BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


No Country For Old Men [SPOILERS]

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Mark Parsons
18:24 / 04.12.07
Don't think that I would call NCFM mainstream in any meaningful way: many in the audience I watched it with (upscale indie&mainstream "Arclight" cinema w/restaurant, bar, guaranteed clean prints and more $$) seemed put off by the ending (from what I was overhearing).

And yes, if you tune out Tommy Lee Jones' monologues/musings, you'll probably have a hard time fully grasping the movie's themes. Give him another shot: it's a great performance...
 
 
Tsuga
00:06 / 05.12.07
That was a great performance.
I'm sorry Mark, I was being facetious in my question. They are somewhat similar movies in plot and style, but they are very different movies. "Better" is too broadly subjective, and therefore a bit useless in discussion.
I think, 311cetera, that you will probably like it more after seeing it again. Maybe not, but as I mentioned upthread, at least for me their movies often get better on repeated viewing. This confuses me, because I was hugely impressed on first viewing this time. I hope the opposite doesn't happen now.
 
 
PatrickMM
16:27 / 05.12.07
I saw the film a couple of days ago, and I will say that it's technically near flawless, the Coens put on a free clinic about how to construct suspense in a scene with just shots, no cheap music tricks, no overwrought fake outs, just real fear and menace in nearly every frame of the film.

But, it didn't quite hit for me in the same way it did for other people. I respected the movie, but didn't love it. The movie was so contained, it lacked the sort of wild energy that movies I really love have. Compare this to Southland Tales, a film that had many awful moments, but also some that were so awe inspiring, they made up for what was bad. I guess I'd rather have a movie that has some truly brilliant moments and the rest not measure up then one that is consistently strong, but never really wows me.
 
 
Locust No longer
18:51 / 07.12.07
I really, really like No Country for Old Men. Better than Fargo? I don't know. Apples and Oranges IMO. I think if anything, this was far more like Blood Simple than any of their other films. NCfOM is definitely up there with my favorites already, however. I think this had more humorous elements in it than others apparently... I thought the killer was really funny, from his hair cut to his strained voice to his weapon of choice to the complete stone faced dispassion that sometimes betrayed itself with a slight curl of a lip (fucking great performance). The violence was indeed darker, but it's hard not to find something hilarious about the use of the pneumatic cattle gun on hapless human beings, the insinuation being quite clear to me (not to get to into specific instances for those who haven't seen it).

But I kept thinking there was more too it than the "good and evil doesn't exist, bad thing happen to good people etc," that I've heard from a lot of people.

SPOILERS:






I wondered about when the wife decided to not call heads or tails at the end and the confusion this caused to the killer-- was the car crash near the end the killer's cosmic pay back for her not playing into the coin? Was the killer archetypal in some way, more a force than an actual human being? This being that no one alive had ever seen him, that for all the characters that survived know, he never truly existed. Was he just a metaphor for the supposed bad things men do, or simply evil incarnate? If so, why would he be controlled in part by the coin. Was the coin there to reinforce the element in the film of the ultimate chaos that is the universe? I also wondered about the story the Sheriff told about the slaughter house and how the man lost all use of his shoulder from a ricochet off the cow's skull. I kept thinking that this related to the car crash at the end in some way. Was the car the killer's ricochet? I understand that the story could have been sheriff figuring out that the killer used the pneumatic cattle gun, but it seemed to tie in to the end. This is definitely a film I need to see again. Great, great, great.
 
 
Mark Parsons
20:29 / 07.12.07
Well, one interpretation of the coin toss scene (the 2nd) is that the wife does not believe that a man as evil as Chigurh will let her go. She thinks he'll trick her and kill her anyway. The irony is that he WOULD have let her live, as he did the sales clerk at the gas station. Chigurh is many things. but not, apparently, a liar.

