In other news, I obvously need to learn the zen of [MI].

Heh. That's ok - easy to fix.

I haven't seen this yet, so I have nothing to contribute except to add the 'more inside' to your post.

I read the book, quickly, and found it confusing at times because you weren't sure whose internal monologue was taking place in each chapter and then it was like "Oh! That's cattle gun guy I'm reading about!"

Also, the death of the guy you were rooting for was handled rather obliquely in the book, and it turned into a long narrative about our capacity to let each other down and the futility of engaging with those who want to kill you dead. I'm definitely going to rent it.

Roger Ebert's review is a good place to start.

I loved every minute of that movie, I think that I sat there in the theater with a big grin on my face the whole time. I think that it's easily my favorite Coen Bros. movie. But what it's about, I'm not totally sure about. The best analysis that I've read is this one from the Sun Times website (unfortunately that page seems to have a broken style sheet right now, you can read it by setting styles to "no style" in firefox).

It's about the unavoidability of death (Llewelyn Moss) and coming to terms with it (Ed Tom Bell).

Also Chigurh is more an entity than a human character. He's like the Biker in Raising Arizona: part natural, part supernatural.

I thought there were a couple of visual references to Raising Arizona: Chigurh shoots at the bird is like the Biker throwing the hand grenade at the bunny, the Moss' house is like H.I.'s, the "call it" scene in the gas station is shot similarly to the "Do these blow up into funny shapes?"/"No, unless round in funny." gas station scene.

Also, some of the scenes, like the deputy getting killed at the beginning, were reminiscent of Blood Simple.

So you're saying that Cormac McCarthy was heavily influenced by Raising Arizona?

I'm totally stealing that from you. "No Country for Old Men is Cormac McCarthy's bleak re-imagining of the Coen Brother's _Raising Arizona_" Heh.

Part of what makes it such a great movie, in my mind, is that I am still trying to sort it out for myself after couple weeks.

I think the simplest theme of the movie is the effect of 'pure evil' on otherwise normal people. Chigurh is the 'pure evil', of course, but he's also the most principled character in the film, in the sense that he carries out his "duties" in a unwavering and putatively fair manner. His actions are consistent with his own system of beliefs. It just so happens that his system is diabolically evil. Contrast this with the "good guy" in the film, Llewelyn. Llewelyn consistently violates the principles we normally associate with "good"--he lets greed get him into a bad situation, he lies to his wife and puts her harm's way and generally just throws away his life. As soon as he took the money, he entered a world that he was not prepared to deal with--the more "principled" Chigurh is an inescapable executioner.

But, of course, we want Llewelyn to succeed despite his flaws and mistakes. We want and need something to tell us good triumphs over evil. But the world doesn't work that way. Sheriff Bell has come to realize this but still carries a sliver of hope--he wants Llewelyn to succeed, but isn't surprised he fails. Which mirrors the dream he descibes in the closing scene--Bell sees his father carrying the torch through the darkness and wants to believe he'll catch up him and there'll be a fire waiting in "all that dark and all that cold". But then he wakes up.

kirkaracha's got it. I'd only add that the movie excels in messing with your expectations. In several key moments, it throws clues that it's building towards something (a Moss/Chigurh mano-a-mano showdown; a Woody Harrelson ass-kicking fest; Ed Tom Bell coming out of retireent to bring down the killer) and then veers wildly in the other direction. This misdirection is a big part of the appeal.

Or what kirkaracha said.

Or what mullacc said.

Thanks for the Ebert link and the discussion, folks. I'm still not totally sure it's as OMG as all that, but you've given me a lot to think on.

One thing I haven't seen touched on: did anyone else notice that certain sounds -- gunshots, Chigurh's final car crash -- seemed deliberately louder than they should've been?

Chigurh's pneumatic piston was way louder than the ones I've used.

My take: The "Old Men" in the title refers to the old Tommy Lee Jones character. The book/movie start with his narration and end with his narration. Though it's not always clear, the story is sort of told from his perspective. He's amazed and repulsed by the state of the world, all the evil in it. (There's that scene early on where he's talking with another old dude about how kids have nose piercings and such.)

So the whole thing is basically about how the world has gone to hell. The storyline is an extreme example. But mostly it's about how the sheriff is getting old and things have changed and he needs to get the hell out.

So you're saying that Cormac McCarthy was heavily influenced by Raising Arizona?

Heh. No, I felt the biker and Chigurh were parallels (obviously there's a vast difference in tone) and the Coen brothers added some visual references in the way they shot some of the scenes.

Another Blood Simple allusion is the opening monologue by a Texan over shots of the barren Texas countryside.

As soon as he took the money, he entered a world that he was not prepared to deal with

In that respect it's similar to Sam Raimi's excellent A Simple Plan (and Raimi's worked with the Coens). Another interesting link.

I'd only add that the movie excels in messing with your expectations

That was one of my favorite things about it.

