So I have some guesses on the significance of the title. And your spoilers so far have helped clear up most of the meaning, but could someone lay out the exact meaning of the title (
Specifically the No Country part. Does is mean that there is no room for the Old in the world because the world becomes too relentless as one gets older?
Well, first understand that the title is itself an allusion.
That is no country for old men. The young
In one another’s arms, birds in the trees
—Those dying generations—at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unageing intellect.
An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress,
Nor is there singing school but studying
Monuments of its own magnificence;
And therefore I have sailed the seas and come
To the holy city of Byzantium.
O sages standing in God’s holy fire
As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing-masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.
Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.
Of course, you can argue over the meaning of the poem itself, but I think the primary theme (at least as relates to McCarthy's novel/the movie) is that youthful people have a capacity for violence (and love) that the old no longer possess.
It helps to be familiar with some of McCarthy's previous work, particularly Blood Meridian. I feel that No Country for Old Men is really of a set with that novel, though they're very different from each other. Judge Holden and Anton Chigurh both figure as primeval forces of destruction and violence, which is the issue at hand; in that book you have the Kid who, unthinking, embraces that violence and becomes a part of it, as well as a whole assortment of older men who are destroyed utterly by it. In NCFOM you have three men: one who is young and foolishly steps into the path of violence but who is older than the Kid of Blood Meridian and knows enough to feel some fear; one who is somewhat older and understands the implacability of the violence he is engaged with, but in the end is overwhelmed by fear and sacrifices his own dignity to try to buy his way out of it; and an old man who, seeing what will happen if he tries to stand in the way of Chigurh (who is not a man, in the strictest narrative sense), slinks away from it.
There is honor in being able to see your fate, and going to it willingly; notice that both Llewelyn and Carla Jean choose this path, while the older characters never do.
Now, regarding the character of Chigurh,
many reviewers are making the mistake of criticizing the movie for its relentless violence--as epitomized by Chigurh. (I don't believe anyone else kills anyone on-screen.) The problem is that they are not used to interpreting anything mythically in present-day movies, which are dull things where even gods are just people. Chigurh, in many ways, is a god in the classic sense. He represents fate, death, dispassionate destruction, and honor(!). Honor, after all, is just embracing fate even when it can turn out badly for you. Is he horrible? Yes. Is the film violent? Absolutely, yes. The problem that reviewers have is that the violence isn't treated comically. It's not rewarded. It simply is, and that's a little too close to the actual way the world works for people to be comfortable.
Not that Mr. McCarthy is a very comfortable writer.
I saw it last night and pretty much hated it as I walked out of the theater but after thinking about it today I realized that it was actually pretty incredible. I guess I was just jaded since I sort of spaced out as
Tommy Lee Jones gives his final speech at the end of the movie and I was expecting the scene to switch back to Bardem's character for some closure... I guess I forgot I was in a Coen movie.
Javier Bardem's character is definitely the scariest thing in a movie I've seen in recent memory.
I think he knew someone was there after seeing the reflection in the lock cylinder. He was trying to make himself a hero--and failed.
if that were true he would have gotten his gun out and investigated the entire motel and would have gotten shot, but he didn't, he got scared and decided not to continue.
He did get his gun out, and go in... and then conspicuously failed to check the whole room. He sits down on the bed, and then walks into the bathroom and looks around (at what?) in order to give Chigurh time to leave. He comes back out, puts his gun away, and then retires.
I think his feeling of failure is why he goes and talks to Ellis, who tells him how one of the "old-time greats" failed.
Interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that he did this deliberately. I don't know if I agree; it seems like he might have just walked in, gone to check a room, and then come back out, a half-effort at best. But your suggestion is entirely possible as well. In fact the more I think about it, the more I like it.
I saw it last night and pretty much hated it as I walked out of the theater but after thinking about it today I realized that it was actually pretty incredible. I guess I was just jaded since I sort of spaced out as
Tommy Lee Jones gives his final speech at the end of the movie and I was expecting the scene to switch back to Bardem's character for some closure... I guess I forgot I was in a Coen movie.
Javier Bardem's character is definitely the scariest thing in a movie I've seen in recent memory.
If Ridley Scott doesn't completely rape Blood Meridian, Chigurh will soon be joined by one of the most memorable, frightening villains ever created.
