I made the point quite clearly that it didn't express anything original or even uncommon, at least to my perception of reality*. I want art to give me something that I don't already have or incapable of achieving. This movie did not manage to go even an inch beyond that, and I find that annoying for a movie with such a contemplative style. If you take that to mean that I generally find art pointless, then for you, it must be.
*I hate when I feel like I have to add qualifiers like "I think" and "in my opinion" to avoid responses like yours that seek to remind me that, yes, it is only my opinion.
You're welcome to your opinion, it just smells to me like you're purposely trying to respond that way to the movie. If you're the least bit open, one can take away at least something from a film that attempts to convey a meaningful message in a (99%) serious way.
Not to get off track or anything:
It's sort of cliche, but the way I look at it is that what's important is not just the content of the art, but the way it is presented to the viewer. Most movies don't really have anything new or original to say to us, but what is important is how it tells it to us.
Art doesn't have to be revelation. It can also be a reminder.
Yeah, I was thinking of that after my last few posts, because I do like things that aren't really a revelation. Like Batman Begins, which has absolutely nothing that wasn't known to me before I saw the movie, in terms of theme. But it did serve as a reminder and I got a great sense of satisfaction. I guess, with the type of person I am, it's not the things that No Country for Old Men has to say that I need to be reminded of. It's kind of lame, but I go to see movies to be told that "it'll be alright" or even "it could turn out alright", even though I really feel that it won't be.
And I basically walked out of the movie feeling the same as when I walked into it. Which is odd, because it wasn't like the movie didn't affect me as it was playing. I was into it. But it just got me nowhere.
It's kind of lame, but I go to see movies to be told that "it'll be alright" or even "it could turn out alright", even though I really feel that it won't be.
"You can't stop what's coming. It ain't all waitin' on you. That's vanity."
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, because that part basically conveys "You're not going to save humanity." And the only way it relates to me is that I go to movies to see people pretend they're doing exactly that. And I don't think that makes me vain. And Bruce Wayne is certainly not vain, he's THE GODDAMN BATMAN.
I meant it more in the sense that the movie did - you're going to die, and the delusions and distractions that pretend "everything will be OK" are vanities. More poking fun at you than anything, because it seems to me that the movie is aimed directly at someone like you. Or maybe you after you're jaded :P
All the people earlier in the thread talking about evil and good completely missed the point, IMO. The movie was about chance, a godless, inscrutable universe, and how the three character's rules of survival proved ultimately futile in the face of uncaring chaos (I suppose you could argue that Chigur's was more successful than the other two's, but I didn't think so).
I really liked The Man Who Wasn't There, and I identified with the main character. So it's not a personal thing. I'm not afraid of my own demise, at least from afar. The thing that I want to get away from is the idea that trying to do good is pointless, only self-destructive. It's rather hard not to believe it. Most times we can only rely on delusions to avoid it. But I really like a movie that can give me a small dose of hope and still remain bitterly realistic. This was not that movie.
I meant it more in the sense that the movie did - you're going to die, and the delusions and distractions that pretend "everything will be OK" are vanities. More poking fun at you than anything, because it seems to me that the movie is aimed directly at someone like you. Or maybe you after you're jaded :P
All the people earlier in the thread talking about evil and good completely missed the point, IMO. The movie was about chance, a godless, inscrutable universe, and how the three character's rules of survival proved ultimately futile in the face of uncaring chaos (I suppose you could argue that Chigur's was more successful than the other two's, but I didn't think so).
McCarthy's world is far from godless; he is in fact a devoutly religious person. This makes things complicated.
Cormac McCarthy doesn't think that doing good is pointless--he just thinks that most people don't do good (even if they try to convince themselves that they do), and that even doing good doesn't automatically make you immune to the violence and evil of the world.
McCarthy's world is far from godless; he is in fact a devoutly religious person. This makes things complicated.
Not overly. The old man says "You don't know what he's thinking", but living in a world with an inscrutable god is pretty much the same as living in a world without god. It seemed pretty clear to me that the entire film hinged around the issue of random chance.
The thing that I want to get away from is the idea that trying to do good is pointless, only self-destructive. It's rather hard not to believe it. Most times we can only rely on delusions to avoid it. But I really like a movie that can give me a small dose of hope and still remain bitterly realistic. This was not that movie.
The movie doesn't say that being good is pointless. It was about personal mortality, not social destruction. That's what the old man's speech about the lung-shot dude was illustrating. The Sheriff mistook his own approaching death for the apocalypse.
