Talk:The Man Who Wasn't There (2001 film)

Black and White

It says in the first paragraph of the Story section that "All of the action takes place in and around Santa Rosa, California in approximately 1949, and gets much of its period feel from being filmed in black and white." But it's not filmed in black and white. It's color, albeit muted tones.

Noooo.... it's black and white. Granted, the movie was filmed in color and then PRINTED on high contrast b/w stock, but the result is that the movie is black and white, not muted color. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.63.98 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Smoking

I don't believe the bits about smoking. They beg for, if not demand, qualification and/or proof. Koyaanis Qatsi 20:02, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Surely you remember smoking being present in the film itself. As for the criticism, I read it in a print article, the Star Tribune as I recall, though perhaps it was in a syndicated column there or in a news weekly. Forgive my memory, obviously it was some time ago as it was contemporaneous with the film's release. I can look for them.

By the way, I enjoyed the film considerably, though I could have done without the UFOs.

Yes, I remember the smoking, but I doubt the statement about smoking in film being in decline and then taking off again. It needs a range of dates first, and then a comprehensive study proving it so. I doubt the first half of the statement--the decline--because it's based on a perception and not a study, and also doesn't specify English-language films, or U.S. films, or British films, and I'm it sure doesn't take into account films made in Chinese, Russian, or Bengali. Similarly, the statement doesn't take into account even its own Anglocentric history: U.S., Canadian, and British films of the 1920s and 1930s, when it was tres chic for women to smoke--nor does it take into account the earlier noir films where many of the flawed protagonists would smoke, sometimes while also drinking. Maybe smoking in English-language film is on the increase, but first I'd like to know from what point (e.g. since 1983), and second I'd like to see the study proving it so. I'm sure that there isn't one.

As for the UFOs, the fictional Kenneth Loring (on the commentary track on the Blood Simple DVD) commented about Blood Simple that it was "crack storytelling," "no spaceships necessary."  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 21:09, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Here's what I found.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/smoking_movies020119.html

http://www.no-smoking.org/dec01/12-27-01-1.html

http://thatsrich.com/smokingkills.htm

It's no big deal to me, just an interesting anecdote about the place the film has in the history of cinema. Take it out if you like.

Kat 21:16, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

From the article:

The film received generally positive reviews when released, though the film was cited as one of the most obvious examples of the growing presence of cigarette smoking in cinema; 2001 was the year when the downward trend on portrayal of smoking in cinema was reversed.

This article mentions that James Glantz, the anti-smoking crusader who made the study, took a "random sampling of five of the 20 top-grossing films from each year," which tells me all I need to know about Glantz's study's reliability. Furthermore, his statement "people who smoke in the real world tend to be poor, poorly educated people" tells me most of what I need to know about his ability to put aside his agenda. Numbers, Mr. Glantz, facts, verifiability. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think I'll concede at this point. Kat 21:45, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The thing that irritates me is that I agree with Glantz that smoking in U.S. film may be on the rise since the 1970s--but that I wish he'd do some solid research before saying so. As it is, his study wouldn't even look very promising as preliminary research to submit along with a grant proposal. At the very least, he could have watched all of the top 20 grossing films each year--it's not that hard, and they're generally good films. But even that would not be so good, as it doesn't examine all films, and therein his bias is revealed: even without reading about Glantz himself I would have known that Glantz meant to say that the appearance of smoking in films causes children to smoke, since he's only examining popular films, and not the tanks like Ishtar. <POV ramblings>And from there I infer that Glantz is one of those irritating jerks who decides that it's ok to interfere with someone else's freedom of speech--and, by extension, to disprove their own belief in democracy, since it requires freedom of speech--because Think Of The Children, when a better option would be to speak to his children frankly to give them a wide enough framework to make an educated decision. And I don't like smoking. As if the anti-smoking camp needed their own version of Michael Moore....</POV ramblings> Koyaanis Qatsi 22:27, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'll send you some cigars in an effort to show an alternate POV on smoking... If not Glantz then some of the others claimed some sort of grand conspiracy where hollywood producers and directors were placing cigarettes in films in exchange for--who knows?--a third round draft pick? Cuban rum? Some other form of contraband? Money? Mind you, there's no evidence for any of this, but that doesn't stop the tabliods and their toadies.

Cinematographic style

I just took out the bit about the rotating cut--I just started the film again and the first 40 transitions are all straight cuts--not even a dissolve. If you meant clock wipes, e.g. the kind of cut frequently used in Star Wars, you are wrong. I'll watch the film again at some point but I've already seen it several times, and I don't believe it. Perhaps you're thinking of a)the hubcap after the accident, b) the UFO it turns into in Billy Bob's character's dream, or c) the stethoscope he wakes up to.