It helps to be familiar with some of McCarthy's previous work, particularly Blood Meridian. I feel that No Country for Old Men is really of a set with that novel, though they're very different from each other. Judge Holden and Anton Chigurh both figure as primeval forces of destruction and violence, which is the issue at hand; in that book you have the Kid who, unthinking, embraces that violence and becomes a part of it, as well as a whole assortment of older men who are destroyed utterly by it. In NCFOM you have three men: one who is young and foolishly steps into the path of violence but who is older than the Kid of Blood Meridian and knows enough to feel some fear; one who is somewhat older and understands the implacability of the violence he is engaged with, but in the end is overwhelmed by fear and sacrifices his own dignity to try to buy his way out of it; and an old man who, seeing what will happen if he tries to stand in the way of Chigurh (who is not a man, in the strictest narrative sense), slinks away from it.
There is honor in being able to see your fate, and going to it willingly; notice that both Llewelyn and Carla Jean choose this path, while the older characters never do.
I wouldn't agree entirely with your last suggestion there;
Llew entirely refuses to believe that he is overmatched, and persists in attempting to defeat Chigurh; this is exactly the opposite of being able to see your fate. As a result, he dooms his wife to a similar fate. Carla Jean doesn't go willingly either. She refuses to call the coin, and she gives up more than anything else. I think that none of the characters truly face violence as it is incarnate in Chigurh, either with success or with honour, because it is impossible to truly face violence. All that results from an attempt to do so is ignominous death. The sheriff is the only one who really realized it early enough to evade it. He is slinking away, but that seems to be the only pragmatic choice once one realizes one's impotence.
On another note, what do people think of Jones' character's final speech? Seemed like a note of grim optimism to me.
I wouldn't agree entirely with your last suggestion there;
Llew entirely refuses to believe that he is overmatched, and persists in attempting to defeat Chigurh; this is exactly the opposite of being able to see your fate. As a result, he dooms his wife to a similar fate. Carla Jean doesn't go willingly either. She refuses to call the coin, and she gives up more than anything else. I think that none of the characters truly face violence as it is incarnate in Chigurh, either with success or with honour, because it is impossible to truly face violence. All that results from an attempt to do so is ignominous death. The sheriff is the only one who really realized it early enough to evade it. He is slinking away, but that seems to be the only pragmatic choice once one realizes one's impotence.
I think Llewelyn does recognize that he's overmatched. That's why he bangs the receiver against the phone after he says he'll make Chigurh a "special project;" he knows he's bluffing, and he's despairing. Keep in mind he had decided to give up, to give the money to Cass.
Now, Carla Jean absolutely does go willingly. Is it giving up? Yes--but it's also the only agency left to her. She can accept the inevitability of her fate, or she can make it worse for herself by calling the coin. If she says "tails" and it's heads, her last thought will be: "I should have said heads!", which is nothing if not cowardly. This way, she chooses it herself: her death isn't fate, but rather due to her own action. It's as she says to Anton: "it's not the coin, it's just you," (fundamentally misunderstanding his character, of course, but saying something about herself).
I think her death is more successful than the Sheriff's survival.
On another note, what do people think of Jones' character's final speech? Seemed like a note of grim optimism to me.
McCarthy is peculiarly religious, and I thought this was an example of it. Despite what he perceives as a failure--a burden he will bear until he dies--he will find acceptance. People have gone before and failed before, and nobody will judge him for it. In the vast dark there will still be a little warmth, a little light, for someone who has failed almost existentially. I found it profoundly sad.
syrion on
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
It helps to be familiar with some of McCarthy's previous work, particularly Blood Meridian. I feel that No Country for Old Men is really of a set with that novel, though they're very different from each other. Judge Holden and Anton Chigurh both figure as primeval forces of destruction and violence, which is the issue at hand; in that book you have the Kid who, unthinking, embraces that violence and becomes a part of it, as well as a whole assortment of older men who are destroyed utterly by it. In NCFOM you have three men: one who is young and foolishly steps into the path of violence but who is older than the Kid of Blood Meridian and knows enough to feel some fear; one who is somewhat older and understands the implacability of the violence he is engaged with, but in the end is overwhelmed by fear and sacrifices his own dignity to try to buy his way out of it; and an old man who, seeing what will happen if he tries to stand in the way of Chigurh (who is not a man, in the strictest narrative sense), slinks away from it.
There is honor in being able to see your fate, and going to it willingly; notice that both Llewelyn and Carla Jean choose this path, while the older characters never do.
I wouldn't agree entirely with your last suggestion there;
Llew entirely refuses to believe that he is overmatched, and persists in attempting to defeat Chigurh; this is exactly the opposite of being able to see your fate. As a result, he dooms his wife to a similar fate. Carla Jean doesn't go willingly either. She refuses to call the coin, and she gives up more than anything else. I think that none of the characters truly face violence as it is incarnate in Chigurh, either with success or with honour, because it is impossible to truly face violence. All that results from an attempt to do so is ignominous death. The sheriff is the only one who really realized it early enough to evade it. He is slinking away, but that seems to be the only pragmatic choice once one realizes one's impotence.
