Screenshot from A Hole in the Head (dir. Frank Capra/1959)
Screenshot from The Hudsucker Proxy (dir. Ethan & Joel Coen/1994)
Găsiți mai jos o explicație a acestei alăturări. Dacă vă interesează și sursa pentru a aprofunda chestiunea (zic și eu așa, sunt sigur că aveți alte chestii mai importante de făcut), well, se cheamă The Philosophy of the Coen Brothers și e o antologie de eseuri critice îngrijită de Mark T. Conrad, profesor la University of Kentucky. Available by request (pdf).
« The subversive potential of parody presupposes that adopting the
methods of past texts and frameworks is not the same as endorsing them.
The Hudsucker Proxy, far from being a mere recreation of the traditions of
the screwball comedy, is a parody of Capra and his typically maudlin films
detailing naïve populist tales of social achievement. Capra’s films are often
recalled as overtly hopeful parables celebrating the ability of humanity to
overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. The derogatory term „Capracorn”
is regularly applied to his films, the expression carrying with it the
implication of a rose-colored, idealistic optimism of society and human
nature that ignores the harsh realities of a quotidian existence. Capra’s films
advocate values related to the New Deal: compassion for one’s neighbor, the
notion that happiness does not come from wealth but from social interaction,
and the belief that no conflict is unsolvable.
Despite being Capraesque in its production, The Hudsucker Proxy is not
reflective of the typical values espoused in Capra’s films. In the tradition of
postmodern representation, the Coens merely install these motifs to then
subvert them. Like Capra’s hick-in-the-big-city films - Mr. Deeds Goes to
Town (1936) and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) - the Coens’ film
has „Muncie-boy” Norville arrive fresh off the bus from Indiana. Like the
characters in these two Capra films - Longfellow Deeds (Gary Cooper) and
Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) - Norville is then exploited by a vile capitalist
system that values money above morality. And, as in Capra films, the hero
of The Hudsucker Proxy eventually succeeds over the perils of corruption.
Yet, unlike the protagonists of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town or Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington, Norville is not beholden to any value system nor is he trying to
expose and overturn corruption. He is a fool whose own ignorance (rather
than idealism) makes him ripe for exploitation. Norville is not the repository
of democratic optimism that characterizes Capra’s heroes. Deeds and Smith
are „little men” battling against an unscrupulous system of venality; relying
on righteousness and morality, their idealism will endure as a beacon in
the murky fog of duplicity. Norville, however, is an ambitious but dimwitted
business major from a backwoods university. He falls into an executive position as a corporate stooge and then insipidly discards his moral code
to abuse his newly acquired power. The intertextual relationship between
The Hudsucker Proxy and Capra is characterized by subversion rather than
celebration, representing a challenge to Capra’s historical articulations of
ideology and culture.
Todd McCarthy bemoans The Hudsucker Proxy’s pastiche structure and artificial aesthetic: „rehashes of old movies, no matter how inspired, are almost by definition synthetic, and the fact is that nearly all the characters are constructs rather than human beings with whom the viewer can connect.” He then observes that „[Tim] Robbins calls to mind Gary Cooper and James Stewart, but there’s no authentic sweetness or strength underneath all his doltishness to make him seem like a good guy the audience can get behind.” McCarthy’s problem here is that he finds The Hudsucker Proxy to be a „rehash” of old movies, only to then point out the very specific distinctions between the Coens’ film and those prior texts. McCarthy’s inconsistency - The Hudsucker Proxy is just like those earlier films but also specifically different - is crucial, as it suggests not that Robbins fails to reflect authenticity but rather that authenticity has been subverted. The Coens install a pseudo-Capraesque hero to then distort him into an image that suits their critical agenda. The hope of the New Deal no longer prevails in the image of the protagonist. Rather, the Coen brothers focus on the incompetence exemplified in contemporary corporate collapse and failure. The Hudsucker Proxy is a period film (its setting being 1959), but it illustrates the very real concerns of a modern society disillusioned by corporate greed and incompetence. »
Todd McCarthy bemoans The Hudsucker Proxy’s pastiche structure and artificial aesthetic: „rehashes of old movies, no matter how inspired, are almost by definition synthetic, and the fact is that nearly all the characters are constructs rather than human beings with whom the viewer can connect.” He then observes that „[Tim] Robbins calls to mind Gary Cooper and James Stewart, but there’s no authentic sweetness or strength underneath all his doltishness to make him seem like a good guy the audience can get behind.” McCarthy’s problem here is that he finds The Hudsucker Proxy to be a „rehash” of old movies, only to then point out the very specific distinctions between the Coens’ film and those prior texts. McCarthy’s inconsistency - The Hudsucker Proxy is just like those earlier films but also specifically different - is crucial, as it suggests not that Robbins fails to reflect authenticity but rather that authenticity has been subverted. The Coens install a pseudo-Capraesque hero to then distort him into an image that suits their critical agenda. The hope of the New Deal no longer prevails in the image of the protagonist. Rather, the Coen brothers focus on the incompetence exemplified in contemporary corporate collapse and failure. The Hudsucker Proxy is a period film (its setting being 1959), but it illustrates the very real concerns of a modern society disillusioned by corporate greed and incompetence. »