@@KS-ow6ub I was wondering whether even though we see him drop the stone, he didn't in fact add the boy to the larder. I got a real cannibalism vibe from the ending.
I agree it's worse but it's not as nawing when you don't see the visceral picture of a mangled corpse so the reader is both more entertained and less disgusted
That’s what makes it so good. The scene just drew so many emotional feelings one could have as a human being. To be punched in the gut with complete hopelessness . To do this to an audience is truly artistic.
Same. Then my husband was telling me about what he read on the interpretations of each story and all I could think about was this story and cried my eyes out...again...
When it hits you what he intends to do...you kind of say to yourself, “No, that would be too awful,” but then you realize, “Oh no, this IS going there.” Incredible yet painful scene.
Yes that was so disturbing. Hands behind his back, a bit of a sheepish grin and purely evil intentions. I hate to imagine it and I'm glad they didn't show us the actual toss.
He's killing his own passion. The boy is just symbolic of it. Never really was an armless legless boy in my opinion. It's just symbolic of what he himself is having to carry around nurture and can no longer do in the face of changing cultural tides and life's very real hardships.
The justice is that the chicken is just a chicken, nothing special. There's some trick that makes it look like it's doing arithmetic, not any kind of training. The impresario payed all that money for the chicken, but did he also buy the secret of the trick? Not likely. He got scammed. He's going to try to put on a performance, it's going to fail, and he's going to realize he literally threw away his meal ticket.
The boy was so innocent and sweet and when he was trying to catch snowflakes was so cute and the thought of him being dropped into cold waters to die is so sad
@@Gyuresssz yea it's more like one of those smile you make when you're asking your mom for more bucks after spending a whole 15 bucks at chuck e cheese
The sad look in the eyes of the limbless man as he finally realises his end coming soon is so heart wrenching. You can almost feel his betrayal, pain, anger and sorrow. Amazing performance!
@@ConanObrien22 the chicken seen here was famous for making calculations. that line by the prospector seems to reference this chicken, which is an incredibly subtle reference by the Coen brothers
This story was a glimpse into the darkest, ugliest part of human nature. The impresario's spiel of finding the boy on the streets of London to garner pity (and additional coin) from the audience early in the segment immediately rang as false. Nevertheless, you want to believe the two are struggling together to eke out a living as they sit at their camp and the impresario counts out their meager earnings, but it doesn't take long to realize this duo is NOT a "team". I noticed the artist and the impresario never once spoke to each other; from the beginning of the story the boy's eyes reflect the knowing of his complete dependence on the impresario for everything from eating a meal to using the bathroom; the other man literally holds his life in his hands, and he knows when his usefulness to him has ended, he'll be abandoned at best or something like what actually happened at the end of the story at worst. Even so, it was a gut punch knowing what was about to transpire when they came to that bridge, let alone when the segment ended without some twist that brought justice to the impresario for his crime. But this was not the kind of story that hand-holds you and reassures you that things will get better or that justice will be served (at least in this world); it's the kind of ugly betrayal that plays out on a daily basis in real life whenever someone loses their "usefulness" to someone else, to one degree or another.
Which part was in London? Was that in the theater? On the version I saw, it started with the impressario advertising for their first show, but it was definitely America.
@@HerePepPep As he's collecting the money after the first performance you can hear the impresario telling the audience he found the boy on the streets of London. He does this in the background as the camera looks over the shoulder of the boy into the audience while he is delivering his "Our revels now are ended..." conclusion, so it may be easy to miss.
Melling: what a brilliant actor and so young. His recitals were beautiful and his face says everything. No words were needed in this last scene. I'd love to see him on stage.
