The MoFo Movie Club Discussion - April

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007, Andrew Dominik)




Here we are again, campers! As always, this thread is a spoiler-free zone (as in, nothing is 'spoiler-tagged') so only read on if you've already seen the film or don't really care about knowing the plot.

My initial thoughts during the first half hour of the film were 'gorgeous cinematography and a gorgeous score'. Not surprising, I guess, because Messers Deakins and Cave were responsible for them. Plus points there, then - it looks and sounds great.

Casting - Casey Affleck is spot on in his characterization of the nervy, hard-to-like Bob Ford. That he reminded me of that weirdly-voiced bloke from the Police Academy films is by the by: we're not meant to root for him in any sort of traditional heroic manner. Sam Rockwell is fine too as the slightly less obnoxious Ford brother, Charley, and there are solid turns by the likes of Sam Shepard and Garret 'two parts in Deadwood' Dillahunt.



Ok, I'm skirting round the main issue here - the lead role. Pitt doesn't do it for me, simple as that.

We're meant to have a Jesse James who is in turns charismatic and confused. Likeable and hateful. Garrulous but very much 'damaged goods'. And vengeful. How more vengeful can he get? The answer is none.

None more vengeful.

Brad, unfortunately in this reviewer's eyes, is stultifyingly wooden throughout. His laconic drawl which passes for 14 years of Confederate angst is no more convincing now than it was in Kalifornia or Thelma and Louise, fifteen or more years ago. In fact, the scene outside the church where he admonishes Bob and Charley for sneaking off to have a sly conversation had me actually laughing. Instead of a release of paranoid emotion we had something akin to Keanu Reeves stubbing his toe in the bath.

It's sad because a film as meticulously detailed as this deserves someone with much more weight (as opposed to merely box office draw and a producer's cash and contacts) to carry the piece, if need be, on his back.



That this doesn't completely ruin TAoJJbtCRF (catchy, eh?) in my eyes is probably because the emotional heartbeat of the film comes from Affleck.

There's a lot of the film that I like, however. The measured flow of melancholy seeping from its every frame, the aforementioned beautiful camerawork and music and the slow, almost dreamlike pace. It could have done with a few minutes knocked off here and there (we're practically 2 1/2 hours long), especially as one gets the feeling that the movie has 2 or 3 distinct endings. It's almost as if Dominik couldn't bear to let his baby go...

I also liked the narration, which seemed to come from one of the very Dime Store novels where Bob first read about, and subsequently venerated, Jesse. There's the feeling of a modern-day stalker about him.

In closing I'd say that, thematically at least, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is similar in many ways to John Hillcoat's (another Aussie director with heavy input from Nick Cave) The Proposition.

Both films meander into the territory of the young and impressionable fan/sibling who eventually comes to realise that the mythical outlaw figure they've been enraptured with for so long is, bluntly, bad news. Of course, Bob Ford's final motivation for killing Jesse is a confused mixture of fear, revenge and the desire to be famous while Charlie Burns (in Hillcoat's film) eventually becomes wearily repulsed by his brother's antics...

The Proposition is a film that I've come to love more with each and every subsequent viewing. I love the poetic quietness of it, for instance. The stillness, the ambiguity.

I really don't know if I'll come to love The Assassination of Jesse James over time, however beautifully crafted it appears.



Your thoughts, MoFo? Was it a triumph or a letdown?

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

Got to say that I agree with most of your post, but I didn't think Pitt was as bad as you make out, for me it was Casey Afflecks movie, his performance really surprised me and alerted me to the fact that he is a decent actor.

I loved the Proposition as well, but for me Deakins cinematography swings it for Jesse James, lush beautiful visuals, and I never get tired of his time lapses.

I actually liked the fact that the film didn't finish with the assassination, it was intresting to see what became of Robert Ford, and also it gave Affleck the chance to show further range as an actor.

I have to admit that I was blown away by this movie, partly because I love Roger Deakins as a DOP ( give this man an Oscar for the love of god ) and probably in no small measure due to the fact that I'd watched so many turkeys recently that I was dying for something worthwhile and cinematic to watch.

One of the best films I've seen recently, loved everything about it.

