Now, it’s worth mentioning that you might remember this column from the past, but with a different by line. Admittedly, this is a concept I stole from the elusive Ian Arbuckle and it’s worth it to go back and read his previous entries (the last one he wrote – Suspiria – is here). While this column is more of a reboot than a continuation, let it not be said that I’m not a man who acknowledges his peers.
So, with all of that out of the way, let’s get this started with a movie about a dude…
The Big Lebowski (1998) – Buy it from CHUD
In 1998 I turned 18 years old, was fresh out of high school (or counting down the days until I was fresh out of high school, depending on the month) and hadn’t a clue who or what a Coen Brother was. I also liked Staind and Godsmack and Kid Rock. Basically – 18-year-old me was a douche. I had seen the trailers for The Big Lebowski but to me it just looked like a movie about old people who liked bowling too much (DOUCHE!). Then, of course, over the years, the thing became a pop-culture phenomenon – endlessly quoted with imagery plastered all over every type of merchandise imaginable. I knew that the Dude abided. I knew that this aggression would not stand, man and I knew that Jesus would fuck me in the ass on Wednesday. But I didn’t know why and, honestly, even though I had started to grow up and grow out of my rampant douchebaggery, because of the ubiquity of it all I ended up developing an ambivalence to it as a result of its overexposure and I couldn’t be bothered to care.
Until I saw O Brother, Where Art Thou, No Country for Old Men and Burn After Reading. Gradually I found myself knowing how important the names Joel and Ethan Coen were and I wanted to see more. And to be honest, I didn‘t even know that this belonged to the Coens (again, I got sick of hearing about it so I promptly blocked it out of my head) until I saw the trailer for A Serious Man. So once it popped up on Instant (the catalyst for my seeing a lot of the movies I’m gonna write about here), I decided to give it a shot.
And I’m tremendously glad I did. I’ve seen a handful of the Coens’ movies – enough to get a feel for how and why they do what they do – and this feels like an essential entry in their career. I’m able to pinpoint a lot of common Coen trademarks and even though the implementation of those trademarks has indeed improved with each subsequent film, it obviously helps to see the evolution of the two as filmmakers (and yes – I realize that Lebowski is only their second big-budget film and to REALLY get a sense of their evolution as filmmakers I’m gonna have to go back to 1984’s Blood Simple and work forward. But that’s a discussion for another column). I thought the narrative had a few pacing problems and even though the dream sequences were amazingly well done (for some reason the lighting in those scenes really stood out to me – everything was so RICH) they did tend to perhaps go on a little too long. Again, you guys have seen this a million times and there’s nothing I can add to the discussion on content that hasn’t been covered a million times over, but I will say that even though I can respect its importance, part of me feels like its reverence is undeserved. It’s a really good (almost GREAT) film and the script sizzles, but the people who quote it ad nauseum and the people who elevate The Dude to some sort of Everyman Hero seem to have missed the point entirely (or perhaps I did). Yeah he seemed to have learned a few things but when the credits rolled he ended up exactly where he started. There’s no reason for this to have spawned the sort of phenomenon that it did, other than the quotability – it’s kinda like Scarface in that regard.
Now, the biggest question I find myself asking is whether or not I would have liked it in 1998, and honestly yeah – I would have. But I fear it would have been for the wrong reasons. Yeah the film is insanely quotable and John Turturro alone is enough to take a casual movie watcher and make him or her elevate this thing to “OMGAWESOME,” but none of what the Brothers Coen were trying to say would have had any effect on me. I would have walked away having a few more quotes under my belt to throw out when I wanted to make people laugh knowingly but I wouldn’t have appreciated it.
So, I guess this is a party to which I’m grateful I was late, otherwise I would have coasted by saying “Yeah, I saw that,” but at the end of the day I probably would have ended up being part of the problem I mentioned earlier and would have been oblivious to the fact that I had become one of the people that the Coens seem to resent so much in their films.
And it’s not a resentment that is undeserved.





51 comments
Who the FUCK are the Knudtsens?
And why do we care? Congratulations for leaving your douche past behind. But this analysis adds nothing new to Lebowski discourse. "Douchebags like movies for the wrong reasons." Ho hum.
Good work Mr. Butler, always nice to see East Texas represented on the CHUD.
