The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007)

[Marcel Gioberti]

This film deserved far more attention than There Will Be Blood. Funny the way hype does that.

[tugboat5555]

I, and I'm sure many others, will agree with you Marcel. Unfortunately yelling and quotable catchphrases always tends to draw bigger crowds than say, oh, that introspection and stuttering business...

[miless]

it's like Malick being the most artistic of the "American new wave" but Scorsese getting the attention (for being most artistic). PT Anderson creates much more populist films, which helps garner attention. And the style of films at festivals doesn't reflect American filmmaking anymore (unlike when say a Malick film would win an award) so a film like Assassination wouldn't win awards to help its marketing status.

[a.khan]

"Assassination of Jesse James" is my favorite film from last year; and although it pains me to not see it receive the honors it deserves, as many of you have indicated, this challenging and multilayered will outlast every single movie nominated this year.

[kaujot]

I, and I'm sure many others, will agree with you Marcel. Unfortunately yelling and quotable catchphrases always tends to draw bigger crowds than say, oh, that introspection and stuttering business...

I doubt seriously that "I drink your milkshake" was meant to be a catchphrase. It's not even funny unless it's outside of the context of the film.

[jbeall]

"Assassination of Jesse James" is my favorite film from last year; and although it pains me to not see it receive the honors it deserves, as many of you have indicated, this challenging and multilayered will outlast every single movie nominated this year.

Really? I vastly prefer TWBB to Jesse James, but I'm not even interested in comparing the films' respective staying power--I simply do not think any of us will still be thinking about this film two years down the road. All it does is add an early 21st century twist to the Jesse James mythology, still airbrushing the truth about what a vile personality James was.

Despite all the lovely shots, the film still needed an editor to trim another 45 minutes or so of fat off of it (it's interesting how little of the film has anything to do with the assassination of Jesse James, or even the coward Robert Ford). The voiceover narration provides lots of trivia, but precious little useful information for this character study, and so all we ever learn is how J.J. is one baaaaaaaaaadass dude who loved his kids (did Paul Haggis write that part of the script? It was co Crash) and wanted to die, so he finally let the Fords shoot him. It's the minimal complication we expect of our heroes nowadays in exchange for being able to sweep James's nasty racism and confederate attitude under the rug. The only things I think are lasting about this film are the beauty of the Canadian locations and Casey Affleck's performance, and to the degree that this film just adds to an already-existing James mythology, it goes in the bin with every other film about the man.

Not that I think Assassination... is a bad film. I enjoyed it, even if I didn't think it was all that. Reading my post before hitting "submit", I realize it comes across as much more confrontational than I intend, but I wanted to provide at least some justification for why I'm not blown away by the film--it's not my intent to attack your opinion of the film, but I'm wondering what you see as "lasting" in it.

[Antoine Doinel]

I loved this film, but let's not kid oursevles about how "challenging" and "multilayered" the film is. It's pretty straightforward (it's narrated for chrissakes) and it's themes/meanings don't exactly need to be coaxed out on multiple viewings. Both this and TWBB are very accomplished films, equally deserving of praise, but they were both pretty upfront.

The only reason this film didn't garner more Awards attention, wasn't because the film was difficult (it's not and TWBB is arguably more difficult for an audience - lengthy scenes of silence, leftfield soundtrack, lack of Brad Pitt's visage) but simply because the studio dumped it and then made a very limited Oscar campaign for it. If Warner's had really wanted to push the film, they could've easily landed cinematography, adapted screenplay and possibly even director nominations.

[tavernier]

It did get a cinematography nom, along with Affleck for Supporting Actor.

[Antoine Doinel]

Forgot about the cinematography nom, and yeah, I was rooting for Affleck.

[a.khan]

I loved this film, but let's not kid oursevles about how "challenging" and "multilayered" the film is.

Thanks, but I like kidding myself.

[Marcel Gioberti]

I loved this film, but let's not kid oursevles about how "challenging" and "multilayered" the film is.

Thanks, but I like kidding myself.

So do I. An essay of ideas poured out of my first reading of Jesse James. I must buy it now. Anybody know anything about the cut? Does a director's cut exist?

Dylan Tichenor of PTA fame was behind this cut and I don't know that I am a fan of his ability. After all, PTA's best film (by far), Punch Drunk Love, was the only one Tichenor didn't cut.

[Jeff]

I loved Jesse James (though not quite as much as TWBB), but my fondness for it is based on the beauty of the cinematography, the poetic silences, and its meditation on the nature of fame and infamy. I marveled when it was first released that it wasn't doing better at the box office and that Warner was virtually hiding it. Narratively, it's as straightforward as they come. It's very accessible. There's nothing structurally or thematically challenging about it -- not that that's a bad thing.

