Saying Jerry is only stupid and incompetent with the best intentions, is just, wow! He did not have the best intentions and was not taking the actions of having his wife kidnapped and his son put through that for the benefit of his family. Jerry is extremely selfish, only self-concerned, and very insecure. He lets his insecurities drive him to do bad things, because he has bad character to begin with. While he doesn't intend for the worst outcomes to happen, the outcomes he does intend are plenty bad enough, and he's willing to risk his wife's life for his own satisfaction. He steals from his customers, he steals from the bank, he puts his wife and his son through emotional tumult. He's a bad guy.
I think Jerry had a very straightforward plan of what was going to happen, the kidnappers would take his wife, a day or two later she would be fine, and he would have $960,000 which could be used to gain financial security for his family. As you said, he is insecure, and he does have trouble connecting with people, I don't think that makes him a bad person. As I said in the video, morals are fluid, what makes a character good or bad to you is totally different than someone else.
Jack's Movie Reviews We clearly have very different definitions of bad people. Causing your wife to be killed is well beyond the boarder line of bad in my world; and is certainly outside of any norm for the vast majority of human beings. But words have meaning, and claiming best intentions or doing the best for his family when that simply just isn't true, just doesn't fly. Quite frankly you just sound silly. He had the best intentions of getting away with doing something wrong, but what he intended to do was still wrong by any norms of morals on this planet.
Jack's Movie Reviews Well that's a view. I think Jerry's intentions are to self-aggrandize. He feels under the thumb of his farther-in-law and wants to be a success on his own, and have his own money. Problem is he doesn't want to work and earn it. He either wants the same farther-in-law to finance it, or he wants to steal it by having his wife kidnapped and the farther-in-law pay ransom. Going out and getting a job somewhere else, saving money or getting a bank loan to start his own business, or going back to school to get better credentials to put himself in position for more lucrative work are not things he's willingly to do. He'd have to work hard, sacrifice something and take on risk. He's too weak for any of that. He's a selfish person who wants the easy life, the easy way.
Is it ever explained why he did it in the first place? If so i didnt pick it up. I think by not explaining why he setup up the kidnap explains it all. As long as people are selfish it will just lead to pain, no matter the reason why
Sorry, but you are really reaching in your attempt to force this film to fit your thesis. I'm particularly taken aback by your interpretation of Gaear and Carl. Gaear isn't dumb, he's just emotionally numb, perfectly comfortable with his work and only speaks when he actually has something to say. He sits looking numb at the end because he just doesn't care what Marge has to say about morality, although I personally think the actor betrays a tiny hint in his eyes that somewhere inside the character, there is a glimmer of understanding or regret. Carl otoh, constantly babbles and makes jokes to distract himself from what he is doing. Gaear probably despises Carl for what he considers weakness. Gaear was the one who was really in charge the entire time.
Also saying Jerry isn't a bad guy, and "just trying to help his family"... by fucking getting his wife kidnapped to milk his father-in-law for $1M (more than double what he's in debt for, for his earlier scam). LMAO guy's a fucking snake.
I can't say I agree at all (SPOILER ALERT)... For one thing: you say Gaear blindly follows Carl's lead? What!? When does that ever happen? When he kills the cop that pulls them over? When he leaves Carl's butt behind to follow and kill the couple that saw them dump the cop's body? When he kills Jerry's wife? or when he axes Carl? Never, none of his morally reprehensible actions are really prompted by Carl, he actually defies Carl's plans on several of those. Also there are several undeniably innocent bystanders who get caught up and chewed out due to the actions of others, innocent bystanders should be ruled out if what you say were true (if one where to apply Popper's falsifiability system here). On the other hand Jerry has no good intentions, where did you get that? from Jerry's own description of himself? Come on! Practically everything he says in the film are lies (I'm sure if you where to count everything he says in the movie and separate what is a lie and what is true, the pile of truthful utterances of his would scarcely be a dent in his mountain of lies) Jerry is small, greedy, egotistical, dishonest, and, yes, stupid, but stupidity is not as powerful in him as greed (Imo). He had already scammed his way into a mess which he was trying to get out of by kidnapping his wife! He cheats and lies at every turn. He might be the most scorn-worthy of all them. Also I'm not sure I agree with your outcome measuring system. Scotty was left alone because his father engineered the kidnapping and (yes, unintentional) murder of both his mother and grandfather for being a brat and talking back at dinner? Does that sound morally proportional? A quick death for Wade is a lot easier than either that or Jerry's capture which you call mild but it is devastating to him as it confronts him with the fruits of his infinite incompetence... and Jerry's stint in Jail should be absolute hell, I would think. There is no proportionality between morality and outcome, even though Margie strives to fix that in a sense. The world is a stage for the confrontation of the different moral stances of the characters but does not offer any simplistic solutions by way of an organizing principle or force. Some get what they had coming, but many don't.
@mrsbluesky8415 You're commenting on something from 2 years ago? And a video I don't care about anymore? I love the movie, but I don't remember why I felt that way. Anyway, get a life and stay current. Commenting on OLD COMMENTS is kind of being a BITCH.
When discussing Gaear's character, a very important scene to remember is the one wherein he is watching the tv program before Carl returns with the money. He clearly responded emotionally to the tv character's news that she was pregnant. It was the only scene that depicted another level of depth in Gaear. This is a driving reason that I interpreted the his viewing of the Paul Bunyan statue as a more self-reflective moment. If nothing else, this short scene is a testament to the level of nuance the Cohen brothers put into the film.
I think it makes him all the more inscrutable: the one moment he shows emotion is watching a trashy daytime soap opera. That's even harder to comprehend than someone who doesn't have emotional interest in other people (real or fictional) at all. It's like Lumberg in Office Space, a character whose true motives and thoughts are impossible to understand, without being unrealistic.
The moral theme is truth vs. lies. The film starts out with a lie: that it is based on real life events that occurred in Minnesota in 1987. It moves immediately to a scene where somebody is lying: either Jerry because Shep did NOT tell him 8:30, or Shep because he set the meeting for 7:30, or Gaer and Carl because thet wanted to intimidate Jerry by putting him in a state of disequilibrium by accusing him of being late. Jerry is then in a cross-examination with the two thugs who are evidently confused about the story and think Jerry is lying about something. It goes on and on from there. It is a 3 1/2 hour drive back to Minneapolis from Fargo, Jerry is there around 8:30 PM, but still arrives back in Minneapolis around dinner time and responds to his wife's question about "How was Fargo?" He then talks to Wade about a parking lot deal that is a lie: Jerry just wants the money. He accuses Wade of having Stan Grossman around just to lie instead of revealing that Wade just does not want to lend Jerry the money. The next day, Jerry lies to the GMAC auditor. He is in trouble in the first place because he has lied about the financing of a number of cars sold by his father in law's dealership. He goes on to have a confrontation with a customer about whether or not he lied to get an additional $500 out of the customer for an unwanted, unneeded undercoating. He lies to negotiate $400 of the $500 when the customer resists because he did not ask any "boss" and no "boss" ever said he could knock off $100. The customer calls him a "fu***ng liar." The lies continue from there. Marge seems to be lying to herself about her feelings for Mike Yanaguta who gives her a pack of lies about his love life and employment history. The story is about liars and the consequences of lying: first and foremost.
I wouldn’t say in a nutshell it comes down to lying. It’s about morality if anything. Lying is an aspect of a lack of morality, which many of the characters represent.
She may have shot him in the leg. But, at least she didn't kill him. She still did the right thing. She arrested him, told him his Miranda Rights, and took him to a place to be granted a fair and speedy trial. She truly is incorruptible and righteous. And she's living a life without sin.
I disagree about Jerry Lunderguard. Jerry was a bad guy. He was shady, got involved in crooked schemes, got his wife killed and abandoned his son to go on the lamb after his plans went to shit.
I have to disagree with when you said that Marge shooting Gaear was a bad thing. She was a pregnant cop all alone in the freezing cold. What was she supposed to do? Try to tackle Gaear down and risk getting herself killed? She even saw what he did with the woodchipper, so it's not like she just shot him with no proof. She was right to shoot him in the leg in order to stop him from running. That's just how I see it.
I thought it was interesting how you did not mention Jerry's wife and what part she played in all of this. If people die because of their moral actions, then what role does she play in this movie once she is killed?
That is a great point, her character is treated as more of a plot device used to hurry along the story. This makes us wonder why the Coen's devalued her life.
I saw her as manipulative, and a bully of Jerry. She probably knew her dad's money was probably a factor in Jerry's marrying her. Their son sure knew it! Wade knew it, too, legally protecting the wife and son's share from Jerry's clutches. So, as a subtext, the kidnapping is, in a way, not only freeing Jerry and showing he has some manhood left. It also is a way for him to become one-up on his wife, her side of the family, and even over his son, the "Accordian [sic] King." Problem was, Jerry didn't recognize his own shortcomings. That happens to the best of us!