I seem to recall that starting with the hubcap after the accident, there was a growing use of unusual cuts. I've only seen the film once, in a theater, since I don't have a TV or VCR, so feel free to fix my comments. I mainly felt the need to weigh in since your writeup hadn't made mention of either the smoking or the black- and white filming, both of which are, to me, important elements of what the film is. The other comments came to me as I was writing.

They are important elements; thanks for mentioning them.  :-)

Also, I'd like to know what you mean by The cinematography is straightforward and traditional. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:23, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, how would you characterize it? It's not filmed in scope. There are few unusual visual effects or camera angles. There is none of the radical perspective that comes with the camera right close to the subject with a short lens, or with the camera a good distance away with a long lens. There isn't really even much follow-focus or zoom shooting. The lighting is textbook, for black and white. That is, a little harder light than would be typical for color, but not by much; with the usual sort of quarter-light setup. Very well done, mind you, just done in a way that doesn't draw attention to itself. Kat 21:45, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Could you say that instead? I had no idea of whether you were talking about lensing, depth of field, etc. Now that you mention it, you're right--the film, visually, looks very much like a film noir from the late 1940s and early 1950s--the lenses tend towards the normal, the depth of field is long, the cameras tend to be from eye level. Certainly none of the long lenses that the Coens favored early in their career (thinking here of Blood Simple and Raising Arizona) and not many of the extreme angles used in films like Raising Arizona and The Hudsucker Proxy. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

By the way, do we have a page on the film that you take your name from? I couldn't find it.

It's at Koyaanisqatsi.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 21:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The additions look good, thanks. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:37, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This whole paragraph is horribly written, opinionated, and not even sourced. It should be deleted or rewritten for a neutral POV.76.120.66.57 (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The film looks nothing like film noir in cinematography. You'd never see as many slo-mos, such a slow pacing, as long takes, so many slow tracking shots (and not only to go into a scene or close it, but throughout the whole film), so many close-ups, nor are the field sizes in general characteristic of film noir in any way (noir only very rarely gets so close to people's faces or other details, in any case not as often as here, as it generally signifies a kind of sympathy and intimacy not typical for film noir). There's only one single shot in the whole film that is reminiscent of a typical noir field size, and that's the one in the car where they're driving to that Italian marriage. Other than that, there's only a maybe as for the one shot where the barber is sitting in the bar with the coroner, that one at least comes somewhat close to a typical noir field size.

Most likely what you mean is not the cinematography but the film's lighting, as that's pretty much spot on for some of the best noirs (though not really for most of the cheaper '40s and '50s b-movie noir flicks that the genre is usually associated with, and most likely where you got the idea of "only if mostly normal lenses" from), and especially for German expressionism, which is where noir got that lighting style from. Oh, and I guess this is a sad time for movies that b/w plus solid shots due to the use of actual camera tripods make everyone think of classic Hollywood indeed. And I also guess that '40s era clothing and props add to the confusion if you're no real film expert.

If you're looking for a *REAL* hommage to film noir also in cinematography (i. e. field sizes, camera placement and movements), take The Good German, or the fantasy sequences in The Singing Detective. The Man Who Wasn't There, however, is a hi-class, slow-moving modern art movie, with a very small influence from classic Hollywood romances and musicals in its cinematography. It's only the lighting that is noir and expressionist. --87.151.21.18 (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Structure

I feel that the detailed plot description after the spoilers warning is a wee bit superflous - the prior section is a perfectly comprehensive discussion of the film. If you want to know the exact plot rent it out or buy it (Only £4.99 at HMV, fellow brits!). Do others agree?

No, I like the detailed synopsis, although it has now been fused together with the outline formerly contained in the analytical section, so that all plot details are below the spoiler warning. Ellsworth 17:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I might get flayed alive for asking this, but can anyone say what the meaning or relevance of the film's title? It's been a while since I watched it, and I came to this article hoping to find out.--81.179.91.108 22:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See Existentialism. Although the influence of Camus is noted in this article, I think someone with a background in philosophy should take a crack at analyzing the existential elements of the film. Also, it would be great to see a section about how this movie fits in with the Coens' complete body of work and also what was the critical and audience response. Thanks! 69.231.194.152 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Without consulting philosophy texts or Coen precedents, I can say that, for me, the film's title is pivotal. During most of the movie, Ed can't make others acknowledge his existence, hence he is "The Man Who Wasn't There." He can do anything including killing a man and still nobody acknowledges or listens to him. Then he reaches out and helps the teenage girl. At that moment, he becomes "There": As soon as she acknowledges him (makes a pass at him), external effects descend on him, starting with the car accident. Yet there is a measure of redemption here. At the beginning of the film we see Ed's unbearable internal strife, through the close depiction of sharp scissors etc pointed at the viewer's eyes. By the end, he is calm and reconciled to his fate: All the internal knives have gone to the outside, where they don't bother him anymore.12.26.40.50 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the film is just about the hilarious absurdity of human life because people think they're oh-so-smart when in reality they're totally misinterpreting everything they see. That's not the same kind of absurdity as in existentialism, as existentialism holds simply that there's no meaning to life whatsoever, as in, "Why are we here? What are we supposed to do?". However, what this film is saying is rather that everybody's judgement is so flawed that they're misinterpreting everything to comical outcome, which is even more pronounced by constrasting them with the main character that we're supposed to identify with. Every character in the film is either stupid, ridicoulous, pathetic, or flawed in any other comical or pathetic way compared to the main character. It's why Riedenschneider's line that "The more you look, the less you see" is the central line from the film for me, because whatever explanations people come up with for what they see, they're most likely hilariously wrong because of their personal bias or narrow-mindedness, because they hardly ever ask the right questions, and often also because they don't really care other than proving how "smart" or whatever they are. Or where they care, their zeal makes them blind.

