Or, at the very least, if you're going to go for the "polished turd" literary technique: keep it consistent. Your grammar/punctuation is all over the place. The sentence that follows "Why make it?" not only doesn't make sense, it's genuinely difficult to read/decipher. I assume, for your sake, that you're doing this intentionally to disguise the fact that you aren't really answering the question.

Should all "contemporary classics" be made into unrelated television shows, of the same name?

You're being naive if you don't think they did this, at least partially, for monetary gain.

When Rodriguez produced the television version of "From Dusk Till Dawn", everybody saw it as a sell-out and an effort to capitalize on his prior success. And that was a television adaptation, actually related to the source material! When the Coen Brothers the same thing, without any relation between source material and adaptation, they're - in your words - making a "self-referential" "homage" to a "contemporary classic"... something something..."cannibalistic fervor"... something something... "vogue approaches to storytelling"...

The language you chose, makes your argument sound like a sales-pitch from a real estate agent.

To a fool, you might sound like a genius.

 

[ForEverAfter]

AmorRoark,

My argument was not that the accents are entirely inaccurate throughout Fargo, rather that Frances D (being the over-actor she is) was overdoing her accent. I have been all-over country US and people have some fucking weird accents. But, on the whole, they don't. Southern accents are always over-done in films. Some regional accents are underdone. Her absurdly innocent/naive facial expressions, combined with her overkill of 'ya', caused her to stand out - blatantly - as a gag character. Like the accentual equivalent of someone wearing a big wig and a pair of goofy glasses.

 

[psood0nym]

That was a really well articulated justification. (Perhaps a little over-done, though...?)

For the record, I never asked "why is it good". That's too easy a question to answer. Never said the film or the TV show were not good, either, nor did I imply it in any way. So you sort of asked yourself a question, then answered it.



This is just fluff. No offense. But: long words, little substance. It reads like the verbal ramblings of a skilled bullshit artist, as recorded by a court stenographer. To someone else it might come across as a compelling argument, but to me it's a cop-out. Skip the high-tier vocabulary and re-answer the question. Or, at the very least, if you're going to go for the "polished turd" literary technique: keep it consistent. Your grammar/punctuation is all over the place. The sentence that follows "Why make it?" not only doesn't make sense, it's genuinely difficult to read/decipher. I assume, for your sake, that you're doing this intentionally to disguise the fact that you aren't really answering the question.

Should all "contemporary classics" be made into unrelated television shows, of the same name?

You're being naive if you don't think they did this, at least partially, for monetary gain.

When Rodriguez produced the television version of "From Dusk Till Dawn", everybody saw it as a sell-out and an effort to capitalize on his prior success. And that was a television adaptation, actually related to the source material! When the Coen Brothers the same thing, without any relation between source material and adaptation, they're - in your words - making a "self-referential" "homage" to a "contemporary classic"... something something..."cannibalistic fervor"... something something... "vogue approaches to storytelling"...

The language you chose, makes your argument sound like a sales-pitch from a real estate agent.

To a fool, you might sound like a genius.

Heh heh. Well, I was on MXE and alcohol, like I am now. It reads fine to me (state dependent perception, perhaps), though go ahead and diagram my post to show my egregious grammatical and punctuational transgressions. You seem very defensive, which indicates I've hit a nerve. But I'm just typing in the unfiltered way that's fun to me. If I didn't grant myself such indulgences, I probably wouldn't come to Bluelight much at this point.

I wasn't "polishing a turd," though. I actually didn't read any reviews, either. But here's the first result when I typed "commonalities between fargo the tv show and film" in google:

A TV Version of 'Fargo Has Parallels to the Film.

It's obvious there are huge overlaps between the film and show. When I speak of self-referentiality and the cannibalization of culture, I wasn't bullshitting. Those are just the words that came to mind. Consider the similarity between the scene in the final episode of season 1, during which Malvo attends to his fractured leg, and the end of "No Country for Old Men." This kind of self-referentiality figured prominently in the continuation of "Arrested Development," which is an example of how such style is "in vogue," as stated above. The mass shootings are another example of "interceding American culture" between the film and show.