One thing that's interesting and seems to be one of the only differences between the book and movie is:
Carla Jean shares the same fate as Wells in the book. She doesn't refuse to call the coin; she calls it and loses.
Chigurh, in many ways, is a god in the classic sense. He represents fate, death, dispassionate destruction, and honor(!). Honor, after all, is just embracing fate even when it can turn out badly for you. Is he horrible? Yes. Is the film violent? Absolutely, yes. The problem that reviewers have is that the violence isn't treated comically. It's not rewarded. It simply is, and that's a little too close to the actual way the world works for people to be comfortable.
Not that Mr. McCarthy is a very comfortable writer.
Yes.
I really saw here a duality between Bell and Anton Chigurh (whose name is awfully close to Anti Christ), reinforced by all the coin imagery and the scenes (like in Moss's trailer) where they're standing in the exact same place, except Bell is always a little too late.
I definitely agree with Chigurh as an elemental representation of Evil (although you could argue for fate, as well), but then I think that makes Bell a force of Good. The thing about the movie is that there is no triumph of good over evil. Good realizes he is hopelessly outmatched, and simply slinks away. You can fight the good fight, but McCarthy seems to be saying that no matter what, you will succumb. I thought that Bell talking about his father and great-uncle also enforced this -- his whole line is one of Good men, and they meet their fates early.
In addition, I think mentioning that Indians killed Bell's Uncle Mac fits with this. In the whole mythology of the West, the Good triumphed over Evil; the cowboys conquered the Indians. Anton Chigurh sounds to me like an Indian name, which I think fits properly. Bell is confronted with the fact that no, Good didn't win. Good never won, and Good can't ever win. Evil will always be there. A member of the WWII generation, where there was an enemy and you could beat him and save the world, Bell can't handle that reality and has to retreat from it.
Moss and Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) are both Vietnam vets, though. The constant presence of Evil, of the enemy, and the hopelessness and lack of direction and being overmatched -- these are the norms for these two men. They accept these circumstances and just keep doing what they know how to do.
I really liked this movie. It took me a good amount of thinking to realize why I liked the film, but, I really did enjoy it.
One thing I really liked, is, unlike most movies with action and violence is that it didn't glorify it at all. Some of those scenes really made me squirm.
I definitely saw Anton less as evil and more as an inevitable force of fate.
I definitely saw Anton less as evil and more as an inevitable force of fate.
There's definitely plenty of evidence to back that up, too.
One great thing about NCFOM is that it supplies you with enough material and leaves enough questions that there are tons of legitimate interpretations of the film. I think that right there is a pretty strong mark of quality for any movie, book, song, etc.
The way I see Chigurh is, he's an obsessive compulsive killer.
When he gets to work, he's always very calculative, he has everything planed out, he always makes sure to stay quiet and he follows a certain pattern pattern. The worst thing about this is that when he gets in to his pattern he does not get out of it. The coin for example is a tool he uses for justifying any pointless killing that he has to do. He leaves the decision to the coin, displacing all responsibility to it, and I don't think he'd willingly defy that habit, as he put it, it's not up to him, it's up to the coin to decide. This is even further cemented when he payed a visit to the gas station attendant, when he was done with the coin shtick he went on about just what the attendant must do with the coin after wards, which to me painted Chigurh as a an obsessive compulsive.
Anton Chigurh: Don't put it in your pocket, sir. Don't put it in your pocket. It's your lucky quarter.
Gas Station Proprietor: Where do you want me to put it?
Anton Chigurh: Anywhere not in your pocket. Where it'll get mixed in with the others and become just a coin. Which it is.
The other thing that he does quite a bit is worry about stepping on to other people blood, which is a great device as it showed that
he really did kill Carla Moss
.
And of course there's Woody's observation of Chigurh, I can't remember the exact quote but I think it was something like "There's just something wrong with your mind".
All in all it makes Chigurh the worst kind of killer you could ever run in to because there is no deal you could ever make with him. You can't offer him money, you can't convince him that what he's doing is a mistake or that it's wrong. He'll just kill you, and he'll kill you just for... inconveniencing him.
Just got back from seeing this with friends. We were all a little pissed when it ended.
While I admit that it's deep, honest, and has some powerful scenes, it's definitely not a good time at the movies. Long, mostly very quiet, and abrupt, it's the kind of movie where you hear everybody in the seats next to you fidgeting as they wait for something to happen. I would like to have seen this at home alone when I could really sit and figure it out, think about when everything meant.
I hated having to sit there as my friends made remarks like "The end. Aw it's not over yet" and reassuring that "It'll probably get good soon..."