__________________
Hey Pepe, would you say I have a plethora of presents?


Toga, toga, toga......


Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?

I found this a good watch, overall. It was a bit slow in parts, but you at least get the tone set early on and know what you're getting into. The casting, I thought, was excellent. B-Pitty seems to me the perfect person to play someone who is mostly flashy pretty surface, and a fair bit of confusion underneath. I actually didn't question this til I read your OP, Tacitus, and now I'm wondering who you might want to see tackle the role instead. If anyone comes to mind.

My favorite performance turned on five words, "Have you done thing thing?" by Mary-Louise Parker. They kind of sum up the film, in a way, as she was one of the few who actually knew Jessie James as a person more than a celebrity, and her heartfelt shock that someone would do what Ford did seems to me to encapsulate the levels of interaction that we're watching interplay.

Kudos to both Affleck brothers on this one - I think they both set out on the right foot here. Looking foward to more from both of them.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

Seeing as I'd compared it to The Proposition, Danny Huston springs to mind off the top of my head. He could definitely bring the believable intensity, the ornery side, the sly intelligence but most of all the likeability that I felt Pitt's characterisation totally lacked.

I guess I loved the feel and the vibe of the film much more than I did the nuts and the bolts because when I actually sat down and thought about it I was a little underwhelmed. Two or three times, I felt that things were beginning to take off as I was watching - the first robbery, Sam Shepard's departure and the titular killing itself, for example.

It just didn't fly far or high enough for me.

I watched this film thrice, each time with a different set of people. Most of them liked it well-enough, and my brother was probably the most impressed with it. However, every single person needed me to explain to them, at various points, who some of the supporting characters were and where they were supposed to be at. When my scriptwriter brother needs me to explain to him who is staying with whose relations and why, I think that there are definitely flaws in the storytelling, especially when you have a 160 minute movie where you have plenty of time to make plot points clear.

Now, I understand that some people find "plot" to be a dirty word. In the case of this film, I'll admit that writer/director Dominik was looking for atmosphere and tone, and I believe he produced his desired effect. I just don't understand why someone would make essentially an arthouse western, with what I consider stilted performances and dialogue, make it go on for far too long, and then try to pass it off as a psychologically-deep, naturalistic film. Well, maybe I do; Michael Cimino did it with Heaven's Gate, but I find Heaven's Gate to be the better of the two films.



Before I go on sounding like the curmudgeon I am, I will say that I was impressed with the visuals. Overall, I prefer Deakins' work in No Country For Old Men, but the shot of the train holdup at night, with Jesse James standing in front of it, and the exterior light casting enormous shadows from the train onto the forest is as impressive an individual visual scene as I've seen. The score is good, and parts of the narration are interesting, although the dryness makes me find it less special than it was probably intended to be. There are enough good things here for me to give it a qualified recommendation. I don't feel that I wasted eight hours watching it three times. I admire it more than I did the first time, but I don't like it any more. My rating: .



As far as the actors and characters go, I'd say that over the course of three viewings, I've warmed to Affleck's performance, but his character still comes across as an underdeveloped cipher who I know little more about at the end of the film than I do when he first opened his mouth. On the other hand, I enjoyed Brad Pitt as a psycho, and I did feel the intelligence behind his character. He seemed all too real to me. I just would have thought that he'd squash Bob Ford like a bug. I even thought Sam Shepard's Frank James should have trusted his judgment and wasted Robert Ford in their introductory scene. Oh yeah, what the heck happened to Frank James? He's certainly a significant character, and then he just disappears. Oh well, I guess Jesse wasn't as smart as he seemed without his big brother. Even though Sam Rockwell also seems a bit affected as Charlie Ford, he is at least recognizable as a real character, but that's because he's actually given lines which someone might actually say in real life.



The film was open to being so ironic about how the characters were in real life compared to how they are depicted in folklore. To me, that would be the reason to make another Jesse James film, but I don't feel the irony here. I just feel a director unintentionally draining the life out of his material with method acting and what seems to be method directing. That is my main critique of this film. For all the artistry, skill, beauty and originality on display, it feels to me like looking at a butterfly collection. It's all very lifeless. Oops, the curmudgeon has resurfaced. Maybe he should shut up and take a hike now. This is all presented in the interest of open discussion. I shall return with my seconds if required.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

markf, could you please say more about "method directing"? I'm not sure I follow, there.