Right before he got hit by the car, there was the Sound FX of the playing cards on the boy's bicycle wheels, which sounded like helicopter blades. Llewellyn and Woody's characters are both Viet Nam vets, so many Chigurh was too (and Sherrif is a WW2 vet). He is kind of a random element of faceless, shitty, nasty luck (albeit one with purpose) and he got nabbed by nasty luck of a different sort triggered by a recollection (CHigurh seems devoid of such normal human activity) Oh, dead, I'm not articulating very well here!
 
 
Locust No longer
21:04 / 07.12.07
Hmm. That's interesting because I thought she seemed to be questioning his motives, ie telling him that his whole way of going about things was ridiculous, asking him "why?" In some ways she seemed to understand him the best out everyone.
 
 
Tsuga
21:38 / 07.12.07
You guys really might need to put more spoiler alerts up or use spoiler tags, and LBT, it may have been better for you to have placed your alert earlier in your post, before you started talking about an integral plot element.
 
 
Mark Parsons
15:51 / 08.12.07
Sorry Tsuga. Most of the movie was spoiled ealier in the thread, so I did not think further discussion needed to be sheilded.
 
 
Mark Parsons
15:57 / 08.12.07
"Hmm. That's interesting because I thought she seemed to be questioning his motives, ie telling him that his whole way of going about things was ridiculous, asking him "why?" In some ways she seemed to understand him the best out everyone."

That's interesting. I'd have said that Harrison's character understands Chigurh the best, as they've worked togather and apparently know one another well enough. But Harrelson still falls afoul of him anyway, still fears him in the end.

I don't even thin C is the kind of evil the sherrif laments in the book, at least not quite. He's ruthless but being a killer (actually I think he considers himself a soldier/warrior for hire) is his function, which separates him from the teen who killed his g-freind from the sherrif's book monologue. C is not "wrong" he's just inhuman and yes, pretty crazy to boot.
 
 
X-Himy
16:00 / 08.12.07
I tend to think of Chigurh as a combination character, force of nature. Perhaps he is a character that others view as a force of nature. With regards to the coin toss, I viewed it as his character's justification of his actions, perhaps him buying into his own mythology. I can imagine Chigurh thinking, "I am a force of nature, guided by the hand of fate." The only character to really call him on it is Moss's wife, who tells him that the only agency here is his. If nothing else, it breaks the spell that he's weaving. If there is not fate, there's only chance, such as the car accident. Wow, I'm not sure I've explained this well, and I definitely need to see it again.
 
 
Tsuga
16:05 / 08.12.07
I think FinderWolf's post had a little spoiler action, and maybe 311s, but this page it got much more specific. I don't think you need to apologize, really, I'm just saying consider that beforehand or use some deflector when posting, you know?
 
 
Mark Parsons
22:34 / 08.12.07
I'll give it a shot, but that spoiler code looked scary to me (I've had problems with basic functions before: I am all thumbs in that regard).
 
 
Mark Parsons
22:37 / 08.12.07
Interesting point RE breaking the spell and what happens to him next. But even though C is absolutely the agent of death/murder, he DOES offer the coin toss and therefore fate does enter into the equation, although clearly the deck is stacked against the coin chooser.

OT - THE ROAD is great: bleak and sad yet warm somehow.
 
 
Locust No longer
22:40 / 08.12.07
Yeah, sorry about that Tsuga. I actually thought everything I had written before my spoiler alert was out there earlier like the "cattle gun" in the thread summary. But point taken.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
09:33 / 20.01.08
I'm not sure what I've just seen, but I'm scared and entertained.

Call it.

'I'd say he doesn't have a sense of humour.'
 
 
GogMickGog
13:12 / 20.01.08
I'm with regiment: Still don't quite know what I saw. I know it was spare, white knuckle and morally resolute but I can't quite fit it all together.

That's no criticism, I'd recommend it straight off. Just having a hell of a time trying to work out all the themes and resolutions.