Interesting take....there are some things here that I think are off. Wade, for example. Sure he's a sumabitch ruthless businessman, but I think he just has trouble with emotions. He makes it clear to Jerry that Jerry's attempt to use Jean and Scotty--"it'll work out well for Jean and Scotty"--as emotional pawns to tilt Wade to lend Jerry $750k for a questionable business project that he, Wade, won't be blackmailed like that--"Jean and Scott won't have to worry." This is a strong moral and ethical compass that Wade has. Wade, as a businessman, cuts through the BS, and sees the merits in people. I interpret that Wade's and Jerry's relationship as a disappointment that is obvious to everyone but is "smoothed" over to make it civil. Wade takes care of his family the only way he knows how--though his ability to provide social and financial stability.
I think you’re spot on. Another example of Wade’s practicality can be seen when he offers Jerry a finder’s fee while Jerry expects to be given money directly as a reward for his idea. Jerry is someone who seeks shortcuts, and while Wade is stern, he isn’t emotionally abusive or evil. His personal motives reflect his career mentality- practical and conservative. Sure, there may be something to be said here about generosity and family, but I wouldn’t write him off as an evil character. Jerry and Wade clearly have a contentious relationship. Wade doesn’t respect Jerry, likely for the very same reasons that led Jerry to hire people to kidnap his wife. He isn’t trustworthy.
Yes, I think of Wade as more of a tormenting figure for Jerry. He has all the traits that Jerry wish he had: a ruthless but charismatic negotiator, a successful provider, a respected patriarch etc.
I also want to add that I found Jerry to be a despicable person. I agree with you that he is stupid, but I did not find him to be sympathetic in the least. He's a textbook villain. From the start of the film he's planning for his own wife to be kidnapped, just because he got himself into debt. Obviously he doesn't want her to end up dying but he doesn't care at all about the psychological trauma that this will cause her. The way he has to rehearse his speech to Wade shows that he just doesn't care. And the way that he forgets about his son completely until Stan reminds him. And I don't think Scotty was objectionable at all. He was just being a normal ten year old. He surely didn't deserve to lose both his parents, although it was for the best that his dad be taken away. As for Wade I think you were a little bit too harsh with him. He was definitely greedy. The only scene where I didn't like him was when he proposed to offer Carl and Gaear half a million instead of the million he assumed they were asking but really Jerry was. It was still a really funny scene though! But it showed him to be more concerned with his money than his daughter's safety. Although you can see plainly through the film that he is worried about Jean. And when it comes to his attitude toward Jerry I found it to be justified. Jerry is a complete loser, and he's disappointed that his daughter ended up with someone like that. He can't help but betray his feelings in his interactions with him
Jerry is a villain in the sense that he is a weak, failed individual. Just as he is incapable of doing intentional harm, he is incapable of doing the right thing; the moment he opens his trunk to hide Wade's body damns him if nothing else. Wade on the other hand, is not greedy - he is proud. When Wade goes out to confront the kidnapper, my impression is that whether or not his daughter or the money concern him more, what concerns him most is his own pride; rather than admit that it is out of his hands and calling the police, he ignores his own limitations and goes out himself in an ultimately inadequate display of self-supposed chivalry. Wade and Jerry form two ends of a spectrum, between the one's bulheadedness and the other's spinelessness, neither end up doing the right thing. But yeah, as for blame, it is most definitely all Jerry's fault.
I'm not sure I agree 100% with ya on yer police work there, Godzilla, No doubt about it, Jerry is an utter idiot. Though my impression was that Wade was certainly greedy - but I also suspect he wasn't ever sincerely worried for Jean's safety. He was far too focused on bullying and winning than other outcomes. Wade, imho, probably imagined the escapade of meeting the crooks and negotiating with them to secure the return of his daughter as just another battle he'd easily win in his ongoing desire to demonstrate his success and thereby continue to belittle Jerry - and, by extension, everyone around him. Wade, in his hubris, had complete confidence in his power, skills and charisma - and imagined these would prevail. He never contemplated failure. Jean's life appeared utterly secondary to Wade's desire to defeat Jerry once again. :/ What I find fascinating is the way that the banal is often just collateral damage throughout the film. The banal is the target of all the rage and wrath. The unlucky carpark ticket guard; the couple in the car on the road; the nice State Trooper. They were all just carrying on doing ordinary stuff - only to end up dead. Thus, there's no perfect and implacable moral judgment ruling the universe of Fargo. Like our own world, there's only an existential indifference in the suffering inflicted on the mundane and banal - they suffer just as much as the grandiose - or at least the grandiose in their own mind! Wade and Carl are deluded and clearly see themselves as flawless masters of their own destiny. Obeying the rules of the universe (ie being creative and nurturing) or abiding by the synthetic local protocols of the mortal and cultural realms offers no protection to those in the story either. By example, the two ticket guards are just carefully 'following orders' - even if the rules are blatantly absurd: and Carl's wrath and frustration at this is fatally provoked later. Everybody is impotent in the face of events. Vice and virtue matter nought. There is no external and cosmic Justice or Order to this world. It's a universe of moral anarchy. All bets are off! Thus, imo, one of the most emblematic and thematic scenes is where the poor wife, with the bag over her head, is crying and running around in a clumsy and futile effort to escape - while the bad guys look on, laughing at her efforts. The best we can hope for in this world, as Marge exemplifies, is that despite all this, we behave kindly to others and take pleasure in the fleeting and modest successes of 3 cent postage stamps and beautiful days. The only certainty in life is, with Jose Feliciano - you got no complaints.
Fargo absolutely blew my mind when I first saw it. It showed me a link between my mundane, middle class, white, suburbanite life and the seedy underworld where lives have a price. Reservoir dogs kind of did the same thing for me. When the cop tied to the chair says something like "I have kids", and then dies anyway. It pretty much smashed any socio-economic barriers I had ingrained in me. This nasty shit was real and it could potentially touch me and ruin innocent lives. I'm not above this because I live in a white, middle class neighborhood. There are fucked up people everywhere you turn. And you don't even know.
I think it goes even deeper than that. It’s about mundane things/events in general, about this incredibly dull way in which life evolves and how we fail to notice important events happening under our noses, and take everything too lightly, how we fail to pay attention exactly when it’s most needed. I think the movie has almost no music precisely for that reason - because there is no music in real life to make sure you know it’s time to concentrate and care and do your best. You only know when tragedy happens and it’s way too fucking late. And I had the exact same reaction- shock. It was like: “Why didn’t anyone tell me this before? How come this incredibly important idea is not talked about in every single classroom?” At any rate, I consider this to be the most important movie I ever saw. P.S. A lot can happen in the middle of nowhere.
I like your analyses, but this movie isn't set in the City of Fargo. It all takes place in Minnesota, except for one brief scene when they've traveled to Fargo.
I was gonna say the same thing. Analysis was great, but I couldn’t stop thinking about how they said it took place in Fargo. I’m from MN tho, so I was used to all the references.
THANK YOU..... The Coen Brothers were born in MN and almost the whole movie takes place in MN and has references to MN. It is merely named Fargo. There is a scene in the film that takes place in Fargo. However, it is a MN film. Fargo is a border city of North Dakota, and they definitely share some of the MN culture, but this is a MN film.
@@peterandreasfog242 Two closely related traits. True generosity requires moral strength and selfish choices tend to make people weak because a person who only cares about their own welfare is more easily manipulated and cowed.
Well I don't think that Gaear was stupid or that Carl was the more evil of the two. I believe that Gaear masterminded the whole plan and was just using Carl, he probably planned to kill him and take all the money from the start. It's clear that he despised him, since he decided to shove his body into the wood chipper instead of just take the 80,000 and the car and leave right away. And he was the more evil since he killed Jean just for making too much noise. I believe Carl was the stupid one, but also the less evil. He didn't want the situation to escalate into a multiple murder type deal, he just wanted to get the money and be done with it. This is evidenced by how horrified he was when Gaear shot the cop. And he was stupid because he drove around in a dealer car without temporary plates but with a kidnap victim in the backseat! Also he buried almost a million dollars in the middle of nowhere and just put a red windshield scraper down to identify the location. A fresh snow could have fallen and buried it before he got back or someone could have noticed it and dug it up. And I know he did kill people too, but not until after he was whipped mercilessly by Shep Proudfoot, and then it was because Wade showed up instead of Jerry that pushed him over the edge to shoot Wade. And then it wasn't until after he was shot in the face on top of it that he killed his second victim
I watched this movie for the first time a few days ago. One thing I picked up on the first viewing is that ONLY THE FIRST SCENE TAKES PLACE IN FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA. The rest of it is set in Minnesota. I watched the commentary that mentioned that some of it had to be filmed close to Canada because it was a warm winter that year so they had to go North to follow the snow and they also used chipped ice for snow in a lot of the scenes.
I love that the name of the film refers to the small town where the snowball starts rolling down the hill. It all started with Fargo, and all the fates were sealed.
Jerry only regrets his decisions not because of some moral quandary but rather feeling the net closing in on him. He is selfish and somewhat evil. Far far from having good intentions. You truly misunderstood his character if that’s what you thought
update; I did something about it and it's definitely one of their best. I still consider No Country and Big Lebowski as tied as their best films. in my opinion
I don't think Macy's character has any redeemable qualities imo. He's one of the most despicable movie characters I've ever seen, which is a testimony to how good of an actor Macy is in this movie. You know you did a good job if you can make people hate you
Jerry does not regret his decision even after knowing people were killed. On the way up to the top of the parking garage be passes the speeding beige car… in one single frame, a smile appears on his face. “All of this for a little bit of money.”