Cormac McCarthy doesn't think that doing good is pointless--he just thinks that most people don't do good (even if they try to convince themselves that they do), and that even doing good doesn't automatically make you immune to the violence and evil of the world.
I don't know what Cormac McCarthy thinks, but if that's it, then this movie didn't completely emulate it.
The movie doesn't say that being good is pointless. It was about personal mortality, not social destruction. That's what the old man's speech about the lung-shot dude was illustrating. The Sheriff mistook his own approaching death for the apocalypse.
What? Is that explained in the novel? Because I didn't get that from the movie. He does hang on his own mortality in the movie, but even more on the increasing evil in the world that he perceives which he seems to feel he is unable to prevent. What I got from the tale is that the guy is trying to tell him that it's always been around and fighting it has always been as dangerous as it is now.
If I'm wrong, then why doesn't the movie offer even a glimmer of hope? If the message isn't that good is pointless, then you'd think that in the 120 minutes of this movie the Sheriff, the archetypal good guy, would find some small victory besides coming to terms with that being fucked is a part of life, and struggling just makes it worse.
He does hang on his own mortality in the movie, but even more on the increasing evil in the world that he perceives which he seems to feel he is unable to prevent. What I got from the tale is that the guy is trying to tell him that it's always been around and fighting it has always been as dangerous as it is now.
I'm not sure how to express my interpretation more clearly. It's not a movie about the world ending, it's a movie about feelings of mortality. The sheriff sees evil in the world, thinks that society is on the brink of destruction, but really, he's an old man afraid of his death. The quote "You can't stop what's coming. It ain't all waitin' on you. That's vanity" isn't about an unstoppable tide of evil, it's about death and inevitability. Every character in the film either dies, or comes face to face with death. Even the unstoppable killing machine is in a car accident, his fate uncertain (also, did anyone else notice the linked image of Chigur with the wounded dog limping away from another scene of vehicular carnage at the start of the film?). Chigur was so successful because he didn't attach any significance to anything. He was completely amoral in the truest sense of the word. But even he is undone by the same chance he lives his own life by when he's hit by the car. Even though he doesn't die, it's clear that he's not invincible. The Sheriff admits that his story about the steer was just that - a story. Even if the steer had won, it'd die too. We all do. In the final note of the film, he acknowledges that the money (and thus the motivation for the killing/the petty desires that drive us during life - the vanities) was unimportant (the first dream) and recognizes that his own death is inevitable (the second dream). I'm not sure about the significance of the light carried by his father, but I'd be willing to bet it has something to do with the themes that concerned you so much.
I didn't think it was about the world coming to an end. You seem to put importance on differentiating the theme from the word "evil" and referring to it as "chaos", but I only call it evil because that's what the sheriff thinks of it as. It's his perspective I'm interested in. And most of everything you posted I don't really disagree with, I just think it's supplemental to what I see this movie as.
If I'm wrong, then why doesn't the movie offer even a glimmer of hope?
This is spinning off into a slight tangent, but if I'm right, and the movie is about death and mortality, then what hope is there? The sheriff can't "beat" death. He did come to terms with it, though - which is the best any of us can hope for.
I only call it evil because that's what the sheriff thinks of it as.
My point is that the sheriff was wrong - it's not evil. Not in the sense that it's an attack directed at him, at least.
I think the moral message of the film (I don't know if you'd agree) is that the most fundamentally important thing is the personal moral code by which you live. (Perhaps that's the light carried by the Sheriff's father?) The code of the first two characters fails, and the Sheriff's succeeds, at least insofar as he's the most moral of the characters, and the only one to come to terms with death. As Lewellyn's wife says of Chigur's code - it's not the coin that's pulling the trigger.
This discussion is confusing enough and now you're going off its flawed linear path and responding to stuff I posted that you previously skipped over. And you're pretty much arguing that I shouldn't trust the sheriff's view of his problem, which seems so wrong, and the movie doesn't hint to that at all. I think you're confusing him not knowing the answer with him not being clear on the question, which is quite a leap, because it's his damned question. Whatever, no one is going to argue a sense of satisfaction into me that I didn't get at the conclusion of this movie. So I will sleep and think no more of this.
This is where the heroism angle really comes in. I think the central aspect of him is that he has grown too old to face Anton and die the heroic death, a young man's death. He's lived too long to accept the fate of the sheriffs before him who died young. It's not simply a matter of being capable, as he's shown himself to be astute.
