SPOILERS WARNING (especially in quotes taken from the script)
Before any character appeared in No Country for Old Men - the latest from the Coen Brothers (2007) - there was a series of shots depicting a barren, but beautiful landscape. Then, a voice over, sounding like a world weary grandfather telling a story to his grand children, filled the landscape with the dread and weight of foreboding inevitability. Here, it seemed, the story began. Or did it begin some other time, and what appeared here was just an interlude, the silence before another reckoning? In any case, you'd do well to pay attention. In particular, what the old man had to say would come full circle in the end. In fact, let's revisit what he said exactly:
Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) may have seemed to be the main protagonist of the film, but it was Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) who anchored the tone and the heart of the film. His speeches at various points during the film gave the film the permission to take the literal to the symbolic. There he was, at the end, musing about his life with Ellis, an ex-deputy:
I was sheriff of this county when I was
twenty-five. Hard to believe. Grandfather
was a lawman. Father too. Me and him was
sheriff at the same time, him in Plano
and me here. I think he was pretty proud
of that. I know I was.
Some of the old-time sheriffs never even
wore a gun. A lot of folks find that hard
to believe. Jim Scarborough never carried
one. That the younger Jim. Gaston Boykins
wouldn't wear one. Up in Commanche County.
I always liked to hear about the old-
timers. Never missed a chance to do so.
Nigger Hoskins over in Batrop County knowed
everybody's phone number off by heart. You
can't help but compare yourself against the
old timers. Can't help but wonder how they
would've operated these times. There was
this boy I sent to Huntsville here a while
back. My arrest and my testimony. He killed
a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it
was a crime of passion but he told me there
wasn't any passion to it.
Told me that he'd been planning to kill
somebody for about as long as he could
remember. Said that if they turned him
out he'd do it again.
Said he knew he was going to hell. Be
there in about fifteen minutes. I don't
know what to make of that. I surely don't.
The crime you see now, it's hard to even
take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid
of it.
I always knew you had to be willing to
die to even do this job - not to be
glorious. But I don't want to push my
chips forward and go out and meet some-
thing I don't understand.
You can say it's my job to fight it but
I don't know what it is anymore.
...More than that, I don't want to know. A
man would have to put his soul at hazard.
... He would have to say, okay, I'll be
part of this world. I don't know. I feel overmatched.
...I always thought when I got older
God would sort of come into my life
in some way. He didn't. I don't blame
him. If I was him I'd have the same
opinion about me that he does. I'm... discouraged.
Ellis
You can't stop what's comin. Ain't
all waitin on you.
...That's vanity.
and with Loretta, his wife, about his dreams: Okay. Two of 'em. Both had my father.
It's peculiar. I'm older now'n he
ever was by twenty years. So in a sen-
se he's the younger man. Anyway, first
one I don't remember so well but it
was about money and I think I lost it.
The second one, it was like we was
both back in older times and I was on
horseback goin through the mountains
of a night.
...Goin through this pass in the moun-
tains. It was cold and snowin, hard
ridin. Hard country. He rode past me
and kept on goin. Never said nothin
goin by. He just rode on past and he
had his blanket wrapped around him and
his head down...
...and when he rode past I seen he
was carryin fire in a horn the way
people used to do and I could see the
horn from the light inside of it.
About the color of the moon. And in
the dream I knew that he was goin on
ahead and that he was fixin to make a
fire somewhere out there in allthat
dark and all that cold, and I knew
that whenever I got there he would be
there. Out there up ahead. 
The story unfolded like a horror-filled crime story with a Western bent. Moss, a veteran from the Vietnam war, perchance stumbled upon the aftermath of a shoot out while out hunting game (unsuccessfully). Undeterred by the bloodied outcome of greed, Moss took a briefcase full of money and fled the scene. "At at what point would you quit bothering to look for your two million dollars?" he pondered, rhetorically. Pegged by his conscience to come back for the dying man he saw at the scene, Moss took a jug of water for the man (who earlier may have asked for water in Spanish). This was the third indication that he was not as capable as he thought he was, for it was the act of returning to the crime scene that gave him out to his hunters, and off they went.
The deadliest of them all was Anton Chigurh (Jarvier Bardem), a hit man with no sense of remorse, humanity, humility, and all that good stuff. To put him in context and perspective, Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson), himself something of a peculiar ex-colonel gun-for-hire called in to get on the money trail since he got some experience with Chigurh, looked like an angel in comparison. When Wells was asked if Chigurh was dangerous, he shot back "Compared to what? The bubonic plague?" Wells' role in the film seemed frivolous at first, but upon closer inspection (it was just that kind of film, the one you have to see at least twice), it would seem that he was not only a measure by which to gauge Chigurh's killer instinct, but also a commentary on how knowledge and experience meant very little when one's time came.
Knowledge and experience are two things Sheriff Ed Tom Bell got plenty of, and they did not help him get any closer to catching the killer before he struck again. Yet, they may have played a role in getting him out of harm's way, into retirement age. While he professed to be hesitant in putting his chips forward when he understood so little of what he was facing, there was one pivotal point in the film in which he pressed forward any way, in spite of his fear. It was the moment he almost faced the shadow of death in the form of Chigurh, before it slipped away quietly into the night. It was not entirely certain why he was spared - perhaps by the luck of a coin (Chigurh liked the coin-toss-for-your-life game, and he may have decided this one for the Sheriff on his own). Bell evaded the possibility of death on the job all his life, and he knew it was only a matter of chance that he survived this far into his career. This moment crystallized the absurdity he felt the world was coming to, and it just was not his game any more. It was no country for old men. It was time for him to get out.
The absurdity of luck permeated as surely as the sense of dread through out the film. There was a tangible, palpable touch to the coin flip, largely due to the film's sound and texture. While Roger Deakins did an incredible job photographing the Texas land, and the actors made their best effort to inhabit the film, it was the sound and its lack thereof at opportune times that gave the film a large part of its out-of-your-seat intensity. The other major factor contributing to the film's feverish - but deliberately measured - atmosphere was Lady Luck. There were multiple deaths of innocent bystanders or people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There really was a sense of unpredictability to the characters' fate, even with foreshadowing clues (such as the shot of the traffic light before the accident).
Life, it would seem, precariously walked in the shadow of death, and fate was a random lottery draw. We, as human beings living on the edge of post modern time, while desperately trying our hands at continuing our forefathers' and foremothers' traditions, would be wise to know when it was no longer a thing to do in order to measure up with the old timers. The old timers never had to deal with what we do, and yet, as Bell's old friend wisely said, what we deal with are not all that new when looking at the core of humanity. Could this then, also, be an allegory for America, living in the age of unpredictability and great unknowns? Should America hang up its badge and forget about succeeding the previous generations' ambition to 'put things right'? Could it get out before it succumbed to its shadow? Would it keep borrowing on the innocence of the few to hide its bloody self, as seen in the film with Moss and Chigurh asking to buy someone else's shirt for cover?
History sometimes comes in full circle and people get back to the same dilemma they have faced before. America is currently in a battle that reminds a lot of people of the Vietnam war era. It was perhaps no coincidence that the Vietnam war was mentioned twice in the film, with two of its characters having served in the war. It brought into attention another interesting take to the film: could the beginning of the film actually serve as a continuation of the end? If you bent the film, figuratively, in a circle, the events could play itself out continuously and the puzzles would still fit. Or, perhaps this was a reconstructed tale by the old man himself to make sense of the world he walked in: notice that Bell never faced Chigurh directly, book-ended the film, and at one point said that Chigurh could be just a ghost.
Be it a reconstructed tale or a cautionary post-modern warning, No Country for Old Men resonated beyond the literal, though it very much rooted its success in the Coen brothers' ability to handle the visceral so effortlessly. Everything seemed deliberate but not forced, violent but not pornographically so, bleak but not without a sense of humour. Despite its plot line, this was less a film about crime and some psychopathic killer than it was about what people would do in face of meaningless happenstances and luck-of-the-draw absurdities. It may not always end up happily, but it would at least speak to one's character and sense of place. Unfortunately, only some would be wise enough to quit the scene before the real mess would begin, and many would continue to march on - perhaps with ample greed and little sense of place to help them save themselves, much less their loved ones.
1 hour ago
104 comments:
I like your thoughts on the film. A few questions tho: do you think the film actually has a political bent? Several times you juxtapose the war against Vietnam, but I didn't catch that in the film. I guess I'm wondering if you found direct evidence for this, or if you're just applying the philosophy of the movie to the current political situation. I mean, I think the political plays just as significant a role in the current American existential crisis, but I also heard one guy argue sincerely that the film was an anti-immigration parable.
Also, what do you make of Carla Jeans death scene? It seems to indicate that there is no quitting. Quitting is just a defense, another way of trying to maintain control, and I believe that Ed Tom's wheelchair-ridden friend called all such things vanity. If Chigurh is death incarnate, and crazy as all get out, and relentless and unstoppable (even fate can't, re: car crash, can't stop death), then there is no recourse. I guess the film to me seemed to address more than just "meaningless happenstances and luck-of-the-draw absurdities." The point to me seemed that the whole of life hinges on some insurmountable absurdity, that death, non-existence, is the only absolute against which anything can be measured. It's pretty nihilistic, but it's called no country for old men because all that shit that Ed Tom keeps spouting is just made-up, and applies even less today than it did in the past.
That said, I got into an argument with a friend of mine about this film, and my view on it made her cry. So if I'm off-base, don't take it personally.
"It was perhaps no coincidence that the Vietnam war was mentioned twice in the film, with two of its characters having served in the war."
That was where I mentioned the Vietnam war. It was a point of connection for several characters in the film (especially pertaining to Josh Brolin's character). So while I applied the philosophy of the film for the comparison, I based it on its actual usage in the film. And yes, the film is very political, and it can easily be applied to other political arguments. Though, I don't think the film was an anti-immigration parable - rather, it was an argument along the vein of "how absurd is our immigration process?" The guard was arrogant, spouting patriotic beliefs. He let Brolin's character back into the country based solely on the fact that he said he served in the Vietnam war.