Definitely not a "fun night out with the guys" movie. I wish we would have seen Beowulf instead. Shoot I wish we would have seen Enchanted instead. We'll be talking about what it means for days I'm sure - it's the kind of movie that makes you talk - but I have a feeling that next time we decide to see a movie, I won't be allowed to pick.
This film was absolutely fantastic. It's quiet, contemplative, and takes its time, but I was utterly transfixed from start to finish. I think the rest of the audience was just as impressed because at the end, where usually there is a great stir and chatter, everyone slowly rose from their seats in stunned silence.
Each scene is beautifully shot and drips with atmosphere. I could try to clumsily comment on the themes but I think syrion and others have done a much better job of that than I could.
My theory with Bell's return to the scene of Llewellyn's(?) was that Chigurh was in the other room blocked off by the police tape. Chigurh goes into room A, searches for the money in the vent, doesn't find it, and then moves onto room B. After this, Bell arrives and chooses to enter room A.
The only thing I recall that could be considered at odds with this is the reflection in the empty lock hole (I suppose the lock of the other door could also be intact? That would kill this theory...).
I like this way of thinking because it really reinforces the idea of lack of control over fate. Two rooms, one leading to nothing, one to death, and Bell just chooses. It's arbitrary, but thus is life.
Chigurh didn't find the money? I thought it was implied that he did when he payed the kid for his shirt with a hundred. Who ended up with the money then?
Chigurh didn't find the money? I thought it was implied that he did when he payed the kid for his shirt with a hundred. Who ended up with the money then?
He does get the money. The money was in the second room, which I assume was Moss' room (room . The room that was busted into was probably the pool hussy's (room A).
Chigurh didn't find the money? I thought it was implied that he did when he payed the kid for his shirt with a hundred. Who ended up with the money then?
He does get the money. The money was in the second room, which I assume was Moss' room (room . The room that was busted into was probably the pool hussy's (room A).
I could be way off base though.
I'm pretty sure you're right. when Sheriff Ed went in to the hotel he saw that the air conditioning duct was opened. This implies that Chigurh went back in to the hotel to get the money after the mexicans raided it. As he said before the mexicans left in a hurry so they did not get their money and Chigurh already knew where Moss kept it hidden from before.
One thing that's interesting and seems to be one of the only differences between the book and movie is:
Carla Jean shares the same fate as Wells in the book. She doesn't refuse to call the coin; she calls it and loses.
Wonder why they changed it.
Having Carla Jean decide to die provides a bit of contrast with the sheriff. Her choice gives her agency--but it also leads to her own death, of course. The sheriff decides to live, but that leads to his spiritual death. Having her die by chance reinforces the theme of random luck, but makes the sheriff a little less relevant (it seems to me). Or perhaps it makes him more heroic; in that case he took the only sane ending of anyone in the movie.
This movie was amazing.
I haven't been so sucked into a movie in a long time. The long, dialogue-less sequence at the beginning was just done so well and kept me absorbed in the character and his story.
The only reason the ending threw me off is because I guess I thought it would just keep going. Afterward I understood why it ended there, though.
I disliked it. I went into it with such high expectations, with many saying it captures the book perfectly. And while it does grab you in places as the book does, for some reason this version seemed a bit emptier than the book, even though it is pitch for pitch the same thing.
The acting was fantastic, and Chigurgh, Bell and Moss are great characters; but it just didn't jibe with me and the person I saw it with (who had not read the book) agreed.
That is no country for old men. The young
In one another's arms, birds in the trees
- Those dying generations - at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unageing intellect.
An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress,
Nor is there singing school but studying
Monuments of its own magnificence;
And therefore I have sailed the seas and come
To the holy city of Byzantium.
O sages standing in God's holy fire
As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing-masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.
Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.
Also, best sound editing, hands down. The middle part of the movie - I havn't seen a more tense and suspenseful film since Alien.
Are you talking about...
The shootout between Chigurgh and Moss that starts in the hotel and spills out into the street? Fuck all... that was brilliant.
Yeah, best film I've seen this year. A relentless, merciless slow burn that just keeps building. I felt like I was sitting in an electric chair.
"Just hold still."
NexusSix on
REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
One thing that's interesting and seems to be one of the only differences between the book and movie is:
Carla Jean shares the same fate as Wells in the book. She doesn't refuse to call the coin; she calls it and loses.
Wonder why they changed it.
Having Carla Jean decide to die provides a bit of contrast with the sheriff. Her choice gives her agency--but it also leads to her own death, of course. The sheriff decides to live, but that leads to his spiritual death. Having her die by chance reinforces the theme of random luck, but makes the sheriff a little less relevant (it seems to me). Or perhaps it makes him more heroic; in that case he took the only sane ending of anyone in the movie.
