No Country For old Men is about the futility of life.
Violence is somewhat a cycle that will always be part of society, (cynical view— but I guess true) this is what Tommy Lee realizes in his dream and at the end of his career— The same kind of random and uncalled for violence that his grandfather dealt with is still around, and there is nothing he can do to stop it. He will always be one step behind (sweat still on the cold milk bottle). Anton Chigurh represented this force, (spoilers) walks away from the scene of the crime clean, but whether he was caught or not, we know violence would still manifest through someone else.
The “cattle gun” that Chigurh uses is actually a captive bolt pistol. It actually has been used as a weapon in numerous works of fiction, including Patrick McCabe’s The Butcher Boy and Michael Haneke’s film Benny’s Video.
I found ‘No Country…’ to be closer in tone to ‘Blood Simple’ than to ‘Fargo’ or any other Coen Bros. film. It felt like a more fully-realized version of ‘Blood Simple’ – the theme of unrelenting violence just doggedly continuing forward to the point of banality. Fun stuff, huh!
A side note, on the ‘Solaris’ freeway scene – if I remember correctly from one of the Criterion DVD commentaries – Tarkovsky filmed that scene in a (at the time) postmodern-looking Tokyo in order to justify government funding he’d been given for his “sci-fi” film to the USSR government, so they wouldn’t take away the funding or prevent release of the film. I think I’m remembering the story correctly; it’s been awhile since I’ve watched the commentaries.
I’ve been reading the boards voraciously for weeks now and really enjoying reading all the reflection and opinion. I feel like I’ve found a home for my geeky film hobby that no-one in my family understands!
the OP is so cool. he knows good movies that a wider audience got a hold of.
“sounds like your screenwriting professor needs to open up his mind a little more. hopefully he realizes that most people die in real life, and often even at moments when they dont expect it (and neither do those watching them).”
Yep. I pretty much include that point not to defend it, but to show that sometimes even those who teach a new generation might not be the best source of information.
Peace,
—PolarisDiB
I have yet to find someone who has mentioned my opinion in th thread yet, so I can give my own interpretation.
There are a few things that struck me. Chigurh was representative of “evil” (obviously). In most Hollywood films, religious teachings, and societal views, evil can go unpunished for only so long. The structure of the film starts off in a manner that is suggestive of a typical Hollywood chase movie:
= protagonist finds something of value = antagonist pursues protagonist for object of value = protagonist outsmarts antagonist = protagonist beats antagonist in final showdown = evil is punished = happy endingEven though the films starts off in typical Hollywood fashion with allusion as to how the film will end, this seems to only be a ploy to set up the real film. Llewelyn is killed, so the protagonist in the encounter does not punish evil. This twist has happened in films before, but the villain is usually punished by other means beyond the grave (i.e. Cruel Intentions). Chigurh then kills Llewelyn’s wife. This is even further past our expectations, but we still know in our heart of hearts that evil will be punished. Then the car scene happens.
The car scene is my favorite of the film, because it lets us know the true intentions of the filmmakers. When Chigurh’s car crashes, “karma” dictates that Chigurh has to go. He does not die (instead, the other person dies). This is when we know that evil truly goes unpunished. There were three chances for equilibrium to be established and for evil to be punished, and it did not happen. This is to reinforce the theme.
When the sheriff is talking about his dream, he is talking about how they are in darkness, and that the light seemed so small compared to the darkness, but that they had to make the fire anyway. This is the statement of the theme:
There is evil in the world, and that evil is more powerful and destructive than anything because evil is not dictated by rules. Evil can get away unpunished. That being said, just because being evil can go unpunished, doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be “the light” (be good). Just because Evil > Good, doesn’t mean we should be evil.
Any thoughts? :}
It’s basically the story of a drug deal gone bad
Matt Parks got it right. The story is about Sheriff Bell, that is why the movie isn’t over when Brolin dies. This is much easier to see in the book, and in my mind the only flaw in the translation is that narration in the book doesn’t recur in the movie as often. I don’t get why there is confusion about who the story is about though. It is called No Country for Old Men.
