criterionforum.org

FrauBlucher wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:44 pm But you can make that case with almost anything.

No you can’t. That is disingenuous. There are specific words that are pejoratives aimed at specific groups of people.

edit: I misspelled pejoratives as "perjoratives", sorry that was rediculous

I can't believe the movie will go out with that title. Imagine rolling up to the ticket booth and saying, "Two for 'Drive-Away Dykes', please...!"

A listing for a stunt position says this will start shooting in Pittsburgh this coming Monday.

Drive-Away Dolls to release September 22nd, 2023

This comedy caper follows Jamie, an uninhibited free spirit bemoaning yet another breakup with a girlfriend, and her demure friend Marian who desperately needs to loosen up. In search of a fresh start, the two embark on an impromptu road trip to Tallahassee, but things quickly go awry when they cross paths with a group of inept criminals along the way.

Looks like classic Coen caper comedy. Really wish they would have stuck with the original title or just changed it entirely. “Drive-Away Dolls” is really stupid.

With this and Tragedy Of Macbeth, I guess we know now which Coen brother was calling the shots whenever one of their movies had a bent more towards drama or wacky comedy...

I'm more excited about this than I ever was about Joel's Macbeth.

Monterey Jack wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 2:25 am With this and Tragedy Of Macbeth, I guess we know now which Coen brother was calling the shots whenever one of their movies had a bent more towards drama or wacky comedy...

That’s become the truism, but I’m not sure that’s so true in fact. MacBeth was really a project from his wife so I’m not sure how much it reflects the totality of Joel’s contributions not to mention how this is just one datum from each of them.

Trailer didn't work for me at all, looks like a TV show on Peacock or something, but it's possible that it's just a bad trailer for a good movie.

Matt wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2023 4:11 am Looks like classic Coen caper comedy. Really wish they would have stuck with the original title or just changed it entirely. “Drive-Away Dolls” is really stupid.

I laughed when the film's title is shown spray-painted on a brick wall with the letters "o", "l", and "l" printed on sheets of paper that are covering up the original spray-painted letters (ostensibly "y", "k", and "e"); a jokey acknowledgement that the title had been changed.

Delayed five months til Feb 2024

I am curious as to what others think about a married man and woman deciding to do a lesbian film trilogy?

I don't have a problem with it, per se, but it just struck me as a sort of odd ambition for a straight couple (speaking without any knowledge of however fluid Ethan's and/or Tricia's sexuality might be). I might be lacking insight into what the whole story is here. Or maybe these two just really want to do lesbian movies, I dunno!

It’s not odd for people to be interested in things beyond themselves.

I've said it before, but I think Pablo Larrain is our greatest active director of women, and Sam Levinson captures Gen Z better than any filmmaker who fits within that generation (including various demographics separate from him, though he's certainly been given flack for making films about black people without being black, trans people without being trans, etc.) All it takes is unconditional curiosity and a humanistic approach to tap into something novel with your artistic wit. We wouldn't have gotten any of the fringe stories we got during the studio era if the homogenous artists at the helm were restricted to what they know

I would be excited for this even if it was just Ethan Coen branching out of his straight zone (I would've happily given him the pass to use the original title), but the interviews that have come out about this make it clear that Tricia Cooke has long identified as a lesbian even through her "very unconventional relationship" with Coen. I can think of no more noble action for any straight man than making a lesbian movie for and with your gay wife.

I do find it fascinating that both Coens first move when directing outside their partnership was to make movies with their wives as the key creative force.

The Narrator Returns wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 4:29 pm I would be excited for this even if it was just Ethan Coen branching out of his straight zone (I would've happily given him the pass to use the original title), but the interviews that have come out about this make it clear that Tricia Cooke has long identified as a lesbian even through her "very unconventional relationship" with Coen. I can think of no more noble action for any straight man than making a lesbian movie for and with your gay wife.

Ok, thank you, that provides the context I was lacking!