I prefer having her choose to die, honestly.
My friend who read the book says that
Carla Jean DOES give the same or a similar speech in the book, but then in the end calls it and loses. Can anyone confirm if this is the case?
In any event I like the way they do it in the movie better.
so i think that the entire movie was about the sherriff.
like it's a 3 act structure, and TECHNICALLY it follows the temporal formula, BUT really, it has a very long first act that sets everything up for Tommy Lee Jones.
also did you guys notice how it was sherrif's movie not anyone elses? also wasn't it great how the only one that has an arc the entire thing is the sherriff, but also isn't it great that he was already halfway through the arc when the movie starts?
it's like they took all this shit that was "wrong" and made a point of making a great movie out of it. and you know they did it on purpose too becaue they're the coens, those fucking bastards.
also
see:
the movie starts off with the sherriff talking about how fucked up law enforcement has gotten and how different things are, and how old timers would handle the new criminals. he's the first thing we hear. and then we see like, 6 minutes of Anton being crazy.
the whole anton/llewellyn storyline is just to set-up the idea of how fucked up everything is, but actually, nothing happens until the sherriff shows up. once the sherriff shows up, anton starts going after llewellyn. before that it was just set up.
the rest of it was just working itself out. after the wife things could've ended, but they still didn't. because we had to see what happened to the sherrif. and it ends on what the sherrif has to look forward to.
the awesome thing is that it could've completely been about the sherriff. just his point of view. but instead, it followed all the fucked up shit people do, just to come back to him, so you can see everything from his point of view.
llewellyn doesn't really have an arc, or much of a goal, or even much substance. he's just a chess piece. anton thinks more, and there's more to him. and there's little scenes to see how he works. so that's why i'm trying to figure out what he's about.
if anything it was really Anton's movie, but the whole movie is built up just so you can sympathesize and see things from the sherriff's perspective, so you can be just as tired/sad/frustrated as he is towards the end.
and it's like the sherriff is the only one that has a choice really. and has to choose to act on it or not.
llewellyn is the neutral good guy, anton is the bad guy, they just play their parts. the sherriff shows up with this humanistic point of view of the parts the other two are playing and then he has a choice to get involved or not, and he does, lots of different times he makes the choice to get involved.
check it, the title is based on a Yeats poem:
"Sailing to Byzantium" is a poem by William Butler Yeats, first published in the 1928 collection The Tower. It comprises four stanzas, each made up of eight ten-syllable lines. It depicts a portion of an old man’s journey to Byzantium. Through this journey, Yeats explores his thoughts and musings on how immortality, art, and the human spirit may converge. Through the use of various poetic techniques, Yeats' "Sailing to Byzantium" describes the metaphorical journey of a man pursuing his own vision of eternal life.
First stanza
As a literal paraphrase, the first stanza consists of the speaker describing his former country, a place that is not oriented toward the aged. Here, youthful denizens embrace one another, perhaps in young love (I.2). The birds, termed "dying generations" (I.3) by the speaker, perch and sing in the trees. Lines four through six repeat a similar combination of the natural world and the natural cycle of life and death; rivers and streams teeming with fish, with birds circling above, and all life recognizing and accepting that all that which is born must die. With the closing couplet of the first stanza, the speaker summarizes why he mentions these observations about the natural world. This world of circulating life and death blinds the enraptured mortals from the immortal realm of the artistic and spiritual.
that speaks more about the sherriff than anyone else. everyone else seems to want to ignore that point of view. the sherriff seems the most self-aware.
plus the book and the movie are aimed towards him.
i think the whole money/llewellyn thing is a macguffin. like what difference did anything llewellyn do except get the sherriff involved? it was just a way to get the cop back into it.
The sheriff is the only character who makes the decision not to put himself in the way of Chigurh. His scenes are largely an explanation for this, I think; Llewelyn and Cass serve as cautionary examples of what might have happened if he did, and Carla Jean, perhaps, represents what the sheriff might have done if he'd found himself in Chigurh's way involuntarily.
If Chigurh represents the mindless inexorable juggernaut of "violence" in the abstract, then the sheriff's (and Carla Jean's) reactions are the best ones you can make.
On the whole, though, Chigurh shares honors.
Chigurh doesn't function as a character; he makes no decisions, expresses no emotion, and doesn't develop. The sheriff is the main character, but Chigurh is the focus: his effects on the unlucky or foolish who get in the way; the inevitability of his continuance and recurrence; the failure of "heroes" and classical action-scene "goodness" in the face of his implacability.
i think the problem people have is that they get caught up in the Moss story so much, they ignore the Chigurh side of it or the Bell side of it, and then think those parts are boring or that the movie isn't going anywhere.
i think the problem people have is that they get caught up in the Moss story so much, they ignore the Chigurh side of it or the Bell side of it, and then think those parts are boring or that the movie isn't going anywhere.