Here are some of my thoughts that I don't think were covered already. (really just picking up on little details)

I have to agree, the film looks stunning. However, I wonder if anyone else noticed the fairly large number of shots that appeared to be blurred around the edges. I'm guessing this was intentional yet I have no real idea what it was supposed to mean. Blurry memory? Who knows.

I also felt the film dragged a lot. Not sure why exactly, it just felt like it did. Definitely could've done with a little trimming down to about 2 hours.

This film also has my vote for one of the most ridiculous-looking headshots ever captured on film - when Wood is shot, it brought to mind memories of that really bad effect in Blade Runner when



And for someone that was mentioned in the opening narration as "blinking more than usual", Pitt does an awful lot of staring. Just grabbed my attention throughout the movie.

Who else spotted Nick Cave?

Anyway, my rating see-saws between and . (which are the ratings I usually give when I'm largely indifferent to a movie) Granted, it's a technical masterpiece but it still feels kinda empty.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

It's tough for me to say that Andrew Dominik is "method directing" since this is only his second film. It may have made more sense if I waited for his next film to see if I could determine a pattern. To tell you the truth, I've never said or written that phrase before in my life, but as I thought that some of the performances seemed to use the Method, I started trying to find a way to describe his way of telling this story.

Method Acting involves the actors using personal experiences in (sometimes) similar situations to draw out the emotions of the character they are playing. It also sometimes includes things which seem so personal that the actor/character occasionally seems to become disconnected from the other actors/characters around them. Brando was probably the best Method Actor I know of, but needless to say, he is infamous for some eccentric performances.

Watching The Ass of JJ (cool title, SD), I was struck by how original the direction was. I can accept that this will appeal to many who see the film. I was trying to get inside Dominik's head to determine why he made all the choices he did, in both script and direction. I could see a touchstone in the works of Terrence Malick, but since I'm more used to Malick, I find his work, rightly or wrongly, to be be more true to himself. So then, I decided that Dominik made this film for a very deep-rooted personal reason which I'm not sure that I could fully grasp. Was he trying to place himself in the actual times of Jesse James and thus transport viewers to a more-relaxed, simpler world where things would "just seem slower"? It certainly seemed a possibility and a worthy endeavor.

Or was Dominik just trying to create a revisionist western along the lines of Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller? I wasn't sure if he was making an homage or a personal statement. However, as the film progressed, I started to find the presentation more eccentric rather than less so. This made me understand that he believed in the courage of his convictions, but perhaps his Method in depicting them was to go so far within himself that when they're projected onto the screen, he may have disconnected himself from at least this viewer. Utter BS, I admit, but it's a decent rationalization for inventing a phrase to support one's opinion. Now that I've used it, I can think of some more possible Method directors, both good and not-so-good. But I think that's going even more off-topic, or does that really mean eccentric, on my part? Have I become a Method reviewer? The horror...

Me me me! Made the movie at least twice as cool, to me.

Sure, Nick Cave's rendition of "Jesse James" is actually the one time I did feel the irony in the flick, or at least, the best time.

Yeah! There's one for all you Brad-lovers! Get outa that!

Of course, it could be that the Dime Store narration was telling porkies again. Remember when Bob was told that basically everything in the books he collected was bullsh*t?

To be honest, I cringed when Cave came on screen, and everyone who knows me also knows that I think he's one of the bestest singerest songwriter types ever to holler at the moon, so it's nothing personal.

Hmm, good point. Never thought of it that way.

The Ass of the Nation Jesse James v. The Cowboy Robert Forbes was a pretty good film (for a courtroom drama). Writer-director Tony Gilroy understandably changed some of the facts of the case around to make it more "Hollywood-friendly" (it actually came down to 5-4 decision and not a unanimous one) but the core story is intact and George Clooney is really coming along as an actor. He delivered the performance of a lifetime as Jesse's deformed, illiterate kid brother Henry. Overall: (Best movie ever).