I have to agree with unknown user–what is the point of this column? To let us know that you finally saw the film? Well, good for you but you have zero insight into the film or its legacy so why bother writing this?
So you were lame as fuck back then and now you are slightly less lame. Still pretty lame though. Mazel Tov. I don't think I'm going to come along on your touchy-feely journey of self-discovery.
I think you may have been late to the English class party as well.
Yeah.. you might want to consider ending this now, to save yourself further hate.
Whole lotta douche in the comments section today, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
yeah, wow, this was terrible. this line in particular: "Yeah he seemed to have learned a few things but when the credits rolled he ended up exactly where he started."
what an idiot.
I think Nick is too busy smoking cigars and watching Braves games these days to pay attention to this site. When will the immolation end?
Check out the avclub's "Better Late Than Never" series to see how to do these kinds of articles properly.
(Although, in fairness, Ian's columns pre-date the avclub's version.)
Ignore the haters Jeremy. Looking forward to future installments.
Jeremy please continue your touchy feely journey of self discovery. It's getting me all hot and sweaty. More detail on your teenage life, more detail I say!!
I thought you all got rid of this article after A.V.Club ripped it off. Glad to see it back.
I'm all for young people getting into film. I just don't think CHUD is the right place for this kind of column.
Why are people in their 20's and younger so adamant about pointing out what douchebags they are? It's normal for teenagers and college folks to look upon disdain towards anything or anyone older than themselves, but the recent generations have taken it to a whole new level of ignorance and insecurity. Humanity is doomed.
I really enjoyed it. Keep them coming.
I concur with the positive 1/2 of these comments!
What a pointless and pretty irritating article. So you offer nothing new to the discussion and talk about how quotable the movie is, yet you don't get why it has such a following. Uh, it has a big following because it's so quotable and rewatchable. It's a cult classic. The fandom that it has created isn't because it's some superb cinematic achievement, it's because, for many people, it's enjoyable to watch over and over again. It's actually a very well crafted parody of film noir, with the role of Sam Spade being played by a bloated middle-aged dope smoker. But you probably wouldn't know anything about that because your stellar "film buff" knowledge doesn't reach beyond what Netflix offers Instantly. Douche.
Please get rid of the comments. It's really hard to enjoy a well-written article (by the way, good job, Jeremy, and I'm looking forward to more) with this bullshit leaking from the bottom of the page.
Also, #19: it's not Sam Spade that it's based on, it's Philip Marlowe. Sam Spade was a character in Hammett's work, and Marlowe, who was the protagonist of The Big Sleep (on which the plot of Lebowski is based), is the inspiration for The Dude.
So next time you want to be a simpering, contrarian cunt, at least be an informed, simpering, contrarian cunt.
Pardon moi. How dare I accuse Jeremy's take on the film of being superficial when I committed the intolerable sin of not correctly naming the exact protagonist that the Dude was based on. You've changed my mind completely. Bravo on your article Jeremy. I look forward reading about how you finally saw the original Star Wars trilogy for the first time and didn't get why so many people like it.
Thanks for reading guys – gave the site a helluva traffic boost that it wouldn't have normally had on a Sunday afternoon. I look forward to hearing from ALL of you when I post the next one!
So these are just to be hit bait then? You catch up on a well known movie, completely misunderstand it (on purpose?) and wait for the comments to fill up? Great. Now, go watch the movie again – this time keep in mind that The Dude DOESN'T change or learn anything by the end. That's not the point. He lives a life of bliss –> the loss of his rug fucks that up –> he gets his rug back after a number of adventures –> he's back in his blissful life again. You don't understand the Coens at all, but they understand you, and they're fucking with your expectations. No Country is the same.
You need to read, Coitus. Hell, all of you ruffled-up, mouthy pricks need to read. I get the movie just fine, I really really really like the movie. The point is, prick, that his life isn't blissful at all. His best friend is a sociopathic nutjob and the only way he knows how to communicate is by recycling things he's already heard people say. He's a loser, plain and simple. And once he actually has a chance to actually see what his choices can cost him, at the end of it all he decides to put his shades back on and go right back to it. I COMPLETELY understand the Coens. They hold The Dude in contempt. They hold damn near every character in the movie in contempt. Granted, I haven't seen ALL of their films but if you think they intended for The Dude to be some sort of zenmaster blissful guy who makes the best out of his situation then YOU'RE the prick who missed the point. Come back when you a) know what the fuck you're talking about and b) actually learn how to read an article.