In a traditional narrative, I think this would simply be viewed as Bell's failure and cowardice. For example, in Norse mythology, men who died ignobly such as by old age were punished in the afterlife, while those who died gloriously in battle were rewarded by the gods. However, the death of Moss, who is the potential hero, is anything but glorious. None of the deaths were glorious, and even the "hardened" characters were pleading for their life before their end.
I think the ending fits into this sort of a framework, with Bell talking about a dream that is reminiscent of the afterlife. Whereas traditionally he would be punished for cowardice and refusing a heroic death, his dream suggests that there will still be some light for him in the darkness of death.
I'm not sure about the significance of the light carried by his father, but I'd be willing to bet it has something to do with the themes that concerned you so much.
I thought the light (and the whole dream really) represented his realization that his father went through the same things as him (approaching death, the illusion of the world getting worse and worse) and his coming to terms with them. His father goes ahead with the light and shows him the way.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
This is where the heroism angle really comes in. I think the central aspect of him is that he has grown too old to face Anton and die the heroic death, a young man's death. He's lived too long to accept the fate of the sheriffs before him who died young. It's not simply a matter of being capable, as he's shown himself to be astute.
In a traditional narrative, I think this would simply be viewed as Bell's failure and cowardice. For example, in Norse mythology, men who died ignobly such as by old age were punished in the afterlife, while those who died gloriously in battle were rewarded by the gods. However, the death of Moss, who is the potential hero, is anything but glorious. None of the deaths were glorious, and even the "hardened" characters were pleading for their life before their end.
I think the ending fits into this sort of a framework, with Bell talking about a dream that is reminiscent of the afterlife. Whereas traditionally he would be punished for cowardice and refusing a heroic death, his dream suggests that there will still be some light for him in the darkness of death.
Oh, and he gets to live, unlike the others.
Yeah, that makes sense to me, and it fits in very nicely with the title.
Llewellyn actively tries to fight fate (which is why we root for him as a character), Chigur seems to sidestep the issue and only lives a kind of half-life as a result, but Bell is the only one of the three who accepts fate, and tries to deal with his own mortality in a meaningful way.
I'm not sure about the significance of the light carried by his father, but I'd be willing to bet it has something to do with the themes that concerned you so much.
I thought the light (and the whole dream really) represented his realization that his father went through the same things as him (approaching death, the illusion of the world getting worse and worse) and his coming to terms with them. His father goes ahead with the light and shows him the way.
Good point.
EDIT: Also, thinking about it, of the three, Bell is the only one who shows a fear of death.
Llewellyn is coolly dispassionate around the dead, Chigur kills pretty much everyone, but Bell refuses to return to the crime scenes until he returns to the scene of Llewellyn's murder, which is clearly a turning point for his moral philosophy.
Zsetrek on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
And you're pretty much arguing that I shouldn't trust the sheriff's view of his problem, which seems so wrong, and the movie doesn't hint to that at all.
Huh? Sure it does. Put very simply, he thinks life used to be nicer and now it's getting worse ("maybe it's because nobody says 'sir' and 'ma'am' anymore") but in reality the world has always been nasty (the story about the death of the old sheriff) and he's just getting too old to deal with it - but as his dream suggests, it's not all bad. He is at least alive, for the time being, and in death he will not be alone.
This is where the heroism angle really comes in. I think the central aspect of him is that he has grown too old to face Anton and die the heroic death, a young man's death. He's lived too long to accept the fate of the sheriffs before him who died young. It's not simply a matter of being capable, as he's shown himself to be astute.
In a traditional narrative, I think this would simply be viewed as Bell's failure and cowardice. For example, in Norse mythology, men who died ignobly such as by old age were punished in the afterlife, while those who died gloriously in battle were rewarded by the gods. However, the death of Moss, who is the potential hero, is anything but glorious. None of the deaths were glorious, and even the "hardened" characters were pleading for their life before their end.
I think the ending fits into this sort of a framework, with Bell talking about a dream that is reminiscent of the afterlife. Whereas traditionally he would be punished for cowardice and refusing a heroic death, his dream suggests that there will still be some light for him in the darkness of death.
Oh, and he gets to live, unlike the others.
Ok, last one: That's exactly my point. All the people that stood in Anton's path got fucked over. And the Sheriff, who is supposedly the good guy, doesn't make any substantial attempt to do anything. When he knows Anton is in the other end of the door, he waits there for a few minutes, pulls out his gun and as slowly as possible does his duty. He let him get away. His reward is to die of a natural cause.