Speculation on any film's longevity or legacy is just that -- speculation. My crystal ball says that 30 years from now Blood will be looked upon as a minor classic and one of the better films from it's decade, and Jesse James will be a cult classic among cinematography whores (myself included). Of course a film's perception among the masses, the critical consensus, or its place in the canon shouldn't color your perception of it.

[Awesome Welles]

My crystal ball says that 30 years from now Blood will be looked upon as a minor classic and one of the better films from it's decade, and Jesse James will be a cult classic among cinematography whores (myself included). Of course a film's perception among the masses, the critical consensus, or its place in the canon shouldn't color your perception of it.

I don't see it that way at all. I hope and think Jesse James will be looked upon by many as a classic of this decade not just for it's cinematography but for it's many all round qualities. I thought it had so much going for it. It was so finely edited, which stood out more for me than the cinematography though Deakins is a fine, fine craftsman. Brad Pitt also proved he is good for something and turned in a great performance, for me better than Affleck, though this could be due to all the press Affleck has received, of course I don't mean to undermine his performance he was fantastic also. Even Sam Rockwell was good, an actor I always find to have a good presence but not exactly a good performer. It was the best film of 2007 for me and Blood closely trailing.

[Via_Chicago]

I loved this film, but let's not kid oursevles about how "challenging" and "multilayered" the film is. It's pretty straightforward (it's narrated for chrissakes) and it's themes/meanings don't exactly need to be coaxed out on multiple viewings. Both this and TWBB are very accomplished films, equally deserving of praise, but they were both pretty upfront.

Huh? The narration in James is not straightforward at all. Like Barry Lyndon, the ironic use of a godlike narration at times completely contradicts and calls into question what we are being shown on screen. It doesn't narrate what we are seeing and it doesn't fill in the gaps. Like any great work of historiography, it causes us to question the reality of the image and the history that the image is presenting. Take the following quote for example:

"He also had a condition that was referred to as "granulated eyelids" and it caused him to blink more than usual as if he found creation slightly more than he could accept. Rooms seemed hotter when he was in them. Rains fell straighter. Clocks slowed. Sounds were amplified. He considered himself a Southern loyalist and guerrilla in a Civil War that never ended. He regretted neither his robberies, nor the seventeen murders that he laid claim to. He had seen another summer under in Kansas City, Missouri and on September 5th in the year 1881, he was thirty-four-years-old."

These words are ostensibly illustrated by the film; we see Jesse meeting with merchants, sitting in his rocking chair, etc. However, there is a total disconnect between the obvious historiographical voice of the narration (it posits opinions that are not expressed in the film, and others that are never shown) and that which transpires on the screen. In some sense, there is this tacit connection between James and Pitt, whereby Dominick is making pointed claims about "celebrity culture." However, as much as critics talked at length about this aspect of the film, what stuck out to me was that the film is in many ways about history. The quote above, like many in the film, and the accompanying images suggest the old Fordian adage: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

There is a constant push-pull between legend and fact. The narration is meant to evoke the "fact," the image, the "legend." And yet nothing could be further from what actually transpires on the screen. Instead, it is the narration that is subjective, the image objective. And often vice versa. This reversal is the most interesting aspect of the film, and Dominick is constantly (and I believe, consciously) doing this.

Much could be made of the length of the film, that the final cut was partially out of Dominick's hands. However, this is to miss the point. The way that characters slide in and out of the narrative not only reflects a kind of Herodotean historical consciousness (in that the digresssions are at once totally extraneous to the main body of the text, while simultaneously important to our understanding of that same text), but it also reflects the shifting dualities and changes found in life itself. The film expresses mortality in an extremely mature way not often found in modern cinema.

I couldn't then disagree more with your facile assertion that this film is all surface. That it is not "challenging," as you say. A film is what you bring to it. That you've chosen to see the film the way that you have is your prerogative, but to insinuate that to read anything more into the picture is to "kid oneself" is an authoritative arrogance of the highest order.

If I weren't so disappointed with the image quality, I would buy this film in a heartbeat and return to it often. It's an enormous shame that this left cinemas as quickly as it did. Rarely in contemporary American cinema have I been so moved, so astonished, and left with so many questions that I wanted to watch a film the next day. However, this was one of those exceptions. I'm frankly astonished that there are some who can't (or won't?) see below the surface of this wonderful film.

[Marcel Gioberti]

Via Chicago -

Thank you for that wonderful and erudite post. I had a conversation earlier with a friend who disliked Jesse James. My arguments mirrored many of the points you've addressed, although I wasn't aware that critics had discussed the intersecting celebrity discourse between Pitt and James, but it was certainly one of my favorite aspects of the film.

