Television Fargo

[swilow]

ForEverAfter, I take it you have now watched Fargo (TV) in its entirety?

 

[ForEverAfter]

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...

 

[psood0nym]

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.)

A major reason film actors are doing more TV these days is precisely because of the mini-series style trends that are currently popular. Anthology series like Fargo and American Horror Story offer more time to explore various themes and ideas than two-hour films while providing the assurance that the story will not be dragged out past its natural conclusions for ratings as TV traditionally has. Granted, the approach still suffers from many of the trappings inherent in TV's episodic format, but it does offer compelling compromises and affordances to film artists. In my opinion TV versions in this style can even improve on written works like Game of Thrones by acting as a series' post-hoc editor (which is especially true in the case of GOT's story for parts taken from books 4 and 5)

I don't hardly think GOT is a generic fantasy, either. Insofar as it explores the Machiavellian nature of power in a manner informed by Medieval history it is a unique and highly compelling series. As for Fargo, I'm not sure how much serious thought it provokes, but it is engaging, sophisticated, and fun. That's enough to justify its existence over most else on television.

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'm quite aware. Just giving you a taste of the same...

 

[ForEverAfter]

Machiavellian

I'm sure that you're aware that the vast majority of people are unfamiliar with this term. It's one of those terms that people learn during their Art/History degrees and spend the rest of their lives hiding behind. It doesn't mean very much, but it looks/sounds very impressive, to the uninitiated. And it's damn useful when you want to say something significant, but you don't really have anything significant to say. I don't want to get into a discussion about Game of Thrones. I'll just say that Machiavellianism and medievalism are practically constant throughout fantasy fiction.

PS. By some weird (or miraculous) co-incidence, I was just reading an article about pseudo-intellectual terminology. (Your previous posts inspired me... along with some serious nicotine/cannabis-withdrawal-induced insomnia.) Anyway here's a quote, from the article: "For the third consecutive year, 'Machiavellian' has maintained its position atop Statistics Canada's annual compendium of the five most overused terms in the country by people trying to sound more intelligent than they actually are."

http://www.thehammer.ca/content/view.php?news=2001-07-13-statistics-pseudo-intellectual

PPS. Here's a quote from a critical response to Fargo: "If you’re going to remake something as concise and self-sufficient as Fargo, there should be a reason, and pointing out that unexpected evil lurks in the hearts of men is not a very good one. For that we have, and I am just barely exaggerating, almost every other drama on television." (Slate Magazine)

PPPS. And another: "Only a fool would deny Fargo's polish and verve, its stylized razzle-dazzle. But, for me at least, after a year of gulping down chili peppers, it takes more to make a meal." (The New Yorker)

PPPPS. If Fargo doesn't resonate and it doesn't provoke thought, then it isn't great. It's just fluff. Great television shows and films should be multi-functional. They should entertain on the surface and challenge us on a deeper level (I don't mean shock us with violent or sexual imagery). There's nothing wrong with entertainment that serves only to entertain, don't get me wrong. I'd just rather have both. Wouldn't you?

 

[psood0nym]

But a ... it's entirely appropriate to describe Game of Thrones. Machiavelli was a courtier during the Renaissance and I'm using the term to describe court machinations between dueling fantasy powers. It doesn't matter if its an overused term, at all. How many times do we need to go through this cycle of me saying something you think is pretentious only to have me laboriously justify it's relevance later? You have a bone to pick with psuedo-intellectuals. Fine. But I'm not trying to sound like anything. I'm trying to have an informed discussion about Film and Television culture. Prose of a slightly purple hue is the standard in such discussions, and if it wasn't it would be boring to read. Let's move the fuck on.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Whether or not it's appropriate, it's elitist and unnecessary. Like I said, most people don't know what it means, off-hand. And, it's meaning can be quite easily conveyed using more common and/or accessible language. You can communicate, generally, without forcing the majority of people in the world to pick up a thesaurus... I don't see the point in throwing around terms like that, aside from artificially asserting yourself as educated. It reminds me of people using foreign words in English sentences. eg. Film/Theatre students loudly over-pronouncing Mise en scène. Or philosophy students, blabbing on about Marxism, who substitute Über with English prefixes.