And jacob, that's not what I mean. Yes, he is wrong in his views but what I mean is that his problem isn't there to mislead the audience. He really does have a problem accepting all the evil in the world. Zsetrek is saying "oh he's wrong, that's not really evil", but whatever it is, I think he sees it as it is, despite his struggle with predicting and taming its power.
This is where the heroism angle really comes in. I think the central aspect of him is that he has grown too old to face Anton and die the heroic death, a young man's death. He's lived too long to accept the fate of the sheriffs before him who died young. It's not simply a matter of being capable, as he's shown himself to be astute.
In a traditional narrative, I think this would simply be viewed as Bell's failure and cowardice. For example, in Norse mythology, men who died ignobly such as by old age were punished in the afterlife, while those who died gloriously in battle were rewarded by the gods. However, the death of Moss, who is the potential hero, is anything but glorious. None of the deaths were glorious, and even the "hardened" characters were pleading for their life before their end.
I think the ending fits into this sort of a framework, with Bell talking about a dream that is reminiscent of the afterlife. Whereas traditionally he would be punished for cowardice and refusing a heroic death, his dream suggests that there will still be some light for him in the darkness of death.
Oh, and he gets to live, unlike the others.
Ok, last one: That's exactly my point. All the people that stood in Anton's path got fucked over. And the Sheriff, who is supposedly the good guy, doesn't make any substantial attempt to do anything. When he knows Anton is in the other end of the door, he waits there for a few minutes, pulls out his gun and as slowly as possible does his duty. He let him get away. His reward is to die of a natural cause.
Dude, stop confusing a sociopath with entropy. I'll agree that they're linked, but not the same. The girl tells it to him straight, he is the one deciding who dies. He is fucking evil. Entropy doesn't decide anything, it fucks with everything, including him. That's all I'm saying.
That's right, I believe in evil.
One thing that sticks in my mind is how Moss would have gotten off clean if he didn't decide to do the "noble" thing and go back to give that dying drug dealer some water, or am I confusing his intentions?
This is where the heroism angle really comes in. I think the central aspect of him is that he has grown too old to face Anton and die the heroic death, a young man's death. He's lived too long to accept the fate of the sheriffs before him who died young. It's not simply a matter of being capable, as he's shown himself to be astute.
In a traditional narrative, I think this would simply be viewed as Bell's failure and cowardice. For example, in Norse mythology, men who died ignobly such as by old age were punished in the afterlife, while those who died gloriously in battle were rewarded by the gods. However, the death of Moss, who is the potential hero, is anything but glorious. None of the deaths were glorious, and even the "hardened" characters were pleading for their life before their end.
I think the ending fits into this sort of a framework, with Bell talking about a dream that is reminiscent of the afterlife. Whereas traditionally he would be punished for cowardice and refusing a heroic death, his dream suggests that there will still be some light for him in the darkness of death.
Oh, and he gets to live, unlike the others.
Ok, last one: That's exactly my point. All the people that stood in Anton's path got fucked over. And the Sheriff, who is supposedly the good guy, doesn't make any substantial attempt to do anything. When he knows Anton is in the other end of the door, he waits there for a few minutes, pulls out his gun and as slowly as possible does his duty. He let him get away. His reward is to die of a natural cause.
Well, there's still some confusion as to where exactly Anton was in there. He could have been hiding in the darkness or hiding in the next room. So it's not really clear to me that he let him get away willingly, as the likely case of what would have happened if he faced Anton head on would be his death and Anton's escape.
He said earlier that he believed he was outmatched, and after making his failed attempt to make a heroic stand I think he believes he has grown too old to go down that path or think that he could successfully stop Anton.
The scenes where Anton is injured show that he is not invincible. However, all those who attempt to do the heroic one man stand against evil and violence fail, but the sheriff at least quits while he is ahead.
Well, there's still some confusion as to where exactly Anton was in there. He could have been hiding in the darkness or hiding in the next room. So it's not really clear to me that he let him get away willingly, as the likely case of what would have happened if he faced Anton head on would be his death and Anton's escape.
He said earlier that he believed he was outmatched, and after making his failed attempt to make a heroic stand I think he believes he has grown too old to go down that path or think that he could successfully stop Anton.
The scenes where Anton is injured show that he is not invincible. However, all those who attempt to do the heroic one man stand against evil and violence fail, but the sheriff at least quits while he is ahead.
