no country for old men

I finally saw it last night and am not as sold on its greatness as some of you. From the point where Moss is talking to the woman by the pool, the filmmakers get a little lost about the line between what is in their heads and what is on the screen.

Carla Jean's scene with the killer is the best after that point. I agree with Hayden about what she is doing, but she is not fearless, she is just not yielding to her fear. Her physical fear is elegantly, touchingly, and realistically dramatized by her declaration that she must sit down.

To condemn people unsatisfied with the movie as basically pap-eating morons hooked on Hollywood simplism is about as fair as condemning anyone who likes a movie such as this as an obscurity addict who embraces confusion mistaking it for depth.

I believe it is a glaring error that Moss' fall is not more clearly indicated. The movie introduces the possibility that he

1. Was seduced into vulnerability by the girl with the beer and caught unawares. How he agrees is important to the morality issues in the movie. Does he just sit and have a cold beer? Does he decide on being unfaithful to his wife? Is the girl complicit? What?

2. Just happened to be there and the girl was killed as a peripheral character.

The girl is important because they put her there in a full scene. Not seeing or in some way understanding Moss' fall robs the balance of the act of kindness that gets him into such a deadly mess. Had he never gone back to the scene with the water, his truck would not have been in place to be tracked. What was the act or dereliction at the end that brought him down that compares to that moment?

The scene where the Sheriff goes into the crime scene was also confusing as it cut abruptly to the great scene with wheel chair bound man with the cats. It's a great scene but at the time I wondered, is this a moment of death recollection?

It is clumsy, in my opinion, to put such a disjoint and interesting scene beside what many of you believe to be the key visual of the whole movie- the sheriff on the bed giving up on this kind of thing thus proving the title.

Carla Jean's scene almost fully redeems the movie, but she is not the main character.

The vagueness of the ending makes the movie less than it could be. For me, it will prevent the movie from being truly memorable. The sum of many excellent parts does not come together as a whole by the end of the film.
 
Guys, I don't have any problem with y'all not liking the movie, but please understand that the author often lets a lot of the story take place "off screen". He leaves the reader to make ends meet in his own mind and that is by design. Go and read The Road by McCarthy. Same thing. Is it possible that Chigurh (sp?) had resources beyond what we saw on screen to track down Moss? This is classic Cormac McCarthy. Dislike and over analyze it till the cows come home, but keep in mind that this movie will be one of the most critically acclaimed ever and the author is a Pulitzer Prize winner who is arguably the greatest living writer on the planet.
 
I think you are wrong to say people are over-analyzing this movie. This film presents some classic themes for the viewer to ponder, themes universal in literature and art, themes as old as mankind itself-good versus evil, and free will versus fate, even life after death and redemtion, among others.
Each viewer is confronted with layers of decisions to make about each character-there are few easy choices to make, even the evil Chigurh has his own consistent value system, as bizarre as it is.
This is no ordinary cowboy movie, where the good guys track down the neer-do-wells at the end and dispatch them. We have to accept the reality that there are not always neat, happy endings to every situation.
These themes, these characters, and the environment they inhabit make No Country well worth analyzing and debating. That is what a great work of art inspires in the viewer, and this movie succeeds in creating thought-provoking images in the viewers mind.
And yes, I was an English major.
Fixed typo.
 
You are right Accuratehorn. That is a very good point. I do like that this movie is so thought provoking. However, those writing the story off because they think there's no way the bad guy could do the things he did are really missing the mark. To me Chigurh is kind of like a duck. He appears to glide over the water, but beneath the surface he's paddling like a mother. I can't see it, but I know it's happening.
 
Even if Moss hadn't gone back with the water, he still would have had a bag of money with a transponder in it.
 
I'll side with those that say the film can raise significant questions in the viewer. I've enjoyed most of the questions outlined in this thread. I can also agree there appear to be what may be interpreted as imperfections. Ok, fine.

My wife hated it. She likes "Cold Comfort Farm", and the like. Well, now I have to go see one of hers. Fair trade.

I have recommended the film to the few cretin engineers and scientists among us that have any sensitivity to this sort of thing. Will they admire me for this fake artistic bent?
pukey.gif
 
Roma, I understand what you are saying. I am pretty sure your thought process on this is a lot more complex than mine. However, it might be of importance to clarify that it was not the film makers who wrote in these off screen resolutions. The Coens were merely staying true to the work of Cormac McCarthy. I too am grateful for this thread. I don't agree with what some of you are saying, but I'd never argue against you being very intelligent people.
 
Cajun,

Thanks for the response.

The filmmakers are the ultimate deciders on what goes on screen and what is to change for the screen. They are not obliged to keep the story the same as written in the novel. In fact, it is impossible to do so. These are different media. The filmmaker must decide how to make the most effective film from the material.

I have some education in this and some experience in movie making. I don't say that because it gives my opinion any more validity than anybody else's, I say it only to qualify my understanding of how the process works. As you say, there are many intelligent people disagreeing about this movie.
 
well, it's pretty simple. there's no need to show how Moss dies. it's not his story.

that was the point of its absence, in my opinion.

you did see the big showdown. it was between Bell and whatever he imagined was behind that door waiting for him.
 
haven't seen, it, but i know a lot about the movie, thanks to all of the posts without typical spoiler protocol being followed.

thx.
 
I feel bad about Scottsins. I kinda thought the movie had been out long enough not to have to worry about that. Reckon I was wrong.
 
I have a new question that I don't think has been addressed yet...Moss gets the briefcase full of money when he picks it up from the dead Mexican sitting under the tree. Who in the hell shot the Mexican but left the money sitting beside him? I was struggling with this the whole movie, that someone would care enough to kill the Mexicans in the desert, but they had no interest in taking the money. Every single character we were introduced to had a strong interest in the money, except maybe Carla Jean and TLJ. Someone please explain.
confused.gif
 
Back to the wife, of course she is giong to argue 'everyone has choices' line, she makes hers in the first twenty minutes by not pressing Moss on where he got the stolen gun. Shoot, she's a primary beneficiary of the money. While she decides, too late, to assist the Sheriff once things are getting out of hand, she's already proven herself a morally suspect equivocator, and all of those in the movie are dead by the end. The uncompromising survive.

It's one of the interesting things about the movie, the Mosses come off as generaly normal, generally decent folks, even though he's stealing money and guns from a field littered with dead men, and his wife doesn't demonstrate much interest in this fact. It's hard to make peolpe in this situation likable

I can't say that I think her closing dialogue is the point the movie is trying to make; in fact, if anything, it's just the opposite. If Anton is debatnig the wisdom of her words in the car, he recieves a damned stiff punishment for even considering their worth.
 
Turkey, I think the guy under the tree got shot in the main battle, but managed to stagger off. Last survivor, probably.
 
The Mexican with money was shot in the shootout, and died under a tree. It's extremely obvious. Moss originally found the shootout because he saw a dried blood trail that crossed the bloodtrail of the wounded pronghorn. Then once he figured out what happened, he followed the blood trail again, this time the opposite way, and remarked that if he were shot he'd look for shade - hence the tree.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top