So what about the motel room scene at the end when Sheriff Bell goes back? I know Chigurh was in the room at some point, but I'm not sure he was in the room when Bell goes in. I don' think the vent was big enough for him to get through. (Although since I think Chigurh's essentially a ghost it doesn't matter that much.)

So what about the motel room scene at the end when Sheriff Bell goes back? I know Chigurh was in the room at some point, but I'm not sure he was in the room when Bell goes in. I don' think the vent was big enough for him to get through. (Although since I think Chigurh's essentially a ghost it doesn't matter that much.)

My wife and I have tried to work that scene out, and concluded that we'll have to wait for the DVD to really get the logistics of it. If I remember right, light through the keyhole put Chigurh right behind the door, which doesn't seem to work because of the way Bell threw it open. We assumed he couldn't have gotten out through the vent, that Moss had opened that up before getting killed.

Basically, we're leaning towards essentially a ghost (Bell's dialog before going back to the hotel sort of leads into this).

Did Sheriff Bell end up with the money, hence his retirement?

This movie depends a lot on the sounds. Did you notice the practically non-existent soundtrack?

I think the scene with the candy paper in the gas station is the absolute awesome.
Generally, background sounds such as the wind in the desert or the Chirguh's boots on the pavement or the heavy breathing and more where used to create an atmosphere that is psychologically imposing. Like when you are scared and your hearing gets acute.

It was just masterful and exquisite by the Coens. And that's totally not McCormack, who btw I am reading right now and I am loving. That's totally Coens.

I think Chigurh gets the money. We can assume that Moss hid the money in the vent since that's what he'd done before. They show a dime next to the open vent, and since Chigurh used a dime to open the vent earlier, he probably opened the vent and got the money. Then later he gives a $100 bill to the kid for his shirt. (Wasn't the briefcase fill of hundreds?)

I suppose it's possible Bell got the money, but that wouldn't fit the themes of the movie.

Or maybe Bell startled Chigurh before Chigurh could get the money, and since Bell didn't know/was too scared to look in the vent, the cleaning people got it.

I thought it was totally brilliant, and a big leap forward for the Coens as far as their attitude toward violence (morally complex instead of just amoral). Visually gorgeous, and brilliantly acted. Will have to see it multiple times. And I will have to read the book!

What was the thing that Llewellyn stashed underneath the entryway to the trailer the first time he came home after picking up the money?

I don't think Bell got the money. The people who were running out of the hotel room were, I think, some Mexican drug dealers, and I believe they got the money.

What was the thing that Llewellyn stashed underneath the entryway to the trailer the first time he came home after picking up the money?

The machine gun he took from one of the dead guys?

In that last scene, doesn't Chigurh go out the bathroom window? (not the vent - that was too small) I thought the camera looked specifically at the bathroom window lock, making me think that the bathroom window was unlatched. But now that I think about it, the window might have been latched, which would==ghost.

You know, one thing I don't agree with is the notion that Chigurh was a "Noble Psychopath", or a "Diabolically Insane Bad-Guy Who Followed His Own Moral Code". I think in the end, Carla Jean was right: it didn't matter whether or not she called heads or tails - Chigurh would have killed her either way, because that was his true principle. (Of course, I have yet to read the book, so that scene may have been presented differently there).

By the way, I think the reason the Coens decided to make NCFOM is because it's almost a perfect thematic counterpoint to Fargo. They're like bookends.

and a big leap forward for the Coens as far as their attitude toward violence

I don't know what you mean, but I like it!

My thoughts on this: while there was a bloodfiesta on screen, for sure, some of violence occurred outside our view. Particularly violence directed to characters we get attached to (root for) in the story. Like the killing of Moss or the killing of his wife (what a great role and a performance by Kelly McDonald, I appreciate her more, the more I think about this movie). I do not know whether the directors were trying to make a point about morality and violence (my guess is that they didn't) but I agree with you, there is a lot of complexity on the issue and how McCormack/Cohens deal with it.

Chigurh's character is just plain one-dimensional. He is out to kill. An animal. THere is little rationalization of his thought process or his past life or his sentiments. I do not want to give him any 'depth' because that is like exactly not the point.

Carmina, you're on the right track to elaborating what I was trying to say. I guess what I mean is that, in earlier movies like Fargo and Blood Simple, violence was just something they presented for us to watch and observe. Their attitude towards violence was very distanced, very cinematic, which enabled us to laugh at things that would normally be horrific. In this movie, there is a much greater moral complexity. We come to be attached to characters, who are victims of violence, but the fact that they get to say their part (Carla Jean), or their death happens offscreen (Ll.), is much less distancing, and shows a respect for the characters who are victims of violence. Having a character like Bell repeatedly state his opinion about how the increased violence in the world is changing society and making it be "something he can't keep up with", makes a moral statement about violence, instead of just observing it.

There's still lots of black humor in the movie, but it's not so much at the expense of cartoonish characters - we feel it more deeply this time.