Absolutely. It's a movie about tension, not catharsis.
It helps to be familiar with some of McCarthy's previous work, particularly Blood Meridian. I feel that No Country for Old Men is really of a set with that novel, though they're very different from each other. Judge Holden and Anton Chigurh both figure as primeval forces of destruction and violence, which is the issue at hand; in that book you have the Kid who, unthinking, embraces that violence and becomes a part of it, as well as a whole assortment of older men who are destroyed utterly by it. In NCFOM you have three men: one who is young and foolishly steps into the path of violence but who is older than the Kid of Blood Meridian and knows enough to feel some fear; one who is somewhat older and understands the implacability of the violence he is engaged with, but in the end is overwhelmed by fear and sacrifices his own dignity to try to buy his way out of it; and an old man who, seeing what will happen if he tries to stand in the way of Chigurh (who is not a man, in the strictest narrative sense), slinks away from it.
There is honor in being able to see your fate, and going to it willingly; notice that both Llewelyn and Carla Jean choose this path, while the older characters never do.
I wouldn't agree entirely with your last suggestion there;
Llew entirely refuses to believe that he is overmatched, and persists in attempting to defeat Chigurh; this is exactly the opposite of being able to see your fate. As a result, he dooms his wife to a similar fate. Carla Jean doesn't go willingly either. She refuses to call the coin, and she gives up more than anything else. I think that none of the characters truly face violence as it is incarnate in Chigurh, either with success or with honour, because it is impossible to truly face violence. All that results from an attempt to do so is ignominous death. The sheriff is the only one who really realized it early enough to evade it. He is slinking away, but that seems to be the only pragmatic choice once one realizes one's impotence.
One thing that's interesting and seems to be one of the only differences between the book and movie is:
Carla Jean shares the same fate as Wells in the book. She doesn't refuse to call the coin; she calls it and loses.
Wonder why they changed it.
They also changed Llelewyn's reason for going back into the desert.
In the book he was going back to shoot the guy so there wouldn't be any witnesses. That seems like a much better reason that taking the guy water. I don't get that change.
Hollywood change; movie audiences are much less understanding of a really bad dude in the apparent "protagonist" spot. I fear for Blood Meridian in a serious way.
They also changed Llelewyn's reason for going back into the desert.
In the book he was going back to shoot the guy so there wouldn't be any witnesses. That seems like a much better reason that taking the guy water. I don't get that change.
because good guys shouldn't go around killing people for no reason? he felt bad about the dude being thirsty, it was his dying wish. that shows he's the good guy
They also changed Llelewyn's reason for going back into the desert.
In the book he was going back to shoot the guy so there wouldn't be any witnesses. That seems like a much better reason that taking the guy water. I don't get that change.
because good guys shouldn't go around killing people for no reason? he felt bad about the dude being thirsty, it was his dying wish. that shows he's the good guy
Well, the problem is that McCarthy normally doesn't write good guys. It's part of what makes him interesting. Moviegoers don't like that, so much.
They also changed Llelewyn's reason for going back into the desert.
In the book he was going back to shoot the guy so there wouldn't be any witnesses. That seems like a much better reason that taking the guy water. I don't get that change.
My impression was that he was going to bring the guy water and then kill him. If he really wanted to help the guy he would have called the police, but then the guy would have been able to identify him. That's why he brought the gun to take care of the only thing connecting him to the money.
Also I got the impression that the water was more for Llelewyn then the guy. So Llelewyn wouldn't feel so bad about killing him. Showing just how far out of his league he was.
Posts
Of course, you can argue over the meaning of the poem itself, but I think the primary theme (at least as relates to McCarthy's novel/the movie) is that youthful people have a capacity for violence (and love) that the old no longer possess.
There is honor in being able to see your fate, and going to it willingly; notice that both Llewelyn and Carla Jean choose this path, while the older characters never do.
Now, regarding the character of Chigurh,
Not that Mr. McCarthy is a very comfortable writer.
Interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that he did this deliberately. I don't know if I agree; it seems like he might have just walked in, gone to check a room, and then come back out, a half-effort at best. But your suggestion is entirely possible as well. In fact the more I think about it, the more I like it.
If Ridley Scott doesn't completely rape Blood Meridian, Chigurh will soon be joined by one of the most memorable, frightening villains ever created.
I wouldn't agree entirely with your last suggestion there;
On another note, what do people think of Jones' character's final speech? Seemed like a note of grim optimism to me.