I loved that they barely touched on music. No fancy camera moves, either. Almost a reinvention of the Coen style. I liked Tommy L-J's line in bewildered humour, especially with that story he reads in the paper, and the way it gave way to a kind of melancholic self-awareness. The whole 'end of an era' theme had me thinkng of Peckinpah, sans the slo-mo histrionics.

For something as frank and grimly realist as this, I liked the dependence on dreams and ideas of fate and kharmic resolve.

best point for me -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

SPOILER

was Josh Brolin, right near the start, pursued across the river by that trained dog. How unbearably tense was that? and how apposite a 'hunted like a beast' image?

SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Bardem owned this film completely, right from his first scene with the deputy on the phone.

Definitely a Coen benchmark.
 
 
Spaniel
17:59 / 20.01.08
Wasn't the photography gorgeous?

Thinking about this and Fargo, I'm slightly surprised that a Barbelith audience has fallen down so strongly on the side of NCfOM. As much as I liked the movie, it pretty clearly has more bloke appeal in that it focuses on po-faced men with guns uttering sombre lines about the West, whereas Fargo is a little more difficult to unpack. I'm not for a second trying to do the film down, but I worry that all this talk of maturity (notably from outwith the 'lith) runs a little too close to philistinism and possibly misogyny, in that it marginalises something (Fargo) that's a little bit more of an unknown quantity (and that stars a pregnant women), in favour of something that's more than a little familiar (and stars tough guys packing heat).

That aside, was really bloody good. Discussing it with Bobosso afterwards, we marveled at how the movie was so happy to deconstruct this idea of a time of laws and codes - when things were in some way better. When Chighur says of the coin "don't put it in your pocket - then it'll just become a coin" beat "which it is", you know that this man's rules (which crucially Kelly MacDonald's character refuses to play along with, and ends up dead anyway) are as nonsensical, as vapid, as all of the sherrif's fantasies of a more civilised age. This isn't a story about the breakdown of a better way of life (that this wasn't picked up on Late Review the other night fucking baffles me), this is a story about the fucking inevitableness of change and the passage of time, and how you'll fucking die when it comes time for you to die, and how Anton Chigur will have a car smash a bone out of his arm when it comes time for him to have a bone smash out his arm.

At least, that's what I reckon right now. Might change my mind in a bit.
 
 
Spaniel
18:31 / 20.01.08
Rethinking.

It's not the talk of maturity that worries me (actually, that does worry me, but for different reasons which I'm not going to get into at the mo'), rather it's the sense I'm getting from some corners - here and elsewhere - that this film should be compared with Fargo, and that when compared with Fargo it comes out on top. My reasoning is pretty much what I sketch out above: awkward film starring pregnant lady vs film starring cowboys with guns and other highly knowable content.
 
 
Spaniel
18:34 / 20.01.08
...that has a history of appealing to boys
 
 
Tsuga
19:00 / 20.01.08
I'm slightly surprised that a Barbelith audience has fallen down so strongly on the side of NCfOM. As much as I liked the movie, it pretty clearly has more bloke appeal in that it focuses on po-faced men with guns uttering sombre lines about the West, whereas Fargo is a little more difficult to unpack.

I think a crucial difference between the two is the tone. Fargo, for all of it's dark subject matter, was at heart more comedic. The stamp-painting husband, the old high-school flame she has lunch with, William H. Macy's whole character and his father-in-law...I could keep on, but I won't. That it's a comedy doesn't make it any less of a movie, it's just very different. No Country has some of the same subject matter, really, the cop searching out a mystery, the character-driven story, people making bad decisions about money. The tension in No Country was compelling, the silence and the cinematography built on the tension of the story. I don't know that that's "bloke appeal". Fargo had tension that was consistently broken with humor. No Country did have some humor, just not the same level at all, and much dryer. It had the terse, close-lipped dialogue of Texas men and women (though not nearly as many women), while Fargo had the direct, no-nonsense upper midwest sentiment. Both exaggerated versions, but not much.
I don't know if the book created such a dehumanizing sense of Mexicans, I'm curious if anyone who's read it has an opinion on that.
 