Carla was in some ways an anti Ed Tom Bell, if you will. She lacked the experience and the wisdom of age. What she did have was the courage to face what she had to face. She saw through Chigurh's b.s. and called him on it. He seemed startled by it, actually. He may have decided to decide her fate for her, just as he did for Ed Tom Bell.
Ed's old friend called the belief that things wait for one person as an act of vanity - not quitting. It was about Ed's belief that he was the one that was exceptional, the one to put things right, the one for to stop things from coming (in that profession, it's hard to not want to prevent the next tragedy, so it is unfair to expect him to think otherwise). It was not about him quitting by any means. If anything, it encouraged him to quit delaying the end of his time.
Thanks for reading! I wonder if you're someone I know?
Cool blog, interesting take on the film.
And thanks for posting the dialogue -- someone in front of me in the movie theater was doing something distracting so I missed the final dream sequence, which was incredibly frustrating. Thank god you transcribed it...
Thanks! I just found the transcript and pasted it here, really. I didn't remember it word for word and type it out here. I mean, I'm super smart and everything, but that's quite tedious work. ;)
Warning more SPOILERS
Thank you for the analysis and the picture of yourself as the coin killer. I did a search on spoiler and the film because I just saw it in an almost empty 5:15 pm "matinee" screening on thanksgiving in Oakland, the dark streets almost deserted except for a lone patrol car. I had trouble identifying who was killed in the motel with the pool and piecing together the sequence of events after that so looking for a good long synopsis. I will have to get the script; they usually have them in the library after a while. This is interesting in connection with Blood Simple, but a tragedy, in the Shakespearean sense, that is a sad or bleak ending, with unnecessary suffering due to some fatal flaws, though I agree it has nihilistic elements that go beyond fatal flaws. Blood Simple was set in Texas, had narration as a major component, and was violent but ended on an epic or heroic note as I recall, as did Fargo. The opening narration in Blood Simple was along the lines, out here om Texas, you are on your own.
Thanks for reading.
The script is online somewhere. I know because I looked at it, but now I'm too lazy to look for it again. But it's out there!
I can see how you could connect this to Blood Simple - both have dreaded mood about them. Beyond that though, No Country for Old Men has a more political bent, and a more complete picture of America. Well, a biased picture but a grand picture, nevertheless. I do love Blood Simple very much. I consider this latest outing to be as good as Fargo, though I'm still holding out on how it compares to Blood Simple.
Anton gets shot once by Moss and also gets hurt pretty bad from the car wreck by someone running a red light. Is this not showing two things.
1. Anton is not invincible.
2. Anton has no control over his own life.
If that be the case, how can Anton be death personified? I'm not saying he isn't "death" but how does it all fit together and still make sense?
Thanks for your comment, kristopher (do I know you?).
Chigurh behaved AS IF he was death personified - that was what seemed to be the mode he operated in. While the film tried for a more tactile, 'reality' take, it flirted with the uncanny. Chigurh may take hits, but these hits did not destroy him. Some people take this to mean he's death itself, and for the symbolic purpose of the character in the film, this would work in light of Bell's character. Realistically speaking, he could've been a very unattached person with an antisocial personality disorder (formerly diagnosed as psychopathy) with the delusion that he was the angel of death - and he acted out in this manner. He was what he behaved.
I doubt anyone who's reading this far hasn't already seen the movie, but just to be fair, there are more spoliers below...
Thanks for the commentary. Just saw this film and left amazed -- I've been thinking about it ever since.
I'm particularly obssessed with the parallel between "Ed Tom" and "Anton" (there's no way the similiarities of their names is an accident).
My current line of thinking (which is likely to change in the next 24 hours) is that Carla Jean was the only 'good' character in the film. Moss was overcome by greed (stealing/running with the money to begin with) and pride (choosing to put his wife's life at risk to take on Chigurh) and Carson was clearly arrogant.
But Ed Tom, who I think is commonly believed to be the 'good guy' of the film, struck me as suffering from fear and/or indifference -- he chose not to pursue Chigurh (opting for retirement) after he'd killed however many people in his town, not to mention his commitment as a sheriff. He also, when sitting in the cafe with Carla Jean, ends up talking about how cows are killed with the type of air gun Chigurh uses. This comment comes shortly after he and his deputy discuss how one of the victims could have an entry wound, but no bullet. This struck me as Ed Tom having the information he needed to dive deeper into the case, but he doesn't whether out of fear, ineptitude, indifference, etc. Not sure what to make of it, but I think something's there.
Carla Jean, on the other hand, is the only one to 'stand up' to Chigurh and not call the coin toss, demonstrating that she controls her own destiny. This results in the only real 'break' in Chigurh character, as he is obvious stunned/frustrated by her unwillingness to call it. Personally, I believe he kills her anyway (he checks his shoes -- for bloo, presumably -- after leaving her house).
Anyway, that's all the thoughts I can wrangle up right now (though there are many more floating around). As with any Coen Brothers movie, I'm looking forward to many more viewings and endless analyses. Thanks for giving us a place to discuss this incredible film!
Thank you for your thoughts, FUW. I agree with you that there are some parallels between Anton and Ed Tom - one takes on the role of a doer and just does it, while the other is moving away from this role.
Carla is indeed the only one to stand up to Anton. I would say Ed Tom also controls his destiny - by choosing to stay out of it altogether.
I don't think Ed Tom is suffering from indifference. Maybe a bit of fear, but it's not unfounded fear - he feels he's overmatched and he is. He's learning to let go - it's not indifference as much as 'knowing when to let go'. I've never thought of him as a coward for giving up on the chase (as some people do), because I think it's Ed Tom's character arc to learn when to let go. His whole profession is about chasing after the 'bad guys' to prevent the next incident. He's come to realize (or he eventually finds) that life is not going to wait for him to fix, and that kinda gives him the reason to quit when he thinks he should. I think it is just as important to know when to let go as to know when to persevere (see Zodiac for an example of someone who just doesn't know when to let go).
Thanks for your reply. This is what separates good movies from great ones -- the ability to see the same thing and interpret it differently.
I can't argue with your point of view, though I still feel like there's more there (and just can't 'prove' it.
To me, the narration in the beginning is all about the pride and honor of the law men of the West, which Ed Tom chose to walk away from when the going got (especially) tough.
Also, in terms of his conversation with the old deputy in wheelchair, I took the story of how Ed Tom's father died -- going for his gun, still trying to get a shot off at the bad guys after he's been hit and knowing he's going to die (I think I'm remembering this correctly) -- as the deputy's way of saying 'we're all going to die: ("you can't stop what's coming") and there's honor in going out fighting.'
Lastly, it's obviosu at the end the Ed Tom is struggling with his decision to retire. The dreams of his father, who died young, but heroicly, seem to haunt him more than comfort him (his father rides right past without even looking at him).
And under the cataegory of WAY over-reading things, when Ed Tom talks about how his father is going ahead into the cold and darkness, he ends his monologue with "and then I woke up" -- which can obviously be 100% literal, but I saw it potentially meaning "and then I realized I was fooling myself". I think since this is the last line in the movie, it is absolutely critical, however you choose to interpret it.
Again, that's all I have time (and brain power) for right now. What a great film...
I don't think it's over reading, FUW. It was a very telling moment of this character.
It was not an easy decision by Ed Tom Bell to quit, by any means. I think in the end, he still felt a pang of regret that he did what he did, and that he failed to live up to past heroics. He probably felt he was inadequate in some ways, compared with the way his forefathers had gone about their lives. He had to learn to live with that, because he no longer had the same outlook in life as his ancestors.
With that said, I think the conversation Bell had before his decision to quit was more along the line of 'you should not hold yourself hostage for this country'. Ellis, the old friend, was not talking about his father. He was talking about his Uncle Mac, who got his award by dying at the mercy of gunmen. It was not an instance of bravery, as much as an instance of being outmatched. His Uncle Mac was shot in his house, with not enough time to prepare ("Mac went in and got his shotgun but they was way ahead of him. Shot him down in his own doorway."). He was rewarded, but not because he was brave - the reward was for dying in the profession of waitin' on death. He was willing to put out, so to speak, and Ed Tom Bell no longer had this willingness because he could not see God - all of this became meaningless to him. The story was Ellis' way of saying 'don't be a fool, this ain't nothing new and you ain't the wiser to stick to the chase.'
You mention that Anton spared Bell, but when I watched the film, it didn't seem to me that Anton was actually there when Bell was there. The shots of Anton waiting in the dark behind the door is what Bell was fearing when he was deciding if he should go in or not.
Thanks for your comment.
I also mentioned that it may have been something made up by Bell, as he was after all the narrator of the story.
There were reflections in the hole where the door knob should've been, and some argued that it was Chigurh. The coin on the floor indicated, if only by the fact that it was zoomed in by the film maker (or Bell's narration), indicated that Chigurh was there. I think this point could be argued either way, and it wouldn't really matter to the story of Ed Tom Bell. Chigurh was the shadow of death Bell walked ever so carefully in.
Hmmm. I took the coin on the floor to indicate that he was there at one point or another, took the money and left.
It seems awfully coincidental that they would be there at the same time. My feeling was that Bell arrived and saw the lock blown out, when it wasn't before. He had just come back from dinner where he heard the story about Chigurh returning to a crime scene. He thinks it over, realizing that Anton could be right on the other side of that door, waiting for him to come in. He visualizes it and the movie shows us what he's fearing. This could be his death, right here right now. But he steps up, and like the quote the movie opens with he pushes his chips forward and puts his soul at hazard. He pushes the door open and goes in, and the door bumps harmlessly against the area that he feared Anton was waiting for him. He checks the place out, finds nobody and sees the vent and coin, indicating that Anton has found the money and left.
