Nice analysis, bonzer. I’m gonna keep it in mind next time I watch the movie. I don’t remember anything similar occurring in the book, but there again, I’ll look for it on re-read.
I second what Linty Fresh wrote. I think Bell feared that Anton was hiding, which would’ve made no sense–why stick around in a motel room that you know the cops are going to check thoroughly?
'Cause the odds that the cops/FBI are gonna show up to do a thorough crime scene investigation after 5:00 PM are vanishingly small?
And,
[spoiler]It wouldn’t have been the first time Chigurh returned to the scene of one of his crimes in the film.
At the end of the scene with the El Paso Sheriff and Sheriff Bell at the diner, the EPS is dumbfounded at the thought that Chigurh returned to the Eagle Hotel to kill Carson Wells the night after he killed the desk clerk and had the shootout with Moss.
Rewatching the scene, I think that conversation is what makes Bell go back to the motel in the first place. It fits nicely into his backstory, this time instead of walking away from his almost certain death he walks towards it, intent on confronting his ghosts now in the form of the “ghost” that he sees Chigurh as.[/spoiler]
CMC +fnord!
Of course you and the Coens may not agree with me but, a film should stand on it’s own as a complete story not relying on backstory from the book it’s based on.
Otherwise your not supplying all that’s necessary for your viewing audience to grasp the full scope of the story.
What was left out of the movie? I’m not being argumentative; I’m just curious. Was it Bell’s motivation to go to the motel room?
I just watched the movie last Night and am looking into this thread for the first time. That wasn’t left out. It was clearly shown, and then talked about in a later scene. I haven’t read the book, but I didn’t feel like there was anything that I missed out on because I hadn’t read it. There was stuff that was obscure, but clearly that was done intentially by the film makers (and possibly the novelist) rather than because the film failed to include a crucial element from the novel.
As mentioned before. Bell’s “major screwup” in the war.
Okay. I think we do have a complete story though, even without that. Knowing that Bell thought of himself as a coward just gives him a different reason for going to the motel.
Leaving the war experience out, he still has a reason that we can understand – he wanted to see Chigurh, look at the monster, maybe even talk to him, try to figure him out. That’s what I thought when I saw the movie, before reading the book.
Speaking of differences, there’s a bit toward the end of the book with a Mexican and a Baracudda and a dead trooper that I totally don’t get.
I’m glad the Coens made changes. If they’d stayed completely faithful to the book, it might have been even more puzzling.
I have to go ahead and agree with you here. I would even go so far as to say, don’t make things so mysterious either.
I mean, take a look at the end:
did Anton kill Llewelyn’s wife or not?
But all in all, it was a great movie, I really liked it. Definitely a movie you should/have to watch twice or more though…
Regarding the mysterious spoiler:
Not so mysterious – Chigurh carefully checked his boots for blood, which we’d seen him do before after killing someone.
I decided the image of Chigurh was actually from when he was hiding in wait for Llewellyn.
-FrL-
Of course he did! What would lead one to think otherwise?
-FrL-
All she did was made it less fun, by refusing to play his game. As you say, there was nothing to indicate Chigurh had any change of heart.
That’s not true at all.
When he comes out, he’s upset – to the point that he gets himself into a car accident. Then, when the kids come up to him, we expect Chigurh to kill them. Instead, he gives them money and walks off peaceably. Symbolically, we actually see his blood/bone, which is a stronger statement than getting someone else’s blood on him.