Exactly, the movie basically makes the point "don't even fucking try." So I don't know why people are disagreeing with my view that it's saying that trying to do good is pointless, sometimes even self-destructive. Maybe the point is don't stand in its path and you won't get hurt. Like that's the good way? I dunno. That's less sensible and not any more satisfying.
Well, there's still some confusion as to where exactly Anton was in there. He could have been hiding in the darkness or hiding in the next room. So it's not really clear to me that he let him get away willingly, as the likely case of what would have happened if he faced Anton head on would be his death and Anton's escape.
He said earlier that he believed he was outmatched, and after making his failed attempt to make a heroic stand I think he believes he has grown too old to go down that path or think that he could successfully stop Anton.
The scenes where Anton is injured show that he is not invincible. However, all those who attempt to do the heroic one man stand against evil and violence fail, but the sheriff at least quits while he is ahead.
Exactly, the movie basically makes the point "don't even fucking try." So I don't know why people are disagreeing with me that it's not saying that trying to do good is pointless, sometimes even self-destructive. Maybe the point is don't stand in its path and you won't get hurt. That's the good way? I dunno. That's less sensible and not any more satisfying.
It's not simply a matter of not trying to fight evil. It's just that the heroic ideal of making a glorious stand against evil doesn't mesh too well with reality, especially given how capricious and random violence tends to end up. One man vs the world is likely going to end up with at least that one man dead, and the old man was no longer capable or willing to make that offer.
But evil is still vulnerable, and in many cases it is self destructive. Just consider how many low life drug cartelers got their asses killed in the movie, and how much misfortune befell Mr. evil extraordinaire Anton. But it's like forest fires, you can stamp them out and stop them occasionally and sometimes they burn out of control until they burn themselves out. But forest fires like human violence are nothing new, and they aren't going to cease to exist in the future just because you can stop some instances of them. And sometimes you just can't stop either of them by throwing yourself in front.
Yeah but Moss going back with that gallon of water and that guy who stopped to help Anton are sticking out in my mind. Not even non-violent good acts are rewarded in this movie.
I think a lot of the message also had to do with the random arbitrary nature of evil. The sheriff could have gone into the room Anton was in and been killed off like a dog just as easily as he went the way he did and survived. It was a total game of chance. Throughout the entire movie the same thing dictated whether or not important (and sometimes unimportant) characters lived or died. What Llewellyn's wife told Anton about how he decided what was happening was only somewhat right. Anton would have spared her if she won the coin toss. (For those that haven't read the book, one of the differences is that she actually does call it and loses.)
Anton (as he said) followed some insane ethics of his own design, whereas the impulses of everyone else were negative characteristics to him. He saw himself as the only one that seemed to embody anything worthwhile - while everyone else was just out for their own greed.
Either way you put it, it was an amazing interpretation of the nature of good and evil, among other things.
Yeah but Moss going back with that gallon of water and that guy who stopped to help Anton are sticking out in my mind. Not even non-violent good acts are rewarded in this movie.
But even that act was somewhat dubious and not clearly good. It was hours later and he didn't make any attempt at the time of finding him to help the man. By the time he went back the guy would likely have either been dead or passed out, as he did have a bullet wound. If he really wanted to help him, he might have given that guy a chance by calling in for help immediately, or at least later. And there is the speculation that he was going to finish that guy off if he was still alive.
And the other random guy killed by Anton didn't stop to help him. He was pulled over because Anton stole the police car, and didn't notice the oddity that Anton wasn't in a cop uniform or anything. (NM, you were talking about the guy with the chickens, yeah, he was being nice too.)
The only guy who got killed while being truly nice was the one who picked up Moss in the middle of the gun fight. But that fits with the message that even innocents are in trouble if they are in the proximity of violence, and that Moss was risking others by competing with Anton.
Yeah but Moss going back with that gallon of water and that guy who stopped to help Anton are sticking out in my mind. Not even non-violent good acts are rewarded in this movie.
Trying to do something nice doesn't make you immune to evil. The man who stops to help? The man who Anton pulls over in the cop car? The (lucky) gas station proprietor? Their actions aren't what determines their fate.
Why should art lie, anyway? There are a thousand movies that pretend that good deeds are rewarded. In life, they aren't. There are a thousand movies that pretend that being a "bad-ass" is the way to get rich, save the world, and get the girl. In life, it's a great way to get killed or end up in prison.
