Interesting.

Was anyone else distracted by the first few minutes of the voiceover when the narrator tells us about Jesse James? I can't remember the exact line but was something about him swallowing all the air when he walked in a room. It reminded me of those radio ads for Dos X. The narrator intones something like "His charisma ... can be seen from space. He is ... the world's most interesting man.". Not sure that was the effect they were going for. Anyway, after that I settled into the film. Not a perfect film but I'll definitely see it again. The acting, cinematography, and writing were all great. This is a huge leap forward for Dominik.

Another minor criticism I meant to add.



After Jesse (Pitt) beats the young boy to try to learn Jim's location he goes back to his horse and breaks down in tears. I couldn't help but think of a similar scene in Troy where Pitt's character does something Pitt must have known the audience would find reprehensible. Pitt kills all around good guy Hector (played by Eric Bana from Dominick's first film Chopper), drags his body around, and then breaks down in tears afterwards. I have to wonder if this wasn't something Pitt demanded to add to the films so he didn't lose the audience.

Wow! That's a correlation of a quality I usually associate with Mr. Chattaway!

Whatever the case, that moment really worked for me.

Those scenes were well acted by Pitt and I actually think he's actually a pretty good actor who has become more of a movie star. I just found the crying to be a distraction. I imagine Pitt wanting those moments to make his characters seem redeemable when the films seem to be saying they aren't.

(And any comparison to Mr. Chattaway is always flattering, so thank you.)

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: Wow! That's a correlation of a quality I usually associate with Mr. Chattaway!

I NEVER burst into tears after dragging a body around the city walls.

Backrow Baptist wrote:
: (And any comparison to Mr. Chattaway is always flattering, so thank you.)

Gawrsh, now *I* feel flattered.

Steve Sailer:

No movie illustrates film folks' infatuation with the written word more than the accurate, intelligent, and magnificent-looking, yet unentertaining art Western "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford," in which Brad Pitt plays the celebrated outlaw and Casey Affleck (Ben's brother) is the sniveling young protégé who shot him in the back of the head in 1882. Writer-director Andrew Dominik has filmed the most faithful adaptation imaginable of Ron Hansen's eloquent and obsessively researched but interminable 1983 historical novel. In Hansen's vast portrait of "the old, weird America," we learn, for example, that Jesse was 5'8" and 155 pounds while his battle-axe mother was 6'0" and 228 pounds.

Hansen is an admirable rarity among literary novelists. Besides attending Mass daily and playing golf weekly, he chooses inherently interesting subjects, such as Hitler's Niece. Hansen deserves a less reverent adapter than Dominik, who lifts vast slabs of voice-over narration straight from the book. Moreover, although "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is a reasonable title for an ambitious novel, whose highbrow readers likely possess some vague awareness of what happened, but movie audiences can't be expected to know any history, so the title becomes a post-modernist gimmick that cheats the film of suspense. . . .

Or...

... it challenges audiences to consider the movie as something other than an exercise in suspense. Perhaps it challenges them to consider that there are other modes and methods worth considering. Just as sudden and incidental death of a major character in No Country for Old Men sends us reeling out of genre convention and groping for some new way to understand and interpret the film, so the very title of Assassination suggests that the path to that event is worth pondering for aspects other than "What's gonna happen?!"

Or am I just talking like a "highbrow reader"?

This is one of those rare films where the voiceover really made sense to me. The movie was about the process of mythmaking, the way that storytelling can cast a spell, and the things that people will believe and do (or not do) under the influence of that spell. So a good bit of conventional narrative was an effective accent to the film, I thought....

Yes, of course. Which is why this is not a genre Western -- it's a psychological period drama that happens to be set on the American frontier.

And is anyone else wondering who, if Casey Affleck is the "supporting actor" here, has the lead role in this film?

I would suspect (thinking in Hollywood publicist mode) Brad Pitt. The bigger the name the more important the role. Besides, which character is mentioned first in the title? 'Nuff said.

I have to say now that I've read the script (thank you WarrenPiece for the link) I'm not so sure Pitt demanded that scene. That scene is actually in the screenplay so I'll give Dominick the benefit of the doubt that it was his choice all along. As of a matter of fact, I was surprised to see that the film as a whole was pretty faithful to the script. Because of those early reports and the long delay of the release date I imagined Dominick completely re-writing the film in the editing room. Which begs the question, did the folks at Warner Brothers actually read the script before they gave it the green light?

What Was It You Wanted
Bob Dylan and Jesse James
Jean Bethke Elshtain, Books & Culture, March/April

England gets a two-disc edition on DVD.

I don't have much to add to all that's been written, except to say that I agree with whoever called this the best western since "Once Upon a Time in the West". Having been bored to distraction by so much of the recent product ("Juno", "I am Legend", "The Invasion", etc.), "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”, which received mixed reviews on this side of the pond, came as a real surprise. A contender for best film of 2007, in my view.

And I say all that as someone who thinks that Terrence Malick sucks.

I hadn't recalled that the studio was so troubled by this film, but re-reading this thread, I see that mentioned up top. I'm not sure this article adds too much to the conversation, but I appreciated the opportunity to revisit the film through the director's eyes.

The Christian Century (8/12) has an interview with Ron Hansen, author of the novel. He's also a deacon in the Catholic Church.

Saw this last night and loved it. I've seen so many complaints about how the movie is too long, or how the subplots deviate too much from the story of the film's title. But I think it's perfectly paced, and the subplots all tie in enough. The only complaint I had was that some of the editing was choppy. (I'm thinking, to use an example, of the scene where Bob is washing his face in the bucket before shooting Jesse. The focus shifts between Bob's face and his hands in really odd, choppy spots.)

Darrel's assessment of the theme of loss of faith is what I immediately picked up on, too. What a devastating movie.

Oh, Nick Cave was great too. Sam Rockwell was a standout, as was Paul Schneider. I was pleased to see him, as the only other film I've seen him in was the excellent David Gordon Green film All the Real Girls. Which, interestingly...Green is a Malick-ite, as is Dominik, and both Schneider and Zooey were in All the Real Girls. Hmmm.

I also wanted to note that this might be one of the few times I've agreed with The Invisible Man about anything on the A&F forum, aside from stuff relating to John Carpenter. Hooray!

Jason, you haven't seen Lars and the Real Girl yet?

Erm, no.

I saw Schneider's name on the cast list on Wikipedia, so definitely want to see it now. I'm a slow watcher, man, gimme a break! If people start paying me, maybe I'll watch movies faster.

No problem. But if you like Schneider, you'll be pleased. He's very good in Lars.

Overstreet wrote:
: No problem. But if you like Schneider, you'll be pleased. He's very good in Lars.

He is indeed.

And Jason, now that you've said "Green is a Malick-ite", I find myself wondering if Malick will make his own stoner comedy now. I also find myself thinking that Green might be one of the few surviving members of that ancient race that was wiped out by the Hebrews. (The Amalekites, that is. Okay, bad pun.)

Good job outing him, Peter; Green's been trying to keep that under wraps for so many years.

And I think stoners might like Malick's movies in general, as they can space out during all of the longs shots of beautiful imagery and imagine that they're flying.

I have to say, I really liked the dreamlike quality of the visuals, and the music really drew me in, along with the quirky narration, which often seemed to deliver minor, irrelevant to the film facts about the characters. It moved slowly, but I felt it was part of what made it a real strong film.

Absolutely. I felt like I was floating during a good portion of the film.