I think this question of morality was pretty much the first thing i thought of after watching this movie. There's a sort of contrast between the lives of Jerry, Gaear and Carl, and the lives of Marge and Norm. The criminals, or the "wrongdoers" are constantly in a state of desperation and suffering, while Marge and her husband lead a very calm life, even when Marge faces terrible things in her job as police officer, we never actually see her suffering too much because of these things. This contrast is even more explicit in the last few scenes of the movie, and how the movie ends: we just saw all of the criminals suffer the consequences of their actions, pretty much how their story ended, where they either were killed or brought to jail, also bringing suffering to those around them. And in the last shot, Marge safely goes back to her home, to her husband, and they watch TV, and it's just another day in her normal life. To me, this is a quite fitting ending.
The film does establish that Jerry's father-in-law had nothing for Jerry. The father-in-law made sure that he would take care of his daughter and grandson, but Jerry was on his own. Later when Jerry goes to his father-in-law with a business deal, his father-in-law literally steals it away from him. This type of relationship essentially pits Jerry against his father-in-law as an "us vs them" scenario, and then pulls in his wife as a pawn to be used. Jerry is dumb, but he also doesn't love his wife very much. He is using his wife to get what he wants. He doesn't want her hurt or killed because that could just come back on him.
He didn't steal it. He's just not a bank. Jerry hoped otherwise, presumably because either the deal was untrustworthy (there's a good chance Jerry lied) or Jerry's credit is terrible (probably the cause of him needing the money) or both.
I have actually known someone like Jerry. They are basically sociopaths that do not want to face up to their own mistakes. And will go through great lengths in order to avoid any responsibility.
One minor thing. I watched the movie with my mother, who had 7 children. She said that Marge didn't throw up because of morning sickness, that she was too far along in her pregnancy to have morning sickness. Therefore, Marge threw up because the sight of the dead people turned her stomach.
You're wrong about the morals, Gaear is objectively worse, even by the supposed morals you claim the Coen brothers intend. I think you try to project some kind of "inside logic" to fargo, being that it's a Coen brothers film, i'd say there is no moral high ground, there is no logic to it that's the point. You can see this in allot of Coen brothers films, i dare say most of them can be called nihilistic.
What I find interesting about Fargo is none of the characters have an arc. None of them go thru any significant moral or internal character changes throughout the screenplay. They are static characters set forth into the world the Cohens create. It’s as if each character represents a certain particular moral and that character type is played out in front of us thru the movie as an unwavering representation. This implies a deep cynical sensibility by the Cohens. These characters can’t change for better or worse no matter what. They are robots who are slaves to their nature.
Sorry dude, this one gets a fail. From the first sentence it was obvious you didn't do your homework (the film is called Fargo, but I think only one scene takes place there... did you really not notice all those moments in which the film establishes that the bulk of the action takes place in Brainerd and Minneapolis?). Then, the character descriptions and motivations are way off. Jerry is incompetent, sure, but his intentions are mean as well. Gaear, while he seems catatonic for most of the film, is not passive in moments of decision, and never follows Carl's lead. Carl's violent acts are prompted by being cornered and having a volatile personality, but Gaear is a psychopath who will kill without remorse.
Right on! This is one of the dumbest narratives on RUclips. Even the Coen brothers acknowledged that titling the movie “Fargo” was whimsical and arbitrary, since everything but the scene where Jerry gets apprehended at the motel in Fargo took place in Minnesota!
You're wrong about Gaear. He isn't some simpleton following orders. Anything murders he commits are done because he decided to commit them and not because he was order to. He kills the trooper because he almost found Jean in the back, he kills the couple because they spotted the aftermath the trooper's, murder, he kills Jean for annoying him and he kills Carl for being a pain in his ass and disagreement over a car. Never once did Carl demand him to commit murder. It's shown that Gaear is a leader rather than a follower such as telling Carl to get the trooper's corpse off the road or demanding they go for pancakes. He's silent but that doesn't mean he's a dimwit he's actually quick thinking. He realises that Jean's hidden the shower, he gets the trooper off guard and kills him and he realises that he needs to kill the couple otherwise they will tell the police. Gaear is pure evil. He acts on his own agency. The reason he did not receive more devastating punishment than Carl is that he was Carl's punisher he was going to punish him with extreme violence, while Margie was Gaear's punisher, her killing Gaear would contradict the point of Margie that she's ultimately a good person. Deaths are done to perfectly innocent people by evil people. Even if you think Wade's a prick he did nothing wrong to be murdered . Even Carl did not do anything really wrong to be murdered compared to what Gaear has done. He's just a big mouth and he's punish for it in the most violent way possible. This is not the universe punishing for the bad stuff he's done. This is an easily annoyed man quick to anger finally breaking and murdering someone who has been a nuisance from the getgo.
CHALLENGE: Alice Longabou and Mr Knapp from Ballad of Buster Scruggs. They were both pure and good people and they had a horrible fate. Good things dont always happen to good people in Coen Brothers movies
There are a lot of references to the Paul Bunyan myth in Fargo...the Blue Ox Inn, the statue of Bunyan, the guy killing his partner with an ax and then putting him in a woodchipper like you would a tree. Gaer wanted to be like Paul Bunyan, big and powerful. Ironically, Bunyan's legend involved chopping down trees, despoiling the environment.
Did you even watch the movie? only the first scene in the bar takes place in Fargo. The rest of the movie takes place in and around brainerd and Minneapolis
Technically Marge does nothing at all wrong as shooting Garr in the leg is protected under Tennessee V. Garner, however usually shooting someone in the leg would easily kill them, but that part is 90s movie logic.
This movie is so great. I loved it, because it made me really depressed. The theme is so dark and the characters, plot and dialogue just adds to it. It really creates a bad and uncomfortable feeling inside me, that, in the end, after the movie, shows me that Joel Coen created a masterpiece.
Very good video, however this film does not take place in Fargo, North Dakota, it takes place in various parts of Minnesota. The opening scene takes place in Fargo but the rest of the movie is set mostly in Brainerd and Minneapolis/St. Paul Minnesota.
It may be a little while, I usually try and space out videos on different directors, and these two in particular would be very similar. It will come eventually, but not any time soon.
He was shining his fil on by saying “this could be good for me and Jamie and Scottie.” There was no nobleness to that statement as we don’t know, never knew, why he needed the money. For all we know he was a gambler or made bad investments. But you’re right about one thing, he was stupid.
Nerdwriter1 sometimes leans toward the preachy side spinning ulterior philosophical theory into places where it's unnecessary, sometimes even going on (what are in my opinion) tangents. JMR is better in that respect that he (/ you if you're reading,) always keeps the focus squarely on the film itself - grand philosophy only comes into play when it's brought up within the film, and that's how a movie review should be done. My point goes to JMR with Nerdwriter1 in a close 2nd. Every Frame a Painting is tied with JMR and is the most similar in focus and approach, except EFaP hasn't released any videos in a very long time.
Samuel Wallace WOW. I really cannot describe how much this means to me. I guess I can begin by saying that the quality of content produced by Nerdwriter and EFaP is what I aspire to make, but I'll move on and say thank you very VERY much. Comments like these are what make me love doing these videos. I really do appreciate you saying this.
I don't feel Wade is taking advantage of Jerry. He's not being particularly charitable, but he's being fair. If anything Jerry was trying to take advantage of Wade by being a superfluous middleman and reaping all the benefits.
I feel like he was in a situation where he found the investment opportunity, and felt he was entitled to it. He obviously isn't, but I think that was his rational.
I know she shot him in the leg, but i find the most unrealistic part of the film is the fact that Gaear didn’t resist arrest at all from a much smaller, pregnant woman. Loved the film other than that
Lust is a big one for Carl the movie goes out of its way to show you how Carl is generally perceived as “ugly” or “funny looking” and that the only way he can get laid is by paying for it which he does often
minor correction: this movie doesn't take place in fargo (it's mostly in brainerd). the only thing that's in fargo, i believe, is the beginning scene at the king of clubs bar.
SPOILERS I have a couple of objections to your analysis here. Jerry is not merely incompetent but selfish and manipulative. He arranges for the kidnapping of his wife, scams GMAC and abandons his son to flee to a motel. Secondly, Gaear holds the power in his relationship with Carl because of his willingness to use violence. After Gaear shoots the cope, Carl is evidently disturbed by this (as symbolized by the blood covering his face) and carries out Gaear's orders in moving the body of the cop, highlighting the balance of power between the two For me, there is less moral justice in the film than you claim. All the developed, male characters in the film are essentially evil by nature. Carl and Jerry begin with some sense of morality but it is clear from their immediate involvement in the kidnapping that evil resides within. Throughout the film, the sense of morality that exists in both characters declines, leaving only the evil. The character of Mike supports this. Mike clearly has sexual intentions in meeting Marge but his story about his wife's death creates sympathy for him and restores a hope that perhaps Mike's immorality is a result of a traumatic event as opposed to his nature. However, the reveal that he was never actually married utterly destroys this hope. Although Jerry, Carl and Gaear are punished, Mike is not. His story is left hanging. For me, the justice of 'Fargo' is deliberately imperfect (on the part of the Coen Brothers); the sheer scale of the immorality within us overwhelms it. A similarity I noticed between 'Fargo' and 'No Country for Old Men' is that the deaths in both films receive progressively less attention as the plot develops, and become more insignificant. This further supports my point that any sense of justice is stripped away with the morality of the characters. I think the issue of gender is a most interesting one here. All our male characters are evil to some degree, including Wade and Stan who are motivated by money. The figure of Paul Bunyan stands for masculinity and violence, embodied by Gaear as he wields the axe to murder Carl. Marge, through her pregnancy, spends the film physically hindered by her femininity as does Jean who is overpowered by the kidnappers. I'd be interested to hear other takes on this theme of gender in the film.