 
Spaniel
19:21 / 20.01.08
it's just very different

Which is a big part of the reason why I find such comparisons troubling.

As for bloke appeal, if you're struggling to see what I'm getting at there then I worry about you, Tsuga. It's full of stuff that blokes traditionally find appealing: manly men, guns, western tropes, blood, violence, seriousness. In combination.
 
 
Tsuga
20:21 / 20.01.08
I know what you mean, of course I do. I'm sorry if I'm not getting your point, though, about what's troubling. Is it that the comparisons are made between the movies at all, or that one is called more "mature" or "better" when you feel that it is simply different, and so the comparisons seem like they might be based on sexist bias? That may well be true, but it could also be true that people are basing their opinions on the merits of the movies. I haven't read many reviews, though, so I may not be seeing the trend that you have, and I'm not saying that you're full of it or anything.

And, I'm also sorry if I'm not communicating very well, which I seem to be having a problem with lately, or wasn't clear if I'm one of the people giving you the impression of comparing them on some scale of goodness when I said before:
Maybe the important question is: is it better than Fargo?
I was joking on the fact that previously endquote had posted a one-line review that you called them on, I made a joke then that you seemed to not like which I hoped I had cleared up, etc.

No Country was absolutely a more male-centric story, for better or worse. I can't say how much of that is the novel, or the focus of the filmmakers. I can't say one movie is better than the other, either, I think I still believe what I said before in this context: "Better" is too broadly subjective, and therefore a bit useless in discussion.
 
 
CameronStewart
21:28 / 20.01.08
>>>I can't say how much of that is the novel, or the focus of the filmmakers.<<<

I recently finished reading the novel and the film is, with a few small exceptions, a remarkably faithful and literal adaptation.

The thing I find slightly bothersome about NCfOM getting all the praise that it does, being called the Coens' best film (as I've read in many reviews), is that it's a very close adaptation of someone else's story. This isn't a reinterpretation, the way Kubrick would take a novel and re-jig it to fit his own thematic concerns, this is a story filmed pretty much as it is in the novel. It's done exceedingly well, I loved it, but I am nostalgic for the days when the Coens would create their own characters and plots. Their last three works have been an adaptation of a novel (NCfOM), a remake of an older film (The Ladykillers), and a film made from a screenplay by another writing team (Intolerable Cruelty). I've always loved the Coens' skewed worldview and quirky characters, as seen in Fargo, Barton Fink, The Big Lebowski, etc, and it's more than a little disappointing to see so many critics rush to proclaim their least original work their best.

Having said that, it IS an excellent film, and I enjoyed it immensely, but I have trouble saying that it's their best.
 
 
Mug Chum
22:02 / 20.01.08
[SPOILERS]

I feel Blood Simple might be a more apt work for comparison, if only for the long streches of silence and how the non-verbal exposition works in both (the two are extremly effective, but Simple had not only that on scene-building information, but also on interpersonal moments that are just unbelievable once you look back after finished). But if we're to compare (from memory mostly), Blood Simple punched me far harder in the stomach at first.

NCfOM made me effectively tense and on the edge of my seat constantly in a way that no movie has for a long time (closest I can remember is watching some of Hitchcock's as a kid). It was an amazing crime suspense/thriller. But afterwards I didn't really felt it gave me much, it was mostly chases & guns (and keewl&symbolic cattle-gun) abnormally well-made. The running theme of decay felt sloppy, as if dripped here and there so it'd be picked up by the end. And 'Sugar' -- even with the tightly fit art direction and Bardem's creepy performance -- didn't really hit me as an instrument/symbol of death/horror or disconnected to the extreme point where all others are cattle for his harvest (the old man complaining about kids with 'bones on their noses' felt much more to me as a figure of disconnect and alienation; I sort of wanted to see more of him and his funny observations of how the world is going to hell).