I was hoping that you'd given up on this thread. I really don't want to have a back and forth with you. (No offense.)

I opt out. (And, I'm not coming back this time.)

 

[psood0nym]

God forbid people should expand their vocabulary while participating in a worldwide discussion of art. Shit. They might have to cut and paste something into an app in order to follow along in a slightly elevated discussion.

... and no I hadn't given up. I was in the middle of moving and so it went to the back burner. ... "Enlightened" was great.

 

[jessiki]

This show is as awesome as the movie was. I am looking forward for the next season.

 

[L2R]

4ea, machavelli isn't very complicated nor as high brow as you make it. there's a generation or two of uneducated people who know what it mean just from the works of tupac. simply put he says "power is as power holds". politics stems entirely through who can get away with what, and game of thrones appeals to that principle very much. as fantastic as its content, the themes are very much down to earth.

no need to get defensive or embarrassed if you are unfamiliar.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I will not continue to contribute to the discussion about Fargo. I do feel, however, that I need to respond to your comment about me being embarrassed/defensive... Throughout the entire thread, I requested that psood0nym communicate in a way that would be accessible to the general public. Not because I felt threatened by his intellect/education, but because it was compromising his ability to communicate. I never said Machiavellianism (check your spelling, if you're going to suggest that I don't know what it means) was complex; I actually implied the opposite. Here's the quote:

It doesn't mean very much, but it looks/sounds very impressive

As for it being high brow, I never said that either. I said Fargo was low brow. I think that's were you're getting confused... The fact is, regardless of Tupac's inarguable impact on education, that the term is elitist. Citing an example of the word being used in contemporary media is moot. I can cite you an example of practically any term being used, in any form of media. (I'm not going to waste my time proving this point, so don't bother testing me.) Fact is: most people would not be able to define "Machiavellian". If you're sitting around with a bunch of intellectuals, then sure - say Machiavellian until your face turns purple. But, in a public forum, such as this, it comes across as (to me, anyway) as elitist.

There's no need to be patronizing towards me, or make assumptions about my intellect/vocabulary. It doesn't bother me, if that was your intention. I will, however, clarify... For the record... Although I am familiar with the term, I chose not to use it (along with a thousand other bullshit elitist terms I learned during my English degree) because I don't see the point in excluding the majority of my audience. You can insist that entire generations know what it means because of a line or two in a Tupac song, because it's convenient, but I hope (for your sake) that you're a bit more in tune with reality than that.

I've gravitated away from online discussions, because they tend to be breeding-grounds for pseudo-intellectualism. I'd rather have real conversations with intelligent people (whether they happen to be educated, or not). Throughout this discussion, psood0nym has made a whole series of fairly incoherent points that are littered with fifty dollar words. The calibre of his vocabulary has been far greater than the calibre of his grammar/punctuation, and the coherency of his message: all of which screams PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL, at an obnoxious volume.

I am not being defensive, nor am I embarrassed.

Please stop posting comments about me in this thread. I feel compelled to respond, and I don't want to waste my time. You can believe whatever you like, if it's important to you. I'm embarrassed, because I'm unfamiliar with an elitist term (that I don't like and chose not to use). FYI, though, my mother is a celebrated linguist. I'm a published writer. I've completed an under-graduate degree in English and I'm currently enrolled in a masters... But, yeah, I'm terribly embarrassed.

Nail on the head, Lefty.

Nail on the head.

 

[Jibult]

4ea, machavelli isn't very complicated nor as high brow as you make it. there's a generation or two of uneducated people who know what it mean just from the works of tupac.

And those same people are just as likely to think 'Pac was referring to himself as "Makavelli" (which he more often than not was) without ever knowing about The Prince.


Annnnnnnd I'm back to the bleachers....

 

[psood0nym]

Bwahaha!