There are many subtler parallels, too. Lester is a salesman just like Macy in the film, and both are pursued by police while making a pathetic attempt at a final escape. Blackmail propels the plot, along with a ransom drop (I believe the same roof of a parking garage in Fargo the film appears in one scene of the show). There's a good-hearted pregnant female cop who privately confronts the suspect morally during a drive in a squad car. Fracis McDormand's husband makes a picture that becomes a postage stamp in the film, whereas in the show Molly's husband becomes a postal worker (there are also conversations between the parallel characters in bed, during which the reassure each other of their essential decency). I could go on.

Of course, there is a direct narrative tie between the two as well, albeit a minor one: the money buried in the snow along the highway. The ice scraper acts as a quirky and emblematic baton passed through time between Steve Buscemi and the young "Super Market King" guy, thus supplying the seed for the "tight interweaving of themes and story elements from the film into the show."

And what do you mean I didn't answer the question? You posed two "why" questions directly and implied others. I'm trying to somewhat address all of them, though mainly the question, "why adapt it?" Of course money was a factor. If in discussions of high-profile films and television shows that's a critical point on which your contentions turn then you are forever doomed to the status of frustrated contrarian, and it's hopeless to attempt to satisfy you.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You seem very defensive, which indicates I've hit a nerve.

The "nerve you hit" was actually an overwhelming deja-vu sensation that I experienced upon reading your drug-addled psuedo-intellectual ramblings. It's frustrating, after a while.

"in vogue"; "self-referential"; "cannablization of culture": none of these phrases belonged in the sentence you inserted them into. You appeared to be just chucking in fifty-dollar words (that had no relevance) to "win" the argument. The question you were answering was: Why make it? The fact that it is self-referential is not an answer to that question. Nor is the term "in vogue".

You didn't answer the question.

Honestly, I'm not sure I want to have a rambling fluff conversation full of big fancy words, with someone on MXE/alcohol.

The flimsy connections between source material and adaptation could have been inserted artificially into any number of narratives, in order to justify the branding. As I said earlier in the thread, I don't like it - particularly - when artists are self-referential: to me, it comes across as fanboy-pandering/arrogance/self-serving and adds nothing of substance to the material.

Money should not be a factor for Joel/Ethan Coen, considering how much money they are already worth. Fargo should only have been adapted into a television program, if such an adaptation suited the source material, which it didn't. At this point in their career, Ethan and Joel Coen should only be concerned with the quality of their work. Why do they need money?

Would David Lynch sell-out Wild at Heart or Lost Highway to a TV network, if they offered him 40 million dollars?

Would Kubrick give the green-light on a Clockwork Orange TV show, if the numbers were too good to resist? I doubt it.

So, what's the difference? What does this mean about Joel & Ethan Coen?

These are the questions that people have been avoiding.

If you're going to respond, skip the MXE and look at the adapation in the broader context of film-making and television-production, rather than in the context of the film (and film-makers) themselves.

Money should not be a factor, when you're talking about the adaptation of a "classic" piece of cinema, should it?

Established writers, directors and actors often turn down roles/opportunities that compromise their integrity.

Again, beyond your eloquent - almost poetic - use of counter-language ("forever doomed to the status of frustrated contrarian"), you're missing the point. It doesn't make you sound smarter, to anyone but a fool.

I know people, who AREN'T established, that turn down jobs regardless of the money = artistic integrity.

What your saying is, and correct me if I'm wrong: there's a perceivable monetary value higher than the integrity of true artists? Or, are Joel and Ethan not true artists?

Humor me, and respond with layman terms. Skip the pretense. It isn't helping.

 

[psood0nym]

The "nerve you hit" was actually an overwhelming deja-vu sensation that I experienced upon reading your drug-addled psuedo-intellectual ramblings. It's frustrating, after a while.