Me too! He was also amazing in The Devil All the Time. But how old is he? It's hard for me to pin an age on him cause he looks both young and old to me at the same time
@@63Malda Thanks for the info. Wow, he's younger than I thought! And yes that movie is amazing and even though Harry Melling's character in it was only a minor one, he did an amazing job bringing the character to life and he gave a memorable performance
If you wish to know. Liam Neeson(the Impresario) got conned. The Chicken is just a chicken. It's a very simple trick that any carny would reveal to you if you were one of them. It's all in the rig, and you have a device, or latch, or pedal to cause each of the targets to move slightly. Specific targets. The chicken(or any animal you have trained) is trained to always peck at the moving target. It's not the bell, it's the entire rig and knowing how to utilize it and that the chicken will only tap the one that moves. So with just the chicken and the bell... the trick is incomplete and you cannot replicate it. So the Impresario has been conned and when he finds out the chicken can't really do math, he'll be ruined. Having thrown away half of his carrying cash and his only companion, for a chicken and a bell. The other showman however? Just needs a small amount of time to retrain a chicken or animal to pick the moving targets and he'll pick right up where he left off at. The point is that, despite how 'struggling' The Impresario and his companion The Artist seemed to be, the Impresario was keeping a lot of extra money that he could spend on himself. If they were broke, he wouldn't have had the money to buy the chicken, and he still had stacks left in his hand. So the reality was, whenever The Artist struggled, or barely got a meal, or a prostitute, it was because the Impresario didn't want him to. Not because they were low on money. He didn't have to throw his friend off the bridge, he only did it to rid himself of the responsibility. But he had the money and resources to survive the winter with him, and let his voice heal up and his condition improve. But he wanted to be the co-star, like the showman he'd seen before. And he'd thought he'd found a free ride "Meal Ticket" in the chicken, when he only bought half the trick. So the reality is, he threw away his meal ticket, for an ordinary chicken, and by the time he realizes he doesn't have all the tools necessary to replicate the trick... he'll be done for good. The money will eventually dissipate, and he won't have An Artist to fall back on anymore. That is how he will get his comeuppance. We just will never see it, it's only there for you to think about, if you understand that the Impresario got conned, big time. Deservedly so.
1-they were not fridens. 2- we don't know the imresario bought the trick too or not. he would need a stage so he should have been informed. they showed only the bell and the chicken but yet again the impresario would need a stage. he certainly didn't look that dumb. so your theory is weak. 3- if we talk about the trick itself i don't know where did you get the information but the numbers were not moving.
@@joerogaine3093 hey at least it wasn't Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome or medieval Europe. Back in Greece and Rome if you were a peasant you would be forced into prostitution against your own will being molested for your master's profit that was regardless if you were a man or woman if anyone wanted to fuck, the peasants had no say in the matter especially when incestuous parents were allowed to literally be let off the hook for doing so and especially if a famous person or politician wife/husband hated you in said scenario would torture you out of scorn. We all know medieval Europe and the horrific religious fanaticism that corrupt humans used God to justify their own sadistic fantasies. Finally Egypt Slavery ran rampant, people starved, and you could be murdered for any reason by anyone even if you were supposed to be protected your master could screw you over on any false accusation just to protect their social status and those are 3 equally disturbing times if not worse eras to live through.
This vignette impacted me the most profoundly. The shock and gut-wrenching poignancy takes a day or so to absorb. I literally had to look up Harry Melling to make sure he had a full body (never watched the HP series) to assuage my grief. The non-dialogue between characters was effective: owner and property. Melling’s eyes were painful to watch! This will become iconic in cinematic history. I’ve already watched the entire anthology 4 times.
His eyes....right. It's only after taking another look at this scene that I could see the sadness and pain in them. The actor here (Mr. Melling) did a fantastic job in this role! The entire film is brilliant and captivating. And the music during the Buster Scruggs segment was absolutely beautiful - particularly the song titled, "When a Cowboy Trades His Spurs for Wings". Just beautiful! Both its lyrics and the harmonies being sung. I really do hope that this film gets far more recognition in the future. It really was well done and original! And Hollywood is certainly not know for offering original content these days. I'm so goddamn sick and tired of them cranking out sequels to superhero movies....
They are quite mesmerising... Throughout the whole story, his renditions, you couldn't take your eyes off his, there's a real deep sadness there that goes beyond mere acting.
Actually I like to think that the impresario actually freed the diabled orator from his struggle, although I think a bullet to the head might have been better. The chicken will meet the same fate as well. Just like the Buster Scruggs story ends for The Kid.
The Coens make movies designed to physically bother you. If you're equipped for it, they also intellectually and spiritually bother you. Greatest directors of the last 30 years.
