Fascinating discussion. I have a bit of a mixed experience with the Coens. I find my opinion of their films improves with a second viewing, which is rare for me. I saw The Big Lebowski, O Brother and No Country in the cinema, and found them all to be enjoyable but suffered from a sense of style over substance. They were all shot really well, but something was missing for me. For example, Lebowski came out in the late 90s, and I felt at the time the Dude was a bit of a trite character. Now, of course, I see him for the classic he is, but on first watch something didn't sit right for me.

Having Wikied them, I'm going to check out The Man Who Wasn't There, Barton Fink and Miller's Crossing. Feel free to recommend any others.

No, didn't like any of them. I definitely credit them with getting these films made. They're wantonly unconformist and that's something to be applauded but their films feel shallow, if good-looking concoctions.

And often, sad to say, quite boring. I recall Barton Fink especially and felt especially burned by that as I'd journeyed to the cinema for that.

I loved O Brother Where Art Thou for the music which really got me into Bluegrass. I haven't seen all their films but probably most of them. No Country for Old Men just confirmed they're never going to change their ways. But they have their fans and that's cool. Better than standard Hollywood fare.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^Deano:
Sorry to say but I do detest the Cohens. Vastly overrated and seemingly incapable of developing characters or vaguely interesting scripts. Some of their direction is good so maybe they should stick to that rather than developing films.
Anyone catch the ending of Old Country or whatever it's called? Absolutely rubbish and typically contrary behaviour.
They really haven't done a decent film since Raising Arizona.
Finally why, oh, why are they remaking True Grit? Run out of ideas?

They haven't done a decent film since Raising Arizona...? You didn't like Fargo? The Big Lebowski? O Brother Where Art Thou? Miller's Crossing?
Incapable of developing characters? If nothing else, The Dude is one of the most iconic characters of the '90s. I know opinions are subjective and all that, but... you are incorrect. The Coen brothers are awesome.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^shuac:
>> ^Deano:
Sorry to say but I do detest the Cohens. Vastly overrated and seemingly incapable of developing characters or vaguely interesting scripts. Some of their direction is good so maybe they should stick to that rather than developing films.
Anyone catch the ending of Old Country or whatever it's called? Absolutely rubbish and typically contrary behaviour.
They really haven't done a decent film since Raising Arizona.
Finally why, oh, why are they remaking True Grit? Run out of ideas?
Typical internet "opinion-wielder" who can freely tell you how much he hates something but is utterly ill-equipped to explain the reasons why. It's rather humorous.

Sometimes it's ok to have an opinion without having to back it up. Things like movies really don't need much of a reason, it's just how the person feels about it. Having said that, if I'm really passionate about something, I would probably want to know a good reason why, but sometimes there isn't one


I couldn't disagree more.

The ability to explain yourself has the effect of validating an opinion, whether people agree with it or not. I'm far more interested in hearing why Deano hates the Coen Brothers than hearing how much he hates them. I may never agree but at least he'll have exhausted due diligence. Additionally, I don't see how Deano's feelings will be negatively affected. In fact, if Deano were to properly articulate himself I think he'd find his own opinion will have been fortified, not diminished.

And as a bonus, I may get a new perspective on the Coen brothers.

I'll never be uninterested in hearing someone explain why they possess "opinion x." That is, in fact, the reason why we should expect a full explanation: because we're interested. I'm interested in hearing Deano's views on Fargo. How Marge Gunderson is a poorly fleshed-out character. Or why he thinks the last scene of No Country was such a failure. I want to know why he thinks the themes of Barton Fink are so ineffective. If we let him off the hook, then nothing of substance gets shared. Just empty words, utterly bereft of substance.

So I think that attitude is quite defeatist, Alien.

As a preemptive retort, "because they suck" and the like will not at all count as a proper articulation of "why" the Coen brothers are bad storytellers. Just so you know. If you didn't go to school then at least pretend like you did.

Did I just get really elitist at the end there? Oh well. I'll survive. And so will Deano.

Joey Barton is an Asshat...everyone in English Football knows this.

Barton was suspended for three matches.

Yes, but what about the fears!

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?
Let's just start with this. Again, from BP's summary of the agreement:

The fund will be available to satisfy legitimate claims including natural resource damages and state and local response costs. Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.
The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg. The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims.