I’m sorry but this analysis is just outright wrong. Jerry is not a good person with the best intentions... he stole $320,000 from his work by taking out loans on non-existent cars and instead of facing the consequences for his actions when he was about to be found out.... he put his wife, the mother of his son, in harm’s way by hiring some thugs to kidnap her. And Carl is the smarter one who Gaear follows around? Uhh... what? That’s just not the case at all.. I first saw this movie at like 13 and I knew Grimsrud was the stronger silent leader of the two while Carl shows an obvious deference and is very much intimidated by him. And Scotty? To say that the mom is kidnapped and some of the reason it may have happened that way was karma for the way he got agitated with her over a bowl of cereal one morning is just plain odd. No offense intended but you might want to avoid movie analysis videos from now on if you misinterpreted the characters in this film so drastically.
Jerry is 100% a bad guy. Let's start with his scams. He is constantly trying to screw people over to make money. His customers, the bank, his father-in-law, even the criminals he hires. Notice how he told them it was all for $80,000 when in reality he was going to walk away with almost a million (incidentally Carl is also killed over a couple thousand bucks when he knows he has a million stashed). He is selfish to his core. He says that he wants the lot deal to help his family, but Wade replies that his daughter and grandson are going to be taken care of regardless of whether Jerry is a failure or not. He fails at all of his plots, with the final one getting his wife, her father and 5 other people killed. Jerry is not only stupid, he's bad.
Agree. This analysis is pretty narrow and lacks nuance. Describing characters as “good” or “bad” defies these characters’ complexities. The interpretations are too neat and black and white.
jerry wasnt just incompetent, his identity from the beginning of the movie is tied to his lies. and why would gary be spared, by your logic of he didnt intend to do as much bad, if hes the first one to murder anyone in the film? even going to chase after witnesses.
I have a bit of a different take on Gaear. I think he lives not because he's more moral than his partner, but because he's the worst of them all. Ironically, the one who does the worst violence, gets away with it, so to speak.
He is an interesting character, he is driven by his own morals and not by anyone Else's. The Coens have loved exploring characters like this, from more clear examples like Anton Chigurh, to less obvious ones like The Dude.
0:57 Does he, though? It really seems that's he cares mostly about himself. For instance, he basically forgets about his son until he's reminded by his father-in-laws advisor. He doesn't come across as particularly concerned about his wife either. I mean the whole thing starts because he arranges to have her kidnapped for money. And from what I gathered he got himself into trouble by doing fraud even though he already had a decent enough job and was doing fine. It's not like he was in a desperate situation due to bad luck.
What scares me most, is how close to reality this depiction of the American Mid-West really is. I lived in Wisconsin near the Minnesota border for 6 years, and people really are THAT nice most the time. Oh and they all really do say "You betcha!" all the time. lol. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but you truly would be surprised. What's even creepier though, is how little crime there really is in the rural towns, until someone like Ed Gein, or Jeffery Dahmer comes along, both being Wisconsinites. . . Something about the Midwestern lifestyle most people live out there just makes them, weird. Especially the rural areas.
I don't think this analysis works. Jerry is not just stupid, he is untruthful, Machiavellian, and cowardly. Gaere is not just a follower or someone being manipulated by Carl. Why else would Gaere hack down his partner over a bit of money, then put him in a woodchipper? Why would he kill Jean, without orders from Carl? Wade doesn't try to take advantage of Jerry in the financial deal. It looks that way from Jerry's perspective, but that's because Jerry overestimates his ability to manipulate people. It's one thing manipulating some random customer into getting Truecoat, it's another thing manipulating a hardass executive into lending you money on a speculative venture. Marge shooting Gere is not "bad" in any sense, nor inconsistent with "by the books" policing.
oh shit... William H macy brought me to this channel. he talked about this narrative about how these guys talked about what exactly Ethan Coen made him to act .
You lost me “Jerry has good intentions” in regards to his family In that scene with the father in law “this could really help Jean and Scotty” he’s only using that statement as a tool to pry the deal out of the father in law so he can get the money for whatever reason he needs it.
I take exception to the fact that Marge did nothing wrong. When she went to the twin cities she wanted to hook up with a guy she knew until she realized he was a goofball and a lair.
I don’t think ya understand the “morality”. Life is not fair and it’s pretty close to being a random shit show at times... those who risk things have a higher chance of suffering worse is all. That doesn’t mean those who don’t are safe though....
You haven't understood Fargo or the Coens at all. There's no balancing of actions and punishments according to intention - that's just silly. It's ridiculous to argue that whoever "is in charge of morals of the film" thinks Wade deserves to die for his actions but Gaear doesn't. You completely misread the film.
Good things don’t always happen to good people, just as bad things don’t always happen to bad people, nobody would write a script to follow such naive concepts
Nope. The two conspirators are very clearly not punisher with any moral logic. Carl is criminal but smart and never means to kill at the beginning of the film. Guear Is the first to shoot a person and much more consistently cold-blooded and hard to understand, humanly speaking. In the end he kills his female hostage for being too loud and obnoxious, something he seems to be longing for an excuse to do well before he does. I think the morality of punnishment is specifically meant to have no moral logic--to show the absurdity of violence.
Кино
This was a real gem type deal here I'll tell ya. Oh yah you betcha.
You darn tootin'!
Saying Jerry is only stupid and incompetent with the best intentions, is just, wow!
He did not have the best intentions and was not taking the actions of having his wife kidnapped and his son put through that for the benefit of his family. Jerry is extremely selfish, only self-concerned, and very insecure. He lets his insecurities drive him to do bad things, because he has bad character to begin with.
While he doesn't intend for the worst outcomes to happen, the outcomes he does intend are plenty bad enough, and he's willing to risk his wife's life for his own satisfaction. He steals from his customers, he steals from the bank, he puts his wife and his son through emotional tumult. He's a bad guy.
I think Jerry had a very straightforward plan of what was going to happen, the kidnappers would take his wife, a day or two later she would be fine, and he would have $960,000 which could be used to gain financial security for his family.
As you said, he is insecure, and he does have trouble connecting with people, I don't think that makes him a bad person.
As I said in the video, morals are fluid, what makes a character good or bad to you is totally different than someone else.
Jack's Movie Reviews We clearly have very different definitions of bad people. Causing your wife to be killed is well beyond the boarder line of bad in my world; and is certainly outside of any norm for the vast majority of human beings.
But words have meaning, and claiming best intentions or doing the best for his family when that simply just isn't true, just doesn't fly. Quite frankly you just sound silly.
He had the best intentions of getting away with doing something wrong, but what he intended to do was still wrong by any norms of morals on this planet.
Undeniably what he did was bad, but where I think this movie concerns morals is intention. What do you think Jerry's intentions were?
Jack's Movie Reviews Well that's a view.
I think Jerry's intentions are to self-aggrandize. He feels under the thumb of his farther-in-law and wants to be a success on his own, and have his own money. Problem is he doesn't want to work and earn it. He either wants the same farther-in-law to finance it, or he wants to steal it by having his wife kidnapped and the farther-in-law pay ransom.
Going out and getting a job somewhere else, saving money or getting a bank loan to start his own business, or going back to school to get better credentials to put himself in position for more lucrative work are not things he's willingly to do. He'd have to work hard, sacrifice something and take on risk. He's too weak for any of that.
He's a selfish person who wants the easy life, the easy way.
Is it ever explained why he did it in the first place? If so i didnt pick it up. I think by not explaining why he setup up the kidnap explains it all. As long as people are selfish it will just lead to pain, no matter the reason why
Sorry, but you are really reaching in your attempt to force this film to fit your thesis. I'm particularly taken aback by your interpretation of Gaear and Carl. Gaear isn't dumb, he's just emotionally numb, perfectly comfortable with his work and only speaks when he actually has something to say. He sits looking numb at the end because he just doesn't care what Marge has to say about morality, although I personally think the actor betrays a tiny hint in his eyes that somewhere inside the character, there is a glimmer of understanding or regret. Carl otoh, constantly babbles and makes jokes to distract himself from what he is doing. Gaear probably despises Carl for what he considers weakness. Gaear was the one who was really in charge the entire time.
Yeah Gaear was the alpha, not the other way around. He wasn’t dumb, he just didn’t feel like speaking.
Gaear was a psychopath.
