2kewl4u.com / blog / no country for old men
no country for old men
11/25/2007 @ 11:20:34 PM | 361 days ago | permanent link | posted in 2007 / movie
Here's a flick that most of my friends won't like. Part of the appeal. I didn't love it but it was very interesting and looked "gorgeous"
Photo from Y! Movies (2007) - 4/5 IMDB (8.9/10): Violence and mayhem ensue after a hunter stumbles upon some dead bodies, a stash of heroin and more than $2 million in cash near the Rio Grande.
No Country for Old Men is adapted from a 2005 novel by Cormac McCarthy (Amazon; only one other novel of his All The Pretty Horses was made into a movie in 2000). I didn't really dislike the movie as much as I did not understand it. I did come away from a very intense viewing, and some enjoyable and inspiring reflections
The premise is simple, a man finds 2 million dollars and makes a run for it (no one leaves that much money without coming to look for it). I think the Texas setting is brilliant. The dp Roger Deakins (Jarhead, House Of Sand And Fog) did an amazing job here, the scenes look crisp a harsh, blinding sun light. And then there's the darkness
There are many more things to admire, from the astounding lack of music (credits) to everyone's great performances to the surgical way the story advances
Now is it a masterpiece as it's been said? No matter, it easily became my favorite Coens movie, which they cowrote as usual
The dialogue is very refined, in that there's a very deliberate flow that is natural and rarely superfluous. One actor who embodies that is Kelly Macdonald who has a small role as the wife of Llewelyn Moss. I have an enormous soft spot for her, she played her part with gusto, naiveté.. of course I found her irresistible. The other character I really rooted for was Brolin's, easily his best acting ever
It is a movie I really want to see again, I've upgraded it to 4 stars (from 3) after thinking about it some more
Copeland says The themes of what a tough country America can be and the futility of chasing things that have fallen far from your reach are there, but delivered with a velvet touch instead of a sledgehammer. The other thing that impressed me most is that really none of the characters are particularly dumb. Sure, they make mistakes, sometime fatal ones, but the movie never mocks them and some of their ingenuity seems out of a script from MacGyver. In particular I really like that Brolin eventually figures out how he's been tailed
Counterpoints
- my friend hated it, primarily cuz it was a western (sorta, there are cowboys and horses), too long (not really) and she couldn't understand the Texan accent (Tommy Lee Jones).. and she's a girl
- Mark Harris says don't get so excited Keep Internet noise in perspective. Remember that Oscar voters don't follow every who's-up/who's-down microtwitch; they're busy seeing (or making) movies. And bear in mind that some of those bloggers tend to get chest-thumpy about a certain type of (usually male, usually violent) film: This year, a lot of bluster is already massing around No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. They're contenders, but rhetoric doesn't equal votes.
My own qualms involve the ending (it ended on a long spiel, wut?!) and the one sheet. I also don't know what happened when Tommy Lee Jones entered the motel room. The crux of it might he explained on Hollywood Elsewhere pointed out by goldenfiddle. It begs to be reprinted (spoilers) THE ENDING IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK. NEITHER IS THE MOVIE.
When Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) returns to the Motel Crime Scene the entire film comes together.
Consider the extent to which the Cohen Bros. emphasized the lack of conclusive visuals. For example, the confrontation between Carla Jean and Chigurh can be deduced out of obscurity, but nevertheless we're deprived any concrete knowledge. After all, he may have looked at his boots after leaving (indicating he killed her), but on the other hand, he wasn't carrying any weapons. In fact, he wasn't carrying any inside the house either.
BACK TO THE MOTEL - Without question, the film's most crucial confrontation occurs between Chigurh and Bell inside that room. Do you remember this? Probably not, since we're not invited to watch it. The confrontation occurs sometime after Bell realizes the vent had been dismantled, but before he drives to visit his uncle Ellis. (Chigurh shares an on-screen conversation with every major characters except Bell)
My hypothesis:
1. Bell sells his soul to Chigurh.
2. Chigurh was never interested in money.
3. Bell keeps the money (and retires in the following scene)
4. Chigurh never cared about the money.
Prior to making my case -
consider Bill's opening monologue -
Bell:
You can say it's my job to fight it but
I don't know what it is anymore.
