
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs: What Is Its Source Material? - crunchiebones
https://lithub.com/the-ballad-of-buster-scruggs-what-exactly-is-its-source-material/
======
js2
Don’t waste your time on this article (sibling comments are correct in their
criticism). Instead read the Slate piece that it links to:

[https://slate.com/culture/2018/11/ballad-buster-scruggs-
coen...](https://slate.com/culture/2018/11/ballad-buster-scruggs-coen-
brothers-steward-edward-white-girl-gal-rattled-full-text.html)

~~~
WalterBright
Thanks. The piece includes the short story, which is good.

------
hjk05
Such a click-bate article. What sort of a lazy half ass article is this?
Proclaiming halfway through a piece about the source material that you didn’t
read the source material because you consider that action “undergrad-lit-
class-y” not in anyway leveling with your readers or being refreshingly honest
which I expect the author assumes. It’s just downright lazy and would in an
actual undergrad lit class just get you flunked out right.

I stopped reading at that point. If you are going to write some selfindulgent
price about what’s you assume the source material might have been, have the
common decency to post that up front so people can avoid wasting their time on
your prose.

~~~
Fricken
I suppose the irony criticizing an article because the author admits to not
reading all of their source material, then admitting you didn't read the whole
article is lost on you.

------
DerDangDerDang
The author of this piece doesn’t know the answer, having apparently decided
that skipping reading the source material somehow makes for a truer article.
Shame.

------
nikofeyn
this article’s reputability is immediately damaged by the statement that
_intolerable cruelty_ is a bad film. just because it is a romantic comedy, a
romcom, people immediately dismiss its brilliance. _intolerable cruelty_ is
hilarious and very much in the center of what the coen brothers do best. there
is some fantastic dialogue and the on screen compatibility between the actors
is fantastic.

“freddie...it’s a negotiation.”

reading further, i don’t think this person knows anything about the coens. _o
brother, where art thou_ is not really an adaptation of as much as it is
inspired by homer. _no country for old men_ is almost a direct copy of cormac
mccarthy’s book. irreverent is a strange way to describe that film’s handling
of the book’s story. and in talking about “true adaptations”, the author fails
to mention _true grit_ , which is even more of a direct translation to film of
its source material.

~~~
js2
Yeah I don’t get hating on Intolerable Cruelty. The only Coen brothers film I
truly disliked was Ladykillers. I didn’t really care for Burn After Reading
either, but I feel like I probably just need to give it another chance.

My favorite segment of Buster Scrugs was The Gal Who Got Rattled, followed by
Near Algodones. I found Meal Ticket too long and too dark. Didn’t care for The
Mortal Remains all that much either.

Poor gal, she shouldn’t ought to have done it. Oh my.

------
Waterluvian
A tangential thought:

Most films I watch are entertaining. I have a good time and then it's over and
maybe I'll think about the movie again when there's an Internet meme from it.

But there's films (and some games), Ballad included, where regardless of how
much I (dis)liked them critically, they kind of stick with me. They randomly
creep into my brain for days, weeks, months later. I've come to crave this
kind of experience.

I wonder what this is. If it has a name. If others experience the same thing
with the same films or if it's very audience-specific.

~~~
ianai
IME, it’s possible to figure out with a little meditation. It’s often that a
scene communicates or typifies a word or concept exceptionally well. They
often remind me to periodically question my “fixations” and whether they are
healthy, productive, and compassionate - generally a moral gut check.

------
robdachshund
I can't take this person seriously. They are conflating a historical piece
with something that endorses its mild at worst content.

Apparently trying to tell a story within the context of it's time is
"misogynistic" and "racist." I fail to see how either could be the case here.
Did the coens somehow fail because they had an intentionally weak female
character who is being attacked by native Americans? Did no similar events
ever occur in history?

The native Americans have a clear motive for attacking the wagon train as
during the period of the film the American army was committing genocide
against them.

Additionally, the travelers have reason to feel negatively about them as they
are literally trying to murder them.

Is every movie now supposed to have strong, wooden characters who faces no
challenges nor tragedies? Is that realistic? Additionally, is a film set in a
time period inherently offensive because we disagree with the values of that
period?

Can we not tell stories anymore?

~~~
michaelt
When the article says:-

    
    
      adapted from a Stewart Edward White story [...]
      This one is a dreadfully misogynistic short story, full
      of equally dreadful stereotypes about indigenous people
    

That's actually the article's author criticising of the _original story_ which
was published in 1901, rather than the _film adaption_

In other words, the article author is saying "The directors could have hewed
more closely to the source material, but I can see why they made the decision
they made"

