funny thing here is his misses the fact that the scene actually contributes to the plot development, but also, within the context of why he *does* think it's significant, he misses that Mike's story being false neatly mirrors the falsehood of the movie's "based on a true story" claim
I really believe Hawley really believes he's wrestling with the mysteries and enigmas in Coen brothers movies but more often than not he bungles it anyway
i dont like taking artists to task for not being smart, because i can't really judge that, but i do take issue with someone making a Fargo show when they don't even understand Fargo, a movie that's not very hard to understand
I don't want to take any artist to task for not being smart because I don't really have a leg to stand on; but I'll absolutely take a showrunner to task, as in this case his being half-smart fully gases the whole enterprise.
It’s like he himself has become a Coen character.
Yeah it's weird. Yanagita was a mystery in 1996 to everyone but anyone who's seen that movie a second time can see his lie is what leads Marge to suspect Jerry.
It also serves a plot function: it shows Marge, who has a very highly developed sense of her own capabilities, with good reason, that it is possible to fool her. The first major thing she does after that is go back to talk to Jerry again.
I interviewed him for the Vulture TV podcast years ago and he said that stuff about the scene in Fargo. I don't remember if I actually took issue with him during the interview, because it was pretty stunning to hear from the showrunner of freaking Fargo, but I've been thinking about it ever since.
It's also not particularly subtle, the equivalent beat of a million other detectives hearing some unrelated piece of information, stopping, saying "What -- what did you say?" and figuring out whodunit.