Really, I think you're just coming at the movie wrong. You want it to be just like every other movie. If it were just like every other movie, it wouldn't be a Coen movie or a McCarthy story, and it wouldn't be unique. At best, it'd be a generic action story, and perhaps we'd get a sex scene with Carla Jean and a showdown between Llewelyn and Anton. What's the point?
Yeah but Moss going back with that gallon of water and that guy who stopped to help Anton are sticking out in my mind. Not even non-violent good acts are rewarded in this movie.
But even that act was somewhat dubious and not clearly good. It was hours later and he didn't make any attempt at the time of finding him to help the man. By the time he went back the guy would likely have either been dead or passed out, as he did have a bullet wound. If he really wanted to help him, he might have given that guy a chance by calling in for help immediately, or at least later. And there is the speculation that he was going to finish that guy off if he was still alive.
And the other random guy killed by Anton didn't stop to help him. He was pulled over because Anton stole the police car, and didn't notice the oddity that Anton wasn't in a cop uniform or anything. (NM, you were talking about the guy with the chickens, yeah, he was being nice too.)
The only guy who got killed while being truly nice was the one who picked up Moss in the middle of the gun fight. But that fits with the message that even innocents are in trouble if they are in the proximity of violence, and that Moss was risking others by competing with Anton.
Actually, Anton stops by the side of the road and puts up the hood of his car and the guy that stops gets killed (not on-screen, but the next scene is Anton washing down his truck). But thanks for adding another poor fucker to my list. And you can't deny that Moss would have been better off just being apathetic to that thirsty Mexican. It was clear to me that guilt gets him there, "dumber than hell but I'm gunna do it anyway."
And it's not "this shit is random!", because in this good vs evil struggle not a single good deed is rewarded, that's not a damned coincidence.
Yeah but Moss going back with that gallon of water and that guy who stopped to help Anton are sticking out in my mind. Not even non-violent good acts are rewarded in this movie.
But even that act was somewhat dubious and not clearly good. It was hours later and he didn't make any attempt at the time of finding him to help the man. By the time he went back the guy would likely have either been dead or passed out, as he did have a bullet wound. If he really wanted to help him, he might have given that guy a chance by calling in for help immediately, or at least later. And there is the speculation that he was going to finish that guy off if he was still alive.
And the other random guy killed by Anton didn't stop to help him. He was pulled over because Anton stole the police car, and didn't notice the oddity that Anton wasn't in a cop uniform or anything. (NM, you were talking about the guy with the chickens, yeah, he was being nice too.)
The only guy who got killed while being truly nice was the one who picked up Moss in the middle of the gun fight. But that fits with the message that even innocents are in trouble if they are in the proximity of violence, and that Moss was risking others by competing with Anton.
Actually, Anton stops by the side of the road and puts up the hood of his car and the guy that stops gets killed (not on-screen, but the next scene is Anton washing down his truck). But thanks for adding another poor fucker to my list. And you can't deny that Moss would have been better off just being apathetic to that thirsty Mexican. It was clear to me that guilt gets him there, "dumber than hell but I'm gunna do it anyway."
But that's half assed good, and given the strength of his opposition I doubt Moss would have been able to get off scott free even if he didn't go help that guy. Remember that there was still the transponder with the money, and that the drug cartel and Anton wouldn't have given up looking for the money just because they didn't have an easy lead from his truck. They may have brought (more) hell onto that community scrounging around looking for the money. Moss couldn't just "run away" without a trace with the money, there would be signs that he was missing or that he had it.
And if Moss had just left the money or at least most of it either the first time through or when he went back, then he could have likely averted the whole mess.
Yeah but Moss going back with that gallon of water and that guy who stopped to help Anton are sticking out in my mind. Not even non-violent good acts are rewarded in this movie.
But even that act was somewhat dubious and not clearly good. It was hours later and he didn't make any attempt at the time of finding him to help the man. By the time he went back the guy would likely have either been dead or passed out, as he did have a bullet wound. If he really wanted to help him, he might have given that guy a chance by calling in for help immediately, or at least later. And there is the speculation that he was going to finish that guy off if he was still alive.
And the other random guy killed by Anton didn't stop to help him. He was pulled over because Anton stole the police car, and didn't notice the oddity that Anton wasn't in a cop uniform or anything. (NM, you were talking about the guy with the chickens, yeah, he was being nice too.)
The only guy who got killed while being truly nice was the one who picked up Moss in the middle of the gun fight. But that fits with the message that even innocents are in trouble if they are in the proximity of violence, and that Moss was risking others by competing with Anton.