"in vogue"; "self-referential"; "cannablization of culture": none of these phrases belonged in the sentence you inserted them into. You appeared to be just chucking in fifty-dollar words (that had no relevance) to "win" the argument. The question you were answering was: Why make it? The fact that it is self-referential is not an answer to that question. Nor is the term "in vogue".

You didn't answer the question.

I think I see the source of the confusion. You think the content of a response to you should begin and end with what you're personally concerned with. Here's the thing, though. This discussion isn't between just us. When I posted:"Why make it? Because it's an homage to a contemporary classic, on whose framework can be hung artistic explorations of American culture that have interceded since, with all the self-referential, cannibalistic fervor that propels so many in vogue approaches to storytelling," I meant it to be read in one sense as "because it's fashionable to do so at this point in time and the people behind the show have the opportunity." The reason I chose the first phrasing and not the second is because the first alludes more specifically to all the various ways I mean it's fashionable to make the show now (which is what I thought you needed explained further when I gave all the examples in the last post). I agree the creator's motives are opportunistic, but I don't let that stop me from taking joy from the end product.

By posting the "Why make it? ..." line I wasn't so much arguing directly against you as responding "yeah, but we both know how things actually move forward in the industry and why ..." and alluding to a few of my own observations about this reality in the hope of generating further discussion. I was trying to open up the conversation to all those reading between the lines and move it along, acknowledging your post but stopping short of committing solely to the confines of your interests here. Sorry?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Couldn't be bothered finishing reading it. I skimmed. You're still avoiding the question. That's fine. I didn't ask you, specifically, to answer it. You stepped up to the plate, so to speak, but you didn't swing... You were responding to me, so forgive me for assuming that you would address the primary issues that I raised... If you're not going to answer the question, then don't pretend to answer it.

Just went to see Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. The critics loved it. Audiences loved it. I thought it was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. I guess I'm crazy?

I take it you have no answer for the "money should not be a factor" argument, either.

(Apologies for being aggressive/rude - I've been going through some withdrawals.)

 

[psood0nym]

Didn't I give a bunch of examples of what the TV show has to do with the film that you quickly dismissed? This is your question, right?

The question, which no-one has even attempted to address, remains. Why adapt it into a TV show that has absolutely nothing to do with the film, aside from the title? What am I missing? Why does this project exist? And if there's no reason for it to exist, aside from branding/name-recognition, then doesn't it set a terrible precedent?

What are your criteria for having more than nothing to do with the film? In that article I linked you to earlier that explicitly states there are paralells to the film in the title the first few lines state the same:

Noah Hawley, who wrote the 10 episodes of the show’s first season, says, “You could call it an hommage to the movie.” John Landgraf, the president of FX, where the show begins on Tuesday, says, “I guess it’s another movie, really, just a long one at 10 hours.”

For something less cautious, if even less helpful, we turn to Billy Bob Thornton, the show’s star: “The end of a sentence. When someone doesn’t finish the sentence and it’s got the three dots? An ellipsis.”

Let’s try this ourselves. "Fargo" is a series with no direct narrative connection to the 1996 movie “Fargo,” written and directed by Ethan and Joel Coen. The story and characters in what’s intended as an anthology series are all new. But there are enough links — Minnesota, a fake true-crime conceit, a fateful auto accident, an intrepid female cop, “uff da” — to make the two productions close cousins, at least.

Another article:

While it’s fair to say there are shared characteristics between Tolman’s Molly Solverson and McDormand’s Marge Gunderson, between Thornton’s Lorne Malvo and Steve Buscemi’s hapless criminal, Carl Showalter, and between Freeman’s Lester Nygaard and William H. Macy’s Jerry Lundegaard, the characters themselves are new inventions, albeit ones born in the spirit of their big-screen predecessors.