In the example you cited, the unreliable narration was the most obvious, but I look forward to screening it again to see what comes up. For instance, his "granulated eyelids" didn't blink a single time during the thirty seconds of the shot accompanied by the narrator's mythmaking description. I was reminded of the way John Chancellor lulled us into believing anything Ken Burns presented to us during the 11 hours of The Civil War.

I also wanted to point out, among all the other excellent performance, my personal favorite was that of Garret Dillahunt as the befuddled, ghost-like Ed Miller. I always thought he was an exceptional, highly skilled screen actor when he made appearances as two different characters in Deadwood, but he truly blew me away in Jesse James. (NOTE: He was scheduled to play Charlie but couldn't due to scheduling conflicts during the final season of Deadwood.)

That you've chosen to see the film the way that you have is your prerogative, but to insinuate that to read anything more into the picture is to "kid oneself" is an authoritative arrogance of the highest order.

Thank you mostly for that. Sometimes, the self-appointed arbiters of discussion around here do grate.

[Marcel Gioberti]

There was no explanation of the narrator, but as the film was told in nearly a serial chapter format, the narrative device was very fitting to link passages of time.

Yeah, I felt the same way about Marlow. He sure helped move things along effectively. 8-)

[Antoine Doinel]

I guess I just had the problem with the word "challenging" as for me, it implies something of a more experimental or narratively difficult nature (ie. David Lynch). I loved this film - it was one of my favorites of last year - but that said, I certainly don't think there is anything here that is out of the grasp of the average viewer, and for me, that is what defines a truly challenging film.

I agree with much of what you wrote above, and many of the themes that you enjoyed in the film, I discovered and enjoyed as well. I certainly didn't mean to come off as arrogant, or diminish anyone's enjoyment of the film, but for me, much of the film wasn't so much "on the surface", but easily read.

[Grand Illusion]

I loved the narration because it perfectly echoed the dime-store books that Robert Ford would read. It was an interesting device, not just ironic to the images, but also as an entry into the psyche of Ford.

The mythologizing in the narration is ironic also to the form it is being used. The objective, omniscient narrator is a common device, but in this case it's subjective and apocryphal. Because Ford is intrinsically tied to the Jesse James myth featured in those books, the narration may have gone over the head of the "average viewer," a phrase which makes me uncomfortable in its elitism.

The meditation on death is also a reason this is my favorite film of the last year but deserves its own post.

[tugboat5555]

Garrett Dillahunt had quite a year.

I wonder if he and Roger Deakins were, like, best buddies...

[noelbotevera]

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007)

[Antoine Doinel]

Warner's continue to baffle fans of the film by offering R2 a 2-disc collector's edition but not R1.

[domino harvey]

According to one of the comments, the only extra on the second disc is the making-of from the Blu-ray disc.

[aox]

I finally saw this last night and after reading the thread, there isn't much to add b/c frankly, it is a pretty straightforward film that was beautifully shot. It was one of those movies that you could take a still from every frame and it would be a gorgeous picture. Similar to The Cranes are Flying, IMO.

I would really love to see a 4 hour cut. I know this might not make much sense, but I felt like this film was slow at times, but the pace would have greatly been aided by actually including more footage. I just wanted Ford's motivations to be fleshed out a little more making the final scene more compelling and tragic. This forced me to think back to the two cuts of Dances with Wolves. I found the 3 hour theatrical cut to be somewhat slow and boring, but I found the 4 hour Director's Cut more compelling and it actually sped by in comparison to the 3 hour TC. Having things fleshed out seems to benefit the film. I need to think about this a little more because it is early and perhaps I am not articulating this thought as clearly as I would like, but I can't stop thinking about this film and was compelled to bump this thread to perhaps get more discussion going on it. I think it would have greatly benefited from being longer.

Anyway, fantastic film.

[hot_locket]

From what I gathered, Dominik's cut was even MORE dreamy and Malicky, and the film as it is is the result of making it as appealing to the general public as possible.

Although, Malick himself...

The finished film runs 160 minutes and, because of its lyrical narration and Roger Deakins' sublime magic-hour cinematography, has drawn comparisons to Terrence Malick, whom Dominik counts as a friend. (He even shot a week of second unit on 'The New World' before being fired for not being in the Directors Guild.) 'I showed the movie to Terry and he was appalled. He was like: "It's too long, there's too much voiceover, you've got to cut that." '

[Nothing]

I have to say, I was disappointed by this film. It seemed pretentious, in the true meaning of the word, the Ron Howard meaning of the word.