And no, this isn't just hit bait – but fuck it, if you guys are gonna be fouling the place up with your nonsensical bullshit then hey – at least e're getting clicks out of it.
"Yeah he seemed to have learned a few things but when the credits rolled he ended up exactly where he started."
Perhaps this whole article is an ironic stunt?Maybe Sacha Baron Cohen is crafting his next character? Alpha douche of a columnist for Chud?
This article was awful and the fact that the author had to come back on and insult his readers for his own failure to produce a coherent argument in his piece is even worse. I read just about every article on this site but should there be any more of these articles I'll be sure to skip them. Sorry Jeremy, you'll miss out on some of your precious "clicks".
#24 – I think you finally found your voice as a writer. From now on use THAT tone in your articles and just skip the navel-gazing. Angry Guy Reviews ….
"… I realize that Lebowski is only their second big-budget film." Jeremy, what do you consider their first big-budget film? Would it be THE HUDSUCKER PROXY, MILLER'S CROSSING, FARGO, or another? Also, would you like to help validate yourself by giving us a short list of some of your favorite and/or most revered movies. Thanks.
Your revolution is over, Mr. Butler. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Butler?
🙂
Well you see, the problem with arriving late to a major cult film well after its cult has been established is that you do not understand its cult. Cults only arise after a movie performs poorly at the box office or attracts negative reviews or bad word of mouth. Popular films cannot be cult films until their cults are big enough to make them popular. Part of the appeal is proving majority consensus wrong. When you arrive to a cult film decades late, you are no longer championing an underdog. No, you face majority consensus. Therefore, you fashion yourself as the underdog, and your review ends up being a rather masturbatory affair where you justify your own tardiness by slinging mud at the people who got in on the ground floor. To quote Walter Sobchak, "you have no frame of reference here… You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know…" why it has a cult.
Wow, I thought this guy was a lightweight BEFORE he went off on his little tantrum.
Sheesh.
Jeremy, you're out of your element.
I remember leaving my screening with a group of friends, listening to another group of friends try to explain to their friend why "The Big Lebowski" is funny.
I had that same debate with my friends about "Raising Arizona" 10 years earlier. It was a movie I declared "dumb" back when I was just a little 10-year-old douche. I was way off on that one.
I'm sure in 2008 this same argument took place amongst friends after a screening of "Burn After Reading".
You're still a douche. Additionally, you have become a pretentious cunt. But still a douche.
I don't think the coens have contempt for the dude.
They realise Society definitely has contempt for people like him though. which is probably why more of us dont addopt something closer to his lifestyle and mental state even though we might like to…
I really enjoyed this article. It isn't the best written article I've ever read but I can see that it is going somewhere and it has a vague point. More of this exploratory writing, more film watching as a journey rather than a destination. Excited to see where the writing and the watching take you. Devin's cult of personality has served this site well, hopefully that will work out for this too.
Jeremy, I think you're misreading the film if you think the Coens have contempt for The Dude. Other than laziness, his loyalty to his friends is his defining trait. That he is a "good man" is best revealed in a small moment that most people over-look; The Dude tells his goofy landlord that he'll go see his dance recital. Then, despite all that is going on in his life at the time, he actually goes to the recital! Would you do that for anyone beyond family or a girl you were trying to score? And while it is true that The Dude doesn't change, that is entirely the point of the movie, I think. Society changes. Film Noir heroes do not. They are usually presented as men from a simpler time, whose values don't quite fit in any more. That nostalgia for simpler times is at the core of Film Noir, just as it is for the Dude and Walter. Give the movie a second watch, Jeremy. It is deeper and richer than it seems at first blush. Here's a question to keep in the back of your mind when you do; the movie is not set in the year it was made, but about a decade earlier. Why is that?
Dreadful. Leave the navel gazing for your diary please – what is the point in this? Literally as hit bait? Because that's so hypocritical based on the way the site-owners cock on about the other inferior zines.
Jeremy, they're all mad because you're right.
heh Jezza, I guess you drink on sunday mornings too. Unless there's another reason to speak when you got nuthin to say. If it is really as you brag – chasing hits and nothing to do with alcohol, then it could be considered an insightful article afterall – enlightening the reader as to the process where a young burgeoning douche-bag flowers, blossoming into a middle-aged high strung douche-bag. Ta.