You indicate you believe the "TV show ... has absolutely nothing to do with the film, aside from the title," and ask, "What am I missing?" These publications seem to agree with me that you're missing all the shared story elements and themes I posted about earlier, which you curtly dismissed while at the same time going to oddly great lengths to insist they were just part of the pretentious ramblings of a "bullshit artist" who only fools would ever agree with (sorry about your withdrawals BTW).

Also, the Coens are executive producers, but Noah Hawley is the creator/writer, and the one who made a conscious decision to say "This is a true story" at the beginning. Another article states:

When Ethan Coen finished watching the first episode of “Fargo,” the TV version, he mumbled his initial reaction: Yeah, good.

“When Ethan says, ‘Yeah, good,’ he’s over the moon,” said Billy Bob Thornton, who has worked with the Minnesota-raised Coen brothers on three films and stars as a mysterious, manipulative drifter in the Bemidji-set dramedy debuting Tuesday on the FX network

It sounds like they're not that involved but thought the project was promising. Perhaps they thought Hawley could do something interesting with the film's themes in the 10 hours of the anthology format on television they couldn't in two on film. Plus Billy Bob was into it. People who were fans of the film, enjoy neo-noir, or just quirky Northerners are arguably helped to find something they might like through such name recognition, too. I don't see why it all has to owe to money grubbing and reduce to spitting in the indignant faces of fans.

Does that answer the question, as posed?

 

[ForEverAfter]

I have described the connections between the film and television show as flimsy. There are no solid connections between the source material and the adaptation, despite what seemingly profound statements Mr. Thornton has to make about punctuation. I could draw thematic connections between practically any two films. As for the story elements... what story elements?

Bad horror sequels take one tiny element from the plot (Hellraiser 3: the box) and they cut all the rest. Fargo functions like this. The connections that you've brought up are flimsy at best. You're really struggling to draw connections. Most of the quotes you've posted don't help, at all.

Let’s try this ourselves. "Fargo" is a series with no direct narrative connection to the 1996 movie “Fargo,” written and directed by Ethan and Joel Coen. The story and characters in what’s intended as an anthology series are all new. But there are enough links — Minnesota, a fake true-crime conceit, a fateful auto accident, an intrepid female cop, “uff da” — to make the two productions close cousins, at least.

How extraordinarily vague. An auto accident and an intrepid female cop are two of the commonalities worth mentioning? You act as if you've suggested a whole bunch of solid links between the source material and the adaptation, but you've offered nothing solid - aside from the cash, which is like the box from Hellraiser 1/2.

You are being pedantic about the world "nothing". So, I will clarify (again):

There are no solid connections between Fargo (the television show) and Fargo (the movie).

Does that answer the question, as posed?

Not adequately. Your responses re-enforce my point, in that there are no solid connections between the two.

I take it you have no answer for the "money should not be a factor" argument, either.

 

[L2R]

hi everyone. loved the show. pleased as fuck at season two being greenlit.

as for the movie/tv connection. did anyone mention the buried case? the film clearly led to the formation of the oliver platt character, and that whole subplot.

much fun all round.

pick any three seconds of this show for superior quality to the entire breaking bad run.

 

[psood0nym]

During any one episode there are many times when I feel twinges of recognition with the film (or something more). The case of money is the only direct narrative tie with the film I know of, but Hawley has made generous subtle allusions/scene inter-reflections/mise-en-scene choices to the Coen brother’s work in a number of different ways. If you’ve watched the film within the last two years or so, you’re at least somewhat perceptive, and paying attention, you’ve probably been appreciating the artistry required to insert such subtext with these kinds of light touches. I assume it was due partially to the inclusion of these elements in the script and pre-production discussion that the Coen’s gave their stamp of approval.

However, if you’re inclined to imply people who appreciate such things are pretending but you alone have the penetrating intelligence to see through their bullshit, your post history indicates you only log in a few times per month to tear random shit down, and you’re more accustomed to the level of sensation banging meth might bring you, then you may be overlooking and undervaluing some of these sinuous yet delightful connections, and should cheer up a bit.