This, to me, seems more likely than Anton hiding in a closet and sparing him. Nothing I had seen of Anton's character before this point leads me to believe he would ever hide from a lone cop, especially one who is looking for him.
But maybe I'm crazy. I'd like to hear some more people's thoughts on this.
I do think that Chigurh could very well have tossed that coin in deciding whether he was to take Bell out or not. It wouldn't have been a character stretch.
I do also think that he might've been there earlier, and the reflections could've been of anything, not necessarily Chigurh. Either version would work, though I'm more inclined to agree with you than not.
Interesting take on the Bell/Chigurh thing at the hotel. I never thought of that scene as being Bell's imagination -- there didn't seem to be any indication that it was anything other than reality -- but that's an interesting possibility. I'm going to see it again tonight (hooray!), so I'll cast a keen eye on that scene.
And regarding our earlier discussion about the parallels of Anton and Ed Tom, I think we're more in agreeance than not. My initial thought was that Ed Tom is not as heroic as he appears on the surface and that Carla Jean was more so.
Your comments that he had second thoughts or regretted his retirement are inline with my personal assessment -- that he is fatally flawed as Carson or Moss. His flaw (fear) doesn't kill him as it does for the others, but still makes him sort of tragic, left for the rest of his days wondering what he could have done -- for this case or others -- if he'd had the courage to stand his ground, as Carla Jean did.
Yes, Carla Jean (most likely) died, but she did it fearlessly and on her own terms. Ed Tom still "can't stop what's coming" and death will eventually find him, even if it's not on the form of Chigurh. He just had a choice to face it on his own terms or be chased back to his corner, where he didn't necessarily want to be, and wait.
Again, all this is just personal conjecture and may be entirely off base, but I think there's more to Ed Tom's character than is on the surface. I'm very interested to see it again tonight and am sure I'll have new ideas and theories about the whole thing.
I'm less inclined to judge Ed Tom Bell in that way - heroic or not. I think he does what he thinks make sense to him, and I don't really see anything condemnable about it. I do not see it as a character flaw - just what he says to himself to make sense of the world he lives in.
When viewing characters in a film, especially in these kind of fantastical pictures (where characters have almost surreal qualities about them), it's very easy to slip into the mode of judging characters in a Shakespearean way. I think it's a disservice to the lives portrayed to measure them as though they have to hold up to some sort of idea of a perfect hero/person. People tell stories about the world they live in to make sense of it, and this is, to me, very much the story Bell tells himself.
I hope you enjoy the film the second time around. :)
Great comments all. The best analysis I've seen yet. Just finally saw the film last night and still can't stop thinking about it and feeling it. It was probably the single most satisfying cinematic experience I've ever had and that's saying a lot. I happen to live in Austin and the landscape they portrayed was incredibly well portrayed. There are huge stretches of west Texas, especially down by the border that are just like that. It's the kind of place that is very real and very other worldly at the same time. Causes one to get all philosophical and all. Which is how i saw the picture. Not even about good or evil per se, but just about things just are.
Not everything is waiting on you. That's just vanity.
I'm kind of a John Paul Sartre' type Texan.
Anyway, love your blog.
balthazargetty: thanks for your comments. I haven't been to Austin, but the landscape captured in the film is gorgeous, and a bit melancholic. I'm glad you enjoyed the film and found something useful in this analysis. :)
Saw the movie today. I thought when Sheriff Bell went to the hotel he did not imagine the killer there, but rather the killer escaped out the back window. The window was closed, but not locked.
I felt Woody Harrelson's character and the wife at the end went too easily to their deaths. I would expect the wife to run for her life. I thought Harrelson would at least put up a fight.
Still, I liked the movie a lot.
When Brolin's character was banging the phone receiver after talking to the killer, did it not seem the killer heard the banging? I thought so.
Saw this today. When Sheriff Bell went to the hotel and saw the coin on the floor it indicated to me the killer had found the money. Bell then went to the back and the window was closed, but not locked. I thought the killer escaped out the window with the money.
I enjoyed the film, but think Woody Harrelson's character and the wife at the end of the movie went to their apparent deaths all too easily. I think Harrelson should have fought the guy on the stairs, not meekly go to his room.
Perhaps the wife wanted to join her husband, but I think most of us would have run if we thought the killer was waiting inside.
thank you, David. I thought i was alone in thinking the death of the wife was related to a character flaw or at least an error in judgment, and unnecessary as befits an epic, Shakespearean style tragedy. In Blood Simple the Francis McDormand character survives by continuing to watch for ways out in spite of a seemingly hopeless situation. And it was Llewelyn' s wish that she have a good life. Correct me if I am wrong about this character surviving at all, but didn't the old gas station owner survive by agreeing to call the coin. Yet he was defiant and feisty in refusing to keep the coin separate. He just correctly saw that Anton meant business and he might be a man of his word. So Mrs. Moss was wrong in assuming he would kill her anyway. A harsh interpretation but I think some support in this and other Coen films.
QUESTION:
If Chigurh left the coin with the gas station owner early on in the movie, then HOW DID THE COIN GET TO CARLA JEAN'S MOM'S HOUSE? I'm utterly puzzled. Do we draw the conclusion that Chigurh killed the gas station owner, thus taking his coin back, even though the poor guy won the coin toss? Which would mean Chigurh truly personifies the angel of death, as in you cannot bargain against his will and cannot win your way out of it.
Thank you for you comments guys.
david: It is true that many of us would run. This only serves to underscore her bravery and wisdom, the kind of qualities lacking in her husband. She inadvertently "showed him up" in her defiant move. Unfortunately, and this was where the film went way over to the bleak and defeatist side: it didn't help her any. She died anyhow, though perhaps in a more dignified manner: off screen. Her death was not a spectacle, it was respected.
zaddik2004: He only offered her the coin toss after her defiance was shown. Her defiance, it's important to note, came before there was any possibility of her getting away with a coin toss' luck. She did not run away or scream or act all terrified out of her mind (the convenient store clerk was extremely nervous). Her refusal to play the game then continued this streak of defiance. She was correct in that he was the one deciding her fate, not the coin toss, It was he who decided to give her the coin toss, not the coin itself. She was prepared for his decision.
anonymous: Good question. It would certainly indicate how much bs Chigurh spewed huh?
Finally just saw the film the other night. Wow. Just like everyone else on this blog, I can't stop thinking about it. I've simply never seen anything like it. Fargo and Bloodsimple were similarly styled, but No Country was in a league of it's own. I was left stunned and speechless in my seat for the length of the credits!
Anyway... a few observations, questions, etc.
THE COIN TOSS AND THE DEATHS OF THE GAS STATION OWNER, CARSON, AND CARLA JEAN
Chigurh only offered a coin toss twice in the whole film. In both instances, it was during an execution style opportunity (not a fight scene) in which the subject was philosophically engaged. The first was at the gas station. The gas station owner was a bit scurryish at first. You could see the fight or flight set in when he almost swallowed his tongue. He was scared silly, trying to close the shop early, using absurd excuses. But Chigurh put a stop to that nonsense when he exclaimed "you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?" It was a verbal slap in the face that got the attention he desired. He wouldn't let that guy get away that easy. It was at this point the owner subtly stood up to Chigurh. He wouldn't swallow his pride to admit that he "married into it" Whether he did or didn't marry into it, we'll never know. But it didn't matter. What mattered was that he convinced Chigurh that he hadn't married into it with his dismissive response: "Well if that's the way you want to put it, I guess..." A true coward would have said whatever he felt would have gotten him out of the situation. I feel like a cowardly response like this would have surely gotten him executed with no further discourse.
I don't see how Carson had an opportunity to put up a fight. He was unarmed and caught off guard. Had Carson flinched in any direction, Chigurgh surely would have blown him away with his shotgun. Inside the room, perhaps we would have seen another coin toss with Carson had he not have been so pathetically begging for his life.
In regards to Carla Jean not running for her life, she didn't have the energy. And for what more did she have to live anyway? She was drained from losing her beloved husband, burying her dead mother, and arguably the shock of the sight of Chigurgh in her bedroom. She had the courage to stand up to him philosophically, however, and this earned her a coin toss. When she abstained from the coin toss, Chigurgh chose for her, fulfilling his promise. I never felt like the coin Chigurh wanted to flip for Carla Jean was the same coin he used for the gas station owner. Chigurh gave that coin to the gas station owner. He felt like that coin was a trinket of sort that that should be treasured. That coin was an incarnation of fate. After all, as Chigurgh saw it, the coin was traveling for 22 years just to get to THAT faceoff. Furthermore,
CHIGURGH/BELL IN THE HOTEL SCENE
I don't believe there was any coin tossed with Bell in the Hotel room. The coin we saw on the floor was a dime. Chigurgh used the dime for unscrewing the A/C return cover just as he had in the other hotel. He used quarters for coin tosses (maybe it's just me, but I don't believe anything should be flipped but a quarter when flipping a coin for a decision--whether it be for bacon or sausage for breakfast, or for life or death in this movie--a quarter it is). Furthermore, a coin toss in this scene would have been incongruent with the Coen brothers stylefor this movie. So much attention was given to sounds throughout the whole movie. Surely Bell would have heard the ting & whirl sound of a flipped coin in such a quiet room. This would have prompted a shootoff that presumably would have left Bell in a pool of blood and Chigurgh calmly walking away with his money. And finally, I don't think Chigurgh believed he could call the toss. He left that up to his victims.
But where was Chigurh? How did he escape? I thought surely this scene was the end for Bell. I don't believe the image of Chigurgh behind the door was Bell's imagination. There were several other scenes involving suspenseful crossing of threshholds, none of which involved an on screen projection of what was going on inside the minds of the characters. If the window was left unlocked, clearly he made it out the window before bell busted open the door. But I thought the window was shown to be locked, not unlocked. Where was Chigurgh? Did he sneak out the front door while Bell was in the bathroom? Was he in the room next door? This was truely the only part of the whole story that doesn't sit with me. If any of you have further insight, I would love some.