 

[swilow]

I will not continue to contribute to the discussion about Fargo. I do feel, however, that I need to respond to your comment about me being embarrassed/defensive... Throughout the entire thread, I requested that psood0nym communicate in a way that would be accessible to the general public. Not because I felt threatened by his intellect/education, but because it was compromising his ability to communicate. I never said Machiavellianism (check your spelling, if you're going to suggest that I don't know what it means) was complex; I actually implied the opposite. Here's the quote:



As for it being high brow, I never said that either. I said Fargo was low brow. I think that's were you're getting confused... The fact is, regardless of Tupac's inarguable impact on education, that the term is elitist. Citing an example of the word being used in contemporary media is moot. I can cite you an example of practically any term being used, in any form of media. (I'm not going to waste my time proving this point, so don't bother testing me.) Fact is: most people would not be able to define "Machiavellian". If you're sitting around with a bunch of intellectuals, then sure - say Machiavellian until your face turns purple. But, in a public forum, such as this, it comes across as (to me, anyway) as elitist.

There's no need to be patronizing towards me, or make assumptions about my intellect/vocabulary. It doesn't bother me, if that was your intention. I will, however, clarify... For the record... Although I am familiar with the term, I chose not to use it (along with a thousand other bullshit elitist terms I learned during my English degree) because I don't see the point in excluding the majority of my audience. You can insist that entire generations know what it means because of a line or two in a Tupac song, because it's convenient, but I hope (for your sake) that you're a bit more in tune with reality than that.

I've gravitated away from online discussions, because they tend to be breeding-grounds for pseudo-intellectualism. I'd rather have real conversations with intelligent people (whether they happen to be educated, or not). Throughout this discussion, psood0nym has made a whole series of fairly incoherent points that are littered with fifty dollar words. The calibre of his vocabulary has been far greater than the calibre of his grammar/punctuation, and the coherency of his message: all of which screams PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL, at an obnoxious volume.

I am not being defensive, nor am I embarrassed.

Please stop posting comments about me in this thread. I feel compelled to respond, and I don't want to waste my time. You can believe whatever you like, if it's important to you. I'm embarrassed, because I'm unfamiliar with an elitist term (that I don't like and chose not to use). FYI, though, my mother is a celebrated linguist. I'm a published writer. I've completed an under-graduate degree in English and I'm currently enrolled in a masters... But, yeah, I'm terribly embarrassed.

Nail on the head, Lefty.

Nail on the head.

It sort of feels like a non-defensive person would possibly not react so defensively But- theres nothing wrong with being defensive and deciding to stand up for your statements. That doesn't need justifying.

FWIW, I've been communicating with and reading the writings of psoodonym for many years now, and he has always written in a very verbose manner. I enjoy reading his posts and find that he conveys information really well; and so do you by what I am reading here. But I don't think you need to bang us over the head with your published work, your higher education and your mothers career whilst trying to make hugely speculative attacks on a person who you incorrectly feel is subtly trying to do exactly what you have just done yourself. I understand the sense of futility and frustration that internet debates can arouse but your request that people stop commenting about you is unreasonable. You just don't get that luxury when posting comments about others on a public forum on the internet on earth.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Okay.

I'm going through some shit.

I apologize.

I'm an asshole.

Move on.

 

[swilow]

Okay.

I'm going through some shit.

I apologize.

I'm an asshole.

Move on.

Hey, I'm sorry if you are going through some shit man. I know the feeling and the way it can spill over into all sorts of unexpected manifestations. FWIW, I don't think you've really been an asshole; I have just disagreed with some of your opinions. I'm sorry if I made you feel upset or bad at all- truly, I didn't want that.

Hope things clear up for you okay. I'm happy to move on

Peace.

edit: I can delete my post if you want....

 

[L2R]

Okay.

I'm going through some shit.

I apologize.

I'm an asshole.

Move on.

having seen you go through rough patches a number of times before, i assumed as much. i don't think badly of you, and sincerely wish this patch passes quickly for you.

 

[bit_pattern]

Okay.

I'm going through some shit.

I apologize.

I'm an asshole.

Move on.

Haha. Dude. You're not an asshole. You should see some of the whacked out shit that I post when I'm doing it tough. I'm a fucking lunatic. I'm like the Idi Amin to your Ghandi in comparison. Don't be too hard on yourself. It could be much, much worse, believe me

 

[psood0nym]

Feel better.

 

[mew4]

the next season has been announced, but its not gonna have any of the same people, thats gunna suck, cuz i feel like the best shows are the ones where u can follow a character and see them grow

 

[L2R]

^watch season 1 and you'll see why it can't.

still worth a run through.