I come to CHUD to read people's opinions and call them douchebags.
Hey, wow… some serious hate here.
Anyway, as "The Mutt" says, give the movie another go. There's really an amazing amount of stuff going on that you simply don't see the first time through. Or the second. Or the 5th.
I saw Lebowski in the theatre when it came out. I walked out thinking, "I really liked that movie… and I have absolutely no idea why." After subsequent DVD viewings I realized it was all the nuances that made the movie great, not the overarching storyline. So glad I was with this thing from the start. Knowing TBL was one of my favorites early on makes all the weird cult Lebowskifest stuff almost bearable.
Almost.
how is someone who knows nothing about film and just now seeing Labowski even writing for this site? oh yeah its CHUD
what troubles me is that these youngsters who DO realize they need to play catch-up, do so by watching movies from the late 90s, and consider that a lesson in cinema history. isn't there anyone who can mentor this kid?
correct me if I`m wrong, but doen`t the dude order a brewskie instead of a white russian in the end? A small change, but a significant one, showing him accepting and appriciating his friend Walter, instead of looking down on him?
You guys are cute, and don't you worry – I know plenty about film and I've spent the better part of the last 5 years (which, incidentally, is about the length of time I've been working/writing for this site) watching movies from every decade from silent films onward. It just so happens that Lebowski was the last film I had watched when I decided to start this little column back up. I'm having fun with it, it'll get better as it goes along and I really don't care what some of you think about it – unless you have a thoughtful refutation or disagreement with a point that I've made. Then I'll be happy to read and weigh it against what I think about what I've seen.
As far as Lebowski specifically – there's an undercurrent of cynicism in all of the Coens' films that I've seen. I definitely picked it up here, as well. Now, that may have something to do with letting their later films (that I saw first) affect how I saw this one, but at the end of the day that's what I saw in it. Yeah, the film's hilariously funny and I laughed my ass off. But 1 – I don't think that was the ONLY thing they were trying to accomplish with this and 2 – I didn't feel a sense of endearment toward The Dude. A few more viewings of it may change that, but as it stands that's what I walked away from it with. My biggest point is that if you like the film so much and the only reason you can GIVE for liking it so much is that it's funny or quotable, then I don't feel like you paid close enough attention to it. There's plenty to like here and the humor is just part of it. Take it or leave it – either way, thanks for reading.
It's the philosophy, man. It's like, did people like Star Wars becuase of the special effects? Sure they THOUGHT they did, but on reflection, it was because of the brilliant re-telling of myth. With LEBOWSKI, we THINK we like it because of the one-liners, but it's the very, very, very, very deep philosophical (& political) shit going on under the surface that keeps us truly entranced. (Moliere didn't write a single comedy before he'd read all the philosophers.)
Comment #46, FTW!
Mr. Butler,
Not every character needs to undergo some massive transformation (positive or negative) in drama to be valid, compelling and/or sympathetic. That's a very narrow, western view of drama. I think the Coen's opinion of The Dude is probably summed up in the speech by Sam Elliott's "Stranger" character at the end. In other words, they like the character just the way he is. BTW, Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe didn't change or grow as characters very much at the ends of their various adventures, either.
I hope your education in film history is also taking into account foreign films. I admit that my tastes and expectations used to be just as provincial as yours seem to be. I originally didn't like how Belmondo's character in Breathless remained the same dumb thug all through the movie, but like you with The Dude I was completely missing the point, too.
Am I the only one imagining Jeremy sitting at his computer, staring saucer-eyed at this comment section, hitting refresh every couple minutes?
Dude, if you "really don't care what some of you think about it" then don't respond to the comment section.
"F*ckin' amateur." – Walter Sobchack
The Dude as Everyman Hero is pretty much the point of the movie. Maybe when you've seen more than three Coen movies you'll be able to better understand what drives the contempt they often have for the characters, and why it is absent here … and in, say, Raising Arizona and The Hudsucker Proxy.
You believe that the Coen's have contempt for the Dude? I really don't see that. I'd say that have sympathy for even their most pathetic characters (like William H. Macy's in Fargo). I don't know if it's contempt or not, but I get a lot more of a negative vibe from Christopher Guest's films. I might very well be wrong, but his films always seem to me to be making fun of obvious misfits.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.