@@JimmySteller yeah i mean he just had to except it he couldnt do anything and thats the most heart breaking thing but i think im going to hell for laughing at it when i saw he was not in the wagon
It's terrifying, because the guy has no limbs, so he can't fight Liam Neeson, can't swim, can't fight for his life... So he just looks at the situation like he's thinking: "Oh, so that's how it's gonna end? Finally!". He doesn't cry, he doesn't despair, he just conforms to his fate.
Notice the limbless guy only smiled 2 times: 1. When he received claps and ovation after his performance in the beggining 2. When he tried to catch the falling snowflakes. I think he smiled because he could taste the water without anyone helping him to put it into his mouth. He could do this on his own. Liam smiled only once. Only smile he did is in this scene when he is about to throw the limbless gentleman into the freezing river. The limbless guy’s smiles were honest and cheerful ones. Liam’s smile was a devilish and dumb. This movie is underrated.
I think the boy was terrified of him. Did you notice how the boy looked when liam was drunk and singing how he hung that woman to death. This was the best one to me but very sad.
I feel that it was Neeson who crippled him in the first place, I got the implication when the prostitute asked if he had been with a woman before, after a pause Liam replies "before"
@@yseson_ From that, I got the impression that this young, charismatic actor had slept with Neeson's character's significant other and/or sister and the crippling was a result of Neeson's rage. That's where my mind went. The hung woman could've even been the result of Neeson's rage as well, the woman possibly being his own wife.
Most of the stories in Ballad of Buster Scruggs ended not like how we would thought. But this one, yeah, not only depressing but just...when you look into it deeper, its pretty disgusting.
Also shows the reality of the entertainment world, people are more interested in watch dumb shit like the Kardashians (the chicken) than something intellectual.
Imagine what transpired between the scene with him smiling and the scene of the limbless man no longer in the carriage. He probably screamed and begged not to be murdered, but as a man with no limbs how could he defend himself. This is one of the saddest scenes in cinematic history
@@JimmyStellerto be fair to good sir , we dont need to see the wretched act of a vile man throwing off a defenceless , limbless man to his death down the freezing river either .
This to me was the most powerful story I've seen in a long time... people will flock to the stupid, hollow, flashy entertainment over art with substance and feeling... it's an epidemic
That is one way to interpret it. There are undoubtedly many correct interpretations. Another could be ther relationship between the care giver and care reciever. The chicken required much less effort, and garnishes a far better reward. In that interpretation Neeson 's character would rather lose the dead weight and keep the chicken.
That's correct, it also shows the hollowness of the human heart and that a man only cares about himself and his profits ultimately and will toss all his friends and comrades in the river if they are no longer useful to him.
@@MrShadowofthewind good, one. But its perfectly okay to indulge in stupid flashy entertainment once in a while, but most people dive head first into, and don't consume anything different. I also like to read, I go to my local theater and I like live music. I'm probably not the most cultured person, but I think I do okay.
I think my favourite part of this vignette was the moment where the Artist was trying to taste the snowflakes. It was a quietly devastating little slice of his unfortunate life. And I thought it was quite interesting how he never spoke outside of his orations. In many ways, it felt like he was not only armless and legless but also voiceless. People might want to listen to his performances of the works of others, but nobody seems interested in him and his life story.
“Found him in the streets of London, England. Legless, armless, motherless, penniless, homeless, rest assure. God bless you sir.” He said that while collecting the coins from the first show.
The ending of this story ties in so succinctly with the message from the poem "Ozymandias". It's a poem that is a reflection of us, not just some ancient icon of unknown origin. Do the level sands of the world deplete us of our humanity or do we create in abundance, only to drown ourselves by our own vices?
You know, now that you mention it I think all of his speeches might have had a hidden meaning behind them and a bit of foreshadowing. He recites the biblical story of Cain who murdered his brother Able. In Shakespeare's Sonnet 30 he reflects on his sad life. In Sonnet 29 he bemoans his status as an outcast and a failure. He ends with a speech by Abraham Lincoln who was of course assassinated by an actor.
that poem's about a king who tried to make himself live forever with monuments but they got ruined. not a very strong parallel to a quadripalegic orphan getting killed by his caretaker
All of the stories in "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs," even the comic first story, are musings on the randomness of death. Like all things in nature, death does not conform to human notions of "fairness." It's also noteworthy how the message about death we find in this film conforms to the outlook in "No Country for Old Men."
