![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 20th, 2014 10:03 pmFargo tv show:
So the two gloves are malice and selfishness. The first associated with animality, the second with attempting to employ the first for gain. Doesn't quite feel like it works, maybe because it collapses the McCarthy and Coen universes, something they didn't do themselves in No Country, instead stepping out of the way.
And the "going back across the river" means correcting past mistakes, I guess? Or was it something more literal, fitting how cops kill criminals kill victims; but who's deciding who goes where - screenwriters?
Not really clear on what the money/religion subplot had to do with the main stuff, other than as another playground for the malice character. As a lesser version of the Freeman selfishness story - the fate of non-givers as compared to takers? The guy was vulnerable to feeling like he was being punished for selfishness because some part of him blamed himself? Here too the screenwriter aspect confuses things: most people aren't liable to blame the deaths of their kids in a rain of fish on God because most kids don't die that way.
Not a clean story, is what I'm saying, though I love risky or extended symbolism (though that thin ice thing, sheesh!). Maybe inevitable when homaging so extensively?
So the two gloves are malice and selfishness. The first associated with animality, the second with attempting to employ the first for gain. Doesn't quite feel like it works, maybe because it collapses the McCarthy and Coen universes, something they didn't do themselves in No Country, instead stepping out of the way.
And the "going back across the river" means correcting past mistakes, I guess? Or was it something more literal, fitting how cops kill criminals kill victims; but who's deciding who goes where - screenwriters?
Not really clear on what the money/religion subplot had to do with the main stuff, other than as another playground for the malice character. As a lesser version of the Freeman selfishness story - the fate of non-givers as compared to takers? The guy was vulnerable to feeling like he was being punished for selfishness because some part of him blamed himself? Here too the screenwriter aspect confuses things: most people aren't liable to blame the deaths of their kids in a rain of fish on God because most kids don't die that way.
Not a clean story, is what I'm saying, though I love risky or extended symbolism (though that thin ice thing, sheesh!). Maybe inevitable when homaging so extensively?