More than that, I don't want to know. A
man would have to put his soul at hazard.
He would have to say, okay, I'll be
part of this world.
Also - Remember in the scene following the Motel when Bell visits his uncle Ellis? During their conversation he admits that he's retiring. He admits to feeling abandoned by God. And he admits to knowing that God doesn't think highly of him -
Bell:
...I always thought when I got older
God would sort of come into my life
in some way. He didn't. I don't blame
him. If I was him I'd have the same
opinion about me that he does.
Ellis
You don't know what he thinks.
Bell
Yes I do.
- His response to Ellis is revealing in the context of this unseen confrontation with Chigurh. Bell isn't admitting his atheism. He isn't claiming God doesn't exist. He is simply saying that God doesn't like him. How does he know what God thinks? And why doesn't he doubt God's existence instead of doubting hiw own morality?
He IS NOT distraught because he couldn't catch Anton. Essentially, he still could. Essentially, he is very close to catchin Anton. Why doesn't he dispatch cars to find him? Why doesn't he search the premises?
As far as Bell's retirement; He was old, and he was cynical of the times. However, he did not intend to retire. Something happened between the time we left him at the motel room and when we picked up with him at Uncle Ellis'. It's also worth mentioning how Moss refered to himself as retired when Wells inquiried. Moss playfully called Carla Jean retired during their bus trip. And when Bell gets the money, Bell does the same. Or so I'm suggesting. His wife Loretta isn't retired, and she reminds him of this over breakfast that morning.
See - Bell hasn't told her yet. He will never tell her. He will never tell anyone. And this is the suffering that really materializes in that last shot. Bell is not a man devastated by his own physical or intellectual limitation, but by that of his morality.
Remember when Chigurh wastes the Steven Root character? The accountant asks Chigurh if he plans to kill him as well. Chigurh replies with; “That depends. Do you see me?” On one level, this dialogue plays on the practice of “killing the witnesses”. On a subtexual level, there is a deep religious and ghostly implication tucked into the question.
Again, Back to the Motel Room.
There have been a number of disagreements about the facts of the scene. Here is what you must understand. Before you dispute them, do your research. Watch the film again. Read the screenplay. Browse message boards.
Chigurh was in the room. It was not imagination on the part of Bell. Chigurh was not renting the room next door. End of story. The Editing was clear. In fact, it was traditional. The original screenplays supports this position.
Chigurh did not escape out the window. I picked up on this immediately. Do folks not recall an awkwardly long take of the small bathroom window? You may remember that the window was locked from the inside (supported in the screenplay) and obviously closed. And, not to mention, the window was too small for Chigurh to climb out of with his weaponry, satchel, and busted leg.
Chigurh DID NOT have the money at the end of the movie. In fact, no one even sees the satchel again after the poolside prostitute conversation. Chigurh wasn't interested in the loot. He refused to even entertain Wells' claim of its whereabouts. In a fantastic line of dialogue, Chigurh explains how he doesn't know where the money is but he knows where it will be; “It will be brought to me and placed at my feet”.
In a nutshell -
Bell busts in just as Chigurh has dismantled the vent. Chigurh hides. Bell sits on the bed. Sees the vent has been dismantled (the dime is heads up which forshadows the quarter toss that decides what we don't actually see). Chigurh confronts him. Coin gets flipped. Chigurh buys his freedom and moves on to another soul. He is evil personified.
best,
Henderson.nj@gmail.com
Posted by: nick henderson - November 25, 2007 12:50 PM
In that respect it reminds me of The Good Shepherd where a good chunk of essential plot eluded me. Obfuscation is so in
Wheww on to something lighter: I'm undecided over Bardem's pageboy haircut
Here's a discussion with Brolin, Bardem and the directors on Charlie Rose (~ 34 min)
Show notes
- Ebert's review
- this is the first adaptation the Coen brothers did
- the awesome dog chase scene was the only addition
More
- Chigurh's weird weapon is a cattle stun gun (photo)
Quotables
Anton Chigurh: What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss.
[...]
Anton Chigurh: Call it.
Links
- reviews - No Country for Old Men
|
|
