Do the Coens hate their characters? Is there a sense of glee they obtain when placing their protagonists through a treadmill of turmoil? It’s difficult not to watch A Serious Man (2009) and feel that there’s an element of truth to what many critics have felt about how the brothers approach the folk in their work.
A Serious Man catches the brothers’ alleged meanness at their most distilled. Heavily inspired by the book of Job, it’s a discernible example of the Coen’s having one of their creations struggle through one of their endurance fables. There’s something particularly eyebrow-raising about the citizens who inhabit Fargo (1996) also. A disquieting misfortune that lies beneath the thin veneer of “Minnesota nice”.
READ MORE: Room at the Top (1959) – Blu-ray Review
Matt Zoller Seitz however has a broader view. In an article about The Hudsucker Proxy (1994), the film this throwback piece is about, Seitz remarks: “In a lot of ways, the Coens are still misunderstood, despite winning multiple Oscars spread out over twenty-plus years and racking up several legit box office hits (including O Brother Where Art Thou? and their remake of True Grit). There’s still a sense that they have a nihilistic streak, that they enjoy watching their characters suffer and be humiliated. I’ve never really felt that; I think they take a certain disgusted amusement in showing how cruel humankind can be, but that’s not the same thing.”
I find myself in agreement. In watching their films, the Coens seem to find the world to be a cruel and bitter place. But they’re deeply invested in which of their creations can ride out the storm. Primarily, the brothers are intrigued by survival. Their best films always seem able to transfer that investment from themselves to the audience.
The Hudsucker Proxy, the fifth film of the Coen brothers’ filmography, often marks the first moment that not everyone was always on board with their brand of playful, yet often acidic brand of humour. After an incredible early run of movies, Hudsucker stopped the brothers in their tracks until the much-acclaimed Fargo two years later. With a budget of around $25 Million, this was the biggest budget the duo obtained at the time. Ironically the film, which took some swings at capitalism, found itself underperforming heavily at the box office. It’s not too surprising. Despite Hudsucker having a larger budget than their previous entries, it is still very much a Coen brothers’ film. And that inherent eccentricity which comes with the siblings is apparent from the off.
Waring Hudsucker, head of the hugely successful Hudsucker industries, suddenly ends his life in front of the company’s board of directors. The very moment Hudsucker shuffles off the mortal coil the board, headed by Sidney J. Mussburger (Paul Newman) devise a stock scam to ensure them more than a few highly paid bonuses. For the scam to work, the group need a proxy. This is where naive business graduate Norville Barnes (Tim Robbins) steps in. With the Muncie Alma Mater found himself fast-tracked from mail room newbie to head of the company. The company decides to go full Max Bialystock by giving Norville’s bizarre product pitch the go-ahead. Fully believing the product will flop and depress the stock even more, providing more dividends for them. However, this product, described only by its crude pencilled drawing and cryptic marketing ploy – “you know, for kids!” – is perhaps why the proxy deserves his promotion. Sales begin to increase, and the fun begins. Because now, Norville is starting to look like a genius.
READ MORE: Those We Drown (Amy Goldsmith) – Book Review
Watching The Hudsucker Proxy while enduring a cost-of-living crisis places an odd spin on the movie. The jabs at capitalism hit a little harder. For instance, when freshly graduated Norville steps off the bus and starts looking for jobs in New York City, every job advert screams the need for experience. A small reminder that these issues have long outlasted the internet. One of the most notable gags is the early death of Waring Hudsucker, who plunges himself out of his 45th-floor skyscraper despite his company making record profits. The money does little to fill the emptiness in his life. Could we imagine the shareholders of Avanti West Coast having such thoughts? Or the CEO of British Gas? No sooner than he breathes his last, the board members have already dryly shifted themselves into mentioning him in the past tense. It’s an amusing moment, although one that can easily feel a little dirty. There’s an honesty in the soullessness of the board members. Hudsucker is dead, but the world still turns. The ticker tape of stock ticks relentlessly. How is money to be made now? That’s all that matters. This relentless need for more money is on the nose. Yet seeing it in real time only makes the scene more relatable.
For Norville, he must escape the wily clutches of capitalism and retain some element of his soul. His struggle for survival could be likened to Coen characters Barton Fink or Llewyn Davis. Hudsucker’s themes of corporate skullduggery and ingenuity, sit snuggly next to the commercial versus creative battles of both Barton Fink (1991) and Inside Llewyn Davis (2013). However, Norville’s battle is a broader one, dipped in the mechanics of 30s and 40s screwball comedy. Combined with the intricate, technical prowess of the movie, it’s a strange brew.
Not to say this isn’t an enjoyable medley. The Hudsucker Proxy is still full of the same verve and energy that served Raising Arizona (1987) so well. There’s a cartoonish, farcical nature that holds that Coen’s charm. The construction of Norville’s product by way of montage is still one hell of a Coen brother set piece. The casting of Jennifer Jason Leigh as Amy Archer is also a shot in the arm. Leigh, channelling the fast-talking spirit of Katherine Hepburn in every scene, is yet another reminder that she is an actress who rarely misses. Meanwhile, the film nails the absurd serendipity many obtain to survive in the corporate world. It becomes obvious that Norville isn’t a market genius as much as he isn’t a dumb patsy, but he has stumbled on something that has placed him in perhaps a tidy position. His survival hinges on whether his soul gets corrupted by the rich promises of the corporate world he stumbled on.
There’s a reason why The Hudsucker Proxy is more of a revisionist fan favourite than a film which found its audience right out of the block. The Coens ensure that every penny of its budget is slapped upon the screen. Production designer Dennis Gassner created a New York City heavily influenced by the works of Albert Speer, Terry Gilliam, Frank Lloyd Wright, and the Art Deco movement. All this is captured beautifully by cinematographer Roger Deakins.
READ MORE: Dogman – Film Review
Yet Roger Ebert’s review of the film, which questions if the film’s style removes the heart of the story, holds a certain amount of weight. The film says all the right things but has an artificiality about itself that feels course-corrected in Coen’s next feature, Fargo. It’s not for want for trying. Tim Robbins is in good form as the loveable doofus in the centre of all these shenanigans. Yet it’s a performance that comes in the same year as the role that defines him as a performer: Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption (1994).
Robbins is enjoying himself, and yet the performance still pales in comparison with many of his brilliant choices in the 90s. It stings that a film with a smarmy performance from Bruce Campbell, as well as Paul Newman playing brilliantly against type, can still feel not quite top-tier Coen Brothers. By the end of this movie, it’s pretty clear that The Coens don’t hate Norville. But they don’t seem as invested in him as they are with some of their other creations. I found myself rewatching Miller’s Crossing (1990) recently before accepting this throwback article. Trust me when I say this. You know a top-tier Coens when you see it. It survives.
The Hudsucker Proxy was released on 11th March 1994.