Ms. Stevens notes the craft in the Coen Bros. movies, but concludes "it's not necessarily art." Even assuming that the Coen Bros. merely make just well-crafted films (which I don't, more on that in a minute), since when does a really well-made film not qualify as art? Or great storytelling? And this is a film critic saying this?!? I find this almost shocking.

Beyond whether or not the Coen films appeal to her taste, does she really believe that ONLY those films about putative "big issues" are art? Since most films are not about such things, I guess film itself is not art, except for a select few. The human condition needs to be examined and showned in even the "smallest" of parameters, because it's valid and "essential" in its own right, and does not havt to be based on some perceived relevance to larger cultural issues.

Many posters have righfully called out Dana for not defining what she means by "essential," I for one want to know what she means by "art". Since when is art defined by subject matter or having to be "important" in some way. "Important" is another word that could use some definition. Or is "importance" strictly limited to talking about salient social issues of the day? Nonsense.

As for the Coen films themselves, Ms Stevens seems to suggest that they are fluff, well-crafted fluff, to be sure, but fluff nonetheless. Hmmmm. That's an interesting take on films like Fargo, Barton Fink, and Miller's Crossing, which offer cross-sections of American life and mores. Or Brother Where Art Thou, which represents a syncretic mix of Christianity, roots music, Homer, and Americana, just to name a few. Even Dana herself admits that Coen Bros. films do possess philosophic ruminations (whether such ruminations are necessar or tenable is another matter); my point is that the Coen cleary have a point-of-view that transcends just craft.

In the end, it's not that Ms. Stevens is not a big fan of the Coen Bros (hey, to each his own), it's the implications in her argument- i.e, what she feels art must be and the subversively anti-artistic view of film in general- that is so disturbing. I've generally enjoyed Dana Steven's reviews, but now I might have to take them with a grain of salt.

Thank you birdman3501 for calling attention to the unenlightened views of Ms. Stevens.

I can't decide if I'm more disgusted by her use of the term "art" (a debate regarding what constitutes art is exactly that--a debate--and even Plato hasn't totally convinced me he knows what he's talking about) or her general lack of knowledge as to what catharsis is, how it is used or not used, and how that effects the audience. Look it up sometime, Ms. Stevens, I'm sure you'll be surprised that not all films exploit death, love, cancer or a sudden change of heart to leave the audience in tears and in your word, affected. If you need to be overwhelmed by emotion to have "an experience" may I suggest "Titanic", "Pay It Forward?" or something produced by Jerry Bruckheimer? I'm sure you'll appreciate his warmth.

Some of us go to the movies because we find thinking a form of entertainment. Some of us, Ms. Stevens, are insulted by your reduction of a great body of work (the Coen's) into one word--Cold. Some of us think you should be embarrassed about not understanding what Bell's dreams mean at the end. I don't know, maybe I should be sort of impressed that you have the guts to make such ignorant statements about art, film in general and specifically this Coen brothers film...I mean, this is your job, right? To watch and "critique" movies with some sort of intelligence? Bold move, not knowing what you're talking about.

Something else to consider: one of the "greatest movies ever made" according to your colleagues in the film criticism world is Citizen Kane, a film that ends emotionless, and strangely, focused on a sled. Does that leave you cold?