'No Country for Old Men' -- What in fuck's name did I just watch??

[Blue_Tires]

I've enjoyed the Coen movies for years now, but I have a hard time wrapping my brain around this one...In the past I used to think that there was no such thing as "too violent" for my viewing tastes, but even I have a headache after that one...

What I usually do in deconstruction is ask myself: What is the director trying to tell me with his film? From what I can tell, the Coens were saying something about mortality and death; the plot details being secondary...I've got a bunch of questions to ask; should I even bother, or just say "forget it, Jake, it's the Coens?"

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

1. first, realize the protagnist is Tommy Lee Jones

and the movie is about his character.

Ultimately its about change, and getting older, and getting outdated, overwhelmeed and made obsolte.

but, no matter how that happens, there is a happy ending (the dream at the end)

[Blue_Tires]

7. i didn't quite see it that way, but

i guess almost everyone took different meaning from it

[riona]

20. I agree

and that was apparent from the beginning monologue or whatever you call it. It's always nice when the bad guy gets caught at the end though, but, sadly, life isn't always that way.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. I was a bit shut down by the end as well.

Fellow DU'ers say that the repose at the end provides the meaning, that negativity has outstripped our established methods of dealing with it.

Which is the truth, as seen in America.

[DS1]

3. It wasn't that violent, but the guy doing it was so unemotional

it had a bigger effect I think.


Yes, it's a damn dark movie, I enjoyed it a lot.

[triguy46]

4. It is very much Cormack Mccarthy, the author of the book...

who seems to always leave traditional resolution from his writing. This, then, leads to a sense of unrelieved tension. As another poster has stated, and is clear in the book, the protaganist and the center of the story is the Tommie Lee Jones sheriff.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. I thought I hated it

as soon as I walked out of the theater. But it's a movie that sticks with you - you'll be thinking about it for days.

After a week or so, I decided it was a great movie, and now I want to see it again.

[Connonym]

6. that's pretty much how I feel about it

I walked out of the theater and sort of thought "well what the fuck was that?" But I still keep thinking about it and I know I plan to see it again so that I'll pick up on things I missed with the first viewing. I think that the fact that we don't immediately forget about it is the very essence of what makes a story truly excellent. I know I've spent 2 hours in a theater watching movies that were very entertaining and when they were over I would say they were enjoyable but someone specifically asked me about them I'd probably never think of them again. This particular movie sticks and makes you think. Very effective story telling in my estimation.

[Blue_Tires]

8. it defininately stuck with me

sadly, the scenes most vivid are the murders, but i keep trying to reset my mind on pondering the overall message (and the plot holes, unanswered questions, etc)...

I'm not one of those people who always wants the happy ending, and I'm not saying it isn't a good piece of filmmaking, but that just left me empty inside...

[Initech]

14. I had to have it explained to me.

And once I did, I finally felt like I got the plot of the movie, especially the ending.

[Dumak]

9. I enjoyed it immensely

Most of the movie depicts a battle of wits between a psychopath and a sociopath.
Hint: don't let the sociopath become your action hero.

[Blue_Tires]

10. Monday kick

:wtf:

[Connonym]

11. as far as questions go

is there anything in specific that you're wondering? Not that I think I've got it figured out completely but I know there were certain aspects that didn't make sense to me until I discussed them with other people. I'm interested enough in it to discuss it further if there's anything more you'd like to talk about.

[Blue_Tires]

12. My first 13 questions SPOILERS DISCUSSED

Well this is what has been keeping me up since last night…Granted, sometimes I have a problem of ‘over-thinking’ certain movies…These questions are not just for you; they are for anyone who wants to take a crack…

1. First of all, why would an efficient and methodical assassin use something as impractical as an air gun and a shottie with a can (a shotgun he never seems to cycle in the heat of battle, btw)?? Are the conventional tools of pistols, SMGs, and kicking down doors too mundane? Does the use of an air gun make it a more ‘artsy’ film?

2. In the scene after the final shootout when Sheriff Bell returns to a dark, empty hotel room for a final look, why did Anton NOT kill Sheriff Bell when he was hiding behind the door?

3. The scene when Woody Harrelson is talking to Josh Brolin by the hospital bed, and Brolin told him he was a retired welder; was there supposed to be some kind of code in that exchange? And who retires from a blue-collar job in their mid-30s? I also know most welders use pressurized gas – was that supposed to be some allusion to Anton carrying around the gas canister all the time?

4. What DID happen at the final shootout? And why would the Coens not show it, when they had show so many other people dying in gruesome and humiliating ways? And as an aside, WHY did Sheriff Bell, when driving upon the very end of the shootout, NOT actually do his job and chase the perps?