Oops, wrong thread. I really liked The Assassination of Jesse James but I agree with some that the story is somewhat shapeless and needlessly confusing (for a 2 and a half hour movie). I didn't feel particularly confused but I'd probably fail a pop-quiz on the chronology and geography of events in the film. Then again, I'm pretty dim and would need a map with an animated red line and arrows (+ a kickin' John Williams score) to know where I am (and by "I" I mean "the movie" and by "am" I mean "is").

One of the most perplexing things about the movie was actually something I liked: the assassination of the title. That and some other parts were very weirdly acted and it seemed to almost merge with the play-version that immediately follows (which is only slightly more wooden and strange than the "real assassination"): after reading about the arrest of an associate in the newspaper (that Bob obviously tried to hide from him) Brad Pitt announces that he's taking off his gun belt. Then he goes to stand on a chair so he can get a better look at a picture of a horse. Strange man, but I liked that scene.

I also liked the Robert Ford/Casey Affleck character. He was a bit of a cipher but then again they basically tell you at the beginning that Bob Ford was a wannabe, an actor in search of a character.

While I'm still on the acting/characters, the bit I thought was the best or was most intrigued by was the development of Charley Ford after Jesse's death. I was thinking that it must be interesting to play one character and then play that character again as a mediocre depressed stage amateur impersonating another character. Actually that whole extended postscript was the point at which I realized that I really liked the movie, and I loved the freeze-frame ending.

Overall: (Pretty groovy).

Sorry if this message seems rushed, I'm posting at the public library and the computer keeps logging me off every 15 minutes.

Nah, that was a great post.

I'm guessing that Dominik had Affleck playing Bob Ford with a nod to Mark Chapman. Not nuts, obviously, but in an 'obsessive fan with no life' kinda way.

Following that train of thought, this would make Frank James The Walrus. Sheesh, I'll go to bed now.

Well to be fair I did go back and edit the post a couple times to fix it up. *)

Unfortunately the "Mark Chapman/Walrus" reference is outside my range of experience. Care to elaborate?

I watched the movie with ma sis and ma bro (the older of my two bros. actually) tonight. I didn't get their reactions in clear sentences or at the overall picture, but a couple times throughout the film I heard my sister mutter pitying remarks about Robert Ford and also point out the fact that Jesse shot Ed Miller in the back, the gosh-darned rassa-frassa suchety-such coward!

Some updated reactions from myself:
I can see what mark (yes, mark. That's "you" to you.) was saying (if he was actually saying this) about the eccentric performances esp. from Afleck. There seemed to be a lot of stress on ambiguities that leave the film open to speculations about Jesse's meaningful inscrutable glances implying some sort of almost supernatural awareness of his fate, but were also vague enough to leave it open to charges of "eccentricity" or disconnectedness.

On the other hand, I realized while watching it a second time just how young Robert Ford was and I think we should go easy on him in his pretentious and incoherent mannerisms. He was just 19 apparently. Also there were a lot of times he seemed quite a bit more mature and self-aware as when he's talking Charley into the betrayal or coming up with the scheme to get the injured Dick Liddel over to the cops (I'm guessing that was him, though I don't think the genesis of that plan was explicitly mentioned). I don't think he was that unfathomable. "He's only a human being."

Examples of Humor: Jesse and the Ford clan around the dinner table. Liddel flirting with Wood's step mom.

So there are scenes that I think weren't great or just seemed to want to make a point in the most round-about and insufferably scenic manner possible, like the bit where Jesse talks about suicide while shooting at fish under a frozen lake in the echoey snow-caps mountains. At those points I guess you could say the film is more concerned with harsh imagery than plot. I don't know what to say in defense of the movie about this except if image over story/character is a valid approach, then it would be most valid at the hands of a talented cinematographer like this one. And really this isn't all that out there or non-narrative/anti-drama as far as "art house" goes. It's pretty mild.

Imagery:
The night train scene was great. I also liked images like the spider in the wheat at the beginning (with the grass out of focus making it look like it was floating in air), the rocks around the track moving as the train approached, and the scene just before the assassination where they seemed to mess with the frame rate and lighting somehow to make it more harsh and defined looking. There was also a nice split-second POV shot of Bob's hands in that scene. Sunlight draining from the clouds as it dips beyond the horizon. Even the scene I mocked above with the fish and the ice: t'weren't bad.