WHAT A GREAT PICTURE!!!!!!
Thanks for the comment, jdm843.
"Surely Bell would have heard the ting & whirl sound of a flipped coin in such a quiet room. This would have prompted a shootoff that presumably would have left Bell in a pool of blood and Chigurgh calmly walking away with his money. And finally, I don't think Chigurgh believed he could call the toss. He left that up to his victims."
If that was the case, the unscrewing the A/C cover would've made noise too - a lot more than a coin toss.
Chigurh also made the decision for Carla, so it's not inconsistent with his character to do so for Bell.
The "how did he get away" was what prompted the idea that he may not have been there at all (i.e. he is a ghost of Bell's imagination), an idea that would be supported by the rest of the film.
He could've also, like you said, gone through the A/C tube. He could've also gone through it at different time -earlier, for example.
Good points...
My impression was that the A/C cover was removed and the money was removed before Bell arrived on the scene (or at least before he stood at the door for a beat). So he presumably had the money at his feet wherever he was hiding. Some might say he was in the room next door, claiming there was a second room that was police taped off. I don't know... I guess I haven't warmed up to the idea of Chigurh being immortal in any way. And as I said before, I find an on screen projection of a character's imagination to be out of place in this film. Also, I thought Bell only referred to Chigurh as a "ghost" because he was so damn hard to catch up with. He was always two steps behind. Carson, however was only one step behind (and look what happened to him). Carson was younger, faster, and arguably more cut out for the chase. Carson claimed to understand Chigurh (at least more than most). Bell didn't, and that's why he wouldn't "push his chip forward". But by going back to that hotel that night, I guess he did push his chips forward a bit--he put his soul at hazard. Maybe that's why Chigurh disposed of Carson, but not Bell? Carson was more of threat to Chigurh. I dunno. I've been rambling for the last several sentences as surely you've noticed...
And yes, Chigurh did choose for Carla Jean, but only after she refused his coin toss. It's almost like you get a 25% chance of survival. You choose the toss or not (50/50). If you opt out, Chigurh chooses for you (and we all know what that will be every time). If you participate, chance decides.
I still can't believe how though provoking this film was!
Thanks for the great analysis, and to everyone for the great comments. I finally had the pleasure of seeing the movie last night (December 24th) and was blown away.
One thing I didn't see anyone mention so far (although I may have missed it) is that the different characters seem to operate within different time scales:
Ed Tom's is multi-generational and temporally extended, including his grandfather, father, uncle, and himself;
Moss seems to be 'within-lifetime' in the sense his concern is only with how his (and Carla's) life will be now that they have $$ to live it as they see fit;
Carla seems to be living in the immediate present. For example, when confronted by Chigurh, her view of her life involves only immediate, day-to-day concerns, such as how to pay the bills.
This seems to fit with how each of them deal with the inevitability of death (in the form of Chigurh):
Ed Tom's strategy is to turn away from the world and take his place in his family history;
Moss's is to fight back to try to preserve his and Carla's future;
and Carla's is to resign herself to whatever comes in the present - she rejects the coin toss not because she is standing up to death, but rather because it makes no difference, given how she views her life: There is some sense in deciding to take death as it comes rather than try to sidestep it when one's view of their own life is as a series of day-to-day events out of their control. She has no view of her life as temporally extended, so there is no need to put the inevitable off.
Because of this, I didn't see any of the characters as more or less heroic (although I admit it was nice to see Carla act against Chigurah's expectations). Rather, the movie depicts different people dealing with death in different ways, and these ways make sense given the views each character has on life. Of course, the views also correlate with age... Anyway, that's how I was thinking of it as I wrote this message.
Finally, I'm sure someone else had to have mentioned it, but the last line in the movie, about waking up, struck me as referring to (among other things) the audience moving from the fictional world of the movie to the real world of leaving the theater. What a great last line to a movie.
Cheers,
71whit
jdm843: "I don't know... I guess I haven't warmed up to the idea of Chigurh being immortal in any way. And as I said before, I find an on screen projection of a character's imagination to be out of place in this film."
Chigurh doesn't have to be immortal if he's just someone from Bell's imagination. And it would be consistent, considering the structure of the film: it opens and ends with Bell's speech. It is within reason to think this is his story - he can make Chigurh to be the shadow of death he barely escaped.
71whit: thank you reading, and for that insightful and interesting point. It does fit with the characters in the film. When we look at the world and life in the 'big picture', as I call it (the human race and our existence), one can fall into Ed Tom's point of view. Being present would allow the kind of bravery required of Carla. Humans fear, at an existential level, because we can think of the future as well as the past.
I agree with you that one is not more heroic than the other. If any time I mention 'heroic' act, it is very much in the traditional sense of what makes a hero - someone who confronts fear and is not afraid of what s/he must face.
the quote from the wheelchair bound friend was zen-like. something like 'the more time you spend getting back what you lost, the more goes out the window' does anyone know the exact quote?
Robert: I believe the line is: "All the time you spend tryin' to get back what's been took from you there's more goin' out the door. After a while you just try and get a tourniquet on it."
I haven't had this much fun since English 101.
I'd like to make a couple comments about Chigurh as Death. First of all, the character he most reminded me of was Tex Cobb in the Coen's comedy Raising Arizona. Someone should write a paper comparing the two characters. I think Shigurh is a revision of that character (you might say they both represented irrepressible karma or something like that). But in the end Chigurh is neither death nor a ghost. He is definitely flesh and blood, even though he does seem unkillable; as the kid says, "Look at that bone stickin' out!"
Finally, a comment on your feeling that the film's theme (for you). I think this film's greatness lies in its richness of theme and the way it doesn't necessarily try to resolve its themes. For me, I thought the film was about the changing face of evil and arguments about whether or not people are getting worse. I can't wait to watch it a second time to see all the things I know I missed.
It's a classic, already.
Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure about that theme... that people are getting worse. If anything, evil has stayed the same (as talked about in the friend quote I posted), but it is increasingly difficult to push one's chips forward - probably due to the lack of faith in something greater than oneself (god didn't come into his life, he said).
I think all of the interpretations of Chigurh are very interesting. It seems there is a general consensus that he is, or at least believes himself to be, death. My question is, if he believes to be beyond the human condition, why is he still so driven to recover the money? I feel if he is motivated by money, he is just like everyone else in the movie only more ruthlessly, skilled at killing. He would appear to just be greedy. Can anyone maybe respond to this?
*SPOILERS*
johndoe: He is not motivated by money. After all, he got rid of the guy who hired the poor chaps working with him to recover the money. He was more motivated by getting a job done, it would seem.
i agree he was very motivated. I may of missed something, but I don't remember who he was employed by. He killed members from every party that was envolved with the money. I could be wrong though.
This film has just been screened in Australia, and as both a filmmaker myself and a Cohen Bros. devotee, I'd like to comment that, although somewhat an anti-climax and unsatisfactory in the traditional storytelling sense, the ending would make sense only if the story continues, either hypothetically or as a sequel. One can predict what would happen, even though we are not shown it. And we have been given the clues: the sheriff is restless in his retirement, his life lacks purpose, and the killer is still out there.
Due to their characters, the killer will not stop killing, if not for the money, then for some other reason, and the sheriff is not the kind of guy to let a killer escape justice in the end. He knows the method of the killer's weapon if not its actual design. But he will watch out for it and in the end it will give the killer away. The sheriff knows what to look for, whereas the victims never did.
And in the end, the sheriff will get his man, even if he is outside the law...
John Doe: I do agree that he killed everyone involved with the money, however even AFTER he had the money, he killed carla becuase of a promise he made to her husband (or so many think). Theres one line that stuck with me that proves that money is not his motivation for killing; its inconvenience (the one when hes in the hospital and he asks wells the question about splitting a deal with Anton).
the Tik-Tok Man: I think the feeling of resignation pretty much permeates the entire film, so I doubt that there'd be a sequel where he gets the bad guy. That would defeat the whole film's projection.
Anonymous: That's a good point. Chigurh never expressed the sort of greed that plagued those involved with the money.
I wanted to see the movie again before I commented but I can't wait: Death comes to collect one debt at the assigned time. So the money metaphor is clear for me. It's Anton's attention to the rear view mirror when he get's T-boned that is interesting to me. It makes me consider that Death is capable of regret, self doubt, reflection. Those things can only be experienced when he is not driven by his accepted purpose, ie to 'collect'.
One thought has stuck in my mind since seeing the film, and I'm wondering if anyone else had a similar take. If Chigurh was behind the door, which I believe he was, there would be little chance for Ed Tom to leave without a confrontation. Crazy thought: Could he have actually killed Ed Tom, whose final speech is actually him dreaming as he heads off to meet up with his father in the afterlife?
Thanks for reading and commenting, guys.
Robert: Death isn't capable of anything other than stopping life, I'm afraid.
Anonymous: I think that's stretching it quite a bit, because there was no indication that he had died. My one rule for film interpretation is that it must be present in the film. Speculations are fun and interpretations vary from person to person, but if it's not in the film it's very hard to back up your interpretation.
Yes, I agree that my potential interpretation is "out there." I guess the flow of the motel room scene had an odd Sopranos feel, with its obvious lack of resolution. Then Ed Tom's speech, with the golden plains outside the kitchen window, reminded me a bit of Elysian fields. I guess I am reading too much into it...
Also, I have noticed that everyone telling Chigurh he is crazy is killed after. However, I have a doubt the deputy told him. I think it shows that Chigurh reallly thinks he is death and want to show it...
Anonymous: I am not a Sopranos viewer so I wouldn't know. Don't worry about 'reading too much' if it's fun to do so. :)
DavidNesta: Are you the anonymous from the previous post? Ed Tom Bell never faced Chigurh directly to tell him anything. It is interesting that fate and death are used interchangeably when discussing what Chigurh represents. In a way, we all share a common fate, and that's death. It is rather existentialistic/nihilistic that that's the kind of fate Chigurh believes himself to be.