5. Why is Sheriff Bell so indifferent about trying to bring any resolution to this case?

6. What was the deal with the car crash in the end? What was that supposed to signify?

7. Upon taking the money, why didn’t Brolin simply flee with his wife (i.e. somewhere much farther away than the reaches of west Tejas) and out of all the guns lying around, why take the one from the guy in the truck??

8. Who were the two management that Anton killed in the dark, and why? Were they DEA or crime bosses? Were there ever any undercovers in this movie, or does that simply not matter?

9. Who was on what side? Was it Mexicans vs. Mexicans, or vs Americans, or just shit criminal vs. shit criminal…At least as I understand it, on one side was everyone else from some criminal organization trying to get the cash, and on a rival side by himself was Anton... Is that a correct assumption?

10. And WHO hired Anton in the first place? Was it the Stephen Root character? And was Stephen Root law enforcement or a crime boss? And what does Woody Harrelson do and what was he hired for in the first place? He said he met Anton before—what was that about? Finally, why does Anton kill them both??

11. Not only that, but when caught by Anton, why does Woody Harrelson not run or fight or whatever, knowing he is facing certain death?

12. Back to my original question, what does this movie try to tell us? That good/bad is meaningless and all that ever matters is life and death? Let’s be honest; this was never a drug/crime/whatever movie; I think it has to be a huge allegory of some sort, but I’m thinking the message has to be different other than death…Is Anton Satan? The angel of death? The movie shows all his victims as harmless lambs (everyone killed is either unarmed, caught by surprise, or both), and the fact that he uses a tool for bovine slaughter as a weapon has to say something…
And what was with the coin toss and the faulty, bullshit nihilist pseudo-philosophizing? And I now know this film is really supposed to be about Tommy Lee Jones; why does his character have ZERO profundity for all the screen time he spent in introspective mode? The whole “have I lived a good, meaningful life, and what is waiting for me after death” thoughts are not exactly new…Part of me thinks the author and the Coens are fucking with us…

13. And finally, WHO was Anton? Former KGB? Green Beret? Stasi? Mossad? Just straight-up evil? You don’t just learn those sadistic lethal arts (and the ability to treat and patch yourself up) from anywhere, and the Coens deliberately tell us nothing about his past, adding more fuel to the Angel of Death idea…One of the most frustrating things is Anton’s emotionless style…I can understand this that much better if he were an avenging angel, someone who hated humanity, or someone who got thrills by killing—But he is intentionally left as a blank slate for a reason…One thing I don’t get is WHO hired him (if anyone), and why? If I’m a crime boss who wants back $2 mil, I would like to hire somebody who is discreet and works quietly, not someone who leaves a trail of 20 bodies (most killed with the same ammo) in a one-week span...and as an aside, at what point would the FBI started getting involved in looking into all these strange murders?
If Anton is evil personified (imo, this character is much more at home as a James Bond villain rather than a true ‘film’), WHY in the name of hell would he work for/take orders from anyone??

These are just a few of what will probably be many more questions to come…

[ceile]

15. Read the book.

Many of the questions you have are answered in the book. Although the movie is very true to the book, it does leave you guessing more than the book.

[Blue_Tires]

17. i thought about it at first, but

this is NOT a story i wish to relive...i can just see the writer spending pages of writing prose describing each droplet of blood splatter

[Redneck Socialist]

23. That's not McCarthy's style

His work is well worth reading. One of the great writers of our time IMO, though NCfOM is one of his weaker books.

When I read it it my first thought was "Well, he finally got that screenplay he's been hoping for." and lo and behold not long after that the Coen brothers picked it up.

So run, don't walk to your nearest bookstore and grab one of his books. I'd recommend All the Pretty Horses but for the love of dog don't see that movie. It sucked huge boatloads of ass.

[DS1]

16. I'll try

1 - neither are really traceable. Although the air gun itself is unique enough to trace once it's figured out.

2 - Killing a cop is a really bad idea

3 - Just testing him, the codes were different types of welding

4 - I think the Mexicans also sent after the money ended up with it

5 - It's over his head, I don't think he wants to accept the brutality of it all

6 - Life's random, there's no clean ending. I don't know.

7 - The guy in the truck was the only one left alive who could have taken a shot at him. Brolin was more interested in tracking the money.

8 - Middle management, I think. Anton only wanted to deal with the man at the top, hence his going into kill him for using more than one tool for the job

9 - I wouldn't worry so much about the other gangs after the money. Don't know answer to your question

10 - Crime boss, it was his money and he wanted it back. He'd also hired Harrelson to get the money, and Anton killed them both for it. Root because he'd hired more than one guy, and Harrelson probably because he should have known better to get involved.

11 - He probably thinks it's pointless to run, and Anton had the shotgun out, I believe

12 - there is no twelve

13 - up to the viewer to decide, really

14 - The book might go into it, some characters imo work best without a back-story.