I don't see why Wade is bad? Just cause he doesn't fall for a scam? Seems like he gave his son a law a job and has bailed him out several times.
Also saying Jerry isn't a bad guy, and "just trying to help his family"... by fucking getting his wife kidnapped to milk his father-in-law for $1M (more than double what he's in debt for, for his earlier scam). LMAO guy's a fucking snake.
Jerry isn't bad ? Trying to take care of his family ? Oh sure. His family are already taken care of. Jerry is a bad guy. He sets all this in motion.
I can't say I agree at all (SPOILER ALERT)... For one thing: you say Gaear blindly follows Carl's lead? What!? When does that ever happen? When he kills the cop that pulls them over? When he leaves Carl's butt behind to follow and kill the couple that saw them dump the cop's body? When he kills Jerry's wife? or when he axes Carl? Never, none of his morally reprehensible actions are really prompted by Carl, he actually defies Carl's plans on several of those. Also there are several undeniably innocent bystanders who get caught up and chewed out due to the actions of others, innocent bystanders should be ruled out if what you say were true (if one where to apply Popper's falsifiability system here). On the other hand Jerry has no good intentions, where did you get that? from Jerry's own description of himself? Come on! Practically everything he says in the film are lies (I'm sure if you where to count everything he says in the movie and separate what is a lie and what is true, the pile of truthful utterances of his would scarcely be a dent in his mountain of lies) Jerry is small, greedy, egotistical, dishonest, and, yes, stupid, but stupidity is not as powerful in him as greed (Imo). He had already scammed his way into a mess which he was trying to get out of by kidnapping his wife! He cheats and lies at every turn. He might be the most scorn-worthy of all them. Also I'm not sure I agree with your outcome measuring system. Scotty was left alone because his father engineered the kidnapping and (yes, unintentional) murder of both his mother and grandfather for being a brat and talking back at dinner? Does that sound morally proportional? A quick death for Wade is a lot easier than either that or Jerry's capture which you call mild but it is devastating to him as it confronts him with the fruits of his infinite incompetence... and Jerry's stint in Jail should be absolute hell, I would think. There is no proportionality between morality and outcome, even though Margie strives to fix that in a sense. The world is a stage for the confrontation of the different moral stances of the characters but does not offer any simplistic solutions by way of an organizing principle or force. Some get what they had coming, but many don't.
This times 1,000.
This analysis is way off base.
Mateo Pizzaro, very good points. Agreed.
@@robertjordinelli3041
Your response is more off base
@mrsbluesky8415 You're commenting on something from 2 years ago? And a video I don't care about anymore? I love the movie, but I don't remember why I felt that way. Anyway, get a life and stay current. Commenting on OLD COMMENTS is kind of being a BITCH.
i think its possible that ths cohens believe that death is preferable to life in prison
SweatyItalianKing I think it is for many people. Easier to face the end than a life of nothingness I suppose.
@@HiddenGhul *suffering
When discussing Gaear's character, a very important scene to remember is the one wherein he is watching the tv program before Carl returns with the money. He clearly responded emotionally to the tv character's news that she was pregnant. It was the only scene that depicted another level of depth in Gaear. This is a driving reason that I interpreted the his viewing of the Paul Bunyan statue as a more self-reflective moment. If nothing else, this short scene is a testament to the level of nuance the Cohen brothers put into the film.
I think it makes him all the more inscrutable: the one moment he shows emotion is watching a trashy daytime soap opera. That's even harder to comprehend than someone who doesn't have emotional interest in other people (real or fictional) at all.
It's like Lumberg in Office Space, a character whose true motives and thoughts are impossible to understand, without being unrealistic.
The moral theme is truth vs. lies. The film starts out with a lie: that it is based on real life events that occurred in Minnesota in 1987. It moves immediately to a scene where somebody is lying: either Jerry because Shep did NOT tell him 8:30, or Shep because he set the meeting for 7:30, or Gaer and Carl because thet wanted to intimidate Jerry by putting him in a state of disequilibrium by accusing him of being late. Jerry is then in a cross-examination with the two thugs who are evidently confused about the story and think Jerry is lying about something. It goes on and on from there. It is a 3 1/2 hour drive back to Minneapolis from Fargo, Jerry is there around 8:30 PM, but still arrives back in Minneapolis around dinner time and responds to his wife's question about "How was Fargo?" He then talks to Wade about a parking lot deal that is a lie: Jerry just wants the money. He accuses Wade of having Stan Grossman around just to lie instead of revealing that Wade just does not want to lend Jerry the money. The next day, Jerry lies to the GMAC auditor. He is in trouble in the first place because he has lied about the financing of a number of cars sold by his father in law's dealership. He goes on to have a confrontation with a customer about whether or not he lied to get an additional $500 out of the customer for an unwanted, unneeded undercoating. He lies to negotiate $400 of the $500 when the customer resists because he did not ask any "boss" and no "boss" ever said he could knock off $100. The customer calls him a "fu***ng liar." The lies continue from there. Marge seems to be lying to herself about her feelings for Mike Yanaguta who gives her a pack of lies about his love life and employment history. The story is about liars and the consequences of lying: first and foremost.
thank you ya i think you got it .
I wouldn’t say in a nutshell it comes down to lying. It’s about morality if anything. Lying is an aspect of a lack of morality, which many of the characters represent.
She may have shot him in the leg. But, at least she didn't kill him. She still did the right thing. She arrested him, told him his Miranda Rights, and took him to a place to be granted a fair and speedy trial.
She truly is incorruptible and righteous. And she's living a life without sin.
99.999999999999999999% of US cops would have shot Jerry in the back, and never given it another thought.
Marge wasn't bad for shooting Gaer. She was literally stopping a fleeing murderer. She was doing her job.
The opening scene takes place in Fargo. The rest of the movie takes place in Brainerd, The Twin Cities and up at Moose Lake
I disagree about Jerry Lunderguard. Jerry was a bad guy. He was shady, got involved in crooked schemes, got his wife killed and abandoned his son to go on the lamb after his plans went to shit.
I have to disagree with when you said that Marge shooting Gaear was a bad thing. She was a pregnant cop all alone in the freezing cold. What was she supposed to do? Try to tackle Gaear down and risk getting herself killed? She even saw what he did with the woodchipper, so it's not like she just shot him with no proof. She was right to shoot him in the leg in order to stop him from running. That's just how I see it.
Yes I agree completely
I thought it was interesting how you did not mention Jerry's wife and what part she played in all of this. If people die because of their moral actions, then what role does she play in this movie once she is killed?
That is a great point, her character is treated as more of a plot device used to hurry along the story. This makes us wonder why the Coen's devalued her life.
I saw her as manipulative, and a bully of Jerry. She probably knew her dad's money was probably a factor in Jerry's marrying her. Their son sure knew it! Wade knew it, too, legally protecting the wife and son's share from Jerry's clutches.
So, as a subtext, the kidnapping is, in a way, not only freeing Jerry and showing he has some manhood left. It also is a way for him to become one-up on his wife, her side of the family, and even over his son, the "Accordian [sic] King."
Problem was, Jerry didn't recognize his own shortcomings. That happens to the best of us!
@@KutWrite you mean Jerry bit off more than he could chew?
KutWrite you thinking the kidnapping is making him more manly ?
Literally kidnapping his wife
@@KutWrite How did she manipulate or bully Jerry?
Interesting take....there are some things here that I think are off.
Wade, for example. Sure he's a sumabitch ruthless businessman, but I think he just has trouble with emotions. He makes it clear to Jerry that Jerry's attempt to use Jean and Scotty--"it'll work out well for Jean and Scotty"--as emotional pawns to tilt Wade to lend Jerry $750k for a questionable business project that he, Wade, won't be blackmailed like that--"Jean and Scott won't have to worry." This is a strong moral and ethical compass that Wade has. Wade, as a businessman, cuts through the BS, and sees the merits in people. I interpret that Wade's and Jerry's relationship as a disappointment that is obvious to everyone but is "smoothed" over to make it civil. Wade takes care of his family the only way he knows how--though his ability to provide social and financial stability.
I think you’re spot on. Another example of Wade’s practicality can be seen when he offers Jerry a finder’s fee while Jerry expects to be given money directly as a reward for his idea. Jerry is someone who seeks shortcuts, and while Wade is stern, he isn’t emotionally abusive or evil. His personal motives reflect his career mentality- practical and conservative. Sure, there may be something to be said here about generosity and family, but I wouldn’t write him off as an evil character. Jerry and Wade clearly have a contentious relationship. Wade doesn’t respect Jerry, likely for the very same reasons that led Jerry to hire people to kidnap his wife. He isn’t trustworthy.
Yes, I think of Wade as more of a tormenting figure for Jerry. He has all the traits that Jerry wish he had: a ruthless but charismatic negotiator, a successful provider, a respected patriarch etc.
