*** Official NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Quentin]

I'm not suggesting the silenced shotgun or cattle killer tool are symbols of anything. At least, nothing that I can think of. They ARE, however, examples of a movie being far from realistic. What I was saying was that there is little realism in this film. I'm not sure what you found realistic that clashed with the other aspects of the story.

Just on a technical level, the mastery of this film is unmissable. So, even if the story leaves you cold, I don't know how you could describe it as a big 'eh'.

If you don't 'get' the story/themes, don't bash the Coen's. This is a Cormac McCarthy story. A story that is pretty much Texas myth creation combined with nihilism! So, I guess you nailed that one. There is much more going on in "Lone Star", no doubt. But, I consider them both to be great films.

I'm guessing there are 3 reasons why this is set in 1980:

It marks the proliferation of maverick cross-border drug deals in Texas.
No cell phones to confuse the plot.
McCarthy set it then, so the Coen's set it then.

 

[Quentin]

He realizes he forgot about something - the money. He goes back to look for the money and/or to find someone coming back for the money. In dealing with Carla Jean, it had slipped his mind.

Chigurh was not the one who killed everyone earlier. The Mexicans killed Llewellyn, and he killed some of them. Chigurh also goes to the scene of the crime...and, now there are two differences that the Sheriff finds: the lock blown out, and the removed air vent grille.

Chigurh got the money because he remembered Llewellyn's tendency to hide things in the air vent.

 

[JonZ]

How I see it exactly.

But I dont think he went back only because of the money. I think it was also because of his conversation with the sheriff in the previous scene.

Just saying I dont think the film is about violence for the sake of it. Theres more there.

 

[Quentin]

Agreed. It seems to touch a bit more on that in the conversation with the cat-man/ex-deputy.

 

[Henry Gale]

Lost me there for a second.
That would be "Ellis"....Ed Tom's father. Former sheriff.

 

[Richard--W]

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is not a shallow entertainment.
Audiences don't expect much from American films anymore, but this film expects the audience to meet it halfway.
What I love about this film is its intelligence.
It operates on intelligence and it appeals to our intelligence as well our emotions.

It couldn't have ended any other way, not just because of how McCarthy wrote it, but to change the ending, or to curtail the ending at the shootout, would have diminished everything that came before. Sheriff Bell's monologue at the end resonates in the mind long after we've left the theater because of everything that led up to it.

Together with Verhoeven's BLACK BOOK, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is the best film I've seen since ... let me think ... THE GODFATHER PART 2 in 1974. And that's saying a lot.

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

I fully realize my opinion is the minority. I completely respect the coens. If I could take a pill and suddenly have their films resonate with me in a way that they don't now I would, but its just not possible. In fairness, I don't know mcCarthy and haven't read any of his novels, so maybe it is his view on display that i'm not connecting to.

I just don't know that this mythology is something I can buy into: texas is a place of simple folk who willfully avoid the existential question until evil forces their hand? really? if that's the case here, that's kind of insulting, & i'm not even a Texan. If its not that, then what is it? that's what i'm not getting. The nihilism is just there. I'm not looking for a moralistic take, or some sort of inversion of Richard Stanley's Dust Devil. I just need there to be some point of entry into the movie. I need a Jodorowsky transformation journey, or a Croenenberg clinical dissection, or even a tarantino reflexive joy of film to get me in there. There's a brilliance in direction on display here, but in service of what? That's the thing that holds me back from moving it out of the "great" film category into the "masterpiece" group that everyone seems to be putting it in.

Maybe I need to see it again. honestly though, I don't really want to.

 

[JonZ]

I think there is a sign of the times thing in there. Moss and Wells are vietnam veterans, and I wondered myself, not having read the book, whether Chigurh might have been one too.

"I just need there to be some point of entry into the movie. I need a Jodorowsky transformation journey, or a Croenenberg clinical dissection..."

Bell is a observer to the chaos. Hes always on the outside looking in. As mentioned earlier thats why the way he comes upon Moss fates is so effective. But he film begins and ends with him and his thoughts, and the message is clear. There is no transformation but there is realization.

Try seeing it again when you get the chance.