Actually, Anton stops by the side of the road and puts up the hood of his car and the guy that stops gets killed (not on-screen, but the next scene is Anton washing down his truck). But thanks for adding another poor fucker to my list. And you can't deny that Moss would have been better off just being apathetic to that thirsty Mexican. It was clear to me that guilt gets him there, "dumber than hell but I'm gunna do it anyway."
And it's not "this shit is random!", because in this good vs evil struggle not a single good deed is rewarded, that's not a damned coincidence.
What good deed do you want to be rewarded? Llewelyn is not the good guy, and Anton isn't even truly evil, in my opinion. He's the metaphorical embodiment of violence. Llewelyn puts himself in his way by taking the money. If you put yourself in the way of violence, bad things happen to you and those around you.
Look, you're speculating too much on how else it might have happened and ignoring how it actually did. And how it did was how it was intended, and I'm pretty sure the reasons I'm giving are the ones they were done for. Instead of just tying Moss to the coming plot through the act of taking the money, which the audience would gladly have settled for, it was done explicitly through his attempt at doing a good deed.
I can't edit my damn post. Used 'quote' tags instead of spoilers... what the hell.
He had the money anyway, and that money had a tracking device in it. Do you think they never would have found him?
Furthermore, the "taking water to the guy" scene was changed from the book, I believe. In the book, he's going back to kill him. I suppose that may have made the movie too dark.
Well, how they did find him was by the car he left after going back. God damnit, stop fucking speculating. We're analyzing what actually did happen, in terms of allusion. What could have happened means nothing.
And if he didn't go back he wouldn't have gotten mixed up in it right away, which prevented him from actually looking through the fucking money. The day after, under normal circumstances, any person would have looked through that shit. SO THERE!
As for the lack of rewards for being good, it might be the idea that being good is only really rewarded while society and peace are maintained. Random violence doesn't really care if you are a good guy. But evil is definitely punished in the movie, because the ones who wrapped themselves in the underworld are almost all beset by misfortune and/or death, including
Anton, who after getting in the car wreck, cannot wait around for help or medical attention, even though he is sitting on a fat stack of money. The best he gets is a kid's shirt for 100 bucks. He's cursed to always remain on the fringe of society as long as he lives. And it remains an open question as to whether he will meet the similar fate of a violent death somewhere down the line (if you consider him not to be a purely supernatural figure) or eventually be bested by some other younger man.
Posts
*I hate when I feel like I have to add qualifiers like "I think" and "in my opinion" to avoid responses like yours that seek to remind me that, yes, it is only my opinion.
Anyway, how about those Cormac McCarthy suggestions?
Oh! Fuck you, bitches. I'm going now to buy Blood Meridian and Tales of the Dying Earth.
It's sort of cliche, but the way I look at it is that what's important is not just the content of the art, but the way it is presented to the viewer. Most movies don't really have anything new or original to say to us, but what is important is how it tells it to us.
And I basically walked out of the movie feeling the same as when I walked into it. Which is odd, because it wasn't like the movie didn't affect me as it was playing. I was into it. But it just got me nowhere.
"You can't stop what's coming. It ain't all waitin' on you. That's vanity."
All the people earlier in the thread talking about evil and good completely missed the point, IMO. The movie was about chance, a godless, inscrutable universe, and how the three character's rules of survival proved ultimately futile in the face of uncaring chaos (I suppose you could argue that Chigur's was more successful than the other two's, but I didn't think so).
McCarthy's world is far from godless; he is in fact a devoutly religious person. This makes things complicated.
Not overly. The old man says "You don't know what he's thinking", but living in a world with an inscrutable god is pretty much the same as living in a world without god. It seemed pretty clear to me that the entire film hinged around the issue of random chance.
The movie doesn't say that being good is pointless. It was about personal mortality, not social destruction. That's what the old man's speech about the lung-shot dude was illustrating. The Sheriff mistook his own approaching death for the apocalypse.
If I'm wrong, then why doesn't the movie offer even a glimmer of hope? If the message isn't that good is pointless, then you'd think that in the 120 minutes of this movie the Sheriff, the archetypal good guy, would find some small victory besides coming to terms with that being fucked is a part of life, and struggling just makes it worse.
This is spinning off into a slight tangent, but if I'm right, and the movie is about death and mortality, then what hope is there? The sheriff can't "beat" death. He did come to terms with it, though - which is the best any of us can hope for.