No it wasn't me. I actually put a message before this one that isn't displayed, here it is: "Hello everyone. I'm french so please forgive my bad english. I have read all your comments (didn't understand everything but the essential).
First, I don't think that Chigurh is in the Motel room where Ed Tom is going as we see throughout the movie that Ed Tom is experienced and has a deductive reasoning really developed. Moreover, I don't think that Chigurh is immortal as we see that, even if fate can't kill him, it can hurt him. And why would he treat his hurts if he was immortal ?
However, I don't really get the final dreams meaning. Could you set me straight about it please ?
Thank you for this great blog."
Ed Tom Bell said that he dreamt about his father riding ahead, waiting for him. And then he woke up. One possible interpretation would be that it seems like he is haunted by the legacy of his forefathers, that he perhaps could catch up to them (i.e. achieve similar success), but only in his dreams. The reality was that he could not carry out 'justice' valiantly. He did not have the same kind of faith in a just universe that enabled his forefathers to 'put their chips forward' (that is, to take risks in order to do things 'right').
I hope that helps. Thanks for reading the post and commenting. Don't worry about the English part - I bet you could write better in French than I would be able to. :)
David's comment makes me consider that as Death is a visible entity, fate is also a distinct, seperate entity. At least as powerful yet unseen. Having an awareness of all things but only being able to influence them in an indirect way.
You have to be careful now: awareness is not death. Death is unbeing --> unaware.
Many thanks to you (Aurelle) for your help.
Pretty simple statement made in the film: Luck is staying alive and luck is not aplenty when you're out living at risk.
Tommy Lee Jones' character gave up risk for common days, hence he asks his wife if she needs help with the chores and she says "no", and then asks to ride with him. He sees dying ahead - the end of an era, his and he's afraid. Fear is what is to take from this film. Fear is what propels the film's premise: No matter how careful, how prepared - goodbye.
Old Men = Tolerance for the known, only.
All i knew was the sherrif got the money and thanks to anonymous i see how - Anton was'nt there and he thought the money was in the hands of whats-her-name.
Anonymous: Ed Tom Bell's comment on luck points out his awareness of the futility of his position. He is a prisoner of the past, the 'old timers', his father. He is in the unfortunate position of being moved by what he knows he doesn't want, rather than having the clear direction of knowing what he wants.
That could be the case too, Robert. Nicely put.
What about a hypothesis where the entire movie is the events of the first dream, mentioned at the conclusion of the film, that is not remembered? (He states that it had something to do with losing money)The stoyy that we witnessed was a creation of Bell, representing the absolute, unrelenting shroud of evil he saw in the world; and the moral decay that led him to retire. The second dream is Bell facing judgement for giving in to this fear of a darkness he couldn't understand. The light which Bell's father guarded was that of hope, and he refused to let it die out. Bell surrendered to the darkness.
I don't know that this is my interpretation, but I find it to be another interesting way to approach the film.
If someone more sentimental was the director at hands, I would consider this interpretation. As it is the Coen bros, nah.
My bias read is that of non-judgment on Ed Tom Bell's character. The resignation is heart felt, and I really don't believe in 'true evil of the world' or 'moral decay'. It was clear from Ed's old friend that things have always been the way they are; it's just that people are less willing to put their chips forward because they have lost faith in the greater picture.
Perhaps I am reading too much into it -- nothetheless, these are my thoughts: (btw, I just read what I wrote, I am not a religious zealot, just a regular person)
Chigurh represents chaos, the evil inclination in humankind, the devil -- whatever your religious/philosophical bent. As expressed through the ages, it is recurrent, part of the fabric of life. G-d, the force of life etc. is seemingly not present -- as the sherriff feels. And at times, when one does not open oneself to it, life feels chaotic, without meaning or purpose, it is "nasty and brutish" and one feels "the horror (references intended). But G-d, meaning, good, etc is indeed there. And just as the sherriff comes back to his wife and dreams dreams of the coming of God's messiah (I believe the dream of the father on the horse with the horn is a biblical reference - I think the coming of the messiah or the second coming -- whatever your religious bent - is to be preceded by the prophet elijah on a horse by a blast of a ram's horn), he comes back to understanding that part of making sense of the world is accepting man's lot as a finite being and the infinite's place in it. It is not a nihilistic view at all. It is a philosophical acceptance of the hidden meaning being or underneath == the invisible. And while all seems chaotic, it is not. It should not scare or cause fear that Chiguh seems indistructable -- just as the "angel of death" he/she/it creates situations which engeandor meaning -- as it is said, the very finite nature of life (death) makes life meaningful for us. The preciousness we feel when we realize we can/will lose it. And Chigurh/death/evil is chastened, put in its place by G-d/the universe itself. The car that smashes into Chigurh -- as it kills the innocent person in the car -- also smashes Chigurh, never killing it, for it is part of the equation, but assuring that it is a only part of the whole.
Surely, I have read too much into this crime thriller. But just as youth is lost on the young, when you get old is when your thoughts turn to your own mortality, to your finite nature, and as you recognize you are not indeed all powerful, but a veteran, bruised, dusted up from the struggle, you also begin to recognize the fabric of it all, and hopefully, with peace and tranquility, you reach the zen state of the man in the wheelchair.
Did anyone notice how the money was used at several points in the film to help a certain character? Moss uses it for some kid's coat, then later to get him medical aid; Chigurh uses it to bribe the kids into not giving him up to the impending police. I'm not entirely sure what it meant, but I think it's interesting and hope it hasn't gone overlooked. :)
rb: Thanks for that philosophical take. I do think that the sheriff gave up on 'accepting his place in the universe' where his God did not come to him. He didn't accept it; he woke up from the dream. It wasn't a reality for him. So while it would be helpful for him to accept his place in an infinite world, it doesn't change the fact that he lost his faith.
Btw, I know it's just a saying about youth, but I'm young and I am very much aware of my existential issues and anxiety. So it's not just a province of the old, even though they're the ones having to face this issue every day.
anonymous: Thanks for your comment. I think Robert mentioned something about the exchange of money, but not what it meant. Money was used to 'buy' a different identity, as both men used it to get new 'coat'. I mentioned this in my analysis, but not a reading on money itself.
You morons! Don't you see, Ed Tom and Anton are one in the same! Sheriff Ed did all the killings. It would take forever to explain, so watch the movie with this new found knowledge and you will clearly see how obvious it is!
maybe i missed this discussion earlier but did anyone else notice that every main charater that was killed (carla, carson, and moss) were killed offscreen so that you don't actually see them die. where as so many insignificant people are murdered right in front of our eyes. what are everyones thoughts on this element? anyway, great film, just wish i had read the book before seeing it. that's next on my to-do list.
i agree with supervlv, good spot.
My rather juvenile question is, who ends up with the money?
I cant see how it is Chigurh when he is not seen with it after the car crash at the end?
I thought that the underlying reason is that the money becomes largely insignificant and in my own opinion, i had forgot about the money altogether.
Thanks Mike
supervlv255: Perhaps it is because we care about the characters we know that we may feel more compelled to understand how they are killed - and the Coens just didn't want to give us the explanation we sought. This would be quite in line with Ed Tom Bell's point of view.
Mike: It has been mentioned somewhere that Chigurh may have the money and that he was buying the kid's shirt with it at the end.
Regarding Carla's refusal to pick a side on the coin toss - Some comments above mentioned this was an act of bravery, of standing up to death and to Anton's BS.
I interpreted the refusal to take the bet as an act of cowardice.
There are many instances in the film in which the fate of the characters is decided by chance. The only reason that Moss ever witnesses the crime scene in the beginning, is because he accidentally shoots a dog in a herd of deer. The only reason why the Sherriff and his aide get to live, is that they arrive at Moss's house, they are a few minutes late after Anton had already left.
When Carla refuses to take the bet, it is a denial of what life requires her and everyone else to do - take chances, and surrender to fate. She exclaims that killing her is Anton's choice, and "he doesn't have to do this". She is mistaken in two levels:
1) Given that he had indeed decided to kill her, her fate does indeed depend on a coin toss, on chance. She just refuses to accept this.
2) Anton symbolizes, and perceives himself, as a part of fate, and just as a man. There is no decision in killing her depending on a coin toss, just as there was no decision in Anton getting hit by a car.
Danra
A few things:
1. In the scene at the motel with Ed Tom and Anton, I saw the window in the bathroom to be locked, not unlocked. No one has proffered a simple though plausible explanation - Anton didn't want to unnecessarily kill a police officer. He knows that killing another police officer may result in a massive manhunt. It seems a stretch given Anton's homicidal lust, but he is also calculating. Think about how he ran from Moss rather than fight in a compromised position.
2. Clearly, this film had a nihilistic bent. I thought the car crash at the end was brilliant. We were all waiting for a moment of poetic justice, and the Coen Brother's dangle it in front of our faces. But in the end, this crash was just another meaningless event, and one from which the bad guy rose once again. In fact, the irony is that the man in the other car appeared to be dead/badly wounded. Notice his neck was craned backward, and he doesn't get out of the car.
3. Still, there seem to be some anti-nihilistic elements.
a. Moss seems to pay for his vices. It was surely vice that got him into the mess in the first place. And finally, vice to be swimming and drinking (I assume) with some random floozy rather than protecting himself. There seems to be a comment here, albeit a subtle one.
b. Does anyone else think that Carla's refusal and commentary at the end makes quite a statement about the value of Anton's actions? Anton styles himself as the agent of cold, absurd fate. Yet, Carla makes clear that he is no mercenary , but a moral agent making immoral choices. She says, "I could tell you were crazy from the moment I saw you sitting there." I.e., crazy as judged against some external standard. I may be reading too much in here, but I think there's something to it.