The idea here is to prevent what happened with Exxon Valdez, where Exxon fault paying claims for 20 years until the SCOTUS cut the payouts by 80%, and many claimants had died.
The idea is that this creates a giant facility for doing out-of-court settlements, something the majority of claimants and BP would do anyways. It doesn't prevent claimants or BP from going through the courts, it mostly just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims, and adds a 3rd option for processing claims (the Independent Claims Facility), which people can use, or not.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I worry of Presidents taking the roles of the courts, once your are the cops and the judge, your democracy is in trouble. I worry more here than I am accusing. It sets a dangerous precedent. Moreover, if something goes "bad" with the escrow, who handles it then? The President and BP again? Or do the courts then have step in and take something over that they never had any say in how it worked? In other words, he is going outside the way things work. And I think he did so to respond to the moronic claim that his administration wasn't doing enough or crying dragon tears.
Last part first, I agree that the whole thing seems like a somewhat meaningless capitulation to perverse media narratives.
That said, the agreement was never meant to deprive anyone of their right to lay claims in court. Basically, it was just a way to A) make sure the money is removed from BP's bank account before claims are processed B) give claimants a 3rd alternative for getting claims assessed (aside from the courts and direct negotiation with BP), and C) give both BP and Obama a PR win for being proactive on the topic.
I guarantee you that Obama will be in a world of hurt if this does become a backdoor way to deprive people of their right to sue in court -- the left and right would come down on him like a ton of bricks.
The key thing that irks me about hearing this fear about creeping executive power from anyone on the right is that there's this huge drama about "taking" money from BP (as in, asking for voluntary contributions to an escrow fund), but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial. That's the point Colbert made in his segment on this same topic.
Again, this is bullshit intended to try to make BP out to be some sort of victim of a fictitiously tyrannical Obama administration, when I think the safe bet is that Obama sat down with Hayward and said "look, here's a way for you to really show people you're on the up and up with paying the money..."

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I tend to agree on calling the GOP out for flip-flopping on this. Obama's 20 billion cash escrow account IS a 'shakedown' and there is nothing wrong calling him out on it. The GOP should have had the stones to oppose it more. There is no legal justification for the Executive Branch to assume this kind of power. It is unconstitutional, illegal, and inappropriate. Putting unsupervised Executive branch 'czars' like Fienberg in charge of 20 billion dollars to hand out to whoever he wants is a terrible idea.
Barton was 100% correct in everything he said. It is shameful for the US to have anything to do with this kind of garbage. This is the stuff that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or other bananna republic dictators do. Boo - hiss on Obama for doing it, and double boo-hiss on the GOP for not giving Obama both barrels. When will the GOP get a backbone and stand up for what's constitutional rather than what is politically convenient? All it takes is one bogus whine from democrats about being 'opposed to helping Gulf victims' and they fold like cheap umbrellas. The leftist position on this issue is laughable on its face, and they knuckle under to the rhetoric every time. Bah.


Sadly, the courts now seem to be owning their elections to corporate America more and more these days (Like every other elected official.) If this is the case, soon the courts will owe their alliance to the same... and then who do we have to petition to?

I am not worried of excecutive powers here; I am worried of corporate powers. What if the spill costs 100 billion or more? The courts would probably never agree to force the oil companies to pay that amount in the name of "jobs" or "unfairness." What if it costs 200-500 billion? Who pays the legally required payments? What if the spill had been far worse?


I am not saying you are wrong---the president has no means to force a company to do right. It is the actual consumer who has that power (Consider the consumer a Veto-man.) Then, it is the courts that have that power. However, when everything fails? Then what?

Oh, and BP did this for public image--not because the president shook any one down. You give the president too much here---it was the consumer's veto that won that battle... certainly not Bp's moral standards...

I can see how you could misunderstand, because the president has blue balls and not red ones.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?

Let's just start with this. Again, from BP's summary of the agreement:

The fund will be available to satisfy legitimate claims including natural resource damages and state and local response costs. Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.

The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg. The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims.

The idea here is to prevent what happened with Exxon Valdez, where Exxon fault paying claims for 20 years until the SCOTUS cut the payouts by 80%, and many claimants had died.

The idea is that this creates a giant facility for doing out-of-court settlements, something the majority of claimants and BP would do anyways. It doesn't prevent claimants or BP from going through the courts, it mostly just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims, and adds a 3rd option for processing claims (the Independent Claims Facility), which people can use, or not.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I worry of Presidents taking the roles of the courts, once your are the cops and the judge, your democracy is in trouble. I worry more here than I am accusing. It sets a dangerous precedent. Moreover, if something goes "bad" with the escrow, who handles it then? The President and BP again? Or do the courts then have step in and take something over that they never had any say in how it worked? In other words, he is going outside the way things work. And I think he did so to respond to the moronic claim that his administration wasn't doing enough or crying dragon tears.

Last part first, I agree that the whole thing seems like a somewhat meaningless capitulation to perverse media narratives.

That said, the agreement was never meant to deprive anyone of their right to lay claims in court. Basically, it was just a way to A) make sure the money is removed from BP's bank account before claims are processed B) give claimants a 3rd alternative for getting claims assessed (aside from the courts and direct negotiation with BP), and C) give both BP and Obama a PR win for being proactive on the topic.

I guarantee you that Obama will be in a world of hurt if this does become a backdoor way to deprive people of their right to sue in court -- the left and right would come down on him like a ton of bricks.

The key thing that irks me about hearing this fear about creeping executive power from anyone on the right is that there's this huge drama about "taking" money from BP (as in, asking for voluntary contributions to an escrow fund), but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial. That's the point Colbert made in his segment on this same topic.

Again, this is bullshit intended to try to make BP out to be some sort of victim of a fictitiously tyrannical Obama administration, when I think the safe bet is that Obama sat down with Hayward and said "look, here's a way for you to really show people you're on the up and up with paying the money..."