 

[ForEverAfter]

However, if you’re inclined to imply people who appreciate such things are pretending but you alone have the penetrating intelligence to see through their bullshit

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't imply any such thing.

your post history indicates you only log in a few times per month to tear random shit down

I was a moderator for years. I've been a member for over 12 years, via three separate accounts. I started competitions. Ran workshops. Contributed a great deal to TR. Then one of my regulars over at Words died (xxxyyy) and I couldn't handle the position anymore. So, I slipped into (bluelight) obscurity...

I'm not logging in to "tear random shit down".

I've been turned off many of my once-favorite directors. It genuinely bothers me that the Coen brothers would sell out like this. But, I guess, it bothers me more that nobody seems to care at all. This non-chalant attitude towards the questionable ethical behavior of respected and established artists, contributes to their decline. The system makes the artist, and you (plus millions of other fans) are a representative "part" of that system. Double standards aren't fair, nor are they beneficial long-term. You can write-off what I'm saying as some sociopath taking random pot-shots at the industry, if you like, but that's not what is happening.

you’re more accustomed to the level of sensation banging meth might bring you

Actually, I haven't had any chemical drugs, whatsoever, for over seven months. I don't think it's appropriate to dredge through my post history and make inaccurate personal observations about my drug use, as if the past always reflects the present. Especially since I posted all those trip reports, at my own personal expense, in an effort to steer people away from drug-use. This is, more than anything else, a harm reduction site.

then you may be overlooking and undervaluing some of these sinuous yet delightful connections, and should cheer up a bit.

Please explain to me how these connections you speak of are particularly difficult to weave into a narrative. Tarantino often has meaningless, throw-away references to his body of work. So do a shitload of other directors. We're not talking about Shakespearre here, or are we? How sophisticated are these references? And why do they actually belong in Fargo in the first place. Are they neccessary, or self-serving?

(Note, there are "in" references - ranging from subtle to downright obscure - throughout the entire Hellraiser series. Some of them don't fit. So, in that sense it requires (not artistry, but, what?) "something" to force them into place... Or is Hellraiser 3: Hell on Earth a sophisticated film?)

If you're going to continue discussing this with me, please don't put words in my mouth or make baseless personal attacks in an effort to discredit my opinion.

It just makes you look bad.

...

I take it you have no answer for the "money should not be a factor" argument, either.

 

[bit_pattern]

Fuck. Is this argument *still* going?

 

[ForEverAfter]

I opt out.

 

[TheLostBoys]

Why would Steve Buscemi argue about paying for half the car towards the end of the movie when he just hit the jackpot. Give the partner his share plus half for the car & get some medical attention, after doing so, go back & get the money.

Movie portrays the actors as dumb rednecks......actually after watching most of the actors including the police, I felt like the movie was dumbing down the audience.......

 

[34-dihydroxyphen]

Why would Steve Buscemi argue about paying for half the car towards the end of the movie when he just hit the jackpot. Give the partner his share plus half for the car & get some medical attention, after doing so, go back & get the money.

Movie portrays the actors as dumb rednecks......actually after watching most of the actors including the police, I felt like the movie was dumbing down the audience.......

We are talking about the TV show by the same name in this thread, not the movie.



Personally, I didn't enjoy "Fargo" the film all that much, but I loved the TV series. IMO, the TV series is much more sophisticated, and I have always felt that Fargo is one of the Coen Brothers weaker movies.

 

[L2R]

Why would Steve Buscemi argue about paying for half the car towards the end of the movie when he just hit the jackpot. Give the partner his share plus half for the car & get some medical attention, after doing so, go back & get the money.

His character was a stupid, tight arsed little weasel. It's funny.

Movie portrays the actors as dumb rednecks......actually after watching most of the actors including the police, I felt like the movie was dumbing down the audience.......

I'm sorry you missed the jokes.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Burn After Reading isn't funny for the same reason.

Maybe he didn't miss the jokes.

 

[L2R]

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.