I'm a Christian, and I patently disagree with the worldview I understand the Coen's to be offering. Still, this is masterful, thought provoking, and haunting filmmaking. In fact, I can't sleep, thus this lengthy post.
The parallels with Fargo are striking too, aren't they? Both deal with the contrast between normal, salt-of-the-earth good guys, and evil, twisted bad guys. Where Fargo seems to make a comment about the redeeming value of normal goodness, No Country says something quite different.
Thoughts anyone?
First off, bravo to everyone who has posted here (other than that Don person who surely MUST be speaking tongue in cheek), and bravo also to Aurelle for this blog...you have all discussed many of the questions that surely would have kept me up at night (as a self-professed 1/2 OCD sufferer :P )
Just thought that I would mention (as a younger viewer so I didn't think anyone else would think on this too much):
In the film Batman forever, Tommy Lee Jones plays Two-face, a villain who flips a coin before committing evil deeds etc...I think he has to have it land on heads before he can commit a crime or something.
Just thought that it was really funny to see another Tommy Lee movie in which a coin was used by a character to decide actions as a habit.
Benjamin:
Thank you for your thoughts. I'll try to respond to each point in turn:
1. Moss got away, and Anton was hurt at the time. He didn't 'run away' necessarily. As for the locked bathroom window, the popular explanation is that the two scenes are from different time frames, and that they have never been in the same place. Another explanation is that he got out from the ventilation; hence, the coin was seen on the floor next to it. Both of these scenarios have been mentioned above.
2. Yes, this film definitely has that nihilistic bent.
3. "Still, there seem to be some anti-nihilistic elements"
a. "Moss seems to pay for his vices. It was surely vice that got him into the mess in the first place. And finally, vice to be swimming and drinking (I assume) with some random floozy rather than protecting himself. There seems to be a comment here, albeit a subtle one." Haha that's funny.
b. "Does anyone else think that Carla's refusal and commentary at the end makes quite a statement about the value of Anton's actions? Anton styles himself as the agent of cold, absurd fate. Yet, Carla makes clear that he is no mercenary , but a moral agent making immoral choices." Yes.
I haven't seen Fargo in a long time to make proper comparisons between the two films. Fargo, as I remember, is definitely not No Country in its pessimistic stance.
Anonymous: Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate everyone's contribution to this lively discussion. I didn't think it would grow to this extent, quite honestly. Thanks again for reading.
As for Tommy Lee Jones, maybe someone should mention that to him next time s/he interviews him. That's quite a funny coincidence, although Tommy Lee Jones probably wants to forget he ever made Batman & Robin. Hehe.
I have seen an interview of 'Anton' where he explains that he WAS behind the door while Ed Tom Bell was in the room.
First off, wow I really enjoyed everyone's comments; they'll probably force me to watch the film again...
My initial reaction to the film was that it was in no way nihilistic.
I thought it was a stark comment on the human condition and the hopeless courage of man; you face the evils of other men, regardless of merit, experience or happenstance.
For me the entire movie was made by the last couple minutes (Carla Jeans' death and Ed Tom's dreams). Carla Jean calling Chigurh out was a matter of agency, his responsibility in his actions.
Despite this power in choice, the movie as a whole paints an inescapable picture of mankind's weakness (consider Carla Jeans death, or more subtle -the kids trying to make money selling beer to a dying Moss, or arguing over money for the shirt at the end) most dramatically shown in Ed Tom admitting that he understood why God would have reason to ignore him.
So our power of choice meets this ubiquitous human weakness as well as the absurdity of chance -which to me emphasized the frailty of life and the notion that "you can't escape what's coming... that's vanity."
I interpreted this as a larger meta-narrative that any individual is subjugated to (as well as to chance and this ubiquitous weakness).
For me this crescendoed in Ed Tom's dreams. I thought the second dream (is it important that there's two? and the first is seemingly insignificant and about money??) -that the second dream was eschatological.
Throughout the movie Ed Tom is sickened by the actions of man, of man's potential running on his own steam. But in this dream - he's riding through hard country and the only real comfort is this certainty that up ahead, is a presence where rest and warmth will be found despite the dark and cold traveled through together.
I felt that Ed Tom was searching for hope, albeit sustained by need alone. That this was his hope that God would meet him as an old man resurfacing.
thoughts?
initially, after the closing credits, my theory was tommy lee-jones character was killed by chigurh in the hotel, as there was still unfinished business with the vent being unscrewed and chigurh lurking in the shadows.
Then the scene with the visit to the deputy in the wheelchair was really to a former co-worker in the afterlife who shed light on tommy-lee's relatives death on the porch.
then the final scene, i had chalked up to a dream tommy-lee's wife was having after he passed away. her comment about she couldn't go horseback riding because she still had to go to work.
while that was my initialy theory, now i'm not so sure. but the good thing is this film makes you use your imagination.
Robert: Can you post that interview link? Thanks.
Anonymous 1 (peeps, you should really state a name or something so I can respond properly!): Thank you for that thoughtful response. Can you explain the weakness that you speak of? I'm not sure I follow what you mean by 'man's weakness'. And I'm also not sure that Ed Tom Bell actually believed God had a reason to ignore him. I think he was mystified by it, if not discouraged by God's absence, but he did not indicate that somehow it was deserved.
Anonymous 2: Thanks for your comment. I don't remember the film ever mentioned anything about after life. I wouldn't bring the after life in if it was not somehow indicated in the film to be something that would belong in the film.
I watched the movie a few days ago and was left feeling extremely baffled by the ending but then today someone explained to me that maybe Ed Tom and Anton are one in the same... then I got to thinking about the movie again and that would totally make sense if that were true...
examples:
like when he pulled the car over at the beginning, the guy didn't even think about not getting out of the car to an officer out of uniform and then the creepy guy going back to crime scenes with no problems...
the fact the ed thom and anton do not meet the entire film...
the sheriff's rant about the way they kill cows in the diner with llewellen's wife...
How does that make sense thematically though?
I wonder...
Did anyone get the connection between Llewellen and Anton?
Both use clothing as an emergency fix for their wounds.
Both use a bloody hundred dollar bill from a sitting position to get help.
Both crash in vehicles where another victim is also dead.
Both get shot with a shotgun and methodically clean their own wounds.
Both have a fancy for nice/clean boots.
Both choose to turn out the light at the hotel before firing at one another.
Both transport their weapons in black rucksacks.
Both leave, and also follow, trails of blood.
Both are hunters, so to speak.
Also...
Money causes conflict with the guys on the bridge and Llewellen when he buys the jacket ("Were you in a car accident?"---and--- "Let him hold the money first")and then later between the two boys when Chigur buys the shirt(they even ignore the dead driver from the accident---plus-"Look at that bone stickin out of your arm"---and---"You know part of that is mine").
LLewellen was injured on the right side of his body. Anton on the left side of his body.
To continue with other 'mysterious' items...
There was mention of the driver of one of Chigur's 'borrowed' vehicles being registered to an owner having been dead for twenty years (Bell's dad?)
Chigur found Moss easily (as did the colonel who bragged how easy it was), yet couldn't reconcile any information as to his whereabouts with a(yet another) defiant woman working the trailer park desk.
The coin with the store clek was heads = life
The coin on the motel floor was heads = life for Bell
The clean hundred to the hotel clerk placed face down on the counter = death
The bloody hundred to the Mexican musicians was face up = Moss survives
The bloody hundred to the kids was mostly unopened = fate unknown(?)
Bell and Chigur both "reflected" on their current situation in the reflection of the TV in Moss's place. Both drank milk.
Bell didn't bother to print the glass bottle.
How the h**l did Bell figure to just happen to look at the mark on the wall from the blown out lock?
I have dozens of other observations including how Moss's decision to bring water may have extended his life, actually.
Anyone care to comment?
Ed
Ed: Thanks for these detailed observations. I have picked up on some of these and commented in the analysis, though I didn't touch on the parallels between the characters.
Perhaps, considering Anton's stature as the Angel of Death, that he was Moss' own undoing. His shadow of death, so to speak. It would make sense in the big picture.
I am not sure if anyone mentioned this possibility, but consider the dream sequence at the end of the movie as a biblical allusion. Bell's father is taking him through mountains planning on making a fire when he gets to the destination. Sounds like the binding of Isaac.
Now, just like in the biblical story, right before Bell's father could continue on his son's sacrifice for a God Bell could never see (due to the absurd nature of the world) he awakens from the dream. Bell rejects his fate of sacrifice and figuratively climbs off the alter himself. He does this without God's consent but instead through a realization that times have changed, and one cannot expect heroism to delay death on his mission.
Now is Bell philosophically determining that his occupation as a preventer of death is futile, or is he simply afraid of dying? Both options seem plausible, as Bell shows fear when entering the motel room despite having an opportunity to change fate (he could have saved Carla's life if Anton had indeed been in the room). On the other hand, Bell's fear seems more than a result of cowardice, he's too old to be afraid of bad guys. Does anyone have any thoughts on this contradiction?
More thoughts to follow.
-- Joseph
Some thoughts (and excuse my poor english, as I'm Norwegian):
Obviously, Chigurh is crazy (for example, he kills the innocent Carla Jean). But from HIS point of view, it’s everyone else who's insane. He can't understand how people are living their lives ("You married in to it?" he asks the proprietor, almost stucking his cashew nuts in his throat).
Yes, I think Chigurh represents Death, but I think he sees himself as God - deciding who's going to live and who's going to die. And certainly - Chigurh moves in mysterious ways :)
For instance: It takes him about one minute to decide that he's going to toss a coin over (the right word here?) the proprietor's life.
According to Chigurh's philosophy, the proprietor is wasting his life, and Chigurh - seeing himself as a merciless Old Testament kind of God - hates him for it, and decides to give him a second chance where the proprietor “stand to win everything” (obviously meaning the rest of his life).