My point is that the sheriff was wrong - it's not evil. Not in the sense that it's an attack directed at him, at least.
I think the moral message of the film (I don't know if you'd agree) is that the most fundamentally important thing is the personal moral code by which you live. (Perhaps that's the light carried by the Sheriff's father?) The code of the first two characters fails, and the Sheriff's succeeds, at least insofar as he's the most moral of the characters, and the only one to come to terms with death. As Lewellyn's wife says of Chigur's code - it's not the coin that's pulling the trigger.
I thought the light (and the whole dream really) represented his realization that his father went through the same things as him (approaching death, the illusion of the world getting worse and worse) and his coming to terms with them. His father goes ahead with the light and shows him the way.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Yeah, that makes sense to me, and it fits in very nicely with the title.
Good point.
EDIT: Also, thinking about it, of the three, Bell is the only one who shows a fear of death.
I think Savant and Shinto summed it up nicely.
And jacob, that's not what I mean. Yes, he is wrong in his views but what I mean is that his problem isn't there to mislead the audience. He really does have a problem accepting all the evil in the world. Zsetrek is saying "oh he's wrong, that's not really evil", but whatever it is, I think he sees it as it is, despite his struggle with predicting and taming its power.
But where did Anton get away to?
That's right, I believe in evil.
He said earlier that he believed he was outmatched, and after making his failed attempt to make a heroic stand I think he believes he has grown too old to go down that path or think that he could successfully stop Anton.
The scenes where Anton is injured show that he is not invincible. However, all those who attempt to do the heroic one man stand against evil and violence fail, but the sheriff at least quits while he is ahead.
It's not simply a matter of not trying to fight evil. It's just that the heroic ideal of making a glorious stand against evil doesn't mesh too well with reality, especially given how capricious and random violence tends to end up. One man vs the world is likely going to end up with at least that one man dead, and the old man was no longer capable or willing to make that offer.
But evil is still vulnerable, and in many cases it is self destructive. Just consider how many low life drug cartelers got their asses killed in the movie, and how much misfortune befell Mr. evil extraordinaire Anton. But it's like forest fires, you can stamp them out and stop them occasionally and sometimes they burn out of control until they burn themselves out. But forest fires like human violence are nothing new, and they aren't going to cease to exist in the future just because you can stop some instances of them. And sometimes you just can't stop either of them by throwing yourself in front.
Anton (as he said) followed some insane ethics of his own design, whereas the impulses of everyone else were negative characteristics to him. He saw himself as the only one that seemed to embody anything worthwhile - while everyone else was just out for their own greed.
Either way you put it, it was an amazing interpretation of the nature of good and evil, among other things.
And the other random guy killed by Anton didn't stop to help him. He was pulled over because Anton stole the police car, and didn't notice the oddity that Anton wasn't in a cop uniform or anything. (NM, you were talking about the guy with the chickens, yeah, he was being nice too.)
The only guy who got killed while being truly nice was the one who picked up Moss in the middle of the gun fight. But that fits with the message that even innocents are in trouble if they are in the proximity of violence, and that Moss was risking others by competing with Anton.
Trying to do something nice doesn't make you immune to evil. The man who stops to help? The man who Anton pulls over in the cop car? The (lucky) gas station proprietor? Their actions aren't what determines their fate.
Why should art lie, anyway? There are a thousand movies that pretend that good deeds are rewarded. In life, they aren't. There are a thousand movies that pretend that being a "bad-ass" is the way to get rich, save the world, and get the girl. In life, it's a great way to get killed or end up in prison.
Really, I think you're just coming at the movie wrong. You want it to be just like every other movie. If it were just like every other movie, it wouldn't be a Coen movie or a McCarthy story, and it wouldn't be unique. At best, it'd be a generic action story, and perhaps we'd get a sex scene with Carla Jean and a showdown between Llewelyn and Anton. What's the point?
And it's not "this shit is random!", because in this good vs evil struggle not a single good deed is rewarded, that's not a damned coincidence.
And if Moss had just left the money or at least most of it either the first time through or when he went back, then he could have likely averted the whole mess.
Furthermore, the "taking water to the guy" scene was changed from the book, I believe. In the book, he's going back to kill him. I suppose that may have made the movie too dark.
And if he didn't go back he wouldn't have gotten mixed up in it right away, which prevented him from actually looking through the fucking money. The day after, under normal circumstances, any person would have looked through that shit. SO THERE!