[Blue_Tires]

18. ok, that answered some of them...

i still have more questions, but after another day of thought, it would be as pointless to ask them as the plot and ending...

The bottom line: There are no heroes in this world, just greedy, petty opportunists (Brolin and the Mexicans) good meaning people with the good sense to keep their heads down and watch, but not get involved (Sheriff Bell) and pure evil which cannot be stopped; only avoided by chance...Everyone else is just a bystander (the kids on the bike), and there is NO resolution or knowledge to be had in this life (the film's abrupt ending toying with the audience)...

all of this in a film way too bleak for my liking, but i can appreciate films i don't really like...I'll give it 3 out of 4 stars

[Connonym]

19. a couple of my thoughts

Sigure had a weird code of honor but it's a psycho code of honor that doesn't make sense to a nonpsycho. If you will recall, when Harrelson was hired they asked him if he'd ever seen Sigure and mentioned that nobody who had seen Sigure had ever lived. TL Jones character narrowly missed meeting up with Sigure at the trailer (the milk bottle sitting out was still cold and fresh enough to drink) but he never saw Sigure there nor at the hotel. I think that the fact that he was able to get away without being seen made him not need to kill TL Jones. With the kids on the bikes Sigure told them "you didn't see me" When we add that to the scene at the gas station where "Friend-o" (I loved that) asked him casual questions and Sigure made him flip the coin to live or die (although the guy didn't know that's what he was flipping for) and then Sigure offered Llewllen's wife the opportunity to flip and she wouldn't take him up on it but I think that he would have let her live had she won the toss. I think it's also significant that he killed her the day of her mother's funeral, i.e., his weird code of honor let her live long enough to take care of her mother but he had told Llewellen that he was going to kill his wife so he had to kill her (but again, he offered her an option to flip for it). I'm not sure what it means except that the guy was clearly a real psycho fucker but he was methodical about it and it wasn't all random but he had his weird set of rules about who he killed. (In the book I believe in the end he returned the money minus his expenses. Again, he has this code of honor, he wasn't there to steal the money he was there to do his job of assassination.) Harrelson was just another assassin hired to take out Sigure. He was cocky and that's why he took the job, figured he could outsmart Sigure (and there was an implication that there was some sort of previous history between them so there was probably some motivation of one-upmanship in taking the job). I'm confused also as to who were the 2 guys in suits that Sigure killed out in the desert but I assume that they worked for the double-crossing financial guy.

Sorry this is rambling but it's been a while since I saw it. In my mind this is what went down -- The money guy (the one who hired Harrelson) planted a homing device in the money that he used to finance the drug deal. It was his intention all along to get the drugs AND then get back the money. I think he hired both Sigure and the Mexicans to retrieve the money figuring one or the other would succeed but they didn't know that they weren't the only ones hired. Sigure was angry that he didn't know about the second transponder. Harrelson got hired to take out Sigure because Sigure wouldn't give up and was taking out too many people and making too much of a mess, drawing too much attention and had to be taken out. The overall message of it open to individual interpretation but what I took away from it is that sometimes death is nothing more than random chance (the flip of a coin) and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but you can't cheat death. My armchair analysis anyway.

[Initech]

13. I viewed this movie mainly as a character study

And Tommy Lee Jones as the main character in the whole ordeal.

[StrongBad]

21. When I first watched the film I thought it was pure allegory

With Sigure representing pure evil (or perhaps evil on a level not yet experienced by man), The Sheriff representing old school law and order (unable to comprehend the likes of Sigure), and Moss being the "everyman" with a sinful nature caught in the middle of all these forces that are beyond him and incomprehensible.

I think the main point is that the "old guard" in our country is being passed to a new generation. Furthermore, it seems to be saying that society is advancing in such a way that it is producing evil beings that are hard to deal with and understand using our already established concepts of law/order/punishment/etc.

I want to read the book but McCarthy's stuff (from what I've read of his other works) is always bleak, stark and in a sense apocalyptic. It's pretty heavy to deal with...

[semillama]

22. The Coens' next project has been announced, btw

It's an adaptation of Michael Chabon's "The Yiddish Policeman's Union".

[KurtNYC]

24. my take -- masterful storytelling

of a story which is really fairly simple unless you look for big picture messages in it. I think it work either way. Not my favorite Coen film but good to see them try (and achieve) something different. An antidote to predictable films.

[DS1]

25. It was refreshing

Nobody stumbles on that kind of crime-involved money without some serious shit following them. And it was a nice change to see it actually catch up to someone for a change, instead of them killing off all the bad guys and getting away.

I'd have left the money and the scene. It could have been undercover Fed money for all knew.

[Blue_Tires]

26. i'll kick this one final time

I've taken some time to think about it a little more, and I'm not as unsettled about it now...if anyone else want to add their thoughts about what i see as a good, but not great movie, feel free...