You may be right. But if the bottle air dries, won’t the prints be there?
I don’t know anything about lifting fingerprints, so I could be wrong. I just know what I’ve seen from CSI. But for some reason, I would think that if I touched a bottle, the oils from my skin that would place a print on the bottle would not be removed by the water beads formed on the bottle if left outside the refrigerator. Once the bottle dried naturally, I think the prints would still be there.
If anyone is a forensics expert, perhaps they would know for sure?
Exactly. He gives off the initial impression of being a badass by virtue of looking like Tommy Lee Jones and talking in a badass Texas accent, but his actions counter that impression.
In the book, there’s some stuff toward the end that has me confused as all get out. Right after Carla Jean calls Ed Tom to tell him where Llewellyn is headed, there are a couple of paragraphs describing two Mexicans who are listening to something, I think on a radio – maybe they’re monitoring the police band.
One of them grabs a gun and takes off in a Barracuda.
Awhile later we read about a man hosing blood off a broken window, the window of a Barracuda.
Meanwhile, Ed Tom is on his way somewhere and passes a burning car – I think it’s a police vehicle – with some state troopers at the car. He doesn’t stop.
A bit later, Ed Tom talks about a Mexican being charged with killing someone, and Ed Tom thinks he’s innocent, but the guy is convicted. Ed Tom goes to see the guy in jail and the guy laughs at him, says yeah he killed the trooper and put him in a car and burned him up, “burned him to grease”, I think he says.
If he killed a trooper and set the police car on fire, why was he cleaning blood off the Barracuda’s window? Did he shoot the trooper through his car window? Why would Ed Tom think he was innocent? Did he think Anton did it?
Was the Mexican in the Barracuda one of the survivors of the shootout at the motel? If so, what did he hear that made him rush off with his gun? Or was this just another example of senseless violence?
No doubt, the Coen Brothers are quite capable of subverting an apparently competent/moral/nice character by adding a scene or two that give us reason to believe the opposite is (also) true.
But a the moment, I don’t recall any means by which the director confirmed this suspicion: some lines of dialogue would have done the trick or a scene, where in the background forensic experts are gathering evidence in a careful, more “scientific” way, a critical newspaper headline, criminals who show some awareness of evidence they might leave etc.
Without such a confirmation, I tend to think that “we” are supposed to and right to think that the sheriff knew what he was doing.
modern forensics do not date back to 1980, not even close. I am not saying he should have been handling the milk bottle or door knob but the csi you see today is the result tons of technology and trial and error to get where it is today.
True enough. But the book specifically mentions fingerprints, so it was something they were obviously aware of. Fingerprints have been used for 100 years or so for identity.
AuntiePam, I am not sure what your answer is, so I’ll go back to the book. I recall what you are referring to, but as to the details, I just don’t know.
The book is much different than the movie in various scenes, although it’s very faithful to the books timeline. I don’t think the Coen brothers wrote an original line of dialogue, either. It’s pulled directly from the text, even if it’s not in the exact order of when it was spoken in the book.
For example, the scene in the movie where Chigurh finds Moss at the second hotel is not even close to the book’s version. There is a large shootout at that hotel involving the Mexicans. I won’t give too much detail if there are folks reading the book. I think the Coen brothers did a pretty good job of simplifying the plot and the key players, but the book is not very clear on answering some questions I had. (as you can tell from my OP)
If I get a chance to read up on AntiePam’s question, I’ll post what I find.
Thanks! I’ve been thinking about watching the movie and reading the book more or less simultaneously, to see if that would help. I’m wondering why the Coens left that stuff out of the movie. Maybe it didn’t add to the main story or maybe it’d make the movie run too long. Or maybe it’s just a puzzle within a puzzle, something only McCarthy knows the answer to.
Even though I LIKED the movie, the one thing I couldn’t figure was this:
Chigurh killed a Texas state trooper. That is a BIG freaking deal!
Why did it seem as if only one small town lawman was after the bad guy? I have to think that, if a real life state trooper was killed in Texas, there’d be HUNDREDS of troopers after Chigurh, and he wouldn’t be able to move around and kill people so easily.
And I have to add a thought I’ve posted elsewhere: when you get right down to it, Marge Gunderson was a MUCH better cop than Ed Tom Bell, wouldn’t you say? They’re both small time cops who have to face a new kind of evil. Ed Tom blinks, and walks away from the fight. Marge faces evil and beats it.
True, but did she know at the time that they were morons? She just saw some guy stuffing his friend into a wood chipper, which would freak out many a rugged soul.
I don’t know if I have the answers to these questions or not. Perhaps there is no answers. The story about Ed Tom going to testify for the Mexican was sort of a side story in one of those pre-chapter monologues by Ed Tom. And he said he wouldn’t have brought it up except it was printed in the paper. But indeed he testified that the Mexican was innocent, and in fact he was guilty and admitted it to Ed Tom and laughed at him. I did not get the sense that that particular incident was tied to the Mexicans in the Barracuda.
Which brings me to the Barracuda. There is no clear notion exactly who was in the barracuda, and this confused me as well. In re-reading it, The only word spoken during the barracuda scene was “Listo”. I don’t know if that’s spanish for something like list, but it reminded me of Chigurh calling the gas station owner “friendo”. Other than that, whoever was driving the barracuda wasn’t identified, and although I think it’s safe to assume it was a mexican since Chigurh worked alone, there really wasn’t much to it, unless I missed something earlier in the story and didn’t connect it.
Finally, my revisit to the book re-establishes my question of how Chigurh was involved in this in the first place, and why he gave all the money back. The guy who received the money asked Chigurh how he found him, and Chigurh didn’t answer the question. Just that he was someone that he’d want to do business with again. If I get some time this weekend, I’ll re-read the whole damn book with a notebook beside me and see if these things can be tied together in some way. I don’t think they will be, but I’m curious to know if there was something in the book somewhere that touched on these things.
One thing I did learn from the book was how Chigurh decided to head to Del Rio. There were two calls on the phone bill with frequency, one to Odessa, and one to Del Rio. He called both numbers, and the Del Rio number didn’t pick up. He got Carla Jean’s mother on the call to Odessa.
How the Mexicans were able to figure he went to Del Rio is still beyond me.
I believe that the man killed was not a state trooper, but someone who was the equivalent to Bell’s deputy. A county level employee. I can’t remember if the movie showed that in a different light, but the book gives the impression he was a county, not a state, officer.
I’d have to go back and watch the movie. I can’t remember what they said.
This is one of those movies that I can appreciate as a fine example of its craft, but can’t fully enjoy due to all the unresolved questions. This seems to be due more to the source material, though, than the Coen Brothers.
There’s no doubt that Cormac McCarthy is one finest living (if not overall) American writers, but his stories aren’t for those who like to ask a lot of questions.
Stink Fish Pot, I’m gonna have to do that too – rewatch the movie and reread the book, with charts and diagrams and arrows and shit.
I can’t remember what the Mexican was on trial for – was it for killing the deputy?
I’m probably still conflating the book and the movie, but is it possible that one of the Mexicans killed the deputy but that Ed Tom thought Chigurh did it?
But for some reason, I would think that if I touched a bottle, the oils from my skin that would place a print on the bottle would not be removed by the water beads formed on the bottle if left outside the refrigerator. Once the bottle dried naturally, I think the prints would still be there.