Ya, it is politics as its finest really. Thanks to some others providing me links and what not, I was able to fine lots of information out on this. It seems the district courts are the ones that should be handling stuff like that. Obama has the power of Moratorium, but state still have a certain level of veto power. It is all super crazy tangled web. I think most would agree with the settlement being needed, as for me, I worry like yourself about federal 'Carz' of wealth distribution. The courts are one of the last places were we as citizens can make judgments against large corporations. We do get stabbed in the back at times, like with the huge reductions in the fines for exxon; bastards. I think we need to rethink corporate charters and how they exist in this country. They are far to sheltered from the risk normal people take. I don't have a solution atm, just thinking out loud.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I tend to agree on calling the GOP out for flip-flopping on this. Obama's 20 billion cash escrow account IS a 'shakedown' and there is nothing wrong calling him out on it. The GOP should have had the stones to oppose it more. There is no legal justification for the Executive Branch to assume this kind of power. It is unconstitutional, illegal, and inappropriate. Putting unsupervised Executive branch 'czars' like Fienberg in charge of 20 billion dollars to hand out to whoever he wants is a terrible idea.
Barton was 100% correct in everything he said. It is shameful for the US to have anything to do with this kind of garbage. This is the stuff that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or other bananna republic dictators do. Boo - hiss on Obama for doing it, and double boo-hiss on the GOP for not giving Obama both barrels. When will the GOP get a backbone and stand up for what's constitutional rather than what is politically convenient? All it takes is one bogus whine from democrats about being 'opposed to helping Gulf victims' and they fold like cheap umbrellas. The leftist position on this issue is laughable on its face, and they knuckle under to the rhetoric every time. Bah.

I tend to agree on calling the GOP out for flip-flopping on this. Obama's 20 billion cash escrow account IS a 'shakedown' and there is nothing wrong calling him out on it. The GOP should have had the stones to oppose it more. There is no legal justification for the Executive Branch to assume this kind of power. It is unconstitutional, illegal, and inappropriate. Putting unsupervised Executive branch 'czars' like Fienberg in charge of 20 billion dollars to hand out to whoever he wants is a terrible idea.

Barton was 100% correct in everything he said. It is shameful for the US to have anything to do with this kind of garbage. This is the stuff that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or other bananna republic dictators do. Boo - hiss on Obama for doing it, and double boo-hiss on the GOP for not giving Obama both barrels. When will the GOP get a backbone and stand up for what's constitutional rather than what is politically convenient? All it takes is one bogus whine from democrats about being 'opposed to helping Gulf victims' and they fold like cheap umbrellas. The leftist position on this issue is laughable on its face, and they knuckle under to the rhetoric every time. Bah.

Goddamn, that scares me!
>> ^NetRunner:

Oh, and another thing to keep in mind, Joe Barton is the ranking Republican on the Energy Committee. If some terrible mistake on the part of the American people results in the Republicans taking the House, this guy will be chairman of the committee that sets energy policy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^NetRunner:
Oh, and another thing to keep in mind, Joe Barton is the ranking Republican on the Energy Committee. If some terrible mistake on the part of the American people results in the Republicans taking the House, this guy will be chairman of the committee that sets energy policy.

The MMS, the organization responsible in regulating off sea drilling isn't under the energy department, it is under the department of the interior.


Not exactly -- MMS is in charge of approving leases, and enforcing the laws governing oil drilling. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has a huge jurisdiction, including pretty much everything having to do with commerce and energy, including writing the laws that govern oil drilling.

Being an unabashed whore for big oil like this seems like a bad person to have anywhere near the levers of power. Not to mention, Barton only went slightly beyond the general Republican party position on this topic -- the making BP pay into an escrow fund to be used to pay damage claims is evil, and wrong, and horrible, and scary, and a sign that fascism has come to America.

...but at the same time, they want to tell you that Obama's not doing enough about the crisis.

PS: I also said "energy policy", thinking "subsidies and deregulation for dirty energy", not "he's going to make oil drilling even less safe", though I wouldn't put it past someone who's so obviously big oil's lap dog.

Promoting to remind people that Joe "I apologized to BP for making them pay for a spill" Barton is no stranger to *fail.

*promote

In principle, I agree.

But I know if the current president were aligned politically with Gingrich and Hannity, they would be cheering him on. They cheered on bush/cheney as they grabbed unprecedented power. (I guess they never figured it would be placed in the hand of a brother) I hoped that Obama would give it up, but that's a tall order for any human being to give up so much power.

Now we have a situation where a corporation (who increasingly have too much power themselves) has created a complete fuck-the-Earth disaster.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think this is an unpopular/unpolitical message, but I fear that it may be the right one. Beware the doubled edge sword, it cuts both ways. The day comes where the president will be Nero, and the precedent of power will established will be fearsome indeed. F BP, let them face the courts and get reamed. But F the president as well, the executive branch taking more power will not get this country back to were we need.

>> ^NetRunner:

Oh, and another thing to keep in mind, Joe Barton is the ranking Republican on the Energy Committee. If some terrible mistake on the part of the American people results in the Republicans taking the House, this guy will be chairman of the committee that sets energy policy.


The MMS, the organization responsible in regulating off sea drilling isn't under the energy department, it is under the department of the interior.