Buster Scruggs is more Terrifying the Anton Chigurh
 

Yeah, yeah. Anton Chigurh. Scary. He uses the most impractical murder weapon ever devised and may flip a coin in you beg for your life. But he is dogged and relentless. Silent death that might be a shadow behind the door or a load of silenced buckshot about to blow through it. He is a great character.



Buster, however, is a homicidal Bugs Bunny. He is chaotically chipper, will murder you with a song, and that smile signals real menace. Hinkley flashes that same Joker smile in Switchback and it really is creepy. Anton is doing a job. He's a monster, but he will attempt to cut you an even chance if you plead, allowing you a possible way out. Buster, however, is looking to annoy (pushing the issue when the bartender denies him whisker) or enrage you (e.g., breaking into a musical number with the saloon singing along after he kills your brother) into violence so that he can shoot your fingers off one by one. He is a mocking repudiation of the culture of honor that pushed men into dangerous posture (i.e., dueling and fighting), a cartoon who games it to wreak havoc.

Buster couldn’t exist and is therefore less scary.

If fear were simply about reality, then all of our horror films would be plausible tales of spousal/parental abuse, car accidents, robberies, and fires.



When something that should not exist and cannot exist nevertheless gets into the room with us, that's scary. Buster creeps into greater immediacy with us by drifting across genres. Tarantino and Rodriguez tried this trick with From Dusk Till Dawn in '96 I don't know that this one sticks the landing, because it takes a sudden turn into a different reality (resulting in a sort of whiplash) at the point that our characters arrive at the bar in Mexico. It's like a T-bone car accident at an intersection of writing. Buster is a different animal. He never stops being what he is. Rather, we're the ones who slowly realize what reality we're in. Buster has the attitude and even some of the physics of a cartoon character (familiar and fun), but the longer we stay with him, the more we realize that he lives in a darkly comical world through which is blasting and quipping merrily and leaving behind a pile of corpses. The shift is subtle. We're on the line between light and dark comedy. Buster peeks through the veil with that smile a few times indicating that yes, he knows that he a monster and that yes, he loves killing people. We're disarmed at the very start by the cool water song and the dust cloud in the shape of his body and his poetic cowboy dialogue. The violence that follows, however, is severe. It's like finding out you accidentally hired Gacy to be the clown at a kids birthday party. Buster is a killer who coasts on his cartoon surface. I think that this is the point of this tale--this section of the anthology asks us to consider just how ridiculous western tropes are and horrifying cartoon violence is, if you think about it. But it's not maudlin or preachy. It's musical numbers throughout. It's like the jump scare that never comes. And so we meet and depart from Buster as a coiled snake in our seemingly innocent cartoon reality--a great way to lead off the tales to come. Buster sidles up to us by playing with genre. We know none of this stuff can harm us in the real world, but Buster corrupts our seemingly safe cartoon reality--he's subtly danced and sung his way into it, an interloper.

Wiley Coyote is scarier than Cujo because he has access to explosives and rocket propelled roller skates!!!

The Gremlins were cute, hilarious, and menacing.

Or how about this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWbUPUaGTrI

Re: Buster Scruggs is more Terrifying the Anton Chigurh
 

While I have yet to see Hail Caesar, at this point Ladykillers is the only Coen Brothers film I've disliked. But Buster Scruggs is the only one I don't think I entirely understood what it was even going for. In theory I sort of liked the fragmentary notion of these tales the film is filled with but....I kept feeling there was some piece I was missing. Was this a homage to a particular kind of storytelling in pulpy cowboy novels that I've never read? Because everything just felt very underwhelming to me. Not in an unpleasant way just in a 'oh, okay' kind of way.

A major problem with anthologies is that they tend to be uneven. They vary in quality, tone, and content, so they do not tend to fuse as an organic"whole when viewed as a complete artifact. The upside is, if you don't like one story, wait a few minutes and there will be another one. I very much like some of the stories, but as with most anthologies, there are others that I am not so warm on. So it goes.

Now, we all know narrative isn't a necessity for me, but were these even stories? They seemed like introductions to a premise and then they moved along to the next story. I always felt there was a beat or two missing.



Now, I'm entirely fine with that. I just felt watching it there was something about the structure of these episodes that was referencing a particular story telling style I was unfamiliar with.



It's also possible if I rewatch, I'll catch on there was more to them than I was immediately aware of. Coen's can be extraordinarily subtle in their storytelling, even while their tone can be quite in your face. I just might not been on its wavelength that day.

But I'm usually very much on Coen Brothers' wavelength.

I think that's a good way of putting it.



As for the "message" or "point" it is odd that we're on the opposite sides of this question.



https://external-content.duckduckgo....4b2&ipo=images


https://external-content.duckduckgo....75f&ipo=images

The is a burlesque aspect to these dark procedings. Some of the stories are set-up and punchline (cue rim shot). Others are more of a "slice of life" (the tragedy our lady in the wagon train). A few are conceptual/metaphorical, purporting to gesture at some larger point (the last tale). I think the idea is "We have a theme, and let's have a little fun."

You obviously can't say the scariest thing is the thing that would cause the most pain if it were real. That's just Pascal's Wager moved from theology to horror. But it's equally absurd to say plausible things are always scarier than fantastical ones. Movies about boring old murder aren't automatically or inevitably scarier than ghost stories.

Re: Buster Scruggs is more Terrifying the Anton Chigurh
 

Anyway, I like Buster Scruggs fairly well, even though I felt it was a lot more Good than Great, but I have a bizarre weakness for almost any entertainment that comes in relatively bite-sized forms. Anthologies, short story collections, even TV shows where they trot out a new "thing" every few minutes.

I've been meaning to rewatch it for a long time, though, to sharpen my thoughts on it. But I remember being pretty charmed by it.

You’re right. Casper is scarier than Hannibal Lecter.

No, you're right, Manos is scarier than Hereditary.

Re: Buster Scruggs is more Terrifying the Anton Chigurh
 

Still haven't seen it yet along with a bunch of other movies from the past 3-4 years because of exclusive streaming services. I know it doesn't take a high IQ to get these but man it seems to be such a nuisance. Rant over.

Thanks, bruh.

It really is, actually.