The Big Lebowski (1998) Review

The plot is a Raymond Chandler novel. A wealthy man, a missing wife, a ransom, an investigator, a case that gets more tangled the harder anybody looks at it, and a cast of eccentrics who each know one piece.

The joke is that the investigator is a man who wants his rug back and would rather be bowling. The Coens took the structure of The Big Sleep and handed it to somebody with no stake, no competence and no curiosity, and the machinery grinds on around him regardless.

It came immediately after Fargo, which had won them Academy recognition and their first real commercial success, and it was received as a disappointment by almost everybody.

The 8 is for the dialogue and the construction underneath it. The film failed on release and found its audience later, which is the correct order for something this specific. What keeps it from higher is that the middle sags whenever the plot has to be advanced, which the film is visibly bored by, and the Jesus and Maude material is thinner than its reputation.

Why People Can Quote All of It

The dialogue works because every character speaks a private language and none of them adjusts for anybody else.

Walter talks in Vietnam and Torah, and he applies both to bowling league regulations. Maude speaks in art criticism and clinical vocabulary. The Big Lebowski speaks in achievement and self-mythology. Jesus speaks in threat. Donny asks questions nobody answers.

The Dude talks in received phrases he has picked up and half understood, and the running gag that explains the whole picture is that he repeats things he has just been told as though they were his own idea. Walter says a phrase, and two scenes later the Dude uses it on somebody else. The Big Lebowski says a line about parenting the world, and it comes back out of the Dude’s mouth in a different context entirely.

He has no positions. He has absorbed the vocabulary of everybody he has met, which is both the joke and a genuine piece of characterisation about a man with no interior structure.

So most conversations in the film are two people running parallel monologues that occasionally collide, and the comedy lives in the gap between what one character means and what the other hears. Walter and the Dude never once have the same conversation at the same time.

The profanity is doing rhythmic work as well. Walter’s cadences are almost metrical, and the television-edit version, where a famous line becomes a bizarre non-sequitur about a stranger finding a beverage, demonstrates by accident how much of the humor is timing instead of content.

The Plot Nobody Follows

Ask somebody who loves this film to explain what happens and they will struggle. There was a rug. Somebody was kidnapped, or was not. A briefcase with a ringer in it. A pornographer, a group of nihilists, a severed toe, a performance artist, a private detective in a blue Volkswagen who is never explained.

The incoherence is deliberate and inherited. Chandler’s plots do not resolve either, famously. Nobody has ever been able to establish who killed the chauffeur in The Big Sleep, and when the 1946 film’s writers asked Chandler he did not know.

So the Coens took how the genre really behaves instead of how its reputation describes it. The detective story is not a puzzle box, it is a tour of a city’s social strata conducted by somebody asking questions, and the answers matter considerably less than the rooms.

What holds the film together is not plot but repetition. Every scene ends with the Dude worse off than he started. The rug is never recovered. Each new piece of information makes his situation more expensive.

The Stranger’s narration is the other structural device, and it is doing something odd. He is a Western narrator, in a cowboy idiom, framing a story set in Los Angeles in 1991, and he loses his own thread twice.

The film opens with a tumbleweed rolling to the Pacific, which is a Western arriving at the end of the continent with nowhere left to go, and that is a better statement of intent than most films manage.

Walter Is the Antagonist

Every problem in the film is caused by Walter Sobchak, and the film never says so.

The ransom handoff fails because Walter throws a bag of underwear out of a moving car. The confrontation with the Big Lebowski escalates because Walter brings a false accusation about paralysis. The car is destroyed, Donny dies of a heart attack during a fight Walter starts, and the ashes are scattered into the wind and onto the Dude.

He is also the only character who acts on principle. Walter has a code, applies it consistently, and is wrong every single time. John Goodman plays him as a man in permanent grief who has converted a war into a personality.

The relationship is the actual subject of the film, more than the case is. The Dude has no opinions and Walter has nothing but opinions, and they have been friends for years because neither requires anything of the other except attendance at the bowling alley.

The scene after Donny’s death, where they embrace on a clifftop covered in ash, is the only unguarded moment in the picture and it lasts about four seconds.

Reading Walter as the villain reorganizes the film usefully. It is not a story about a slacker in a mystery. It is a story about a passive man whose only close friend is a catastrophe.

The Failure That Became the Point

It took about seventeen million dollars in the United States against a fifteen million budget, which is a failure, and the reviews were mixed to poor. Coming after Fargo it was read as an indulgence.

Then it found people slowly, on video and at midnight screenings, and the audience that emerged treated it as scripture. Lebowski Fest started in 2002 and still runs. There is an ordained religion with adherents, which began as a joke and did not entirely stay one.

That trajectory is common to a specific kind of film, and the pattern is worth understanding. The ones that fail and then last are usually the ones with an internal logic strong enough to reward a second viewing and a texture too particular for a mass audience on first contact.

A film with a coherent plot and thin texture works once. A film with thin plot and dense texture improves, because the second viewing is spent on the things you missed while trying to follow the story.

The Coens have been mostly amused by it and have declined to explain anything, which is the correct posture and has certainly helped.

What It Is About Underneath

Money, and specifically the difference between having it and having had it.

The Big Lebowski is a fraud whose fortune belongs to a charitable trust his late wife established. The Dude is broke and does not care. Maude is wealthy and treats money as an instrument. The nihilists want a million dollars and would settle for a great deal less. Everybody in the film is oriented around a briefcase that is empty from the start.

The Dude wins, in the sense that anybody does, because he wants nothing. He is the only character with no exposure. The rug is the exception and the rug is the whole plot.

The film is set in 1991 with the Gulf War on every television, and the elder Lebowski’s speech about achievement is delivered under a wall of framed commendations. The Coens are not making a political point but they are placing a specific kind of American self-regard in the frame and leaving it there.

Which is why the ending is right. Nothing is resolved, Donny is dead, the case is explained by the Stranger in a way that clarifies nothing, and the Dude goes bowling.

Should you watch The Big Lebowski?

Yes, and be prepared for it to improve on a second viewing. The first time you will try to follow the plot, which is a waste of effort, and the middle will sag. Once you stop caring what happened to Bunny Lebowski the film becomes considerably funnier.

Frequently Asked Questions