MovieChat Forums > Hail, Caesar! (2016) Discussion > Can you really enjoy this movie without ...

Can you really enjoy this movie without understanding cinematic history?

posted 8 years ago by Rizzyay
36 replies | jump to latest

Yeah, I just finished watching the movie. It was allright, not great but allright. To me, it was a parody of Hollywood history. I have luckily been studying the cinematic history lately, and thus understood pretty much all the jokes about the movie genres and the communist schemes that were presumed to exist in the 50s (that were for most part exxaggeration, which of course you would also have to know in order to understand the joke). Can you really like this movie at all without having understanding of movie history? If not, then the Coen brothers really made a movie for a very narrow audience!

For me 6/10. It was a decent 3-star-film about the spoofs of movie history.

Without understanding of cinematic history I would've missed all the jokes, and it would've been propably like 2/10.

[–] barutguray 8 years ago

if anyone want to understand what was this movie about , should have watched trumbo first.this movie was about an era with blacklists and anticommunist fear.All the mockery is about spartacus.

[–] gaelmarconi12 8 years ago

No. It was just plain awful. I made a review on it also. Coens can do much better.

[–] dkast85 8 years ago

Came in to basically make this thread. This is one of the more intelligent movies I've seen over the last few years. If you don't have a grasp on the history of Hollywood this movie will be a bore to you. It is also an obvious critique on liberal Hollywood. This is one of those movies where the plot is secondary to the purpose of the film.

DK
Thanks for Playing
http://www.twitter.com/DaveKast

[–] willandthomas-picturehou 8 years ago

I laughed at the Carlotta Valdez reference. The people with me looked at me, wondering why did I laughed.
A film buff's delight. This is what this movie is.

[–] bob998 8 years ago

No, you have to know who these characters are modeled on. Gene Autry, Esther Williams, Victor Mature, Gene Kelly, Carmen Miranda and so forth are a part of Hollywood history and must be known to the viewer. On the other hand, if the Coens wanted to bring the communist script writers to life, that was a much harder task (even after TRUMBO). It was nice to see Herbert Marcuse in the story, but who remembers him?

[–] maenad-3 8 years ago

bob998 My main reason for rather enjoying this film was due to identifying the actors and linking the film scenes to the old movies of the 1950's, which I remember well as I am 73 years of age. It was amusing to see the mermaid demanding that her tail be removed as she was suffering from gas. The Gene Kelly sailor tap dance was just clumsy enough to make me laugh and remember the great dancers with nostalgia. As for the biblical epic film shots, they were spoofs of "Ben Hur," as in the episode of the hero getting a drink from a mysterious, unseen figure who is obviously Jesus, and the scene beneath the cross, inspired by "The Robe." And how about that St Paul on the road to Damascus? Epic biblical at its best! I did not quite understand the communist scenes, although I am familiar with the McCarthy era persecution of certain Hollywood writers. Who remembers Herbert Marcuse indeed, even his repressive desublimation theory has been sublimated. I would really like to know the connection between Hollywood films and the Soviet submarine scene, with the Soviet Army and Chorus singing. So while rather confused about the 'message" of the film, especially the connection between Mannix, Capitol and Jesus, I can conclude that, all in all, it was colourful and amusing enough.

[–] bob998 8 years ago

I'm only four years younger than you, maenad-3, but a lot of the Fifties is terra incognita for me. What makes it more difficult was the fact that kids in Quebec when I was growing up weren't allowed to go to movies--unless it was the Christmas biblical spectacle: Ben Hur, Ten Commandments and so forth. So that left me with a very skewed idea of what Hollywood film was. It was only years later that I was able to flesh out my knowledge as an adult by going to showings at university film clubs, and by reading books (God bless Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris).

I suspect that the submarine scene has no basis in Hollywood of the Fifties, it's just something the Coens thought up as a nice satirical touch. I loved the scene when Clooney stumbles upon the cell meeting; his befuddlement is well played.

[–] maenad-3 8 years ago

bob998 Indeed, Clooney's befuddlement is most amusing. Also amusing is his malleability. He is converted to the communist cause but a few good slaps from Brolin bring him back to the Capitol fold. I tend to agree that the film is a compendium of some amusing vignettes but is hard to grasp as a whole. I suppose that, given the prohibitions placed on your movie viewing, you must have been brought up in a strict Roman Catholic environment. We shall never see the likes of that again.