I find myself mostly speechless by Tommy Lee Jones' final monologue. The monologue itself is pretty amazing, but his delivery is what made it for me. That too-tired-for-breathing face, sad weary eyes is basically what made the tone of the film for me.

But basically I felt underwhelmed. I'm picking up "The Road" this month, but I'm unsure of what to expect. I'm kind of on Boboss' camp on the boyish fantasy aspect.

PS: Holy shit, that was Kelly McDonald?! Wow...
 
 
The Idol Rich
09:51 / 21.01.08
which crucially Kelly MacDonald's character refuses to play along with, and ends up dead anyway

Everyone seems very sure that she does end up dead but what is it that gives it away? Is it because the psycho appears to look at his shoes on leaving the house as if to clean off some blood or was it simply that running away from the car crash implies that he has to get away from the scene of a crime?
 
 
Seth
10:05 / 21.01.08
I was wondering whether or not she was dead by the end of the film too. The typical signifer of an off-screen death (a gunshot) is absent and so I thought it was left deliberately ambiguous. It was my impression that Bardem worked to a system of rules that he followed to the letter, and her dialogue to him in that scene was that this could not be seen as an evasion of personal responsibility because he has to choose whether to follow those rules or not. This seemed to me to be her motive for not playing the coin toss game, as she didn't want to approve of his methods for deluding himself that he as an individual was not the active participant in obeying rthe toss. In effect she broke his system, but we don't get to see what the outcome of that is for either of them. That sense of not knowing what happens seems to be the point of the scene to me.

I'd have to rewatch the film to be sure of that reading, and to be sure of the meaning of the car crash. I can't remember whether the road markings are shown in order that we can see which vehicle should have given way to the other, but if it's Bardem's vehicle that was supposed have stopped at the junction then one reading could be that he is so disturbed by what has happened that he is not paying attention and is therefore the cause of the crash.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:39 / 21.01.08
I also thought it was ambiguous whether or not he'd killed Lewellyn's wife.

The way I read it, either he has or he hasn't killed her, and he's been ... well, not shaken, but affected in some way by the 'It's not the coin ... it's you - it's just you ...' line, and he's thinking about this/looking at the boys on bikes and thinking back to his childhood/thinking about killing them which is why he doesn't see the other car and crashes into it.

I've been wondering: how does Sugar/Chiguhr (aha! the simplest change to a familiar word creates a monster, l'objet petit a etc) fit into the story? Was he in league with any of the players in the shootout? Does he just move from place to place?

And just to check, when Lewellyn gets killed at the motel, that's by a Mexican gang in a truck rather than by Sugar?

There's also a line where TLJ and the younger sherriff are observing the wrecked cars and one says there have been two events - 'Wild west over here, execution there' - execution = mafia, gangs, etc, the film is about the world of gangsters attacking the world of the western?
 
 
The Idol Rich
11:02 / 21.01.08
And just to check, when Lewellyn gets killed at the motel, that's by a Mexican gang in a truck rather than by Sugar?

Yes, that’s what I thought.

Was he in league with any of the players in the shootout? Does he just move from place to place?

The shootout at the start? My understanding was that one of the gangs (not the Mexican one) is controlled by the guy in the big office that set Woody Harrelson to find Chiguhr. They then hired Chigurh to get the money back but realised that he was a bit of a loose cannon (to say the least) and hedged their bets by giving the detector to the Mexicans and asking Woody to find Chigurh. I’m not clear as to why he shot the two guys (described as managerial by the sheriff’s assistant) who gave him a lift to the scene though.

if it's Bardem's vehicle that was supposed have stopped at the junction then one reading could be that he is so disturbed by what has happened that he is not paying attention and is therefore the cause of the crash.

The way I read it, either he has or he hasn't killed her, and he's been ... well, not shaken, but affected in some way by the 'It's not the coin ... it's you - it's just you ...' line, and he's thinking about this/looking at the boys on bikes and thinking back to his childhood/thinking about killing them which is why he doesn't see the other car and crashes into it.

Good points I reckon.
 