And, yes, to Mr. Sausage, you're right, it's not odd to have interests beyond one's own background or self, so there's probably a better word I could have come up with there. But to dedicate years and an incredible amount of energy into something like a film trilogy, I was just wondering if there was something that I didn't know about Ethan or Tricia. And, clearly, there was.

knives wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 4:54 pm I do find it fascinating that both Coens first move when directing outside their partnership was to make movies with their wives as the key creative force.

I dunno, it seems reasonable that if you're in respective long-term committed relationships with creative people, and you've been at the hip with your brother for a third of a century, you may turn over to your other closest intimate to see what's possible there as the primary creative team. I find it far more interesting that they didn't take a break earlier

Persona wrote:

The Narrator Returns wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 4:29 pm I would be excited for this even if it was just Ethan Coen branching out of his straight zone (I would've happily given him the pass to use the original title), but the interviews that have come out about this make it clear that Tricia Cooke has long identified as a lesbian even through her "very unconventional relationship" with Coen. I can think of no more noble action for any straight man than making a lesbian movie for and with your gay wife.

Ok, thank you, that provides the context I was lacking!

And, yes, to Mr. Sausage, you're right, it's not odd to have interests beyond one's own background or self, so there's probably a better word I could have come up with there. But to dedicate years and an incredible amount of energy into something like a film trilogy, I was just wondering if there was something that I didn't know about Ethan or Tricia. And, clearly, there was.

Yeah, I get what you’re saying. It’s uncommon for people to devote so much time and creative energy when there isn’t some personal investment such as being gay oneself.

Apparently the film retains its original title in the final title card

If someone wanted to use our current sample size of.. one each, they could surmise that Joel was the brother more interested in a serious tone approaching the problem of achieving or maintaining an optimistic existential reframe on nihilism, while Ethan just wants to goof around and impose the irony into this outlook with existential absurdity. I bet they are more complementary than their polarized films suggest, but it's interesting to see Joel make the most controlled, self-serious Coen concoction for his wife, and Ethan make the most freewheeling, slapdash, and silly one with his.

I had a blast watching this movie, but only after I realized what its flaws were and surrendered to the product's wavelength in front of me. This is a lean, manic, loose screwball affair (easily the baggiest Coen product in both directorial execution and script) yet it manages to stall at very appropriate times, to tap into some significant and relatable moments, that commit to an exploration through the specifics of a lesbian experience.

The problems are consequences of the film's approach in blending with its spirit: It and zips along while developing characters and implementing gags, but the script could've used some polishing - which sounds weird, considering the entire vibe is to be unpolished. About a third of the jokes in the first third of the film land well, but the movie becomes increasingly better and more concentrated as the road trip goes on. It's weird to watch a dynamic between two men-for-hire go from a series of messy and confusing introductory scenes to a place where everything hits... that feels like a script problem early on - yes, we need to acclimate to their dynamic, but either too much or too little was done early on to muddle such an easy thing to do (how many mis-matched buddy movies exist? How many has Ethan personally made?) It's uneven - like the central pairing, and I could maybe get on board with a reading where the first half was intentionally designed to move like Qualley's personality, and then morphs into a clearer picture (and the characters even begin dressing and living 'up') to meet Viswanathan's personality... except, it still retains that Qualley energy and doesn't gel more consistently into a compromise, not in a way that really supports that impression of self-reflexive converging of affection and collective growth.

I dunno, there are times when the film just fizzles its energy, but there are also times where that's applied and it kills. The opening scene - tiny absurdities like shedding parts of clothing and how violent interaction takes place - had me roaring. This film doesn't pull punches but its satire is balanced well with a coming-of-age youth love story, and due to the limited how we have here, we don't get quite as many punches as we're set up for. I appreciated the scenes that took their time to pause and soak up the energy between the leads (both outstanding, giving their parts way more detail as lived-in characters than I anticipated), or just honed in on one of them processing a thought or feeling. I liked how the film took the time to explore the sensation of being a child discovering your sexuality, in a very particular way. It felt very personal to Tricia Cooke, and it also felt like an opportunity for Ethan Coen to construct his own playground, and he goes a little wild with it. The two elements don't always cohere, and maybe if the film had packed a few more minutes (or removed a few of the ten or so minutes of just random color montages - which I enjoyed - but, I mean, they're never prompted by or lead to any significance like they have in Big Lebowski, or a non-Coens Punch-Drunk Love; though I admittedly still found them fun in surrendering to the movie's offbeat internal logic - plus, who can get mad at Maggot Brain playing on repeat) into its like 78-minute runtime before credits. Speaking of:

domino harvey wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2024 5:38 pm Apparently the film retains its original title in the final title card

And it's done in such a way that's practically a middle-finger to whoever made them change the title, re-contextualizing the change in a way that not only reclaims creative freedom but provides the film with extra meaning, expressed in an appropriately cheeky manner. Loved it.

Spoiler

Unless I'm misremembering, the "title card" in the beginning is cleverly obfuscated as a meaningless neon sign (shot from an awkward sideways and down angle, as if to deliberately condition us to put little stock into it) to just the first bar or place in a series of places they'll spend much more time and have fun shared experiences in (actually, since the first scene is Qualley having sex, is it just a place that nobody goes and never really exists?). But Drive-Away Dolls assumes their characters are still immature at the start of the film, as they are, and by the end they have both matured, connected on a deeper level than either was willing to - in their own unique ways - and now off to get married. So, it's appropriate that they evolve into the badass ladies reclaiming that word in self-actualization: Revealing Dykes as the new title of their story. It's pretty cool that this also allows Tricia Cooke to reclaim the word again - as she already had by making the film, now inserting it in step with the characters and thematic narrative trajectory.

I could even believe that Coen and Cooke decided to change the title on their own just to make the evolution and identity-signification land all the harder. But I like the idea of them getting all meta-creative better.

I can't fault anyone for not liking this movie, it's full of problems and the strides it hits come a bit late and end too early. Joey Slotnick and C. J. Wilson don't establish their funny dynamic until the halfway point, and it could have been set up stronger with minimal effort. Colman Domingo is wasted (but the opening and closing cameos are great!) The attention is all over the place, thrown together aggressively but then trying to hone in on emotional resonance between zany, half-cocked ideas. But.. that's part of the magic. These are free spirits ready to take off; they have 'arrived' just before the millennium. They're worth more attention than all of the mechanics occurring around them, especially once we get the reveal and realize just how superfluous the activity around this developing romance is intended to be. Though, while watching it, some will be more lenient than others. Me? I hope Ethan takes some notes and keeps making movies with his wife. I haven't felt so relaxed and carefree in a movie theatre in a while.

I, too, had a good time at my matinee screening today, despite the film's problems. The script and characterizations could have been better written, but these small shortcomings did not disservice the intended experience. It's meant to be unrestrained silliness, and it never pretends to be anything else. The film is primarily two bad guys tracking two girls who unknowingly possess the former's loot. The two bad guys recall Buscemi and Stormare from Fargo. Whereas the two female leads felt like Pitt and McDormand from Burn After Reading, somewhat silly carefree characters with basic desires, who stumble upon an item and dangerous people, and are soon in way over their heads (this is not where the Burn After Reading similarities end, by the way). As mentioned, the ingredients don't always mesh. The jokes don't always land, the writing and pacing is sometimes off, the visuals don't always feel inspired, etc. With Joel and Ethan now at 1 film a piece independent of one another, one can gauge their different passions. It makes clearer sense why they were such a strong film-making duo because they could use the best of their unique strengths and interests. Both MacBeth and Dolls are in the OK-to-good-not-great range, that don't measure up to the films of the brother's golden era. However, I know I much prefer the vibe of Dolls. It may be the most I've liked a Coen film since Llewyn Davis. And it's the most I've laughed at a Coen film since, as you may have guessed, Burn After Reading.

Honey Don't! trailer.