Death isnt random, for human beings at least, as most die in old age. When its in fact random, its news. There is no message, neither here nor in "No Country for Old Men", simply a fear of aging and death, which they think they'll excorsice by being cynical about it. They've grown to be, as they age it seems, consumed by it
A friend of mine who doesn’t like western movies was refusing to watch this one, after convincing her of giving it a shot, she watched it and was very pleased and impressed. She asked me to pause it for a while after this scene though as she needed time to process the ending. Pretty sad,, very simple yet very deep.
Plot Twist: He was smiling when he walked back because the rock hit a hidden stash chest, where laid inside, was a perfect pair of prosthetic legs. Next scene, we see that the boy is finally out on his own, while Liam is staring off in the distance reminiscing of the hard times
That cut to black with Liam giving a pretty unconvincing smile was perfect yet haunting. ~True evil I knew holding off from watching this show was stupid, buster Scruggs just looked to cheesy but deep down I knew if it's by the Coens that it would have the best and most uniquely written characters. These are masterpiece short stories!
@@Julius_Hardware It was a whimsical segment with well written dialogue. Not sure why you're framing it as negative that people wanted more of it, not every good story has to be gritty and depressing.
@@Julius_Hardware Anybody who couldn't appreciate the Coens' efforts in every single short story here should never watch another Coen Bros movie, because they won't like any of them. The Buster Scruggs segment was not their usual material.
An astonishing performance from Liam Neeson. Talk about giving Mark Rylance a run for the money! Steals the show with barely just a few grunts and amazingly expressive facial gestures. Very impressive. I once thought he had a limited range and I am happy to admit my error.
God it’s cuz taken did so well Hollywood type casted him and is marketing the fuck outtta him playing the fatherly I’ll get u type if u look at his films before taken clearly he was up for an Oscar fir a reason also I noticed a direct shift in his acting after his wife’s death there’s a noticeable acting difference between that but not to the point where people have forgotten Liam actually was up for an Oscar twice .🤦🏿♀️ fucking Hollywood ruined this man .
@@kkandsims4612 He got into a Samuel Jackson/Michael Caine thing where he would take any movie just to be a working actor, but he had been a highly esteemed actor long before that phase in his career.
No Country is a Cormac McCarthy novel dipped in the Coen Bros. It's literally the best movie made in decades. This is the same flavor, just a small bite.
My stomach churns this entire part. The pathetic situation he's in, the helplessness to change his fate, the hopelessness of his prayers. God the end was so brutal and tragic. In the end his life was a meaningless passing.
So powerful and emotional to see this different side of Liam Neeson and Harry Melling. Not much words are needed rather their expressions says it all. Just the pondering, the thoughts and the fear from these 2 characters makes you easily connects with them. Meal Ticked definitely made an impact on me.
The symbolism is obvious - the limbless chap is art and literature whilst the chicken is kitsch and schund. Generally, people tend to embrace reality tv and silly entertainment more.
Yep, you can see it right here on RU-vid. Channels which have engaging content that make you think and learn are dwarfed by silly little boys playing GTA.
At 2:06 you can see regret, shame, and sadness on his face. He feels what he did was practical but he’s damn sure not proud of it. He’s on the verge of crying and this day will haunt him for the rest of his life. They may not have liked each other, but they were codependent and had likely been together a long time. And he’s going to miss him. Brilliant expression acting by Liam Neeson.
I disagree. I see cold indifference. Like he’s just focused on getting to his destination in this horrible weather, without even a thought of what he just did.
This scene absolutely amazed me. Without any dialog it spoke volumes. The silence allowed the viewers to process the anguish and stress that the character must have felt watching his caretakers every move knowing what he was about to do to him and yet not being able to do a single thing about it.
I demand a part two where he survives just barely and has to use all of his willpower to stay alive. Eventually he gains the ability to use a gun with his mouth so that he can seek revenge and become a fabled limbless gunslinger.
