I know the Coens are not known for actually "writing" anything in any real depth, but the one plot point about Fargo that needed some attention was what happened to Lundergaard's kid, who seemed to be a character in the film. Ugh. I realized his life was screwed by what happened with his dad, but the screenplay confuses this with the fact that they just got halfway through the screenplay before they realized they didn't want to write that character anymore. Yes, the Coens are the laziest screenwriters ever.
Your criticisms don't seem quite substantive enough to counter their two screenwriting Oscars and two WGA awards.
I'm actually looking at the films themselves. You are talking about an appeal to popularity. Both Fargo and No Country are underwritten movies. One tells us that there are nasty people who care only about money, and others who happen upon them can die (but it's random) and the other film tells us that there are nasty people who care only about money, and others who happen upon them can die (but it's random). I prefer to have a screenplay that actually gets under the skin of the characters, that actually challenges us to really think about what's happening. I prefer a screenplay wherein all talents to make a film would need to be brought to bear in order to produce it. The same year NCFOM came out, another film came out wherein the murderer was never caught. It was called Zodiac. Yet, this ending, which like No Country, was also unresolved, we have gone through a journey of interesting inquiry, and character study that probes very deeply. All of the characters in No Country for Old Men were moron, and while the Coens wasted ten to fifteen of valuable screen-time watching the bad guy take a bath to heal his injuries, we were watching Greysmith and Avery contend with the problems of not having caught a killer despite the fact that he let dozens of clues.
"Underwritten?" Yeah, if you say so... No Country For Old Men certainly inspired many viewers "to think about what's happening." You obviously didn't connect with the material, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean the material wasn't there. Also, calling the Coen brothers "the laziest screenwriters ever" is just an exercise in attention-grabbing hyperbole.
No. I demonstrated it. Where's Jerry's son? Drops off after half the film. I can keep demonstrating it. The little conversation about the twin cities and pancakes that happens between the two killers is hardly screenwriting, let alone good screenwriting. The idea of flipping a coin to decide someone's fate is hardly as profound or original the Coens want us to think it is. Both films are populated by moronic characters each of whom make moronic mistakes. It's not all that hard to write moronic characters. It's a little harder to write smart ones. Takes a but of effort. As I indicated, what I'm saying isn't universal Jerry Lundergaard might be a moron, but the screenplay and the actor) did a pretty decent job of exploring his world collapsing as his scheme goes wrong. I give most of the credit to the actor. But both films would rather be over and done as fast as possible without actually probing any of the issues they actually bring up.
What would Little Lundegaard bring to the storytelling? What role would he play in Jerry being arrested, or in Marge shooting Grimsrud? Having him there was not necessary because he wasn't integral to the story being told. In fact, he never was, which is why he was an incidental character.
Popularity maybe, but popularity among people who actually write screenplays and have more insight into that craft than your average guy shooting his mouth off on the internet. And that proves they are the "laziest screenwriters ever"? Apparently you have no grasp of the meaning of "demonstrated." Nor have you much grasp of how incidental characters are handled in countless screenplays. Because...? You seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder about what certain people "want us to think" or want to "fool you" into thinking, but that really has nothing to do with the actual film itself. The "flaws" you've pointed out in the films above have been shown to be wrong or misinterpretations. If you don't like a movie, fine, but if you want your opinion on widely-acclaimed movies to be taken seriously you should be able to offer a defense of your position that amounts to something more than "It sucked!"
Incidental, save for the fact that he was important. Ebert and Sskel even talk about hi going to McDonald's as a great detail in their gushing review. But the Coens were too lazy to write this character.
I am convinced that No Country for Old men had been delivered, as is, no changes whatsoever, accept that the it said "written adn directed by Steven Spielberg" it would have been panned for the atrocity it is (that's even considering that Spielberg has a far more diverse resume than the Coen's in terms of genres). The film is praised because, well, it's the Coens. To the film community, they can do no wrong.
Just because he's an incidental character doesn't mean he can't provide the film with "a great detail" (assuming your quoting Siskel and Ebert correctly). As for the nebulously defined "film community" you describe as saying the Coen brothers "can do no wrong," I direct you to the reviews of their remake of The Ladykillers.
It's always dangerous to speak objectively about art, but saying the Coen Brothers are bad writers is pretty much objectively wrong (I exaggerate, but just a little!). To add to it, No Country For Old Men is adapted, in many cases word for word, from Cormac McCarthy.
I don't care what critics say, or even popular opinion. I've been bringing up specific points from the films.
...the above exchanges are proof positive that "Fargo" is not for everybody...IMO, it is most of that tremendous cast's best work, and if I ever had the chance to ask them, I would hope they would agree... "...unguent..."
And now, time for a tangent that I can't believe hasn't been mentioned yet. Anyone heard of Kumiko, The Treasure Hunter? It's been sweeping the buzz at Sundance, & it looks really, cool. The premise is that Kumiko lives in a cluttered, cramped apartment in Tokyo with her pet rabbit, Bunzo. She works as an office lady, robotically preparing tea and fetching dry cleaning for her nitpicky boss. But on her own time, she obsessively watches a well-known American film on a weathered VHS tape: Fargo. Rewinding and fast-forwarding repeatedly, she meticulously maps out where a briefcase of castaway loot is buried within the fictional film. After hours of intense research—convinced that her destiny depends on finding the money—Kumiko heads to the United States and into the harsh Minnesota winter to search for it. It's inspired by a Japanese urban legend of a woman doing a similar trip, & starts Kikuchi Rinko of Pacific Rim fame.
Cue "Fargo" music and white out the screen...meld white out screen slowly to resolution, we see a new "Pulsar" Class star ship, the U.S.S. North Dakota, do a flyby of the car dealership...Jerry Lundegaard points skyward, and flees the scene...fade and cue Pink Floyd, "Money", done as an instrumental with LOTS of French horns...roll intro credits...
Here's a bit more about the story and cast. Billy Bob Thornton and Martin Freeman are in this [yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jFU0r0xG_c[/yt]