 

[Quentin]

Nope. Ellis is his uncle. His dad is dead...otherwise, he wouldn't be dreaming about him.

And, I don't know that Ellis was ever a sheriff. Certainly, not sheriff before Bell. That would be his dad. Ellis is just another family cop/deputy who was injured in the line of duty.

 

[Henry Gale]

Oops...thanks Quentin.

This is just one reason I have to view Coen Brothers movies again and again.

 

[Richard--W]

I hope the absence of music in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN starts a trend. There's too much wall-to-wall music in films. I find soundtrack music distracting and annoying much of the time. I've posted my thoughts on this in the past. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN gains intensity and power over the audience by refusing to telegraph its emotional subtext with music. If the Coens made no other decision that was right, they were right on this one:

NO MUSIC.

 

[norrisMc]

I liked NO MUSIC.

 

[FredHD]

I finally saw it today. While I cannot say I understood everything and have all the answers, I did see a theme there I thought was interesting.

The theme was that sometimes we can control fate, but do not realize it. But sometimes we also think we can control fate but we cannot.

Llewelyn had a plan and thought he could go after Chiguhr, only to be blindsided by the Mexicans.

Like Llewelyn, Wells also thought he was in control of things only to be caught off guard by Chiguhr.

Carla Jean could have called the coin and saved herself, but she had already given in that she was destined to die.

Chiguhr takes the fate of Carla Jean into his own hands after Carla Jean gives up.

Agnes could have saved Llewelyn if she had told the guy at the bus station to piss off.

Ed Tom could have caught Chiguhr in the hotel room if he had just gone back to his car and discretely called for backup.

Ed Tom also could have worked with the DEA and tipped them off to what he knew and they could have caught up with him and protected him in El Paso.

So many possibilities. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I see.

We also see characters not trusting their gut instinct, and taking a gamble.

For example, Llewelyn goes back to the trucks to take the dying man some water, knowing it was a stupid move, but he does it anyway which ultimately sets the ball rolling on his fate.

Ed Tom's instinct was not to go into the motel room, knowing Chiguhr might be in there. A dangerous move, but he got lucky.


I'd have to say it is the best new film I have seen in the last 5 years easy.

 

[Richard--W]

JacksonWright, your thoughts on the film are very perceptive and dead-on. Perhaps fate, instinct, and luck are the themes at work in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. How these themes sort out and come together in the third act is fascinating. I hear people discussing it endlessly the way they used to discuss Bergman or Antonioni films.

Carla Jean says she had a premonition that this moment was coming. She didn't trust the coin toss to fall her way. She didn't trust luck. She won't play by Chiguhr's rules. In refusing to play by his rules -- which may be taken as a refusal to surrender to evil -- she may have jinxed Chiguhr's luck. We have already seen how lucky Chigurh is. He understands luck, he trusts in luck, but as soon as she refuses him, he gets hit by a car. Sure he gets out and walks away from the accident, but the implication is that now his luck is beginning to run out.

 

[FredHD]

Good points. I wonder how the coin toss would have turned out as Chiguhr already lost once at that game.

 

[Richard--W]

The thought occurs to me that NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is essentially and formally a film noir. From the inside out, and in the best tradition of noir.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I don't think it's a game to Chigurh. I don't think he wins or loses...he doesn't care about it one way or the other.

I think him offering Carla Jean a coin toss instead of keeping his promise to Moss is the most magnanimous he's ever been. That was out of character for him.

 

[Bryan^H]

After reading the book, I knew what I was in for: A very dark film with no happy ending. While the book was a little more talky, the film I feel was even better. IT cut out all the small talk, and fat of the book and focused more on the suspenseful atmosphere(never seen it done better in a film) and beautiful panoramic view of Texas. I loved this film. Plan on seeing it again next week

 

[Micheal]

Did Chigurh find the money in the motel room vent in the book?

 

[Bryan^H]

Yes, and he returns it(minus his fee) to the company that supplied the money for the deal, and hired Carson Wells to retrieve it. Chigurh then wants to become a main player in their illegal business from then on, promising them no future mistakes will be made. The man in charge is shocked at the request but apparently agrees.

This is the biggest deviation from book to film!