I also want to add that I found Jerry to be a despicable person. I agree with you that he is stupid, but I did not find him to be sympathetic in the least. He's a textbook villain. From the start of the film he's planning for his own wife to be kidnapped, just because he got himself into debt. Obviously he doesn't want her to end up dying but he doesn't care at all about the psychological trauma that this will cause her. The way he has to rehearse his speech to Wade shows that he just doesn't care. And the way that he forgets about his son completely until Stan reminds him. And I don't think Scotty was objectionable at all. He was just being a normal ten year old. He surely didn't deserve to lose both his parents, although it was for the best that his dad be taken away. As for Wade I think you were a little bit too harsh with him. He was definitely greedy. The only scene where I didn't like him was when he proposed to offer Carl and Gaear half a million instead of the million he assumed they were asking but really Jerry was. It was still a really funny scene though! But it showed him to be more concerned with his money than his daughter's safety. Although you can see plainly through the film that he is worried about Jean. And when it comes to his attitude toward Jerry I found it to be justified. Jerry is a complete loser, and he's disappointed that his daughter ended up with someone like that. He can't help but betray his feelings in his interactions with him
If anything I think any sense of sympathy comes from William H Macy's wonderful sad-sack performance, but yeah, Jerry's such a bellend.
Jerry is a villain in the sense that he is a weak, failed individual. Just as he is incapable of doing intentional harm, he is incapable of doing the right thing; the moment he opens his trunk to hide Wade's body damns him if nothing else. Wade on the other hand, is not greedy - he is proud. When Wade goes out to confront the kidnapper, my impression is that whether or not his daughter or the money concern him more, what concerns him most is his own pride; rather than admit that it is out of his hands and calling the police, he ignores his own limitations and goes out himself in an ultimately inadequate display of self-supposed chivalry. Wade and Jerry form two ends of a spectrum, between the one's bulheadedness and the other's spinelessness, neither end up doing the right thing.
But yeah, as for blame, it is most definitely all Jerry's fault.
Godzilla Fan I think Jerry is sympathetic for being so unbearably stupid.
I'm not sure I agree 100% with ya on yer police work there, Godzilla,
No doubt about it, Jerry is an utter idiot.
Though my impression was that Wade was certainly greedy - but I also suspect he wasn't ever sincerely worried for Jean's safety. He was far too focused on bullying and winning than other outcomes. Wade, imho, probably imagined the escapade of meeting the crooks and negotiating with them to secure the return of his daughter as just another battle he'd easily win in his ongoing desire to demonstrate his success and thereby continue to belittle Jerry - and, by extension, everyone around him. Wade, in his hubris, had complete confidence in his power, skills and charisma - and imagined these would prevail. He never contemplated failure.
Jean's life appeared utterly secondary to Wade's desire to defeat Jerry once again. :/
What I find fascinating is the way that the banal is often just collateral damage throughout the film. The banal is the target of all the rage and wrath.
The unlucky carpark ticket guard; the couple in the car on the road; the nice State Trooper. They were all just carrying on doing ordinary stuff - only to end up dead.
Thus, there's no perfect and implacable moral judgment ruling the universe of Fargo. Like our own world, there's only an existential indifference in the suffering inflicted on the mundane and banal - they suffer just as much as the grandiose - or at least the grandiose in their own mind! Wade and Carl are deluded and clearly see themselves as flawless masters of their own destiny.
Obeying the rules of the universe (ie being creative and nurturing) or abiding by the synthetic local protocols of the mortal and cultural realms offers no protection to those in the story either. By example, the two ticket guards are just carefully 'following orders' - even if the rules are blatantly absurd: and Carl's wrath and frustration at this is fatally provoked later.
Everybody is impotent in the face of events. Vice and virtue matter nought. There is no external and cosmic Justice or Order to this world. It's a universe of moral anarchy. All bets are off!
Thus, imo, one of the most emblematic and thematic scenes is where the poor wife, with the bag over her head, is crying and running around in a clumsy and futile effort to escape - while the bad guys look on, laughing at her efforts.
The best we can hope for in this world, as Marge exemplifies, is that despite all this, we behave kindly to others and take pleasure in the fleeting and modest successes of 3 cent postage stamps and beautiful days.
The only certainty in life is, with Jose Feliciano - you got no complaints.
@@johnsmith-mv8hq this is a true story
Fargo absolutely blew my mind when I first saw it. It showed me a link between my mundane, middle class, white, suburbanite life and the seedy underworld where lives have a price. Reservoir dogs kind of did the same thing for me. When the cop tied to the chair says something like "I have kids", and then dies anyway. It pretty much smashed any socio-economic barriers I had ingrained in me. This nasty shit was real and it could potentially touch me and ruin innocent lives. I'm not above this because I live in a white, middle class neighborhood. There are fucked up people everywhere you turn. And you don't even know.
Great interpretation and totally true!
Middle class? Wade is NOT middle class.
I think it goes even deeper than that. It’s about mundane things/events in general, about this incredibly dull way in which life evolves and how we fail to notice important events happening under our noses, and take everything too lightly, how we fail to pay attention exactly when it’s most needed. I think the movie has almost no music precisely for that reason - because there is no music in real life to make sure you know it’s time to concentrate and care and do your best. You only know when tragedy happens and it’s way too fucking late. And I had the exact same reaction- shock. It was like: “Why didn’t anyone tell me this before? How come this incredibly important idea is not talked about in every single classroom?” At any rate, I consider this to be the most important movie I ever saw.
P.S. A lot can happen in the middle of nowhere.
CosmicPentastar it’s not a true story, the note at the beginning was just stylistic and the coens love to mess with people
I like your analyses, but this movie isn't set in the City of Fargo. It all takes place in Minnesota, except for one brief scene when they've traveled to Fargo.
Thank you, you're the first to point that out!
As a native Twin Citian, Bless Your Heart!
I knew a girl from Fargo who told me the same thing. Lol!
I was gonna say the same thing. Analysis was great, but I couldn’t stop thinking about how they said it took place in Fargo. I’m from MN tho, so I was used to all the references.
THANK YOU..... The Coen Brothers were born in MN and almost the whole movie takes place in MN and has references to MN. It is merely named Fargo. There is a scene in the film that takes place in Fargo. However, it is a MN film. Fargo is a border city of North Dakota, and they definitely share some of the MN culture, but this is a MN film.
jerry is not simply incompetent... he is WEAK.
And selfish.
@@peterandreasfog242 Two closely related traits. True generosity requires moral strength and selfish choices tend to make people weak because a person who only cares about their own welfare is more easily manipulated and cowed.
Well I don't think that Gaear was stupid or that Carl was the more evil of the two. I believe that Gaear masterminded the whole plan and was just using Carl, he probably planned to kill him and take all the money from the start. It's clear that he despised him, since he decided to shove his body into the wood chipper instead of just take the 80,000 and the car and leave right away. And he was the more evil since he killed Jean just for making too much noise. I believe Carl was the stupid one, but also the less evil. He didn't want the situation to escalate into a multiple murder type deal, he just wanted to get the money and be done with it. This is evidenced by how horrified he was when Gaear shot the cop. And he was stupid because he drove around in a dealer car without temporary plates but with a kidnap victim in the backseat! Also he buried almost a million dollars in the middle of nowhere and just put a red windshield scraper down to identify the location. A fresh snow could have fallen and buried it before he got back or someone could have noticed it and dug it up. And I know he did kill people too, but not until after he was whipped mercilessly by Shep Proudfoot, and then it was because Wade showed up instead of Jerry that pushed him over the edge to shoot Wade. And then it wasn't until after he was shot in the face on top of it that he killed his second victim
Exactly, I've always wondered that, had Carl not been involved, the plan would have gone better.
It's Carl who raises the first red flag, "Jerry, she's your wife!"
And that money would go on to fund a supermarket empire
I watched this movie for the first time a few days ago. One thing I picked up on the first viewing is that ONLY THE FIRST SCENE TAKES PLACE IN FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA. The rest of it is set in Minnesota. I watched the commentary that mentioned that some of it had to be filmed close to Canada because it was a warm winter that year so they had to go North to follow the snow and they also used chipped ice for snow in a lot of the scenes.
I love that the name of the film refers to the small town where the snowball starts rolling down the hill. It all started with Fargo, and all the fates were sealed.
@@chadfurlong2919 👍
Jerry only regrets his decisions not because of some moral quandary but rather feeling the net closing in on him. He is selfish and somewhat evil. Far far from having good intentions. You truly misunderstood his character if that’s what you thought
Fargo's one of the only Coen brother movies I haven't seen yet ... I gotta' do something about that.
I'm not sure if it is their best work, but it is top 5 without a doubt...
Huyg Erdene Yo comment is so fake RUclips thinks its a foreign language.
saumuel...
dude....
update; I did something about it and it's definitely one of their best. I still consider No Country and Big Lebowski as tied as their best films. in my opinion
I don't think Macy's character has any redeemable qualities imo. He's one of the most despicable movie characters I've ever seen, which is a testimony to how good of an actor Macy is in this movie. You know you did a good job if you can make people hate you
Jerry does not regret his decision even after knowing people were killed.
On the way up to the top of the parking garage be passes the speeding beige car… in one single frame, a smile appears on his face.
“All of this for a little bit of money.”
