Especially when one of the first people killed is a deputy sheriff.
Let’s not read too much into a film that is very faithfully based on an absolute shambles of a book. Cormac McCarthey handed ‘No country for old men’ into the publisher at 600 pages, and it was brutalised for publication, something that becomes obvious when you read it. The prose is as God-like as always, but the characters are a joke and the plot is made out of Swiss cheese. This is less of an issue with the film (which I really enjoyed), but the flaws are transmitted nonetheless.
Given that Cormac is THE MAN, it is only fitting that we give him the benefit of the doubt, at least in public. Hence the chin-stroking pseudery over the role of Chigurh, and the nodding of heads at Moss’s sudden exit - a masterful switch in perception for the audience. Oh yes.
I think this is another case of a movie that’s sole purpose is not to entertain, or be arty, or say something profound, as much as it’s a movie that plays with conventions. Cohen’s are a master of that, how the acts are structured, switching point of view instantly, not having the protagonist being the central character to the film, whatever. You need to understand the “unusual choices” in reference to classic Hollywood in order to be entertained by how much they are destroying expectations.
And I don’t care who you are, the silenced shotgun was awesome.
This movie is the Coen’s interpretation of Cormac’s work, and it gets to stand on its own. It is interesting to go to the book to flesh out points that are not clear in the movie, but that is not necessary to enjoy the movie. This is not a straight forward telling of an obvious story, so interpretation of the symbolism is appropriate.
I lean toward “death” as well. In fact, Chigurh reminded me very much of the Walker, the hitman played by Lee Marvin in Point Blank. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen the movie in a few years but I think it would be interesting to go back and compare both Marvin’s and Bardem’s characters and performances.
This is not the theme of the film.
Well, then, would you care to enlighten me as to what the point actually is?
That evil and nastiness has always been and always will be. You can try to stop it all you want (as the sheriff began his career wanting to do) but sooner or later you’ll realize there is nothing to stop. It just is. Chigurh is not an evil villain as much as he’s a force of nature. If he wasn’t killing, people would still die horribly from other causes.
That’s interesting. Is there any indication that a full version might emerge someday?
One more question I had at the very beginning of the movie. When Moss is shooting at a herd of elk (or whatever they were), how do you think they got the one elk who got shot to stumble in these days of not hurting animals on film? A computer effect, trip wire or could they use footage from an actual hunt?
I think it was CGI but I couldn’t say for certain.
Antelope.
In O Brother, the Coens used CGI cows when one got hit by a truck in the film, so I wouldn’t rule it out at all (though I think something like a tranquilizer dart might also fall into the “no animal was harmed” condition).
*No Country for Old Men * finally opened in Bangkok, and we watched it this weekend. I have to say I was expecting a better film. I’d read the book, so I knew what was going to happen already. Still, I was expecting more of a Coen Brothers stylistic touch a la *Fargo * or Blood Simple, both of which were better films I think. So does the wife.
eenerms writes:
> Is it based on a semi “true” story like Fargo ?
Fargo isn’t based on a true story at all, despite the claim in the movie that it is.
The closest to a Coen Brothers touch that we saw in the film was the weird-looking lady trailer-park employee. Touches like that seemed curiously lacking.
They go over that in the special features, actually. That is one of my favorite little touches.
I don’t know what “special features” refers to. Do you mean the extras included in the DVD release of Fargo? I don’t know why this should be one of your favorite touches. Finding out that the story was simply made up makes it less interesting to me. The trivia section of the Fargo entry in the IMDb says that there were two crimes in the Minneapolis area that were slightly similar to the plot, but they are only vague resemblances, and such crimes have occurred elsewhere.
I remember reading when *Fargo * first came out that it was not really a true story. I think Ebert even said so in his review at the time.
What an obtuse post.
Obviously “special features” refers to the extras included in the DVD release.
Who cares whether you know why it is one of drm’s favourite touches? I imagine drm was amused by the idea that the film makers conned him/her into believing it was real.
Did you watch the “extras” first and lose interest because it wasn’t real and then watch the movie you had lost interest in or watch the movie and then in retrospect lose interest because it wasn’t real? Either case strikes me as very odd indeed.