Now, Carla Jean absolutely does go willingly. Is it giving up? Yes--but it's also the only agency left to her. She can accept the inevitability of her fate, or she can make it worse for herself by calling the coin. If she says "tails" and it's heads, her last thought will be: "I should have said heads!", which is nothing if not cowardly. This way, she chooses it herself: her death isn't fate, but rather due to her own action. It's as she says to Anton: "it's not the coin, it's just you," (fundamentally misunderstanding his character, of course, but saying something about herself).
I think her death is more successful than the Sheriff's survival.
One thing that's interesting and seems to be one of the only differences between the book and movie is:
Wonder why they changed it.
Yes.
I really saw here a duality between Bell and Anton Chigurh (whose name is awfully close to Anti Christ), reinforced by all the coin imagery and the scenes (like in Moss's trailer) where they're standing in the exact same place, except Bell is always a little too late.
I definitely agree with Chigurh as an elemental representation of Evil (although you could argue for fate, as well), but then I think that makes Bell a force of Good. The thing about the movie is that there is no triumph of good over evil. Good realizes he is hopelessly outmatched, and simply slinks away. You can fight the good fight, but McCarthy seems to be saying that no matter what, you will succumb. I thought that Bell talking about his father and great-uncle also enforced this -- his whole line is one of Good men, and they meet their fates early.
In addition, I think mentioning that Indians killed Bell's Uncle Mac fits with this. In the whole mythology of the West, the Good triumphed over Evil; the cowboys conquered the Indians. Anton Chigurh sounds to me like an Indian name, which I think fits properly. Bell is confronted with the fact that no, Good didn't win. Good never won, and Good can't ever win. Evil will always be there. A member of the WWII generation, where there was an enemy and you could beat him and save the world, Bell can't handle that reality and has to retreat from it.
Moss and Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) are both Vietnam vets, though. The constant presence of Evil, of the enemy, and the hopelessness and lack of direction and being overmatched -- these are the norms for these two men. They accept these circumstances and just keep doing what they know how to do.
One thing I really liked, is, unlike most movies with action and violence is that it didn't glorify it at all. Some of those scenes really made me squirm.
I definitely saw Anton less as evil and more as an inevitable force of fate.
There's definitely plenty of evidence to back that up, too.
One great thing about NCFOM is that it supplies you with enough material and leaves enough questions that there are tons of legitimate interpretations of the film. I think that right there is a pretty strong mark of quality for any movie, book, song, etc.
When he gets to work, he's always very calculative, he has everything planed out, he always makes sure to stay quiet and he follows a certain pattern pattern. The worst thing about this is that when he gets in to his pattern he does not get out of it. The coin for example is a tool he uses for justifying any pointless killing that he has to do. He leaves the decision to the coin, displacing all responsibility to it, and I don't think he'd willingly defy that habit, as he put it, it's not up to him, it's up to the coin to decide. This is even further cemented when he payed a visit to the gas station attendant, when he was done with the coin shtick he went on about just what the attendant must do with the coin after wards, which to me painted Chigurh as a an obsessive compulsive.
Gas Station Proprietor: Where do you want me to put it?
Anton Chigurh: Anywhere not in your pocket. Where it'll get mixed in with the others and become just a coin. Which it is.
The other thing that he does quite a bit is worry about stepping on to other people blood, which is a great device as it showed that
And of course there's Woody's observation of Chigurh, I can't remember the exact quote but I think it was something like "There's just something wrong with your mind".
All in all it makes Chigurh the worst kind of killer you could ever run in to because there is no deal you could ever make with him. You can't offer him money, you can't convince him that what he's doing is a mistake or that it's wrong. He'll just kill you, and he'll kill you just for... inconveniencing him.
While I admit that it's deep, honest, and has some powerful scenes, it's definitely not a good time at the movies. Long, mostly very quiet, and abrupt, it's the kind of movie where you hear everybody in the seats next to you fidgeting as they wait for something to happen. I would like to have seen this at home alone when I could really sit and figure it out, think about when everything meant.
I hated having to sit there as my friends made remarks like "The end. Aw it's not over yet" and reassuring that "It'll probably get good soon..."
Definitely not a "fun night out with the guys" movie. I wish we would have seen Beowulf instead. Shoot I wish we would have seen Enchanted instead. We'll be talking about what it means for days I'm sure - it's the kind of movie that makes you talk - but I have a feeling that next time we decide to see a movie, I won't be allowed to pick.
Each scene is beautifully shot and drips with atmosphere. I could try to clumsily comment on the themes but I think syrion and others have done a much better job of that than I could.
Hands down, the best picture I've seen this year.
The only thing I recall that could be considered at odds with this is the reflection in the empty lock hole (I suppose the lock of the other door could also be intact? That would kill this theory...).