I think this question of morality was pretty much the first thing i thought of after watching this movie. There's a sort of contrast between the lives of Jerry, Gaear and Carl, and the lives of Marge and Norm. The criminals, or the "wrongdoers" are constantly in a state of desperation and suffering, while Marge and her husband lead a very calm life, even when Marge faces terrible things in her job as police officer, we never actually see her suffering too much because of these things. This contrast is even more explicit in the last few scenes of the movie, and how the movie ends: we just saw all of the criminals suffer the consequences of their actions, pretty much how their story ended, where they either were killed or brought to jail, also bringing suffering to those around them. And in the last shot, Marge safely goes back to her home, to her husband, and they watch TV, and it's just another day in her normal life. To me, this is a quite fitting ending.
It really is a perfect ending to the movie.
The film does establish that Jerry's father-in-law had nothing for Jerry. The father-in-law made sure that he would take care of his daughter and grandson, but Jerry was on his own. Later when Jerry goes to his father-in-law with a business deal, his father-in-law literally steals it away from him. This type of relationship essentially pits Jerry against his father-in-law as an "us vs them" scenario, and then pulls in his wife as a pawn to be used. Jerry is dumb, but he also doesn't love his wife very much. He is using his wife to get what he wants. He doesn't want her hurt or killed because that could just come back on him.
He didn't steal it. He's just not a bank. Jerry hoped otherwise, presumably because either the deal was untrustworthy (there's a good chance Jerry lied) or Jerry's credit is terrible (probably the cause of him needing the money) or both.
Film was so nostalgia I really love the story and movie is fantastic
I have actually known someone like Jerry. They are basically sociopaths that do not want to face up to their own mistakes. And will go through great lengths in order to avoid any responsibility.
One minor thing. I watched the movie with my mother, who had 7 children. She said that Marge didn't throw up because of morning sickness, that she was too far along in her pregnancy to have morning sickness. Therefore, Marge threw up because the sight of the dead people turned her stomach.
You're wrong about the morals, Gaear is objectively worse, even by the supposed morals you claim the Coen brothers intend.
I think you try to project some kind of "inside logic" to fargo, being that it's a Coen brothers film, i'd say there is no moral high ground, there is no logic to it that's the point. You can see this in allot of Coen brothers films, i dare say most of them can be called nihilistic.
this is a true story
humanxerror the choens hate nihilism...
What I find interesting about Fargo is none of the characters have an arc. None of them go thru any significant moral or internal character changes throughout the screenplay. They are static characters set forth into the world the Cohens create. It’s as if each character represents a certain particular moral and that character type is played out in front of us thru the movie as an unwavering representation. This implies a deep cynical sensibility by the Cohens. These characters can’t change for better or worse no matter what. They are robots who are slaves to their nature.
Thanks for another video Jack! Big hello from Brazil.
+Fred Baraldi For sure Fed! Big HELLO back to Brazil!
Sorry dude, this one gets a fail. From the first sentence it was obvious you didn't do your homework (the film is called Fargo, but I think only one scene takes place there... did you really not notice all those moments in which the film establishes that the bulk of the action takes place in Brainerd and Minneapolis?). Then, the character descriptions and motivations are way off. Jerry is incompetent, sure, but his intentions are mean as well. Gaear, while he seems catatonic for most of the film, is not passive in moments of decision, and never follows Carl's lead. Carl's violent acts are prompted by being cornered and having a volatile personality, but Gaear is a psychopath who will kill without remorse.
Right on! This is one of the dumbest narratives on RUclips. Even the Coen brothers acknowledged that titling the movie “Fargo” was whimsical and arbitrary, since everything but the scene where Jerry gets apprehended at the motel in Fargo took place in Minnesota!
You're wrong about Gaear. He isn't some simpleton following orders. Anything murders he commits are done because he decided to commit them and not because he was order to. He kills the trooper because he almost found Jean in the back, he kills the couple because they spotted the aftermath the trooper's, murder, he kills Jean for annoying him and he kills Carl for being a pain in his ass and disagreement over a car. Never once did Carl demand him to commit murder. It's shown that Gaear is a leader rather than a follower such as telling Carl to get the trooper's corpse off the road or demanding they go for pancakes. He's silent but that doesn't mean he's a dimwit he's actually quick thinking. He realises that Jean's hidden the shower, he gets the trooper off guard and kills him and he realises that he needs to kill the couple otherwise they will tell the police.
Gaear is pure evil. He acts on his own agency. The reason he did not receive more devastating punishment than Carl is that he was Carl's punisher he was going to punish him with extreme violence, while Margie was Gaear's punisher, her killing Gaear would contradict the point of Margie that she's ultimately a good person. Deaths are done to perfectly innocent people by evil people. Even if you think Wade's a prick he did nothing wrong to be murdered . Even Carl did not do anything really wrong to be murdered compared to what Gaear has done. He's just a big mouth and he's punish for it in the most violent way possible. This is not the universe punishing for the bad stuff he's done. This is an easily annoyed man quick to anger finally breaking and murdering someone who has been a nuisance from the getgo.
Extremely naive analysis
CHALLENGE: Alice Longabou and Mr Knapp from Ballad of Buster Scruggs. They were both pure and good people and they had a horrible fate. Good things dont always happen to good people in Coen Brothers movies
There are a lot of references to the Paul Bunyan myth in Fargo...the Blue Ox Inn, the statue of Bunyan, the guy killing his partner with an ax and then putting him in a woodchipper like you would a tree. Gaer wanted to be like Paul Bunyan, big and powerful. Ironically, Bunyan's legend involved chopping down trees, despoiling the environment.
You really do an amazing job with these videos. I'm subscribed and I like every single one. You deserve more popularity for these.
Thank you! I'm really looking to make a big step up in quality during the new year!
No he doesn’t…this video is way off in its analysis
Love this movie - and your moral take on it. Thanks.
Incredibly helpful. Thank you!!
Did you even watch the movie? only the first scene in the bar takes place in Fargo. The rest of the movie takes place in and around brainerd and Minneapolis
What did you smoke doing this analysis
Going to jail for life is worse than death...
I'm not sure where morality fits in with a movie about criminals
but see, the film mostly takes place in Brainerd and Minneapolis, yah?
Technically Marge does nothing at all wrong as shooting Garr in the leg is protected under Tennessee V. Garner, however usually shooting someone in the leg would easily kill them, but that part is 90s movie logic.
How does that even work, killing someone by shooting them in the leg?
Fargo is the setting only for the first scene, in the bar.
This movie is so great. I loved it, because it made me really depressed. The theme is so dark and the characters, plot and dialogue just adds to it. It really creates a bad and uncomfortable feeling inside me, that, in the end, after the movie, shows me that Joel Coen created a masterpiece.
this is a true story
Very good video, however this film does not take place in Fargo, North Dakota, it takes place in various parts of Minnesota. The opening scene takes place in Fargo but the rest of the movie is set mostly in Brainerd and Minneapolis/St. Paul Minnesota.
Can't wait for your NCFOM analysis.
It may be a little while, I usually try and space out videos on different directors, and these two in particular would be very similar. It will come eventually, but not any time soon.
He was shining his fil on by saying “this could be good for me and Jamie and Scottie.” There was no nobleness to that statement as we don’t know, never knew, why he needed the money. For all we know he was a gambler or made bad investments. But you’re right about one thing, he was stupid.
loving this channel, reminds me alot of Nerdwriter
+PL Crayon Thanks! Nerwriter makes some of the best content on YT and that comparison means a lot!
Nerdwriter1 sometimes leans toward the preachy side spinning ulterior philosophical theory into places where it's unnecessary, sometimes even going on (what are in my opinion) tangents. JMR is better in that respect that he (/ you if you're reading,) always keeps the focus squarely on the film itself - grand philosophy only comes into play when it's brought up within the film, and that's how a movie review should be done. My point goes to JMR with Nerdwriter1 in a close 2nd. Every Frame a Painting is tied with JMR and is the most similar in focus and approach, except EFaP hasn't released any videos in a very long time.
Samuel Wallace
WOW. I really cannot describe how much this means to me. I guess I can begin by saying that the quality of content produced by Nerdwriter and EFaP is what I aspire to make, but I'll move on and say thank you very VERY much. Comments like these are what make me love doing these videos. I really do appreciate you saying this.
Ok, cool.
Love your channel. I just keep noticing that your audio is really off in most of them. Food for thought.
I don't feel Wade is taking advantage of Jerry. He's not being particularly charitable, but he's being fair. If anything Jerry was trying to take advantage of Wade by being a superfluous middleman and reaping all the benefits.
I feel like he was in a situation where he found the investment opportunity, and felt he was entitled to it. He obviously isn't, but I think that was his rational.
I know she shot him in the leg, but i find the most unrealistic part of the film is the fact that Gaear didn’t resist arrest at all from a much smaller, pregnant woman. Loved the film other than that
THIS IS NOT HOW Marshall from HIMYM describes MINNESOTA!!!!
Lust is a big one for Carl the movie goes out of its way to show you how Carl is generally perceived as “ugly” or “funny looking” and that the only way he can get laid is by paying for it which he does often
Damn! The spoiler warning got me stopping my watch :( I’ll have to come back. I wanted to see if it was worth watching
This review seems like you watched second hand as if someone told it to you then you interrupted it through what they told you.
minor correction: this movie doesn't take place in fargo (it's mostly in brainerd). the only thing that's in fargo, i believe, is the beginning scene at the king of clubs bar.