Just as Psycho is about Bates. And not the character we follow for a good portion of the movie who is killed.
From what I can gather from the title it’s about ageism.
“in my mind the only flaw in the translation is that narration in the book doesn’t recur in the movie as often”
Yeah, it’s been a while since I read the book, but as I remember it you get a lot more information (personal history) about Ed Tom in the novel then you do in the film, so his motivations are not as clear.
I would say the book is about the sheriff dealing with the crimes while he tries to understand his role in this society. The film seems to shift away from that and instead focuses more on the action.
edit: Just saw that Matt Parks’ points are similar to mine about the sheriff.
I’m POSITIVE you’re not really Rainer Werner Fassbinder.
“I’m POSITIVE you’re not really Rainer Werner Fassbinder.”
What?
I have to say the film was a spectacular adaptation of McCarthy’s novel. But I feel that to properly and completely understand the story, one needs to read the book before seeing the movie. McCarthy is a gifted author and I was impressed with the Coens’ work. (Read The Road too!)
The story is a fable about the evil that can manifest and spiral out-of-control in a society that lusts after greed and the power that accompanies that avarice. The evil is a realistic portrayal. It is dark and relentless. But Chigurh isn’t the only one to scrutinize. Llewelyn is just as animalistic as the killer who is tracking him. He steals the money and ultimately chooses it over his life. He places his wife and mother-in-law in jeopardy. No he doesn’t kill relentlessly like Chigurh, but he is just as determined.
The film is also a comment on the lax and aloof nature of law enforcement and those who are “sworn to protect.” Ed Tom and his partner are bumbling and slow-witted. They track the killings like two fools. When Llewelyn asks permission to cross over the border into the States, the patrolman asks him what division he was in during Vietnam and then lets him through (HUGE comment on the negligent security of border patrol).
Francisco Torres is right: the film does deal with the futility of life. But it also deals with the true nature of humans when they are confronted with the futility of their lives. Chigurh tells Llewelyn’s wife that every person says the same thing before he or she is killed. They sit awkwardly like they are about to get their picture taken and plead quietly for their lives. But there is nothing for them to plead for. Their lives are as ephemeral before they die as when they were born. There is no law to protect the characters. No cop to handcuff the bad guy. No one to burst through the door and kill the villain before he murders the protagonist. Because when evil is set loose, it can’t be stopped.
Wow, this is still alive. That’s nice.
Anyway, here’s a link to the article that prompted me to ask this forum what No Country for Old Men is actually about.
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/fq.2008.61.4.10
‘’What ’No Country for old men’ means? ‘No terrain for the weak’ is what I make of it" – Josh Brolin
>The film is also a comment on the lax and aloof nature of law enforcement and those who are “sworn to protect.” Ed Tom and his partner are bumbling and slow-witted. They track the killings like two fools.
Yeah – and, by extension, the book & film seem to suggest that, the inventiveness and dynamism and durability of human evil being what it is, morality only ever lags and limps behind it. Morality is defined if anything by the pause to contemplate (something that at the conclusion of the film one feels old Ellis has spent decades doing). The force of morality appears forensic—always arriving after the fact of the atrocity, always puzzling over the innovations (e.g. killing by bolt pistol) of evil men…
the film, as best I could tell, was summed up by Tommy Lee Jones’ character. The world is more evil and violent than ever before….basically.
I like what Jared wrote. The end of the movie is deeply disturbing. Yes, the protagonist gets killed, but our generic storytelling sensibility tells us that is okay because he sort of deserved it, and maybe the cop will catch the bad guy after all. Our more sophisticated storytelling sensibility tells us that the bad guy might even get away (since that makes for a less cheesy story). But we are not mentally prepared for the murder of Llewelyn’s wife. If you are properly absorbed in the story (see below) at that point, you cannot help but feel completely outraged by that act. And then the car crash afterward just pours salt in the wound.
An aside: For me, what a movie is “about” is only a small part (or sometimes no part) of what makes a movie great. What impressed me about No Country for Old Men was the unbearable level of tension and suspense. My wife and I were literally squirming in our seats, squeezing each other’s hands. (It was a bit like when I first saw Aliens.) Any fool can make an ending where evil triumphs over good and old guys wax poetic, but such an ending is only interesting and unsettling if the viewer is invested in the story. Coens rule.