[–] jeff_carolan 8 years ago

It's hard to enjoy watching this knowing some of the beyond immoral things that the real life Eddie Mannix did to "fix" things, like hound and discredit an aspiring starlet who thought she was attending a casting call and ended up being raped at a studio organized orgy in the desert. Eddie was in charge of ruining her life to protect the studio when she spoke up. Check out Girl 27 to see how this played in reality.

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 8 years ago

I think that is the target audience, and that those with knowledge of film history are more likely to appreciate the film than those who do not possess such knowledge. Probably part of a package deal the Coen brothers had with the studio. The studio lets them do this film that is a bit of a personal project for them in exchange for a more mainstream moneymaking picture.

[–] Naldoman 8 years ago

I thought the visual look of the film was top-notch. The water-ballet was cheesy and too obvious they faked most of it - but it's not a deal-breaker. The navy dance was worth a few chuckles and I did like how all the elements tied together.

Sadly, the sum of the parts are worth less together - the film just doesn't work. The STORY works fine, the FILM just lack "energy" or "vibe" or "attitude" or ..... just something to carry it along and make it worthwhile.

All in all, it's more like a documentary of sleazy studio practices than an entertaining story.

[–] mickeeteeze 8 years ago

I tend to agree with you overall. Especially, "The film just doesn't work".

The broad 'reaches' of the entire story, the bizarre outlying 'people/groups' didn't get together cohesively enough for me to really emotionally lose myself in Eddie's personal 'dilemma's'.

However, I will watch it again, as I like the Coens.

Considering it took me 24 hours broken up over two evenings to get through it?

I'd like to see if it 'moves' better for me a second time.

Besides the obvious similarity to "Barton Fink", I do think they were mining some similar stones.

Make no mistake: "Hail, Caesar!" is not a brilliant movie like "Fink".

However, the Coens playing with 'old Hollywood' is fun! I really liked ScarJo as a 'swimming/dancer' athlete drinking, smoking with a bland Brooklyn accent, and Laurence Lorenz, Audie Murphy, Gene Kelly, Carmen Miranda....not to mention conflating Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons with Dera Abbie and Ann Landers: that was clever, hitting a bunch of unrelated 50's Americana icons.

Oh, and to the OP's original point? I do think it helps to know Hollywood history to watch this. I don't see how one could enjoy all the dryness without knowing 'who or what' is being parodied.

[–] maenad-3 8 years ago

mickeeteeze: Thank you for your interpretation of the inspirations for the gossip columnist twins. I told my husband that they were Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons while he saw Anne Landers and Dear Abby. Of course, they are all of them. One day, maybe someone will help me understand the apotheosis with the Russian submarine and the dog with the Red Army chorus in its full vocal glory.

[–] mickeeteeze 8 years ago

maenad-3, I agree with both of you!

Yea, I'm not sure of the whole 'Dog/Sub' thing either!

[–] mhlong 8 years ago

I'm not sure one would have to be fully aware of Hollywood history to understand/appreciate the movie, but it would probably help. But you can also just have an appreciation for Hollywood films themselves and have taken the time to see a great many of them to catch a lot of the references. I was able to catch most of the ones they made, but I'm approaching 70 and have been a avid fan of just watching movies since the late 50's, although I seldom go to the theater anymore. The premium channels/Netflix/etc give me all I need to see of relatively current movies and channels like TCM and some really oddball ones allow me to see/revisit much older flicks.

What I did find rather curious was that the sets themselves were obviously filmed as 'sets' as in I'm watching a movie of being in a movie of a movie and there's very little magic. I mean Mannix's office, Jonah Hill's office, the coastal home to the communist cell were practically screaming at me - See! I'm a set! And many of the so called 'scenes' being (supposedly) filmed were done in their entirety with a single stage camera visible, yet I know in reality the movies they were based on were done in segments, shot from various angles and edited later on to show a complete scene, like the tap dancing routine (which could also have been a sendup of Anchors Away, or Nothin like a Dame from South Pacific as good examples of knowing movies).

To me the funniest scene was towards the end where it looks like the character played by Clooney is on the verge of giving an Oscar nominated performance as everyone on the set starts to take notice, and then he blows it. You have to wonder how many times great actors have done that! Fortunately the movie makers are putting in outtakes at the end of movies to give us all something to laugh about as we leave the theater... or look for the remote. I liked it, not a 10 for sure, but enjoyable. (oh, yeah, the Russian sub scene could have been a slight sendup of 'The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming' a little later than the 50's but about the 50's).

Finally, I really appreciated a review I read with an interview with the Coen brothers where they admitted to loving to watch movies as kids and teens and then learning later on that most of what they loved to watch was...crap. Gives a good perspective to understanding what they were doing here.