I’m interested in the narrative beats and the characters of the Western genre and how the Neo-Western or Postmodern Western play with those narrative beats and characters to keep the genre interesting. I have not read too much about Neo-Westerns, but I’d like to try to analyze Meeks Cutoff as such to see what fits.

The setting fits the Western genre and the cinematography compliments it. The film uses countless long shots of the barren land during the day and then closes the frame in during the scenes taking place at night. Classic Westerns popularized using establishing shots of the terrain in the beginning of the film to characterize the setting. Neo-Westerns like Fargo (the TV show and the film) and films like No Country For Old Men (all Coen brothers related to my knowledge) also used this move to center the landscape. The juxtaposition of far-reaching open land during the day and dark, unknown land at night in Meeks Cutoff conveys a looming sense of existential terror and loneliness in the vast emptiness of the terrain. Similar to conversations we’ve had previously in this class, I would argue that the terrain acts as a character that amps up the tension throughout the film. The central conflict of the film, trying to get to a settlement or get to a place with water, is mediated by the terrain.

The two key characters in the film, Meek and the Native American man, are centered by their ability to access the land and resolve the conflict. Meek is presented as a sort of huckster/grifter/cowboy stereotype who tells tall tales and shouldn’t be trusted, but he was the one hired to guide them through the terrain. Meeks claims to have a spiritual connection to the land, saying that he does not just go through it but he is actually a part of it. Elements like the title and the early conversation about whether he should be hanged lead the audience to doubt his credibility. On the other hand, the Native American man is initially seen as a threatening character that the colonists do not understand. They see him as a liability and even an enemy once they believe he is leaving markers for other Native Americans to come save him from the colonists. In actuality, the Native American man is the one that actually has knowledge of the land and is able to presumably save the colonists. The Native American man’s redemption is represented cinematically in the last shot of the movie which holds on him for a while as he slowly walks into the horizon. This move calls to mind the generic ending to the classic Western where the good cowboy usually wearing a white hat, after having resolved the conflict, rides off into the sunset as we admire him from afar. The film subverts this narrative by centering the Native American man doing this move and earning the rightful praise as the hero instead of Meeks who deflects and says that it was all predetermined and that God is the one that should be praised since their story was all written before by God. Audiences (hopefully) will call Meeks on his bullshit, which can hopefully lead them to read the anti-colonial elements of the film that act against the colonial lean of traditional Westerns that valorize white settlers and cowboys. For example, the characters dehumanize the Native American man by comparing how “civilized” they are, despite the fact that they would not have survived without him. The main technological innovation that they brag about and use are guns. However, guns are mentioned when Meeks brags about shooting Native Americans after chasing them into the river, which, after he realizes that he is bragging about it, tries to deflect it as something that had to be done. The only time guns are shot is when the women come across the Native American man and fire two warning shots to signal the men to come back. However, the cinematography conveys their frailty and the primitiveness of the gun as the shot holds on the entire long time it takes her to fire, load, and fire again. Later, Meeks comments on how the Native American man could have easily killed them, which should’ve signified that he is not hostile, but instead is used to spark more fear.

Similar to Hanzee in Fargo season 2, the Native American man is grossly misunderstood and Othered by the white racist characters that are similar to those in traditional Westerns and is shown through the film to actually be capable through his methods even though they are not accessible to us. This inversion and critique of traditional Western tropes frames the film as a Neo Western with productive postcolonial readings.

I also think another reading of the film could be to argue that the film is not as progressive and operates mainly on white guilt to frame a Native American man in a redemptive way without fully characterizing him. The audience never knows his name and we do not have much access to his character, which maybe could lead to stereotyping / fetishizing. I don’t know.

I found Genette’s chapters on paratexts useful in thinking about the term beyond what I learned of it in my undergrad literary theory course. Even though the focus is exclusively on print texts, I found myself thinking more about televisual paratexts, trying to see what I could connect to the Fargo TV series and my own interests in Netflix comedy special paratexts.

This quote from Genette stuck out to me as I was thinking about how to classify some of the paratextual elements of Fargo beyond the “where? when? how? to whom? and to do what?” (Genette 4) approach, “The functions of the paratext therefore constitute a highly empirical and highly diversified object that must be brought into existence inductively, genre by genre and species by species. The only significant regularities one can introduce into this apparent contingency are to establish these relations of subordination between function and status and thus pinpoint various sorts of functional types, as well, reduce the diversity of practices and messages to some fundamental and highly recurrent themes.” (Genette 13). The genre of “TV viewed on streaming services” (I’m watching Fargo on my Hulu account) has many unique paratextual elements which I’m sure have been written about elsewhere, and then the Fargo TV series itself can be viewed as its own species, with individual seasons or episodes being perhaps subspecies. For this short essay, I’ll focus on Fargo 202, “Before the Law” to try and list some of the paratextual observations I have made and hopefully gesture towards inductively deriving some sort of functional type.

I need to begin by trying to define the opening sequences as paratextual elements before going further. To even classify this sequence as an opening/title sequence goes against many older generic forms such as the copy and paste title sequence with the same theme song and no variation (think any older cartoon series). However, many recent TV series have modified the opening/title sequence in creative ways like Fargo to diversify it to have meta-textual elements to the episode or the season (Better Call Saul, Bojack Horseman). One could contest that these newer, savvier opening sequences are not paratextual because they are so embedded into the text because of the production. However, I would say that they are paratextual by virtue of their repeating qualities that frame the episode. In Fargo (at least 2 episodes in) the opening sequence features a nondiegetic soundtrack, the opening text, split screen edits, and an eventual title sequence. These commonalities codify these sequences as title sequences.

The opening text that appears onscreen is the paratextual element that interests me the most. This writing seems to serve as the first indication of the show’s opening/title sequence, since it has occurred in both 201 and 202 with music accompaniment leading up to the reveal of the title (in 201 it comes after the cold open). As a refresher, the text reads, “This is a true story. True. The events took place in Minnesota in 1979. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred. An MGM/FXP Production” written out slowly between scenes with nondiegetic typewriter clicks. As discussed in class, this writing is nonsense, as the stories are fictional. As an uninformed viewer, I would have bought this as I did with the film version, and so I guess Genette would classify this as private paratext? At the very least, including this information at the beginning of each episode reminds viewers either to consider (wrongly) that the show is about an (un)true story, or, remind them that it is a farcically violent romp through the Midwest. As opposed to the film version where this paratextual element only occurs once, having the TV version repeat it, and repeat it as an indication of the show’s opening, amps up the functionality of this paratextual element.

The nondiegetic soundtrack is one of the other main indicators of the opening/title sequence and one that has perhaps the most “illocutionary force” (10) on that particular episode. For example, in 202 the song is “Reunion” by Bobbie Gentry, which depicts a fraught family reunion where multiple parties attempt to appeal to the Mama of the family. The song itself is satirical in that the bulk of it describes petty fights between seemingly younger family members such as hair pulling, but then the speaker states, “It’s first time ever that the family been together. It’s so nice that we all get along so well.” As a paratextual element the song has more force as it sets up one of the main conflicts of the episode: who will lead the Gerhardt family? In the episode we see the matriarch, Floyd, negotiating effectively with the rival gang, only to be challenged by her son Dodd solely due to her femininity. We know from the previous episode that the siblings of the family squabble much like the characters in the song, only instead of pulling hair, it’s questioning Rye’s masculinity and ability to do his job. Through all of this, Floyd (Mama) is the one who mediates these conflicts and is likely keeping the family unified, as is often assumed through gendered roles of motherhood.

Wowee there’s so much more to say!