I like this way of thinking because it really reinforces the idea of lack of control over fate. Two rooms, one leading to nothing, one to death, and Bell just chooses. It's arbitrary, but thus is life.
He does get the money. The money was in the second room, which I assume was Moss' room (room
I could be way off base though.
I'm pretty sure you're right. when Sheriff Ed went in to the hotel he saw that the air conditioning duct was opened. This implies that Chigurh went back in to the hotel to get the money after the mexicans raided it. As he said before the mexicans left in a hurry so they did not get their money and Chigurh already knew where Moss kept it hidden from before.
I prefer having her choose to die, honestly.
I haven't been so sucked into a movie in a long time. The long, dialogue-less sequence at the beginning was just done so well and kept me absorbed in the character and his story.
The only reason the ending threw me off is because I guess I thought it would just keep going. Afterward I understood why it ended there, though.
I disliked it. I went into it with such high expectations, with many saying it captures the book perfectly. And while it does grab you in places as the book does, for some reason this version seemed a bit emptier than the book, even though it is pitch for pitch the same thing.
The acting was fantastic, and Chigurgh, Bell and Moss are great characters; but it just didn't jibe with me and the person I saw it with (who had not read the book) agreed.
Best movie I've seen in a very long time.
Also, best sound editing, hands down. The middle part of the movie - I havn't seen a more tense and suspenseful film since Alien.
Better then Fargo.
Are you talking about...
Yeah, best film I've seen this year. A relentless, merciless slow burn that just keeps building. I felt like I was sitting in an electric chair.
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
My friend who read the book says that
In any event I like the way they do it in the movie better.
like it's a 3 act structure, and TECHNICALLY it follows the temporal formula, BUT really, it has a very long first act that sets everything up for Tommy Lee Jones.
also did you guys notice how it was sherrif's movie not anyone elses? also wasn't it great how the only one that has an arc the entire thing is the sherriff, but also isn't it great that he was already halfway through the arc when the movie starts?
it's like they took all this shit that was "wrong" and made a point of making a great movie out of it. and you know they did it on purpose too becaue they're the coens, those fucking bastards.
also
the movie starts off with the sherriff talking about how fucked up law enforcement has gotten and how different things are, and how old timers would handle the new criminals. he's the first thing we hear. and then we see like, 6 minutes of Anton being crazy.
the whole anton/llewellyn storyline is just to set-up the idea of how fucked up everything is, but actually, nothing happens until the sherriff shows up. once the sherriff shows up, anton starts going after llewellyn. before that it was just set up.
the rest of it was just working itself out. after the wife things could've ended, but they still didn't. because we had to see what happened to the sherrif. and it ends on what the sherrif has to look forward to.
the awesome thing is that it could've completely been about the sherriff. just his point of view. but instead, it followed all the fucked up shit people do, just to come back to him, so you can see everything from his point of view.
llewellyn doesn't really have an arc, or much of a goal, or even much substance. he's just a chess piece. anton thinks more, and there's more to him. and there's little scenes to see how he works. so that's why i'm trying to figure out what he's about.
if anything it was really Anton's movie, but the whole movie is built up just so you can sympathesize and see things from the sherriff's perspective, so you can be just as tired/sad/frustrated as he is towards the end.
and it's like the sherriff is the only one that has a choice really. and has to choose to act on it or not.
llewellyn is the neutral good guy, anton is the bad guy, they just play their parts. the sherriff shows up with this humanistic point of view of the parts the other two are playing and then he has a choice to get involved or not, and he does, lots of different times he makes the choice to get involved.
check it, the title is based on a Yeats poem:
that speaks more about the sherriff than anyone else. everyone else seems to want to ignore that point of view. the sherriff seems the most self-aware.
plus the book and the movie are aimed towards him.
i think the whole money/llewellyn thing is a macguffin. like what difference did anything llewellyn do except get the sherriff involved? it was just a way to get the cop back into it.
If Chigurh represents the mindless inexorable juggernaut of "violence" in the abstract, then the sheriff's (and Carla Jean's) reactions are the best ones you can make.
On the whole, though, Chigurh shares honors.
i think the problem people have is that they get caught up in the Moss story so much, they ignore the Chigurh side of it or the Bell side of it, and then think those parts are boring or that the movie isn't going anywhere.
Absolutely. It's a movie about tension, not catharsis.
They also changed Llelewyn's reason for going back into the desert.
Well, the problem is that McCarthy normally doesn't write good guys. It's part of what makes him interesting. Moviegoers don't like that, so much.
Also I got the impression that the water was more for Llelewyn then the guy. So Llelewyn wouldn't feel so bad about killing him. Showing just how far out of his league he was.