SPOILERS
I have a couple of objections to your analysis here. Jerry is not merely incompetent but selfish and manipulative. He arranges for the kidnapping of his wife, scams GMAC and abandons his son to flee to a motel. Secondly, Gaear holds the power in his relationship with Carl because of his willingness to use violence. After Gaear shoots the cope, Carl is evidently disturbed by this (as symbolized by the blood covering his face) and carries out Gaear's orders in moving the body of the cop, highlighting the balance of power between the two
For me, there is less moral justice in the film than you claim. All the developed, male characters in the film are essentially evil by nature. Carl and Jerry begin with some sense of morality but it is clear from their immediate involvement in the kidnapping that evil resides within. Throughout the film, the sense of morality that exists in both characters declines, leaving only the evil. The character of Mike supports this. Mike clearly has sexual intentions in meeting Marge but his story about his wife's death creates sympathy for him and restores a hope that perhaps Mike's immorality is a result of a traumatic event as opposed to his nature. However, the reveal that he was never actually married utterly destroys this hope. Although Jerry, Carl and Gaear are punished, Mike is not. His story is left hanging. For me, the justice of 'Fargo' is deliberately imperfect (on the part of the Coen Brothers); the sheer scale of the immorality within us overwhelms it. A similarity I noticed between 'Fargo' and 'No Country for Old Men' is that the deaths in both films receive progressively less attention as the plot develops, and become more insignificant. This further supports my point that any sense of justice is stripped away with the morality of the characters.
I think the issue of gender is a most interesting one here. All our male characters are evil to some degree, including Wade and Stan who are motivated by money. The figure of Paul Bunyan stands for masculinity and violence, embodied by Gaear as he wields the axe to murder Carl. Marge, through her pregnancy, spends the film physically hindered by her femininity as does Jean who is overpowered by the kidnappers. I'd be interested to hear other takes on this theme of gender in the film.
Doesn't really fit. Norm developed about as much as Marge, but he's clearly on a moral level wit hehr.
I’m sorry but this analysis is just outright wrong. Jerry is not a good person with the best intentions... he stole $320,000 from his work by taking out loans on non-existent cars and instead of facing the consequences for his actions when he was about to be found out.... he put his wife, the mother of his son, in harm’s way by hiring some thugs to kidnap her. And Carl is the smarter one who Gaear follows around? Uhh... what? That’s just not the case at all.. I first saw this movie at like 13 and I knew Grimsrud was the stronger silent leader of the two while Carl shows an obvious deference and is very much intimidated by him. And Scotty? To say that the mom is kidnapped and some of the reason it may have happened that way was karma for the way he got agitated with her over a bowl of cereal one morning is just plain odd. No offense intended but you might want to avoid movie analysis videos from now on if you misinterpreted the characters in this film so drastically.
Jerry is 100% a bad guy. Let's start with his scams. He is constantly trying to screw people over to make money. His customers, the bank, his father-in-law, even the criminals he hires. Notice how he told them it was all for $80,000 when in reality he was going to walk away with almost a million (incidentally Carl is also killed over a couple thousand bucks when he knows he has a million stashed). He is selfish to his core. He says that he wants the lot deal to help his family, but Wade replies that his daughter and grandson are going to be taken care of regardless of whether Jerry is a failure or not. He fails at all of his plots, with the final one getting his wife, her father and 5 other people killed. Jerry is not only stupid, he's bad.
I think you're way off on just about everything ya said. You're out of your element, donnie.
Agree. This analysis is pretty narrow and lacks nuance. Describing characters as “good” or “bad” defies these characters’ complexities. The interpretations are too neat and black and white.
Yes! Especially considering the film we're talking about. Character nuance is the Coen Brothers' MO, and they nail it in Fargo.
Marge would lose her job and be prosecuted for attempted murder today. Things sure have changed since then.
jerry wasnt just incompetent, his identity from the beginning of the movie is tied to his lies. and why would gary be spared, by your logic of he didnt intend to do as much bad, if hes the first one to murder anyone in the film? even going to chase after witnesses.
'this attitude doesn't get him anywhere, but shot' lmaoo
william h macy is the villian of this movie
Right? The entire tragedy is created by Jerry. This video is faulty
oh yeah
I have a bit of a different take on Gaear. I think he lives not because he's more moral than his partner, but because he's the worst of them all. Ironically, the one who does the worst violence, gets away with it, so to speak.
He is an interesting character, he is driven by his own morals and not by anyone Else's. The Coens have loved exploring characters like this, from more clear examples like Anton Chigurh, to less obvious ones like The Dude.
He gets a lifetime of blank walls and bars to blankly stare at.
0:57 Does he, though? It really seems that's he cares mostly about himself. For instance, he basically forgets about his son until he's reminded by his father-in-laws advisor. He doesn't come across as particularly concerned about his wife either. I mean the whole thing starts because he arranges to have her kidnapped for money. And from what I gathered he got himself into trouble by doing fraud even though he already had a decent enough job and was doing fine. It's not like he was in a desperate situation due to bad luck.
thought the same. what a baffling review
The coan brothers didn’t really have a say in what characters lived and died...this is a true story
Zak Harrison it’s actually not
I think it's a "real" story
I thiiink he’s joking?
What scares me most, is how close to reality this depiction of the American Mid-West really is. I lived in Wisconsin near the Minnesota border for 6 years, and people really are THAT nice most the time. Oh and they all really do say "You betcha!" all the time. lol. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but you truly would be surprised. What's even creepier though, is how little crime there really is in the rural towns, until someone like Ed Gein, or Jeffery Dahmer comes along, both being Wisconsinites. . . Something about the Midwestern lifestyle most people live out there just makes them, weird. Especially the rural areas.
*the cities of Brainard, and Minneapolis/St. Paul
Can you please do a review of the first three seasons of Fargo on Netflix - some of the best series I have watched this century
I don't think this analysis works. Jerry is not just stupid, he is untruthful, Machiavellian, and cowardly.
Gaere is not just a follower or someone being manipulated by Carl. Why else would Gaere hack down his partner over a bit of money, then put him in a woodchipper? Why would he kill Jean, without orders from Carl?
Wade doesn't try to take advantage of Jerry in the financial deal. It looks that way from Jerry's perspective, but that's because Jerry overestimates his ability to manipulate people. It's one thing manipulating some random customer into getting Truecoat, it's another thing manipulating a hardass executive into lending you money on a speculative venture.
Marge shooting Gere is not "bad" in any sense, nor inconsistent with "by the books" policing.
We are not a bank Jerry
ok, so...why did the cop and the kids that saw what happened to the cop all die?
There definitely is a level of randomness to it, but who can speak to those character's morals that we don't know?
Carl and Gaear did not want any witnesses, so they all got shot.
oh shit... William H macy brought me to this channel. he talked about this narrative about how these guys talked about what exactly Ethan Coen made him to act .
margie only felt nauseated .she never threw up .
You lost me “Jerry has good intentions” in regards to his family
In that scene with the father in law “this could really help Jean and Scotty” he’s only using that statement as a tool to pry the deal out of the father in law so he can get the money for whatever reason he needs it.
What's the song playing in the beginning?
From the soundtrack"-Fargo, North Dakota"
It's by the awesome Carter Burwell - he did a ton of themes for the Coen Bros. :)
I take exception to the fact that Marge did nothing wrong. When she went to the twin cities she wanted to hook up with a guy she knew until she realized he was a goofball and a lair.
Um, I don't think so. I think she just wanted to meet with him because he was an old schoolmate. He was the one who wanted to romance her.
Treefinger podcast on Spotify
Evil is as evil does~!!!
Now break down Fargo season 2.
BROTHERS'
Not sure I agree with your review here.
Gaerr is definitely worse than Carl. He killed tons of people. Carl killed one. Gaerr is definitely worse than anyone else in this film.
But its my deal Wade...
I feel like Wade kinda got what was coming to him for his greedy and mean spirited nature
I don’t think ya understand the “morality”. Life is not fair and it’s pretty close to being a random shit show at times... those who risk things have a higher chance of suffering worse is all. That doesn’t mean those who don’t are safe though....
I thought the world was beautiful
It doeant take place in fargo.... the scene where jerry meets the kidnappers takes place in fargo and thats all.
Are you kidding me? You don't get out much do you😮
You haven't understood Fargo or the Coens at all. There's no balancing of actions and punishments according to intention - that's just silly. It's ridiculous to argue that whoever "is in charge of morals of the film" thinks Wade deserves to die for his actions but Gaear doesn't. You completely misread the film.
Good things don’t always happen to good people, just as bad things don’t always happen to bad people, nobody would write a script to follow such naive concepts
But then what about Jerry's wife???
I like the video but nobody got off life in jail just as bad
Nope. The two conspirators are very clearly not punisher with any moral logic. Carl is criminal but smart and never means to kill at the beginning of the film. Guear Is the first to shoot a person and much more consistently cold-blooded and hard to understand, humanly speaking. In the end he kills his female hostage for being too loud and obnoxious, something he seems to be longing for an excuse to do well before he does. I think the morality of punnishment is specifically meant to have no moral logic--to show the absurdity of violence.