Notice also the contrast between Chigurh's dark clothes and the white door behind him in this scene, meaning that between Death and Life stands Chigurh - he decides. And to come pass Chigurh out to a free life, the proprietor has to CHOOSE - which is Chigurh's philospohy on life: Life is what you choose (the proprietor "married in to it" - that's the way it is, it's not just a way to put it, as Chigurh says – and on this issue I think he’s 100 % right). Like he says to Wells: "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" (My favourite line in the movie.) It comes down to free choice. Free choice, AND faith.
Chigurh says he got there the same way as the coin did. How did the coin get there? How does a coin get anywhere? No one knows for sure. Just by coincidence. There is no good meaning in it all, that's just the way it all goes down. Faith, chance. Does the coin land on heads or tails? That depends on coincidence. We do decide over our lives, but just to a certain extent, like Chigurh finally being hit by a car; this he doesn't whine about, he accepts it and moves on. Free choice, faith, chance - and welcome to Chigurh's sick rules: he'll kill you if you're wrong. Like Death comes - like God harvests his sheep: Suddenly.
And no, Chigurh didn't come back and kill the proprietor, that I'm sure of. He's a man of his words. For instance, he killed Carla Jean because he made a promise. As Wells says about him: "You could even say that he has principles." And he wouldn't kill the proprietor who made the right choice in the coin toss.
And why does Chigurh toss a coin over people's lives? 1) Because it concurs with his philosophy on life (people choosing their own lives); and 2) Because deep inside he feels guilty about killing them, and it's a way of making it seem like his victims' own choices - which it is clearly not. It is definitely Chigurh's own choice, which Carla Jean (the true hero in the story) knows and reminds him of.
By da way, I strongly recommend the book (written by Cormac McCarthur).
And I don't claim this to be the "right" interpretation - just mine.
I hope this didn't get too messy. I'd love anyone else's views on this.
-Daniel.
"And then I woke up", to me, is perhaps the most important line in the movie. The two dreams Bell recounts reveal much about the underlying themes of the film. Bell spends all of two seconds summing up his first dream about money because it is at once both fleeting and desired (one of many dualities present). You might say money is the reason for Anton's pursuit (the real reason is Lewellyn's humanity). Truthfully, Anton kills b/c it gives him a way to display how he does it. Money is merely a catalyst that sets the characters in motion.
Then there is the second dream. A father, riding ahead on a cold night. Out of sight, but there is the knoweldge that the warmth of the fire, and salvation from the cold and the dark are around the corner. "And then I woke up"--indicates that this security blanket does not exist. In particular, I believe the riding ahead of his father is a metaphor for the deeds of previous generations of mankind--the belief that they have made the world a better place for us. Then we wake up one day and realize no, there is evil.
I would like to add that Raising Arizona also ends with a dream sequence--albeit acted out. Also I suppose it goes without saying there are heavy Taoist archetypes present in No Country for Old Men.
Also, I enjoyed your analysis of the movie Aurelle. I found it refreshing.
Anton is not behind the door in the hotel room. The scene clearly shows the door opening from the inside, and Anton is nowhere in sight. It is only Bell's imagination.
I would be really grateful if you could account for the symmetry, precisely, between the scene where Llewelyn decides to bring the water, and the one where he realizes he must have a bug with him (both are shot from above while he is laying in bed, but they seem to have different consequences and implications: the one would seem to pin Death to him, seal his fate, etc.,; the other would free him from it, but of course doesn't).
Also, what seems to me to be the most out of joint detail is that Carson Welles tells the man in the blue coat that there is a floor missing: now, obviously, it could be the anecdotal 13th floor, but even then, why mention it. I think answering this would go toward understanding the (allegorical?) roles of Carson and his employer.
Joseph: Thank you for your comments.
I don't think Bell had any opportunity to change fate. If anything, he kept falling behind what already was playing out. At the motel, he realized a lot of things and maybe one of that realization was that he really was not made for this. And again, I don't think Bell was a 'coward'. He was just someone who lost faith in the bigger picture - he did put his chips forward in that motel by turning the knob (he didn't have to, and he pushed through his fear to do it) - and in his ability to make the difference he wanted to make.
Daniel: Thank you for your comments. Your written English is better than many people's, and certainly better than my writing in Norwegian (zip)!
I don't think Chigurh had any guilt - this is a psychopath, to use an old psychology term. He does not feel remorse or guilt. He kills within his own logic. Carla calls him out because he's just using the coin toss as a game and not as some sort of 'I give you the choice' act. It is him who makes the choice, not the person choosing a side of the coin toss. In a way, it's a comment on how choices can seem like fate in hindsight, and it's really hard to tease out the two.
As to whether he sees himself as God or Death, sometimes, there's no distinction between the two when it comes to the end of life.
tmick7: Thank you for reading. I'm amazed how far this post has gotten me, quite honestly!
Good points regarding the dreams. It's interesting that some of the most important things about the film occurred out of frame, or obscurely within frame.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by Taoist archetypes in the film? Thanks. :)
Anonymous: You certainly can explain it that way. Some people think it's a scene spliced together from different times. Both make sense.
Russell: Hm, that's a good catch. I'm not sure what you'd like me to elaborate on. Coen bros. like above-the-head shots; it gives a sense of the 'big picture'. It also gives the bird's eye (or God-like) view on things.
When Moss makes decisions to bring the water and to get rid of the pin, he's at the pivotal moment of decision-making. Perhaps that's why the bird eye's view is required for these momentous decisions that affects his life?
As for the missing floor, within the context of the film, perhaps these people exist in the surreal realm beyond the 'everyday life' reality? It's interesting that they would throw it in. You're right - it could be more than just a reference. I don't remember if it was 13 floors, but if it was, it just means that these people are consciously avoiding 'bad luck' or Anton? It also speaks to the character to even mention this point: he's pretty observing and aware of this surrounding. It didn't save his life though.
What's your take on it?
Thank you, Aurelle :)
There's one scene in the movie I simply don't understand. I'm talking about the one where Chigurh tries to shoot the bird on the bridge rail, but misses it.
Anyones' thoughts on this?
-Daniel
Thanks for responding (sorry for getting to this so late): Man, I'm not sure what I make of it, thanks for asking. I'm not satisfied though about it being nothing more than building Carson Welle's character because it is such a weirdo detail. It's really bugging me because I think that it might help pinpoint Carson Welle's role since this is the office that dispatches him. I mean if Chigurh is more of a conceit (angel of death, Fate as such, etc.) than a charcter I almost tend to think of Carson Welles in the same way: if he's not to be taken as a "good" angel, he's obviously at least like the pure white cowboy, but why is his "boss" sitting in an office building that's missing a floor, and why does this guy knowingly smirk and condescendingly say he'll "look into it" as though asking about the missing floor were to ask God about the fact of evil (maybe this simile promises some real insight?)
About the two over the head shots, which you kindly discussed, thanks, I think they might be making an argument that there is some kind of correspondence between the transponder and the dying man who needed the water, in which case the transponder would almost like represent a "duty" or an "obligation", and looking for it to throw it out would be like casting off his feelings of obligation, etc, which of course jives with your point about the "God's eye view", but then the interesting thing is that even though he DOES find the transponder, still RIGHT THEN Chigurh shows up, just like when he returns to give the dude some water he is already dead, which would be to say that Llewellyn has been stuck with some ineluctable obligation or debt or something that he can't shake (of course it's clear that even if he gave the money to the asshole that still he'd die: he really died as soon as he grabbed the money, or as soon as "Death" entered his house, so to speak (because it's there that Chigurh picks up the phone bill that lets him track Llewellyn and his family). But still its a tough pill to swallow, the structural unity between the money and (his "obligation" to) the dying guy...
All good comments, thanks. I am thinking about the significance of the coin at the scene of Moss' death. It is not necessary to convey Anton's presence at the scene, either currently or in the immediate past. The removed grill and screws on the floor do that. He didn't leave one behind at the other motel crime scene and the only other time a coin is known to be left is with the store owner, who presumably lives (heads=life). I believe the coin at Moss' death is symbolic of Bell's own coin flip (heads=life), even though he wasn't present or involved in the toss. He made his own chioce then and there to retire. Anton hiding in the shadows was a premonition of his future death if he continued to persue in a world where he no longer understood the rules.
Of interest also was that other than those directly involved with the money, no one else knew it existed (i.e. the police). Early on at the massacre, Bell speculated that there was money involved. Was he motivated by the cash? Was the fleeting money dream at the end Bell letting go, to avoid Moss' fate? The second dream could represent his father leading him into the afterworld had he not accepted the symbolic coin toss. However, accepting to choose his fate, he "woke up"
There is a point in your law enforcement career you reach that makes you look at your job with somewhat of a different meaning.
You start out young and cant wait to chase bad guys with little thought of risk.
Maybe ten, certainly more than twenty years, pass and you now have more resopnsibility at home. Wife, kids, senior parents, new bills, hobbies, vacations and the long term goal of retirement has become a reachable reality.
You will do your job and put your life on the line if needed but you rationalize more about what means more to you. The job versus retirement around the corner.You spent years taking chances alone at a domestic call, traffic stop, alarm, burglary, or some type of fight but now maybe you're a little smarter. Not a coward but more reluctant to get involved.If confronted you'll do what you have to do even if if you have to shoot someone but you dont look forward to those confrontations like you did years ago....
Here's what I think the movie is about: Middle age life choices- complexity and consequence:
I loved this movie. Just turning 46 in two days certainly informs my subjuctive interpretation.
The movie spoke to me as the juncture in time where a man straddles the midlife line between past and future. This demands consolidation of the past, (longings- fullfilled or not; accumulations -material, relational, experiential, etc.) and the active choices one must inescapably make to reach that "country for old men" future- i.e. a rich and vital second half of life that extends beyond merely running out the clock. Most of us won't get there, as the film playfully shows us.
Trust me- it aint easy. And if you fuck up in any way you don't make it into the "country of old men." You die in some way- literally, spiritually, emotionally, etc.