I'm sticking with for now.

Well, Mark Chapman shot John Lennon. Lennon admitted (though he took it back shortly before he died, but lets not let facts get in the way of a painful analogy, eh? ) in Glass Onion the The Walrus (from I Am The Walrus) was Paul.

Which makes Frank James a walrus! Or maybe Bob Ford.

Charley is definitely Ringo, though...

I'm with you on the 'art-house' comment. I've heard it said a few times about this film and really don't understand why. The same people would no doubt also call Martin Scorsese arthouse. Or Tarantino.

Ditto on your thoughts about Bob - he was a 19 year old kid when the film started and not much more than 20 when he shot James. He was also an awkward and somewhat starstruck 19 year old kid (with the emphasis on 'kid') throughout most of the movie.

Your first post alluded to Jesse knowing and accepting that he was about to die. I wonder what other people think about this?

Did he finally accept that his time on this earth was up?

Was he trying to test Ford's nerve by presenting himself as such an easy target?

Was he still so at ease in Ford's company that he would present himself in such a vulnerable manner?

I saw this and liked it a lot, but I want to give it another round before I try to explain what it is that I liked. Good stuff! Recommended.

FYI: Hollywood Video doesn't carry this movie and no one could really explain why they didn't. Anyone here have a clue as to why Hollywood Video wouldn't carry this fine piece of cinema?

__________________

Sorry I'm late, I will be getting this today and after I see Iron Man today I will get to this this weekend.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Ok, I saw this last night and it had an effect. I'm not sure if it was a good effect but I did feel jazzed up enough to watch another movie after and I really liked that one so I guess (hopefully) by the time I'm done writing this: A. You're still reading and not having some kind of seizure. And B. I will be able to make some sense of my thoughts.

I agree with just about everything I've read here good and bad so far and to me that makes it a relatively average film. There is a big part of me that wishes films based on real people that were murderers don't get made. At the same time I also realize it is what it is and especially here in America we love to put Murderers on pedestals and slander our heroes. That being said, I have such a hard time getting into a film like this and just swallowing everything that's being fed to me. I'm not a big historian and I guess I'm to lazy to go and Google Jesse James, just to find out if this movie was even remotely historically accurate. I guess maybe later I will look into rufnek's thread and see what he has to say about it because he really seems to know a lot of the background on most of these people.

Now, I want to talk about my favorite part before I get to carried away with bashing the flick. The Narration was spectacular. I don't know what it is exactly about detached narration that I find so appealing but it really agrees with me. I found myself craving those semi-blurry interludes so the narrator would come back on and in essence put the movie back on track for me. Because to me, that was my biggest gripe with film it was really at times completely rudderless. Sure, some of the acting was fascinating but what was the movie even about? If, like the title indicates it was about The Ass of JJ (thanks SD!) then why wasn't the focus more on Robert Ford? The film starts out from the very beginning trying to get me to feel like Robert Ford is just this creepy little kid who may or may not be a little retarded and then he's gone for a good portion of the film. They made up for that at the end but by then I was ready for it to end it was about 30 minutes to long in my ever so humble opinion.

Not that I'm complaining about Brad Pitt, I think this may be the best acting I've seen from him, and most of the acting was pretty enjoyable overall. And I do agree with the cinematography being absolutely excellent.

I see that Tatty was drawing some comparisons to a flick I haven't seen so me being me I'm going to compare this (unfavorably) to a movie that I know and love. In Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven we meet a fictional character that by the end of the film I'm rooting for and loving, even though we know this man was a brutal murderer of women and children and just about every thing else that's walked or talked. In The Ass of JJ we meet a man who has supposedly murdered 17 men and by the end of the movie has killed at least one more that we know of and I couldn't have cared less. Who was Jesse James? Am I supposed to read a book about him before I subject myself to a 2 and a half hour movie? And if I were to do that wouldn't I most likely just sit through the whole flick going: "That's not right." or "That didn't happen" and the like?

Alright I'm sorry I'm starting to ramble. More to follow... maybe...