Personally I think the film is about how evil can never be defeated, only endured. It reminds me of Morgan Freeman’s voiceover at the end of Se7en. ‘Ernest Hemingway once said ’the world is a fine place and worth fighting for.’ I agree with the second part.’
The most significant insight into being an artist is given when Carson Wells says to Llewelyn Moss about Anton Chigurh:
He’s a peculiar man. You could even say that he has principles. Principles that transcend money or drugs or anything like that. He’s not like you. He’s not even like me.
i think that, like most of the coen’s films, ncfom is about innocence/naivete confronting an unfathomable and overwhelming evil, usually loosed upon the hapless protagonists by their own peccadilloes. the hired hitman is often the embodiment of this nihilistic evil. in blood simple its marital infidelity that unleashes the evil (embodied by the man in the cowboy hat). in raising arizona child abduction unleashes the “warthog from hell”. in fargo william h. macy’s desperate acts unleash the evil (the hitman, again). in big lebowski the dude’s attempt to get compensation for his pissed on rug leads to a confrontation with nihilists that threatens his johnson. in barton fink the futility of barton’s ridiculous idealism and naive artistic integrity is revealed against hollywood’s dark nihilistic forces (embodied in goodman’s character and the grotesque hollywood producer). and of course in ncfom evil is embodied in chigurh, who appears as the fated consequence of josh brolin’s unwitting involvement in the drug underworld. the coens films seem to take place in a kind of psychological hell wherein the old coordinates that gave life meaning are suddenly scattered by the unwelcome invasion of an absurd and nihilistic evil, a spreading malevolence “darker than a black steer’s tuchus on a moonless prairie night”. it is significant that the incarnation of pure irrational evil often has as its obverse a respectable “pillar of society” or “captain of industry” type. in ncfom it would be the corporate men. in big lebowski its the real lebowski. in barton fink its the studio heads. in raising arizona its nathan arizona. in fargo its the father-in-law. these are all symbols of relentless capital accumulation. their prime consideration is money. not that i think the coens intend their films as an explicit critique of our economic system, but perhaps the evil incarnate represents a kind of irrational nihilism inherent in a society in which the dollar rules all. whatever the source, the evil is always lurking in the dark recesses of the simple, coherent worlds the protagonists try so desperately (hopelessly?) maintain. this is what gives the end of fargo, with the happy couple in bed watching tv, its unsettling ambiguity – margie has no idea of the depths of the depravity she has just (momentarily?) defeated.
It’s about Anton Chigurh’s haircut, and his neat air gun.
It is about 2 hours long, and about how shocked some terribly sheltered people are when they learn that there is evil in the world.
Is evil thought of as nihilistic ?
Does that make sense, really?
BTW, I thought, in the end, it was about randomness – Anton being the energizer bunny of evil
it was lazy of me to write “nihilistic evil” and to conflate the two terms so loosely. of course within nihilism the concept of evil is irrelevant. but i think the nihilism of the coens’ villains is part of what makes them seem evil to their victims. a person who believes in a world of universal moral truths would certainly see the nihilism of someone like chigurh as an evil.
has anyone heard of this term “tex-mex noir”? i was talking to a british filmmaker today, and he told me about this concept for a new slew of apparent noir films shot in the texas area (“no country” being the prime example). he read it from some journalist. i thought it was laughable, and i tried to explain to him that tex-mex is a style of food for us in america, and also that these films, if they exist, dont even have a “tex-mex” flavor.
does anyone know about this, or have any thoughts on it?
Surely there are more interesting things to think about than NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Try, I’ll bet you can find something.
strawdawg
Any thoughts as to why Chigurh’s weapon of choice was that air gun?
I assumed it was so ballistics would never be able to connect him to a crime by means of a weapon. It also came in pretty handy for opening locked doors and quieter than a gun. It also looked so damn cool too. I’m surprised no one ever thought of using a weapon like this before.