Hence the importance of the coin toss. It represents the mandate of choice.
You must choose, while also recognizing that some aspects of your fate are chosen for you. You must accept that you cannot know the difference.
At the risk of reductionism, Llewelen, wiley and savvy as he is, represents a man making a wrong, and hence lethal choice by taking the money. It represents greed only in a small way- on the whole it represents a desperate and panicky effort to horde all he may have missed in the first half of his life.
Kudos to the Coen brothers and to Josh Brolin for conveying a deeply residing panic, fear, and desperation in a man so calm, unflappable, and steadily capable on screen. I call that dark humor and irony.
Tommy Lee Jones, on the other hand, shows us a proper choice- or maybe just the outcome of wining the coin toss that Josh Brolin looses. He spends energy consolidating his own past, contextualizing it in his lineage, family, community and makes a choice to disengage- "I feel overmatched".
Understand- this is not trivial. It is not passive. It is an active acceptance of what is to come and a willingness to let go of the desperation to hang on to all of youth and its missed opportunities.
Javier Bardem is fate, the grim reaper, the seemingly robotic deliverer of consequences of choices made. He watches Tommy Lee with curiosity and, unemotional and sociopathic as he may seem, an admiration is conveyed. Same kudos to Coen's and Javier bardem. Ibid with dark humor and irony.
Tommy Lee may just make it into "the country for old men, but no promises...
None of the other wonderfully played and directed characters: Woody Harrelson, the mob guys, etc. make it into that rarefied country.
Most of us don't. We have to tap into something really deep, profound and active, which only STARTS with the line another blogger referenced:
"All the time you spend tryin' to get back what's been took from you there's more goin' out the door. After a while you just try and get a tourniquet on it."
The rest of the work is hard and involves a little luck........
Thoughts?
This is an amazing blog (I just spent half an hour reading it). A few things I'd like to get your thoughts on.
1. The boy Bell sends to the electric chair in the beginning of the film. Many people have mentioned the possibility of the film being presented through Bell's eyes. If this idea is accepted, surely a link must be drawn between this teenage killer Bell references and Chigurh. Maybe Bell imagines the film if this boy hadn't been caught. Or, more plausibly, maybe Bell mentions this boy because Chigurh ISN'T unique in his evil ways. "You can't stop what's comin'"; even if Chigurh HAD been killed, there would still be people equally as evil out there. THAT is why Bell feels overmatched.
2. The (presumably) Mexican gangsters driving away from the hotel as Bell drives up. I could be mistaken, but it seems that this blog takes for granted that Chigurh kills Moss? Every shot in this movie has a purpose, so I can't believe that the Coens would include the gangsters simply for tension/excitement's sake. As I recall, Bell already knew where Moss was (Carla Jean told him). Why were they included in this scene, and what did they do? Did they get the money after all? Remember that Chigurh once before arrived at a motel to find the money already gone.
3. The "bird" sequence. Someone above mentioned this, but nobody gave any ideas in response. It must be a metaphor, but what the bird represents, and why Anton misses it, baffles me and I imagine it can be interpreted a number of ways.
And this post just keeps going! Thanks for reading and commenting, folks. I promise to respond to the last few comments in the next few days. :)
Hey it's been 2 weeks, I've watched the movie twice more since I last posted!
I finally worked down my netflix list to Raising Arizona (one of the other Coen films). That together with Burn After Reading makes me wonder if I just don't read way to much into 'No Country' I'll try and let u know after The Big Lebowski.
Jimbo: Heh sorry. It's been more than a year since I posted this analysis and I wanted to take some time to go back to the mindset that I watched/analyzed this film with and give you (and others) a proper answer. I've been really busy though so I haven't had the chance to, but I'll get to it.
Just so this isn't completely wasted, quickly: if I remember it correctly, we DON'T know that Chigurh killed Moss - it's never shown. The reference to the boy killer was not at the beginning of the film. It was a story he took with him because it was the kind of thing that made him feel helpless - and yes, it would certainly fuel this case. As for the bird sequence, you could argue that some birds - Bell - just managed to be really lucky.
Robert: Sure thing. I wouldn't worry about over-reading this film though - it's fun, innit?
I'm not sure if someone mentioned this already (I tried to read all the comments, but alas, there were too many) but many people have made comments about the motel scene regarding whether Chigurh was behind the door, how did he escape, etc.
This isn't necessarily my view but I have read several articles that mention this. One theory is that Chigurh was in the room and met Bell, but let him live because Bell pretended not to see him or let him go without a fight. This makes sense if you think of the scene where that financial guy asks Chigurh if he's going to shoot him and he says "That depends. Do you see me?" Also it would explain Bell's guilt and troubled sleep in his retirement.
Again, I'm not sure if I buy that theory but it is an interesting one, to say the least.
Thanks for commenting.
I think what we should keep in mind, as with any analysis of any film, is how the details explain the story or the theme of the film. In this instance, pretending not to see Chigurh doesn't shed light on themes of the film. It also doesn't make sense, in the context of the film, for Bell to brave the scene and open the door in the first place only to pretend not to see him.
It's not that he pretends not to see him but rather Chigurh gives him the option to live if he admits that he doesn't see him.
as far as the themes go, well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I saw as one of the major themes in this movie the idea of choice and the effects of our choices: Moss chooses to steal the money and then later chooses to bring the water back to the man in the car, chigurh makes some of his victims "choose" their fate by calling a coin toss, etc. If that theory were true, it would emphasize another critical choice made by Bell.
I suppose one could argue that the scene doesn't suggest that Bell say Chigurh, but one always has to take into account the reliability of the narrator (english 101 people). Since Bell is the narrator, it would be logical that he would be hasty to reveal such a choice to the audience. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that, but then again, we are talking about a movie based on a book by Cormac McCarthy and if there is one thing for sure about anything written by Cormac it's that you cannot look too deep into his writing.
The choices were artificial, and Carla called him out on that. To say our life is dependent on our choices is partially true - our choices make most of our life. But it is a fallacy to believe we are the sole agent of our choices. Beyond this notion of choice, the film pushes further with Bell as a character underlining the absurd lack of a coherent picture of will - choice - consequence. Luck is the wild card, and it throws everything into an array, ripping apart this notion of 'choice.'
Many great points made. I suspect that some of the intricasies, real and imagined, will be debated for some time in what has to be one of the best movies I've seen. However, at 50-something, I really find the movie is a treasure-trove of poignant lessons which, as in real life, are sometimes taught to us with piercing clarity. "Hard bark" so to speak.
"More is going out the door" and "At some point you have to get a tourniquet around it" is a great commentary on what many have or will experience at some point in the journey.
Another part of the movie, less commented on I believer, which struck me was when Moss was passing the woman at the swimming pool in El Paso. At the risk of parphrasing, she said something like "Hey Sportin' Guy, would you like to come up to my room? I've got some beers." "Naw. I'm waiting for my wife (shows his wedding band)" "Is that why you keep lookin' out the window?" "I'm just tryin' to see what's coming" "Yeh, but nobody ever sees that" Truer words ever spoken?
Agree with Anon's take: He knew Chigurh was likely there (notice the bathroom window lock was closed,yet the front door bolt blown out), but either consciously or subconsciously decided not to press his luck. I don't think he believed he would survive the encounter. He was "older by 20 yrs" and had lost his edge. If you toil long enough in a stressful job, you can appreciate the sentiment.
Aurelle's point about the fallacy of our own choices alone determining our fate is also on point. What is interesting to me also is the interplay of choices made by one's intrinsic traits and random chance as played by Chigurh. Moss did meet his end by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but also created much of it himself as well. He missed a shot and hit the deer in the leg instead of killing it on the spot. In having to chase it, he stumbled on the wounded dog which led him to the drug money, which he chose to seek out and keep. He placed the shell casing in his pocket because his hunting was likely illegal at the time or place. Later, he didn't have to, but as a "good guy" made a choice to go back to the shotup Mexican with water. Two choices made by good or bad luck, chance or embedded genetics. Others may have done differently - not taken the money, called the police, or said "forget the Mexican". But for whatever reasons, Moss did make certain choices that brought him directly in the path of the "dismal tide". And,if it wasn't by chance Chigurh, the story may have had an entirely different ending.
I recently came across a 'rule': You can only have as good a relationship as you are willing to lose. Meaning you will only be as intimate and engaged with someone up to the point where you are afraid that what you have to show may alienate the other person. I notice that Ed Tom did not seem too engaged with his wife, job, deputy, or Anton. Maybe he was living his fantasy of his father's life and never really fully realized he should be living his own.
Ranger T: Thanks for the thoughtful comments. ""More is going out the door" and "At some point you have to get a tourniquet around it" is a great commentary on what many have or will experience at some point in the journey." Agreed. And it's usually this kind of wear and tear that mellows out older adults, or those having too many crushing brushes with life.
Failing Relationships: Thanks for the observation. While it is true that many people are most scared to reveal themselves to those they most care to keep, I think it speaks of their own (quite human) insecurity. You can have an intimate relationship in which you trust the relationship to be able to hold the involved parties' self-perceived failures. In either case, I'm not sure if that applied to Ed Tom. He showed resignation more than anything, a sense of letting go. Maybe that was what you sensed as disengagement?
I came upon this blog today and spent nearly an hour reading all your posts. I haven't seen the movie yet. I know. I don't like watching movies.
But I will rent this movie tonight when I get home.
I really enjoyed reading these posts.
Jn
Thanks Jn! :) For someone who doesn't like watching movies, I wonder how you got here! *ponders*
I gotta say though, it ONLY took you an hour to read ALL my posts? Speed reading, eh?
I feel guilty, Jimbo, but if you're still back here reading this, I'm sorry I still haven't gotten around to responding to your post properly.
Sorry!
/shame and disgust
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed. Except those of Spammers, in which case may lightning strike your favourite shoes, beyotcheesan.