This is not to say I don't LOVE their earlier movies - I totally do. They just show a different (I would say more mature, more complex) attitude here.

muddgirl & carmina: I'm a little befuddled on the on your views on Chigurh. If he's truly a one-dimensional character, why would he bother with the coin flips and why pursue Carla Jean at all? Even if the coin flips are merely for show, it's at least interesting that he bothers with it at all--he's at least trying to give the impression of being the "noble psychopath", and that seems to make him all the more effective.

Blah. I suck at english.

Having a character like Bell repeatedly state his opinion about how the increased violence in the world is changing society and making it be "something he can't keep up with", makes a moral statement about violence, instead of just observing it.

I have been thinking about this too a lot. I am going back and forth, but I am more inclined right now to think that the "message" the Coens are sending is that "this is no country for old men" means "come on get on with the changing times". Violence is here and it is real and closing your eyes and your ears is not addressing it. Bell is the menace really because he is so... naive? I do not think they toned down anything, neither that they are making moral judgements but I could be wrong.


(btw, I keep saying McCormack and nobody corrected me. That's either you are polite or you are just not reading my comments. I don't know what I prefer. :) It's McCarthy of course, I think, sigh.)


mullacc, the whole deal with the coin toss is that that crap-fuck Chigurh (oops I am swearing again, my sorrys) is a sadist. He'd probably kill them anyway...

I don't think that's the whole deal. But I guess we just disagree.

Yes, I know and maybe you are right, or none of us is. It doesn't really matter.

Let's play 1-on-1 basketball to decide it.

Nora Ephron had a funny bit about No Country for Old Men in the New Yorker recently.

I totally get what you're saying, mullacc, about Chigurh NOT being a one-dimensional character, and I agree. Honestly, I don't get the coin, but I DO know that I believed Carla Jean's little last speech, because Carla, the sherriff, and Woody Harrelson were really the only honest people in the movie. Chigurh was going to kill Carla Jean, no matter what, because that's the deal he made with Moss; the coin-flipping was something else.

What I got out of it is that death (Chigurh) always wins (and is the only winner) and always has his/its own rules to function by, many of which aren't fair to the people most affected(e.g. Carla Jean Moss).

I thought No Country for Old Men was an uninteresting and hamfisted exploration of this and at the end of the movie I was angry that good acting and beautiful cinematography had been wasted on it.

I didn't come away from it with any new understandings, or an appreciation of the ironies and black humor inherent in life and death. I don't enjoy non-cartoon violence that demonstrates only what I can see everyday in real life.

I DID like the mention that violence/death hasn't changed - it's always been this way. We just have some sort of euphoric recall. (One of the reasons it's fun to read Chandler or even Dickens.) However, that part was said, not shown, so it didn't have the weight I thought it should have. Mostly you hear Jones's character going on about how dreadful things are these days- the same as old men have been saying for millenia.

If the Coen brothers were only interested in getting an emotional reaction, I guess they succeeded because I'm still irritated that I wasted my one of my probably-4-movies-in-the-theater-per-year watching it.

The coin flips represent the randomness of life. Carla Jean had nothing to do with Chigurh, and he had no practical reason to kill her, but the random circumstances lead to her murder. It was more or less random chance that her husband found that suitcase, and the coin flip is just one more bit of randomness that will determine whether she lives or dies. He explains this to her when she refuses to call it. I wish I could remember what he said in that scene.

mullacc, the whole deal with the coin toss is that that crap-fuck Chigurh (oops I am swearing again, my sorrys) is a sadist. He'd probably kill them anyway...

If that's true, why did he spare the gas station owner when he correctly called the coin flip? I think it's clear that Chigurh abides by the coin flip results.

Watched the movie last night, now rereading the thread...

Carla Jean had nothing to do with Chigurh, and he had no practical reason to kill her, but the random circumstances lead to her murder.

Or, he made a deal with Moss, and he was making good on his sort of sick, twisted promise. I can't really see how it goes both ways.

He didn't want to kill the gas station attendant. Attributing his actions to chance was part of his psychosis.

From a November 2005 draft of the screenplay (which doesn't have the part where he asks her to choose in the coin toss):

Carla Jean: ...You got no cause to hurt me.
Chigurh: No. But I gave my word.
Carla Jean: You gave your word?
Chigurh: To your husband.
Carla Jean: That don't make sense. You gave your word to my husband to kill me?
Chigurh: Your husband had the opportunity to remove you from harm's way. Instead, he used you to try to save himself.

Yes, yes, he killed her because he made the deal with Moss. But Carla Jean's involvement was random. Any person could have found the money, it was random that Moss is the one who did. Any Texan woman who was partial to marrying hunters could have been the wife of the hunter who found the money. Carla Jean didn't do anything that lead her to be killed by Chigurh. It was just the way things fell together. The whole deal was random from her perspective.

I think Chigurh offers people the coin flip when he has no specific grudge against them, and no great harm would be done by letting them live. He acknowledges that random chance brought them together, and he lets random chance determine whether they live or die.