That's not existentialism, that's just clever comedy and some healthy dose of humility. To err is human, as they say, but that's no existentialism. --87.151.21.18 (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Stranger

I tagged the comparison to Camus's The Stranger, not because I disagree, but because it's original research. I think this claim, and the article as a whole, would benefit from a link to a site comparing the two. Cheesechimp 09:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Color DVD Note Restored

I had originally under the "Analysis" section noted that the film was shot in color and transferred to black and white as evidenced by mistaken color reels being used, and noted the existence of a color DVD release in Europe. For some reason the mention of the color DVD was dropped along with a link to a comparison page. I restored both (and in the process accidentally made 2/3's of the article invisible due to a missing "</ref>"! Don't worry, it's now back the way it was.) While being stuffed under the "Analysis" section is a bit cumbersome, I think it's important the article include a mention of a color DVD release and the comparison page at least somewhere. Perhaps a "DVD Release" section is in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.115.82 (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not Santa Rosa

I realize it's nitpicking, but if a town is named in a narrative, there should be some actual research done regarding it.

That is NOT Santa Rosa, California. The courthouse NEVER looked like that, not even in the late 40's and early 50's, and I was there. Furthermore, although it seemingly intends to be a small town, when the title character is walking against pedestrian traffic toward the end, there are so many people in the scene that it more resembles the foot traffic on Market Street in San Francisco.

And most glaringly, it's preposterous to think that the town (the Sonoma County seat) wouldn't have dry-cleaning establishments - many of them, in fact.

Last - one does not go 'up' to Santa Rosa from Sacramento, or 'down' to Sacramento from it. Just the opposite. Sacramento is northeast from SR.

For a more accurate look at Santa Rosa, CA, check out "Storm Center" with Betty Davis. THAT is Santa Rosa.

KellyK, Santa Rosa High School Class of '60

Kellyk123 (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Up and Down" - thanks, Kelly, for your interesting memories. For international readers, I would imagine that Sacramento is indeed 'Up' from Santa Rosa. It is a convention from railways in Britain, Japan etc. that one takes a train up to the major centre and down to the provinces. This especially applies to a capital. There is an up line to town and a down line to the country - it has nothing to do with north and south. I live in the North of England but would take a train up to London.

I note from the Railroad direction article that US railroads commonly only use north, south, east and west to signify line direction. It is nice that I can still learn things from WP.

Dizzley (Peter H) (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Riedenschneider

Saw this film on TV today for the first time and enjoyed it immensely. Great acting, casting and photography! I especially liked the bright and hazy rays of the sun coming through the jail waiting room skylight, just as with the law library scene in "Citizen Kane". Also, "Riedenschneider"...a very unusual name, to say the least... was the last name of the Sam Jaffe character in "The Asphalt Jungle". (A coincidence???)

(Cinemajunkie (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

Sound track

On the sound track the 6th track is titled "Ed Returns Home (Piano Sonata, Opus 79)". It is unknown from which Beethoven sonata this is. The most famous is Piano Sonata No25, Opus 79, but the first three movements do not sound like the soundtrack of this movie at all. Maybe it's a free interpretation of the chords or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.84.93 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nirdlinger

Perhaps it should be noted that the Nirdlinger's department store is an obvious reference to Phyllis Nirdlinger from the James M. Cain novel Double Indemnity (for the film adaptation, her name was changed to Dietrichson). --Jvs.cz (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

American or British production

I have temporarily protected this page, as there was edit warring between whether this was an American production of a British-American production. Given that one of the production companies involved was the Working Title Films, it does seem it was British-American. However, please settle the issue here before the temporary page protection expires. — Maile (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"The Man Who Wasnt There" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Man Who Wasnt There. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Reyk _YO! 17:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)