@@slimjimmy149 I propose something different. He manages to stay afloat in the river, until at some point down river (shortly after the fall), someone spots him. He is rescued, and without words expresses his thanks. His rescuer is benevolent and driven by empathy rather than greed. The person begins to take care of him, traveling along, town to town. People start handing him money; "go get a drink", "buy yourself a woman." The person asks if he wants to try and make money this way. He nods, and the person begins thinking about how they would rope people in. Our character then begins his speeches. His rescuer hears him speak for the first time, sees him express emotion. Sees the passion. The person then decides to put on an act of their own, acting out the various characters. He makes it genuine, gives it visual aid. They gain a lot of money this way. His benevolent rescuer stays with him, through thick and thin. One day, they arrive in a small town, quaint and homey. They begin their act, and from seemingly nowhere, people show up. "I've heard of these guys. They're great," "the best act in the country!" The act is over, they have a hat full of money, and they move on. They turn the corner, into the main street, and there he is. Chicken man, with his chicken. The flock of people who showed up to the performance spot this man, and they scoff and walk on. "Cheap act," "he needs something with merit." Chicken man sees them, riding along, and his face drops to the depressed look he had all the time he and the boy were together. His hat has a couple coins in it, and his act is nearly over. Only a couple people remain. As the wagon passes by chicken man, the benevolent friend who rescued the boy looks back into the wagon. "Do you know that man?" For the first time, the boy smiles. "Ah, apologies. I forgot that you don't talk outside of performing." For the first time, the boy opens his mouth, preparing to talk. *alas, this is a Coen Brothers film. No such happy ending could exist without tom waits in it, which is why I propose that tom waits be the benevolent stranger, as well as the gold miner. Canon be damned; I want a good ending.*
What really makes this stick is the build-up to it. They make you invest in this guy, hear his speeches, get to know his life. And then replace him with a counting chicken.
For me, the scene prior this one was the saddest. The look in the boy's eyes when he's sitting across from the chicken, after the feed was scattered on the ground realizing that he's not going to eat anymore, is devastating. He's clearly desperate for communication, and Neeson's character won't even make eye contact. The irony of him being a master orator, and never speaking with his caretaker paints a grim picture of their relationship. shit...
"Hey, we found this body without arms or legs at the bottom of this river... Wasn't there some dude that went through town selling some show with a dude with no arms or legs?" How i justify the ending so i can feel a lil better after watching this.
The eyes tell alot in this. Also I don't remember them ever sharing a conversation. He never looked at him as a human being, just a means to an end. When life is a grind.... I suppose.
That was pretty upsetting to see this abomination,how could you replace The Godfather by the Avengers.Crime against Humanity.I am thinking of a quick-exit too
This is a masterpiece of a short movie ,the face expressions are super they tell you more than words can do specially when he's feeding the chicken he knows what's coming ,we know the guy is very smart and just to imagine what he is thinking and there's no one he can turn to wow
There's no way it could end in anything but tragedy. There were no prospects for the boy having a decent life. Once he could no longer pull in a paying audience, it was over for him.
my jaw dropped when they showed the cripple on the chair for the 1st time...I caught myself being frozen staring at the screen. Never happened before with any movie
"He carried his companion to the bridge and ????? what he had to perform and looked down briefly at the resultant splash. There was barest moments before the ripples emanating from the center of the splash were erased by the current, and the river ran again undisturbed." Yep. No doubt about how things played out off scene.
*Me after watching episode 1:* "Hahaha, this movie is so hilarious!" *Me after watching episode 2:* "Hahaha, this movie keeps getting funnier! I'm calling here my family for the next episode, so we'll be laughing together."
I think the use of/the reading of the poem Ozymandias by the performer has extreme significance in this story and appears to have been overlooked in the comments section.
you know, at first i thought he just stopped by to drop that stone as some sort of luck for their next performance - hoping it was. it wasn't, and that kind of hopelessness just disturbed me to my core 10/10
Apparently, he was thirsty. The impresario showed little regard for his suffering; when he came to feed him, he gave him too hot food, and acted with impatience as the young man tried to chew what was obviously a large and tough chunk of meat--no doubt the best portion had gone to the impresario.
Despite the grimness of this tale, it does provide one moment of unintended humor. The chicken is at one point referred to as "he," so clearly, the filmmakers were unable to distinguish between a rooster and a hen.