 
The Strobe
11:20 / 21.01.08
It's worth noting that most of the violence to what you might consider "the main characters" is never shown. There's this strange kind of... respect the directorial/writing eye has for them; we never witness trauma to characters we're invested in. To wit:

we never see Llewelyn's death, just his corpse;
we never see Carla's [presumed] death;
we never see Ed's retirement - he's a sheriff one minute, he's retired the next - and for him, retirement is a kind of trauma.

I find that interesting - that the film treats certain characters as though they're special.

The Coen's film it reminded me most of, in terms of tone, was Miller's Crossing; I'm surprised people fixate so much on Fargo as point of comparison.
 
 
Bandini
12:14 / 21.01.08
I thought the death of the wife was entirely ambiguous. Maybe he killed her maybe he didn't. Maybe it she would of called it right or wrong. Maybe he decided to kill her maybe he didn't.
In this 'new world' you never know.

I think you can also read it that he was so distracted either because he killed her under strange circumstances or because he didn't kill her.

I think though that he was distracted as throughout the whole film he shows such an economy of movement and precise decision making capabilities it would be jarring if he then made a mistake, which he did. Therefore there had to be a reason.

I understand the desire to compare the film to Fargo regardless of how reductive this is but I didn't see them as that similar. They two films made by a pair of Auteurs with a series of signatures that flow through all their films.
 
 
CameronStewart
15:01 / 21.01.08
In the novel, it's made explicit that Chigurh kills Moss' wife. Although it is more ambiguous in the film, I do think the intent is that he killed her. It's just more subtly depicted. Also in the novel it's stated that the car accident is not Chigurh's fault.

I’m not clear as to why he shot the two guys (described as managerial by the sheriff’s assistant) who gave him a lift to the scene though.

Because he kills everyone that's involved, so as to remain a "ghost." Wells (Woody Harrelson) explains that anyone who sees his face is dead. The only people he doesn't kill are the gas station owner (for winning the coin toss), and the two kids at the scene of the accident (for being innocents), although he does pay them off and instructs them to say "you never saw me."
 
 
The Idol Rich
15:12 / 21.01.08
The only people he doesn't kill are the gas station owner (for winning the coin toss), and the two kids at the scene of the accident (for being innocents), although he does pay them off and instructs them to say "you never saw me."

Are you sure about that? What about the fat woman who won't tell him where Llewelyn is? Or the other guy in the office when he shoots the boss? I think their situation is ambiguous too, it's possible he kills them as well but you don't find out (or do you? Maybe I've missed something).
 
 
CameronStewart
16:44 / 21.01.08
Or the other guy in the office when he shoots the boss?

Doesn't he kill him too? I'm having trouble remembering exactly but doesn't the accountant say "are you going to kill me too" and then a shot of Chigurh reacting, and then a cut away to a new scene?

At any rate, it can be argued that Chigurh kills anyone who's involved, or if he needs something (like how he kills people for their cars).
 
 
The Idol Rich
17:13 / 21.01.08
Doesn't he kill him too? I'm having trouble remembering exactly but doesn't the accountant say "are you going to kill me too" and then a shot of Chigurh reacting, and then a cut away to a new scene?

I can't remember for certain either - I'm pretty sure that it's left to the viewer to decide what happened...although there may have been something that they were expecting you to decide if you see what I mean.
I'll have to read the book anyway, my flatmate has got it so it's somewhere lying around the house.
 
 
The Strobe
17:28 / 21.01.08
Also in the novel it's stated that the car accident is not Chigurh's fault.

Yeah, it's pretty clear in the film it's not his fault; he's driving cautiously, we see him look at the light go green and drive through, and then he's T-boned. Just looked like bad luck.

And as for Carla, I thought it was obvious he was going to kill her; the rest of the film is about his relentless logic. His worldview forces him too, even though Llewellyn could have saved her.

A thought: the people who are killed/retired, but we don't see die, could be nominally described as "good".
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply