CINXE.COM

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="sixapart-standard"> <head><script type="text/javascript" src="/_static/js/bundle-playback.js?v=HxkREWBo" charset="utf-8"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/_static/js/wombat.js?v=txqj7nKC" charset="utf-8"></script> <script>window.RufflePlayer=window.RufflePlayer||{};window.RufflePlayer.config={"autoplay":"on","unmuteOverlay":"hidden"};</script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/_static/js/ruffle/ruffle.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> __wm.init("https://web.archive.org/web"); __wm.wombat("http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/no_country_for_old_men_out_in.html","20120514120758","https://web.archive.org/","web","/_static/", "1336997278"); </script> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/_static/css/banner-styles.css?v=S1zqJCYt" /> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/_static/css/iconochive.css?v=3PDvdIFv" />  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/> <title>No Country For Old Men: Out in all that dark - scanners</title> <meta name="generator" content="Movable Type Pro 5.04"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758cs_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/styles.css" type="text/css"/> <script language="JavaScript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/mt.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <link rel="prev" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/mr_jones_review.html" title="Mr. Jones' review..."/> <link rel="next" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/the_slick_and_the_raw.html" title="The slick and the raw"/> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/mt.js"></script>  <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/STM/assets/js/yahoo-ads/yahooAdsAPI.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/STM/assets/js/yahoo-ads/yahooAdsObjectCDS.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> var adObject = new YahooAdsObjectCDS(); if (document.URL.match(/index\.html/i) || document.URL.match(/\/$/)) { adObject.setCustomSection("Homepage"); }else{ adObject.setCustomSection("Article"); } adObject.setSlots(["Top1", "Bottom", "Frame1", "x01", "Middle", "TopRight"]); var y_topic='20276501'; var y_custom='unknown'; if (document.URL.match(/mitchell/i)) { y_custom='Mary Mitchell'; } else if (document.URL.match(/derogatis/i)) { y_custom='Jim DeRogatis'; } else if (document.URL.match(/sweet/i)) { y_custom='Lynn Sweet'; } else if (document.URL.match(/music/i)) { y_custom='Music Blog'; } else if (document.URL.match(/ebert/i)) { y_topic='20264501'; y_custom='Roger Ebert'; } else if (document.URL.match(/stevetest/i)) { y_topic='20281001'; y_custom='sports'; } //adObject.setCategories(y_custom); //adObject.setTopics(y_topic); generateAdSlotsCDS(adObject, {"enable_ads": "true", "pub_id": "23021736472", "site_name": "Chicago Sun-Times", "content_topic_id_list": [y_topic], "content_type_list": ['fs_blogs'], "custom_content_cat_list": [y_custom]}); </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://e.yieldmanager.net/script.js"></script>  </head> <body class="mt-archive-listing mt-entry-archive layout-wtt" onload="individualArchivesOnLoad(commenter_name)"> <div id="ad" align="center">  <script type="text/javascript"> displayAdSlot("Top1") </script>  </div> <div id="container"> <br> <div id="container-inner"> <div align="center" style="background:#131955;"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/"> <img src="/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/mt-static/support/themes/scanners/jim_blog_top.jpg" alt="Jim Emerson's Scanners Blog" width="720" height="89" border="0" align="absmiddle"/> </a></div> <div align="center" class="topnav"> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">scanners: blog </a>   |   <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/biography.html" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">about jim</a>   |   <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/mailto:jim@scannersblog.com?subject=Scanners%20Blog" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">e-mail jim</a>   |   <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.rogerebert.com/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">rogerebert.com</a>   |   <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.suntimes.com/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">suntimes.com</a> </div> <div id="header"> <div id="header-inner"> <div id="header-content"> <div id="header-name"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/" accesskey="1">scanners</a></div> <div id="header-description">Jim Emerson on movies, criticism, journalism, politics, religion, music -- OK, basically whatever comes up.</div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="content"> <div id="content-inner"> <div id="alpha"> <div id="alpha-inner"> <div id="entry-5296" class="entry-asset asset hentry"> <div class="asset-header"> <h1 id="page-title" class="asset-name entry-title">No Country For Old Men: Out in all that dark</h1> <div class="asset-meta"> <span class="byline vcard"> By <address class="vcard author">Jim Emerson</address> on <abbr class="published" title="2007-11-27T21:48:44-08:00">November 27, 2007 9:48 PM </span> <span class="separator">|</span> <a class="permalink" rel="bookmark" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/no_country_for_old_men_out_in.html">Permalink</a> | <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/no_country_for_old_men_out_in.html#comments">Comments (247)</a> </div> </div> <div class="asset-content entry-content"> <div class="asset-body"> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfom1.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom1.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom1.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom1.html','popup','width=620,height=350,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> The light and the landscape.<br></div> <div class="picture"><img alt="windm.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/windm.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/windm.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/windm.html','popup','width=720,height=398,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> Signs of man.<br></div> <blockquote><i>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. <p>Some of the old-time sheriffs never even wore a gun. A lot of folks find that hard to believe.... You can't help but compare yourself against the old timers. Can't help but wonder how they would've operated these times....</i><br/> -- Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones)</blockquote>The land is black, swallowed in the shadows. The sky is beginning to glow orange and blue. This is Genesis, the primordial landscape of "No Country for Old Men." We may think we're looking at a sunset at first, but the next few shots show a progression: The sky lightens, the sun rises above the horizon to illuminate a vast Western expanse. No signs of humanity are evident. And then, a distant windmill -- a mythic "Once Upon a Time in the West" kind of windmill. So, mankind figures into the geography after all. A barbed-wire fence cuts through a field. The camera, previously stationary, stirs to life, and pans (ostensibly down the length of the fence) to find a police car pulled over on the shoulder of a highway. There's law out here, too.</p> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfom2.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom2.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom2.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom2.html','popup','width=621,height=350,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> Boundaries.<br></div> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfomc.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomc.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomc.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomc.html','popup','width=832,height=368,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> The law. (Do these images look sterile or "technical" to you?)<br></div> <p>Light, land, man, boundaries, law. Each image builds subtly on the one(s) before it, adding incrementally to our picture of the territory we're entering. The establishment of this location -- a passing-through stretch of time and space, between where you've been and where you're going, wherever that may be -- seeps into your awareness. Not a moment is wasted, but the compositions have room to breathe, along with the modulations of Tommy Lee Jones' voice, the noises in the air, and Carter Burwell's music-as-sound-design. The movie intensifies and heightens your senses. Light is tangible, whether it's sunlight or fluorescent. Blades of grass sing in the wind. Ceiling fans whir (not so literally or Symbolically as in "Apocalypse Now"). Milk bottles sweat in the heat. Ventilation ducts, air conditioners and deadbolt housings rumble, hiss and roar. <blockquote><i>"To me, style is just the outside of content, and content the inside of style, like the outside and the inside of the human body—both go together, they can’t be separated."</i><br/> -- Jean-Luc Godard</blockquote>"No Country for Old Men" has been called a "perfect" film by those who love it and those who were left cold by it. Joel and Ethan Coen have been praised and condemned for their expert "craftsmanship" and their "technical" skills -- as if those skills had nothing to do with filmmaking style, or artistry; as if they existed apart from the movie itself. Oh, but the film is an example of "impeccable technique" -- you know, for "formalists." And the cinematography <i>is</i> "beautiful." Heck, it's even "gorgeous." ...</p> </div> <div id="more" class="asset-more"> <p>But what do those terms mean if they are plucked out of the movie like pickles from a cheeseburger? How is something "beautiful" apart from what it does in the film? (See uncomprehending original-release reviews of "Barry Lyndon" and "Days of Heaven," for example, in which the "beautiful" was treated as something discrete from the movie itself.) When somebody claims that a <i>movie</i> overemphasizes the "visual" -- whether they're talking about Stanley Kubrick or Terence Malick or the Coens -- it's a sure sign that they're not talking about cinema, but approaching film as an elementary school audio-visual aid. When critics (and viewers) refer to the filmmakers' application of "craft," "technique," and "style" (can these things be applied, casually or relentlessly, with a spatula?) without consideration of how these expressions function in the movie, we're all in trouble. A composition, a cut, a dissolve, a movement -- they're all manifestations of craft (or skill), technique (the systematic use of skill), style (artistic expression). </p> <div class="picture"><img alt="chb.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/chb.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/chb.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/chb.html','popup','width=435,height=263,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> How salty was my beautiful then... Hey, I specifically asked for a regular cheeseburger, hold the ketchup and no "style"! What does the "craft" (not Kraft) taste like? Isn't the "technique" also part of the texture?<br></div> <p>It's the old Cartesian schism between body and mind, only aestheticized into an illusory (and impossible) split between form and content, style and meaning, craft and art. You may as well try to take the VistaVision out of "The Searchers" and put it in a bowl, extricate the editing and hang it on the shower rod, remove the John Ford and place it over there, next to the radiator. </p> <p>Which brings us back to the opening of "No Country for Old Men" and the process of putting the pieces together; losing or following a trail (of blood, of crime, of one's father and the "old-timers"), navigating an uneasy passage between past and future. It feels like, and it is, what the movie is "about." </p> <p>Sheriff Bell has been pondering these bewildering changes and portents, in voiceover, as the movie's landscapes have unfolded:<blockquote><i>...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 something I don't understand.</p> <p>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, OK, I'll be part of this world....</i></blockquote>"OK, I'll be part of this world." Those words, the end of Sheriff Bell's introduction, resonate throughout the movie -- a world in which one's life or death may be determined by a coin toss (a mix of luck and chance and, perhaps, fate), and where one's soul is at hazard by choosing to engage with it. At least, that's the way Sheriff Bell sees it. And he wants to opt out.</p> <p>Everything ahead can be traced to its origins in these opening moments: characters chasing or haunted by forces they don't understand, meeting up with destinies they didn't see coming. And it doesn't matter whether they were looking for them or trying to evade them.</p> <p><i>Spoilers follow.</i><blockquote><i>"It's a dangerous thing to say what a picture is. I don't like pictures that are one genre only."</i><br/> -- David Lynch</blockquote>I've used the term "existential thriller" (and/or "epistemological thriller") to describe movies such as "Chinatown" and "Caché." It's a useful term because it can be used across genres and it describes the nature of the "thrills" the movie has in store. "Chinatown" is also a period American detective <i>noir</i> and "Caché" is a modern French intellectual puzzle and "No Country for Old Men" is a contemporary Texas Western chase movie, but they're all inquiries into the nature of knowledge and existence. They all ask: "What do we know and how do we know it?" Is there a more worthy or essential question?</p> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfom8.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom8.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom8.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom8.html','popup','width=620,height=349,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> Recorded on the floor.<br></div> <p>At the station, a deputy is on the phone, describing the mysterious "oxygen tank" thing his arrestee was toting. Behind him, out of focus in the background, is Anton Chigurh ("shi-GUR," Javier Bardem), the man he's talking about, who silently rises and moves forward. The deputy hangs up and, <i>in the very same motion</i>, the prisoner lowers his hands over the lawman's head, choking him with his handcuffs. As the two fall back onto the linoleum floor, the shock of the moment is amplified by the expression on Chigurh's face: His icy glare is aimed not at the man he's strangling but at the ceiling. He's not even looking at the man he's killing, even as the handcuffs cut into the deputy's neck and Chigurh's own wrists. The struggle is recorded on the institutional linoleum tiles, a frenzy of black heel marks like an Abstract-Expressionist painting. Man's violence always leaves its traces on the ground.</p> <p>It doesn't much matter what Chigurh is, and even less <i>who</i> he is. He's not a character (say, a compulsive murderer who acts to gratify his primal psycho-sexual needs). He's a catalyst, who represents different things to different people: evil, chaos, "the ultimate badass." Chigurh, with the nearly vowel-less-sounding, unpronounceable name, is a Western figure of mythical stature, like Clint Eastwood's "Pale Rider" or The Man With No Name in Sergio Leone's trilogy -- or Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper) or Mystery Man (Robert Blake) in David Lynch's movies.</p> <p>Chigurh is indeed a "psychopathic killer" (of whoever or whatever gets in the way of his relentless quest), but he's also the shadow coming across the desert toward Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) as he's up on the ridge hunting antelope with a telescopic rifle, and the specter of which Sheriff Bell says, "it's hard to even take its measure." His "principles" (as one character describes them) are completely beyond the laws, and the comprehension, of civilized men. </p> <p>Chigurh sees himself, however, as destiny personified. He is simply the Reaper, who does what must be done... because that's what he does. The way he sees it, he is not the one responsible for the decision to kill or not kill. There are rules and he must enforce them, if only because he's the only one who understands them (as far as he's concerned). So, he doesn't choose to kill or not kill; but if fate puts someone in his way, then so be it. </p> <div class="picture"><img alt="cointoss.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/cointoss.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/cointoss.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/cointoss.html','popup','width=576,height=254,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> Call it.<br></div> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfomhand.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomhand.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomhand.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomhand.html','popup','width=576,height=295,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> The crinkling.<br></div> <p>With chilling clarity, Chigurh addresses the fate of a folksly roadside gas-station proprietor: "What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?... Call it." The befuddled man protests that he doesn't understand "what it is we're callin for here," that he "didn't put nothin up."<blockquote><i>"Yes you did. You've been puttin it up your whole life. You just didn't know it. You know what date is on this coin? ...1958. It's been traveling 22 years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails and you have to say. Call it."</i></blockquote>As far as Chigurh is concerned, he's just the coin, the means. The toss, and the call, those are beyond his control -- and, frankly, beyond his concern. (Touch of genius: Note how effectively the uncrinkling of the candy wrapper on the counter adds to the tension of this scene. Chigurh tightens his fist, then lets go. The rest just happens.)</p> <p>Perhaps the Coens' cartoon-mythical version of Chigurh was the "Road Runner"/"Mad Max" outlaw biker Leonard Smalls in "Raising Arizona," but Chigurh is no joke. Or he isn't just a 'toon, any more than Jack Nicholson's Wile E. Coyote is in "The Shining." You may be inclined to laugh at his Man In Black self-seriousness, but you know if he appeared in your doorway, the joke would be on you. When Sheriff Bell reads a modern horror story from the morning newspaper, his deputy Wendell (Garrett Dillahunt) stifles an involuntary guffaw. "That's all right. I laugh myself sometimes," Bell muses. "There ain't a whole lot else you can do." </p> <p>Bell isn't talking about his job, and he's not being fatalistic. Unlike Chigurh, he's human, and he's seen enough human nature to know that we laugh in recognition of horror and absurdity, maybe even in the moment we find ourselves on the brink of the abyss. It's not an inappropriate response, and contrary to the claims of some of the Coens' critics, it doesn't automatically signal approval of murder, or denial of responsibility. Chigurh himself doesn't laugh. Laughter requires a form of empathy that he doesn't possess. <br/> <br/> Chigurh is by no means the focus of "No Country For Old Men" (it's more about the other characters' responses to his presence), but he bothers some people because they don't know who he is or what he represents. And that's just fine. Ask yourself, <i>"What does he seek?"</i> (in the words of his movie-killer antithesis, the cannibal psychologist Dr. Hannibal Lecter)... and where does that get you? He seeks $2 million in a leather satchel. As <a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinepad.com/coens.htm">Joel Coen</a> once said to me in an interview about "<a target="http://cinepad.com/reviews/barton.htm">Barton Fink</a>": "The question is: Where would it get you if something that's a little bit ambiguous in the movie is made clear? It doesn't get you anywhere." Sometimes, if certain questions don't appear to have an answer, maybe that's enough of an answer. Or maybe it's a superfluous question.</p> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfomcuffs.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomcuffs.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomcuffs.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomcuffs.html','popup','width=561,height=275,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> A single motion.<br></div> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfombed.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfombed.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfombed.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfombed.html','popup','width=576,height=254,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> Boots off the floor.<br></div> <p>Chigurh often mirrors his victims before he kills them. They face him and they face their own mortality, eye-to-eye. He often violates their space before he violates their flesh, and it's deeply disturbing: the handcuffs around the neck, the tube to the head of the motorist, his shadow darkening the hall space under Llewelyn's door, feet on the bed in the hotel room of his nemesis Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson). Wells is dead as soon as Chigurh looks away from him, at the ringing phone, where the man he's really stalking is on the other end of the line.</p> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfomdwy.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomdwy.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomdwy.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomdwy.html','popup','width=576,height=335,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> Crossing the threshold.<br></div> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfomhold.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomhold.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomhold.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomhold.html','popup','width=576,height=335,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> "Hold still."<br></div> <p>The sense of intimate incursion is especially unsettling when he enters the trailer of Llewelyn and Carla Jean. We've been here before, the night Llewelyn comes home from his hunt, seen him take a beer out of the refrigerator and plop down on the couch (shot head-on) next to Carla Jean. It's a funny, "Raising Arizona" kind of domestic image. But when Chigurh enters this mobile home in the daylight, after they've fled, we watch him take a bottle of milk from the fridge and sit down in the center of the couch from nearly the <i>same camera angles</i>. He's insinuating himself into their head-space. He drinks their milk, and it's obscene. He may as well be drinking their blood. (Later, a cat drinking a puddle of spilled milk will provide all the visual information we need to know that there's a corpse in a pool of blood behind a hotel counter. And it's more upsetting than seeing the gory details.) Moments after Chigurh has disappeared, Sheriff Bell and Deputy Wendell arrive to inspect the scene, but this time the angles are different. We're just seeing what they see, and nothing more. </p> <p>Sheriff Ed Tom Bell is reluctantly playing catch-up throughout the whole picture. Moss and Chigurh -- single-minded, driven -- are linked at the beginning of the movie, with two shots (cinematic shots and fired shots) and the phrase, spoken to an anonymous victim: "Hold still." In "No Country For Old Men," that's what the dead do. If you're alive, you keep moving.</p> <p>Brief notes on a few other motifs that permeate the movie:</p> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfomstep.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomstep.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomstep.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomstep.html','popup','width=576,height=288,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a><br></div> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfomsocks.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomsocks.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomsocks.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomsocks.html','popup','width=576,height=299,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a><br></div> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfomboot.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomboot.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomboot.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomboot.html','popup','width=576,height=296,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> A sole at hazard.<br></div> <p><b>Boots on the ground.</b> Many shots of feet, from overhead or boot-level. You can't quite tell where they're going or what may intersect their path. Apprehension builds: What will appear in the frame next? A spreading pool of blood, perhaps? Also, the sense of gravity, of flesh in contact with the ground, or leather in contact with the land, weighs heavily in the film. (In what at first appears to be a surreal mirage, we actually see through the holes in a dead man's soles, a man who has run until he dropped.) Chigurh is strongly identified with the ground, the craziness and violence rooted in and rising up from below the surface (natural and man-made).</p> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfom4.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom4.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom4.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfom4.html','popup','width=618,height=348,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> If it bleeds, it leads. <br> </div> <p><b>Trails of blood.</b> Blood is spilled upon the earth, but is also <i>in</i> the earth, as men are of the earth and will return to it. You half expect blood to seep up from the ground like Texas oil, this land is so saturated with ancient blood. Blood serves as a sign -- a mark upon the land of some wound, and a portent of the future. Men follow trails of blood to unknown , or are followed by the blood they leave in their tracks.</p> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfomsil.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomsil.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomsil.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomsil.html','popup','width=872,height=492,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> Shadow in the doorway.<br></div> <div class="picture"><img alt="lock.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/lock.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/lock.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/lock.html','popup','width=800,height=356,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> Hole to hell.<br></div> <p><b>Doors, ducts, drains, holes.</b> Take these portals, passages, barriers, hiding places, out of the movie and it's about 20 minutes long. They're all about revealing evidence or disposing of it. What is behind the door? What does one see -- from either side -- when the door opens? One of the movie's signature shots is the "Searchers"-like figure silhouetted in the doorway, the outsider on the threshold between civilization (in the form of trailer or motel) and wilderness. Chigurh blows the deadbolt locks out of doors to get them open, using a slaughterhouse implement that leaves holes (in human heads, too) but no telltale shell or bullet behind. When Sheriff Bell returns to the scene of a crime and decides to face the incomprehensible, air sucks through a blown lock as if it were a puncture in the wall of hell. The Coens have always been <a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinepad.com/bathroom.htm">plumbing</a> experts, and here they use it exceptionally effectively. Cool, white porcelain fixtures contrast with swollen, bloody wounds. Flesh hurts. </p> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfombin.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfombin.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfombin.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfombin.html','popup','width=642,height=367,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> Looking and seeing.<br></div> <p><b>Looking and seeing.</b> A man looks at something. We see what he's seeing: a herd of antelope through the scope of a rifle; two trees, the only shade for miles; an empty room. We return to his face, appraising the sight. It's a simple POV set-up (a form of what David Bordwell calls "<a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1457">intensified continuity</a>") and it's a familiar unit of American film grammar. It also essential to the experience of this particular movie: seeing (or not seeing) what's ahead, surveying it, understanding it, acting on what you understand, and maybe not seeing what (or what else) is coming.</p> <p>Running through all of the above are recurring spoken lines about "pre-visioning" the future, as Carla Jean's mom puts it: "Will there be anything else?" "You don't understand." "Do you know where I'm going?" "You know what's going to happen now." "You know how this is going to turn out, don't you?" "This is what will come to pass." "You don't know to a certainty." "You can't stop what's comin'."... Even the most mundane conversation may have ominous overtones, and they take on the haunting quality of blank-verse incantations.</p> <div class="picture"><img alt="ncfomb2.jpg" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomb2.jpg" width="275" border="1"><br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomb2.html" onclick="window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ncfomb2.html','popup','width=576,height=297,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a> Rendezvous with...<br></div> <p>Because "No Country" is structured as a multi-layered chase sequence -- Moss chasing the dream of a big lucky score; Chigurh chasing Moss; Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) and Sheriff Bell independently chasing Chigurh through Moss; everyone chasing the unseen future of whatever's next -- you may not realize, until it's all over, that we never see any of the three main characters (Moss, Chigurh, Bell) in direct, face-to-face confrontation. The closest they come is a near-collision of Chigurh's boots and Moss's pickup truck on a dark street.</p> <p>The movie seems to be building to an apocalyptic climax... and the big bang is not so much a whimper as an ominous whisper. Wells is dispatched almost peripherally, with his back to the camera. Chigurh slips off into a suburban neighborhood, his fate unaccounted for. And Ed Tom retires quietly to his kitchen, recalling two dreams that came to him in one a night:<blockquote><i>Both had my father. It's peculiar. I'm older now'n he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense 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. </p> <p>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 mountains. 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 all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. Out there up ahead. </p> <p>And then I woke up.</i></blockquote>I can't imagine a more perfect and eloquent conclusion for this film, which begins and ends by acknowledging Ed Tom's dreams and illusions, but some audiences have been vocal in their disapproval. What does the ending do? For one thing, it shows us a man who has retired, who has said he will <i>not</i> be part of the world he described in the opening, and who now sits indoors, in a cozy kitchen, where the wild outside is just a view through a window. </p> <p>And yet, he's still comparing himself to the "old-timers," and still coming up short. It follows another scene in a kitchen, swarming with feral cats, belonging to Ed Tom's cousin (and his granddad's former deputy), Ellis, who sits in a wheelchair, having been shot by a man who died in prison. "What you got ain't nothin new," old Ellis tells Ed Tom, trying to shake him loose from his nostalgia. "This contry is hard on people.... You can't stop what's comin. Ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity."</p> <p>Ed Tom had his moment (in the scene before <i>this</i> one), when he crossed the yellow tape and entered the blue door of the dark motel room. Inside: Nothing. Just a loose vent and a dime -- a coin tossed. Heads. Chigurh disappeared into the shadows... of the room next door. And that was it for ol' Ed Tom -- the most he ever put up on a coin toss, and the most he ever will if he can help it.</p> <p>So, we go out on accounts of two dreams. The first one, about lost money -- could be about a coin toss, or $2 million, or any number of things. But it's about loss. Maybe the loss of the way Ed Tom looked at the world, and his relationship to it, in his opening monologue. Or maybe it's just that he's discouraged, and now retired.</p> <p>The dream about the father is also many things, but it's definitely "The Road," McCarthy's 2007 post-apocalyptic novel about a father carrying the fire to keep his son alive in a world of desolation. Ed Tom is now older than his father ever was, but in his dream his father is still out there, ahead of him, keeping the fire going in all that dark and all that cold. I read that (as I do the final paragraph of "The Road," about the trout) as a sign that there is <i>something</i> to put up against the darkness, and maybe that's all there is: that hope.</p> <p>Then you wake up.</p> <p>- - - - -</p> <p><i>Quotations from a <a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.youknow-forkids.com/nocountryforoldmen.txt">November 28, 2005, draft of the screenplay</a>, found online during the writing of this article. The punctuation (no apostrophes for dropped letters at the end of words) mirrors Cormac McCarthy's style.</p> <p>Frame grabs taken from online trailers and TV spots.</p> <p>Thanks to <a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://peet.wordpress.com/">Peet Gelderblom</a> for the Godard and Lynch quotes at <a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.24liesasecond.com/site2/index.php?page=2">24 Lies A Second</a>.</i></p> </div> </div> <div class="asset-footer"> <div class="entry-categories"> <h4 class="entry-categories-header">Categories<span class="delimiter">:</span></h4> <ul class="entry-categories-list"> <li class="entry-category"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/critics_criticism/">Critics & criticism</a><span class="delimiter">,</span></li> <li class="entry-category"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/no_country_for_old_men/">No Country for Old Men</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> <div id="comments" class="comments">  <h2 class="comments-header">247 Comments</h2>  <div class="comment" id="comment-171136"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://www.inavaultunderground.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.inavaultunderground.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">jeremy</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171136"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T03:33:56-08:00">November 28, 2007 3:33 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171136, 'jeremy')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I love the cinematography in this movie. I hope Deakins wins a much-much deserved Oscar for it. He should have won for Fargo, but that year I think it went to The English Patient dude. Take it from a kid who went to film school in Montana--shooting snow and making it look pretty is much harder than shooting sand and making it look pretty.<br/> I digress--I agree completely with every point you make. Especially about the ending.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171163"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://badfortheglass.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://badfortheglass.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">The Shamus</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171163"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T05:36:57-08:00">November 28, 2007 5:36 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171163, 'The Shamus')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Masterful analysis, Jim. Maybe you ought to turn this into a book! But I still can't neatly tidy away my dissatisfaction with Chigurh. it's because so much of the film is so grounded and "real" and he's so much of "a ghost" that he clashes against the scenery too much for me. And I don't think Bardem really nails the part. He still strikes me as a bit of a Coens' cartoon, whereas somebody else you mention, Hannibal Lecter, now he really scares me. It's still the one miscalculation that I see, but it may be one of those things that bothers me less on subsequent viewings. Overall, this kind of analysis has deepened the film for me. Most important, it shows the hard work that goes into making a film. All these connections aren't random, they are planned out by the filmmakers. In a way, you have pointed out how paltry most criticism is in understanding what makes a movie tick. Can't wait for the next installment.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171174"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://cinemastyles.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinemastyles.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Jonathan Lapper</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171174"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T06:04:33-08:00">November 28, 2007 6:04 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171174, 'Jonathan Lapper')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Wow! What a post. I have always agreed that style and content go hand in hand but I think that when critics or moviegoers complain about a movie being all style and no substance (though not with this film, just in general) they're not speaking of an impossibility, just confusing their terms. You can overcompensate with style if your substance is weak (<b>The Cell</b> for instance, in my opinion) but what is not understood is that the style then becomes the substance. In moviemaking visual style is substance. So when that complaint comes up I think the critic/moviegoer is saying that the style/substance is not enough to elevate the art of the film (see previous example). </p> <p><b>Playtime</b> has no substance if we are confusing substance with content/story/plot. But substance isn't content/story/plot. <b>Playtime's</b> style <i><b>is</b></i> it's substance. </p> <p>If one is confusing content for substance and confusing style as a separate entity apart from substance then one would be forced to conclude that the content of <b>Forrest Gump</b> which covers the history of America in the latter half of the twentieth century as told through the eyes of a simple everyman trumps that of <b>Barry Lyndon</b> which follows a bewildered Irish man through the travails of his life. And I would then be forced to conclude that said person is an idiot. </p> <p>Great post.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171232"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://drcharleskinbote.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://drcharleskinbote.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Schuyler Chapman</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171232"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T08:08:07-08:00">November 28, 2007 8:08 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171232, 'Schuyler Chapman')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Wow. Nice post. </p> <p>It stirred some thoughts that had lay dormant since I saw the movie last weekend, regarding Chigurh. As you rightly point out, he almost exists as an abstraction. Or, rather, we want to equate him to an abstraction. Such a position aligns him with The Judge in _Blood Meridian_, I think. But, what McCarthy does in the novel _No Country_ and what the Coens emphasize here, is his normality. Basically, what I'm saying is that he's not a grotesque, which is a label that I think you could easily apply to The Judge (or, as you point out, Leonard Smalls). And in some way that makes him all the more frightening. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171245"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Joe</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171245"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T08:37:28-08:00">November 28, 2007 8:37 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171245, 'Joe')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim,</p> <p>Thank you, that was an excellent analysis that provided much to take in and think about. I hate to follow it up with something so superficial, but. . .you said that Chigurh dissappeared into the shadows of the motel room next door? How do you know this? </p> <p>I've only seen NCFOM once, but my memory is that Chigurh sees Ed Tom through the hollow lock presumably from within the room that Ed Tom then enters. Are you saying that he actually looking at him from the next room? If not, how did he get out without being seen? Or am I just falling into the trap that Joel Coen mentioned in your interview with him?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171253"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://chetmellema.blogspot.com/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://chetmellema.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Chet Mellema</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171253"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T08:42:21-08:00">November 28, 2007 8:42 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171253, 'Chet Mellema')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Wonderful post, Jim. I really like what you said here:</p> <p>"Chigurh is by no means the focus of "No Country For Old Men" (it's more about the other characters' responses to his presence), but he bothers some people because they don't know who he is or what he represents. And that's just fine. Ask yourself, "What does he seek?" (in the words of his movie-killer antithesis, the cannibal psychologist Dr. Hannibal Lecter)... and where does that get you? He seeks $2 million in a leather satchel. As Joel Coen once said to me in an interview about "Barton Fink": "The question is: Where would it get you if something that's a little bit ambiguous in the movie is made clear? It doesn't get you anywhere." Sometimes, if certain questions don't appear to have an answer, maybe that's enough of an answer. Or maybe it's a superfluous question."</p> <p>Sometimes it's tough to accept the ambiguity, but that's the beauty of cinema. It reminds me of this quote:</p> <p>"Narrative is the poison of cinema...There’s nothing more beautiful than elusiveness in cinema." Alfonso Cuarón</p> <p>While Cuarón is specifically talking about narrative, I think his statement is very applicable to your language.</p> <p>Thanks for keeping me thinking about this film!</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171260"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Mike</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171260"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T09:04:10-08:00">November 28, 2007 9:04 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171260, 'Mike')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, a couple of things:<br/> 1. Chigurh actually says the coin has been traveling 22 years to get here.</p> <p>2. Did you notice what was printed on the back of the paper Bell is reading in the diner? Death notices, vital statistics and the weather forecast, one after the other. Talk about fate and uncertainty -- with life stuck in the middle.</p> <p>Excellent post! </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171269"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Hilts</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171269"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T09:41:58-08:00">November 28, 2007 9:41 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171269, 'Hilts')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Great analysis of how the movie works, regardless of whether the movie works for everybody. But, since you asked: You say that Chigurh disappears into the shadows of the room next door. But how? Correct me if I'm wrong (I've only seen it once), but the previous shot establishes him as in the room that Bell will enter: only one of the doors is missing a deadbolt, and light shines through the door that Chigurh hides behind. So does he stay behind the kicked-open door (would he fit?), or retreat to the luggage alcove until Bell enters the bathroom? Something else? Chigurh is a "ghost," so I don't think it matters if the ambiguous is made clear here. But I do think it matters if he's in the room or not (according to Chigurh's principles, Bell gets a pass), and the Coens seem to take pains to establish that he's there. (Note the shot in which the bathroom window is shown to be latched from the inside. Why show that unless to establish that Chigurh DIDN'T leave?) But you've seen it twice, so tell me if I'm wrong.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171271"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Fritz</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171271"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T09:46:57-08:00">November 28, 2007 9:46 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171271, 'Fritz')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Re: people who praise the Coen's "craft" while still expressing reservations about the film...</p> <p>When people praise technique and craftsmanship, but claim to be left cold by the overall film, I feel this is a perfectly valid complaint. After all, we're not robots. We feel and our reactions to movies have a lot to do with how that movie makes us feel. </p> <p>I discussed my reservations with No Country in the previous comments section and won't rehash my argument about the film's anticlimaxes, but...all the craftsmanship, beauty, etc. would still be enough for me to give it a thumbs up on a Siskel & Ebert style show, as would the vast majority of film critics, if Rotten Tomatoes is any indication.</p> <p>However, I don't think there's anything wrong in people resisting worship of No Country in part b/c it left them cold and didn't leave them with same sense of elation it left you with.</p> <p>Granted, this is the toughest thing to put into words and seems to be what frustrates you with other critics...but we're emotional creatures and how a movie makes us feel is going to affect how we view a film. You can intellectually admire a film for technical aspects but not totally fall under its spell because it leaves you cold emotionally.</p> <p>And just so you know, I'm not some heart-on-his-sleeve moviegoer who loves Capra and sentimentality above all else...Kubrick is one of my favorite filmmakers and Miller's Crossing ranks as one of my favorite films of all time. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171288"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Liz</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171288"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T10:15:47-08:00">November 28, 2007 10:15 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171288, 'Liz')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim,</p> <p>You are dead-on! Thanks for writing this--it congealed all the exact same thoughts I was having about the movie. I got into a heated discussion with someone who was bothered by unanswered questions as I kept saying "It doesn't matter!" He was also disappointed in how the movie ended, and I thought it was just perfect--especially the speed between the last word and the cut to black. I appreciated that they didn't linger.</p> <p>And I had just found the screenplay online yesterday as I was trying to look up a quote for my boss. He's already seen the movie twice and bought and read the book just since last weekend (and I'll bet he spent last night reading the screenplay). He gets it. I'll recommend The Road to him as I'd not made the connection with "carrying the fire" but it's perfectly apt as a sequel of sorts to this film.</p> <p>Thanks again.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171297"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Heather Davis</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171297"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T10:32:17-08:00">November 28, 2007 10:32 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171297, 'Heather Davis')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>It is interesting to talk about how Chigurh perceives of himself and of the role he plays as a tool of fate in the world as opposed to how the world perceives him. What the film shows is that he is actually a megalomaniac who enjoys very much the power he has over other people. Whether he realizes it or not, he is clearly playing a game that he made up and no one else gets to know the rules. (When we were little, my cousin used to want to play a game where the only rule was that he got to win. He thought he was sooo smart). The scene that most exemplifies this is the one at the gas station. Chigurh is clearly having a lot of fun playing with this poor man. The one time I remember Chigurh showing a human emotion is when Carla Jean says she won’t call the coin. She says “you and the coin got here the same way.” I remember that he looked really annoyed that she was questioning his rules. </p> <p>A couple of questions about your essay; Earlier in the movie, Llewelyn has a screwdriver to open the vent but Chigurh has to use a dime. I thought that Chigurh and Ed Tom were in the same room at the end and while Ed Tom is looking in the bathroom Chigurh sneaks out. The implication of the dime is that Chigurh had definitely been in the room. Did you think he went next door through the vent or maybe that he left before Ed Tom got there?</p> <p>About mirroring; both Ed Tom and Chigurh look at their shadows in the TV while sitting in Llewelyn and Carla Jean’s spots on the couch. You say that we’re seeing what the Sheriff and Deputy see and nothing more, but Ed Tom sees what Chigurh sees. Could Ed Tom be mirroring Chigurh… looking into the blackness and making the decision not to follow?<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171326"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Alex Murillo</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171326"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T10:55:19-08:00">November 28, 2007 10:55 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171326, 'Alex Murillo')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Thank you Jim for this eloquent piece. It really expresses the style and motifs of the film, and why you found them so thrilling.</p> <p>I'm especially grateful to have the text of both the opening monologue and Bell's closing dreams here. I subconsciously realized that they were linked when I saw the film, but only now do I realize how perfectly they compliment one another. The opening monologue ends with "OK, I'll be a part of this world". And the closing speech ends with "And then I woke up...". Waking up is Bell's reiteration that he will in fact be a part of this world and face it head-on, but whereas at the beginning Bell looked upon the crimes to come with incredulity and sadness, now he has a hard-earned wisdom that the horrors of the world are all too real and believable, yet there is hope ("a warm fire") if we keep struggling on. That's why I don't think the ending to the film is as bleak as many people seem to think it is. It's about carrying on in the face of the horrors of the world.</p> <p>My own personal feeling about the film is that it's a brilliantly-executed thriller, but it's not quite as profound in scope or magnitude as many people are making it out to be. In the reaction it generated from both myself and the critical public at large, "No Country for Old Men" reminded me very much of "A History of Violence". I think that both are near-great films ("No Country" more so) that will stand the test of time and be still treasured decades from now, in much the same way that we treasure "Shadow of a Doubt", "The Night of the Hunter" and other classics from the 40s and 50s. But I don't think that either film has lived up to the billing of profundity that many people have struggled to give them.</p> <p>That's why I think your take on the film, which is that the Coens' eye for details IS the profundity of the film, is the most honest approach. Some critics have tried to claim that "No Country for Old Men" is rigorously exploring a new moral code, but frankly, I think that it is merely articulating (through the thriller genre) the fairly common, somewhat reactionary, view of older generations looking at the sins of the young and raising their arms in amazement (I know that the one sheriff's speech about the world going to hell since "the young people started getting green hair..." isn't meant to be the film's philosophical outlook, but it certainly leaves a strong impression that it is.) </p> <p>There are some moral shades of grey in evidence in the dual scenes of youngsters having to give up their clothes to one of the main characters (ironically, the "good" character is exploited and has to overpay for help, while Chigurh is generously offered assistance). But those scenes demonstrate another element of the film that, to me anyway, prevented it from feeling like an out-and-out masterpiece: it's use of fairly obvious literary devices (repeating motifs, scenes and shots) to underscore its themes. I can already hear you saying...but wait! Isn't that what all directors and artists do? Well, yes, but in the case of "No Country for Old Men", I felt as if the Coens were attempting to add some statements about the human condition, and the morality of our age, to a wonderful film that had already accomplished the resonance it needed (in many of the ways that you have described).</p> <p>To my eyes, "Fargo" remains the Coens' masterpiece, and one of the greatest films I have seen. "No Country for Old Men" rates right behind it though (possibly in a tie with "Blood Simple"). It's a very good film, and so rich with beautifully-rendered details that, as you have said, heighten our awareness of the aural and visual possibilities of the medium (and of the world around us). This is something that many great films share in common, and that is why it is frustrating when people complain that a film is just an "exercise in style". Style, in all of its forms, is what makes a movie (otherwise we would just read screenplays). Critics need to move beyond these simplistic phrases and begin investigating what directors are actually doing when they provide us with recurring motifs (such as the ones you've beautifully described and highlighted). "No Country for Old Men" is, as you said, a litmus test for moviegoers. Do they see only the story, which is a fairly straightforward one about a "Terminator"-like bad-guy chasing after a poor fellow who made a bad decision? Or do they see the richness, the LIFE, in the way the Coens bring this story to the screen? Judging by the public's euphoric reaction to this film, I'd say that most people fall into the latter camp.</p> <p>P.S. One other minor problem I had with this film, and maybe I'm oversensitive because my father is Mexican, is that I detected a sort-of casual racism to Mexicans that left a bit of a sour taste. The film's themes of an unknown tide sweeping over a once-innocent country is certainly timely, given the current crisis with illegal immigration. To their credit, the Coens dispel the notion that America was pure until Mexicans and other influences began polluting it (the speech by Ed Tom's uncle accomplishes this). But the film still basically treats Mexicans as either slimy drug dealers or laughable caricatures (the mariachi band...which I actually thought was a great moment of comic relief in the film). Ed Tom's comment that coyotes "don't eat Mexicans" may be meant to illuminate the casual racism of his Texas roots, but judging by the laughs it gets from the audience, I think it does more to perpetuate the stereotype of Mexicans as a bunch of dirty, greasy, double-crossing drug dealers. I'm not suggesting that the Coens are racist, merely that they don't do much to dispel the fears of an invasion of drug-dealing Mexicans that may be held by certain people in the United States.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171379"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" rel="nofollow">jim emerson</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171379"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T12:52:00-08:00">November 28, 2007 12:52 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171379, 'jim emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Thanks, all, for your (as usual) thoughtful observations and insights. I want to digest them further before continuing the discussion (but I have a screening I <i>must</i> attend this afternoon -- more about that later).</p> <p>For now, I just want to address something Fritz brings up: I completely understand that someone may not be moved by a movie. What irritated me in so many reviews of "NCFOM" was that even some critics who loved the movie wrote about it as though the craft/skill/technique could be considered separately from the style/substance of the film. The point I wanted to make is that craft, skill, technique, style <i>are</i> the movie, and every movie has its own. The so-called "cinema verite" that Werner Herzog despises as false and dishonest is every bit as much a manifestation of "technique" or "craft" or "style" as what you see in "NCFOM." Reviewers often talk about "style" or "technique" as something imposed on a movie (especially by Hollywood craftsmen or foreign auteurs), rather than being the very stuff movies are made of.</p> <p>So, by all means, respond to the film however you responded to the film, or make an argument that a cut or a composition struck you as false or inappropriate. I'm just saying we should talk about film as film, and not consider craftsmanship or technique as something extraneous.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171410"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">oz guttman</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171410"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T13:49:50-08:00">November 28, 2007 1:49 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171410, 'oz guttman')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, i'm a 24 year old film grad from israel, and a hopeful film editor. just wanted to say that your Coens essays, and the Coens in general, give me such inspiration to help create artful and entertaining cinema. i would dream of being the Coens editor, if it wasn't for that "Roderick Jaynes" fellow. that lucky bastard! anyway, since i have to basically wait until the end of january for "No Country" to reach my out-house of a country, all i have are the reviews and articles to live by. so for that, sir, i thank you. i don't even mind the spoilers, because since when is a Coens movie about plot twists and surprises. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171469"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://jeremyandthemovies.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://jeremyandthemovies.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Jeremy</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171469"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T16:12:18-08:00">November 28, 2007 4:12 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171469, 'Jeremy')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Hi Jim</p> <p>I just saw the movie myself a few days ago, and after reading your analysis I just want to go back and watch it again. I'm an amateur about reading film myself but I was wondering if there was anything with the dogs in the film, there just seemed to be something about them but I wasn't sure what.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171529"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Eric</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171529"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T18:21:39-08:00">November 28, 2007 6:21 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171529, 'Eric')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>The more I think about this movie, the more I love it. I agree 100% that analyzing technique in an attempt to tear down a film is lazy criticism. Roger Ebert had a very good quote in his review of Charlize Theron's performance in Monster: "there is a certain tone in the voices of some critics that I detest -- that superior way of explaining technique in order to destroy it. They imply that because they can explain how Theron did it, she didn't do it. But she does it." </p> <p>As for profundity of the film, I think there is an interesting comparison to be made between NCFOM and Fargo. The films, while similar in quality, are polar opposites - in character, setting, and most importantly ending. At the end of Fargo, the determined lawman filled with hope (literally), catches the bad guy, fulfilling our human desire for closure and justice. In NCFOM, the lawman is impotent with despair, and ends the film with a haunting (and for many I suspect boring) monologue about a dream. Both films are phenomenally good, but I think NCFOM is clearly better, not in spite of the ending but in part because of it. </p> <p>If you want to talk about profundity, it's right there. Ed Tom realizes that the world isn't changing for the worse, but that he is no longer equipped to deal with it as an old man. The illusion of a changing world is something everyone goes through in order to rationalize their own growing obsolescence. The ending has the Sheriff coming to terms with that, and the entire movie brings about that understanding. Look at the juxtaposition of the young deputy who is eager, hopeful, ambitious), to Ed Tom, and the ending doesn't seem so much a downer, as a passing of life and its problems from one generation to another.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171580"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://www.mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Matt Zoller Seitz</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171580"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T20:58:55-08:00">November 28, 2007 8:58 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171580, 'Matt Zoller Seitz')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim:</p> <p>Thanks, as always, for writing from the gut, yet making the effort to connect your personal reactions to the actual components of the movie: shots, cuts, color, sound, performance, dialogue. Guys like you and Bordwell inspire me to work harder.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171589"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">N. Farias</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171589"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-28T21:39:57-08:00">November 28, 2007 9:39 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171589, 'N. Farias')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jeremy:</p> <p>It's not just the dogs that stand out -- animals in general feature prominently. Off the top of my head: dogs, dead and alive, the hotel cat, Ellis' strays, the lucky (!) bird, horses, the deer Llewelyn hunts, the cows referenced in conversation...am I forgetting any? I'm actually surprised, Jim, that you didn't mention the ubiquitous animals; their presence struck me as powerfully as that of the scars -- from boot soles, blood trails, cars or firearms -- left on the film's various landscapes.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171775"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://tuwa.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://tuwa.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">tuwa</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171775"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T06:04:47-08:00">November 29, 2007 6:04 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171775, 'tuwa')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>The two times we're shown a coin toss to decide someone's fate, it's done with a quarter. The one time we're shown Chigurh opening a vent, it's done with a dime.</p> <p>I think the implication of the dime (plus the $100 bill he gives the boy later) is that Chigurh found the money the Mexicans didn't. That leaves me puzzled, though, why Chigurgh didn't kill Bell, unless they weren't in the same room, as you say.</p> <p>I've only seen it once so far--looking forward to see it again to see what new things I notice, and not just which room Chigurh is in.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171826"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">haggie</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171826"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T08:17:22-08:00">November 29, 2007 8:17 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171826, 'haggie')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, you've given cohesion to the disorganized thoughts of a lot of fans of NCFOM. You not only submersed yourself in the film, you understood what you were watching and collected these <i>feelings</i> into conherant words. I know I really liked NCFOM but there's no way I could truly express how it made me feel without breaking those collective feelings into comments on the cinematography, etc. Apparently, neither can many professional critics. I don't know that it's simply lazy criticism on the part of others; more likely, it's a display of lower levels talent and skill. Something I've learned in my 10+ years in my career is that most people are not <i>great</i> at their jobs. As a kid, I always assumed that if somebody worked in a field professionally, it meant that they were really good at whatever it was that they did. Unfortunately, the average quality in any field tends to skew to a lower quality than I would have hoped. Film critics too.</p> <p>I understand that your specific frustration stems from critics discussing technique in place of discussing the film itself but that makes me wonder, is there no place for criticism of technique alone? The best example in my own viewing that I can think of where I'd really want to comment in technique outside of the whole are the films of Luis Bunuel. I've really enjoyed each film of his that I've seen but I have to admit that I am constantly distracted by some aspects of the cinematography. His indoor scenes always tend to be bland and over lit, possibly just as a means to achieve deep focus. In my opinion, this adds up to large sections of his films looking, well... amateurish and cheap. The fact that his films can usually overcome what I perceive to be low production values is a test to the quality of his films on the whole.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171879"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Mike</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171879"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T10:08:26-08:00">November 29, 2007 10:08 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171879, 'Mike')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>An addendum to Heather Davis' post about the TV: Carla and Llewelyn are sitting on the couch, actually watching a movie (I believe the shot is two or three people from the front, sitting in a car) called "Flight to Tangier," which has plot parallels to NCFOM. In a way, Carla Jean and Llewelyn are "previsioning" their fate. Its plot description, from IMDB, follows:</p> <p>Originally released in 3-D, the film begins when a pilotless plane crashes at the Tangier airport. Those awaiting the plane include Gil Walker (Jack Palance), a sometime dabbler in black-market operations and an unjustified winner of a Congressional Medal of Honor; Susan (Joan Fontaine), an American girl engaged to the missing pilot; and Nicole (Corinne Calvet), a French girl whose affections seem to be evenly divided between Walker and various other Tangier underworld characters. The plane was supposed to be bringing in $3,000,000 to finance the purchase, by an Iron Curtain agent, of war planes from a Tangier black-market operator. Susan enlists the aid of Walker to find the missing pilot and the money, which she knows to be safely hidden 75 miles south of Tangier. The chase is on with Susan and Walker pursued by the black-market racketeers who, in turn, are trailed by the police.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171884"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Jamie</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171884"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T10:27:46-08:00">November 29, 2007 10:27 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171884, 'Jamie')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I just wanted to chime in with praise for your reading of the film. What you've done is, for me, what criticism is supposed to do. Whatever personal or ideological response people have to the film, there is little doubt that this is a sophistocated, substantial piece of cinema, not just aesthetically, but morally, and the work you've done here could be a great starting point (and from the flurry of posts HAS been a great starting point) for further conversation. What ABOUT the films understanding of Mexicans? What kinds of gender related observations could we make about the movie (which is on some level an action movie about boys shooting at each other)? What kinds of class issues are going on here? Could we read this film against any kind of religious, philosophical or political tradition? The conversation about this one has just begun, and the complexity that your essay hints at suggests that it could end up being a long conversation indeed.</p> <p>Thanks for demonstrating that the substance of the film is inextricably bound to the style and technique of the film. This is kind of a no brainer, but some folks still have the idea that content and style aren't the same thing. I honestly think some folks don't "get it" because they just aren't as aesthetically literate as they could be. (Of course, I'm sure there are those who "get it," but don't like it, but I'm at a loss to explain why. I don't wanna be tooo condescending here.....)</p> <p>I'm reminded of the praise and awards that "Crash" received. "Crash" was aestheticaly and thematically insensetive as NCFOM is brilliant, but the words in the screenplay just sounded so damn important and SERIOUS and there was all that emotional ACTING on display and there were so many ISSUES in that movie. Yuck.</p> <p>I loved NCFOM when I saw it last weekend, but as it's had a few days to "rest" in my brain, it's gotten better and better. I thought that "Eastern Promises" would be the film I saw this year that I'd remember, but not anymore (well, I'll remember that one too, but it's on the mental backburner right now). I just can't stop thinking about NCFOM, and from the posts here, it seems I'm not alone. The movie just keeps growng. It's not that I'm remembering it being more exciting or moving than it was, but that I keep returning to the idea in the film (ideas that were primarily expressed through visual grammar and through plot mechanics...."technique," "style") and the movie keeps getting richer. Your post has helped it grow richer still. I'm gonna have to see it at least once more on a big screen. I loved it the first time, and I expect I love it more the second time.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171952"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">bill</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171952"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T13:00:41-08:00">November 29, 2007 1:00 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171952, 'bill')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Does it seem to anyone else the scene with Chigurh, the two kids and the $100 bill is sort of the whole movie writ small and littered with fewer corpses? The one kid resists the money at first, but then once he gives in, he and his friend start fighting over it.</p> <p>And, now that I mention it, you throw in the car accident and you have your violence. If the other driver died, you have death. And, with Chigurh, injured and walking away from the noise of the sirens, you have a wounded man on the run. I'm reaching a bit with that last bit, but still...</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171963"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" rel="nofollow">jim emerson</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171963"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T13:42:48-08:00">November 29, 2007 1:42 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171963, 'jim emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Matt: Thanks very much. You know how much I admire what you're doing at The House Next Door. For me, "NCFOM" is a reminder of just how hard it is to express in language what I love about movies.</p> <p>As for The Room Next Door: As a friend of mine said, Chigurh is <i>always</i> in the room next door. (He does not share frame space with others -- which is why it's especially chilling when he comes into the shot, out of focus, behind Wells as he's going up the stairs. That's a shot, I later discovered, is also described in detail by the Coens in the screenplay.) Chigurh has taken a motel room adjacent to Moss's earlier in the movie. When Sheriff Bell approaches the motel at the end, the camera does not center on the door he enters, but on rooms 114 and 112, and the "Crime Scene" tape stretches across both. After he inspects the room, turns on the lights (dispersing the shadows) and sits on the bed, there's a reverse angle toward the door: Chigurh is not in that room. Not because he's "magic." (If that were the case, why does he need guns or cars or tracking devices or $2 million anyway?) But because, after retrieving the satchel (Ed Tom sees the vent and the screws and the coin on the floor), he hasn't left the scene yet. </p> <p>OK, more later...</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171969"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">bill</span></span> on <a href="#comment-171969"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T14:00:54-08:00">November 29, 2007 2:00 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171969, 'bill')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>He shares the fram with the cop at the beginning, and possibly with the two men he kills in the desert.</p> <p>He also shares space with the accountant, which is a scene I don't see many people talking about. </p> <p>"Are you going to kill me?"<br/> "That depends. Do you see me?"</p> <p>It seems to me there are two ways to read that. One, the accountant says he doesn't see Chigurh, and Chigurh believes he won't talk, and let's him live. The other way, which is hwo I read it, is that it's a rhetorical question. Of course the accountant sees him, so of course Chigurh is going to kill him.</p> </div> </div>   <div style="margin-left: 25px;"> <div class="comment" id="comment-854295"> <div class="comment-header">  <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">justin</span></span> replied to comment from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/no_country_for_old_men_out_in.html#comment-171969"> bill</a> | <a href="#comment-854295"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-19T09:45:13-08:00">January 19, 2010 9:45 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(854295, 'justin')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Bill I agree and disagree with how you feel about the accountant. I agree that no one really did acknowledge the accountant. But I think that what he was saying when he said “Are you going to kill me?” “That depends. Do you see me?” meaning that if you don't tell anyone that I was here and act like I don't even exist then ill let you live. I do not think that he killed him because of what he said and he is held strong to his word. Compared to the coin toss you have a 50/50 chance of living and if you do as he says and you call your choice its like picking the chance to live or die. Now back to the accountant if the accountant agrees to say that he doesn't see him and that he doesn't exist as if he was never there then he wold let him live. Bill I believe you have a very good theory but I just don't agree how he wold die in your eyes.</p> </div> </div>   </div>   <div class="comment" id="comment-171978"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" rel="nofollow">jim emerson</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171978"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T14:30:40-08:00">November 29, 2007 2:30 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171978, 'jim emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>bill: You're right -- I didn't mean that literally. I meant it in the sense that he doesn't play well with others. If he shares frame space with someone, that usually means the other person is going to be eliminated. </p> <p>The ambiguity of that scene you mention is, if I may use the phrase, dead-on. (How can ambiguity be dead-on? I don't know -- it's ambiguous.) It "pre-visions" the scene with Carla Jean, where he checks his boots upon leaving her house. (And we've seen what happens when he gets his boots dirty.) I read it the second way you describe -- as Chigurh's sadistic way of saying there will be no "coin toss" for this guy -- but I love that the movie doesn't feel the need to show us a definitive outcome. The murders move offscreen later in the movie (even the non-murders: we don't even see the driver of the vehicle that hit's Chigurh's). It should become obvious by that point, I should think, that "NCFOM" isn't primarily concerned with murder, as such. And that's why it ends the way it does, with no climactic confrontation between "good and evil" -- because the movie isn't that simple...</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171980"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" rel="nofollow">jim emerson</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171980"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T14:31:33-08:00">November 29, 2007 2:31 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171980, 'jim emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>bill: You're right -- I didn't mean that literally. I meant it in the sense that he doesn't play well with others. If he shares frame space with someone, that usually means the other person is going to be eliminated. </p> <p>The ambiguity of that scene you mention is, if I may use the phrase, dead-on. (How can ambiguity be dead-on? I don't know -- it's ambiguous.) It "pre-visions" the scene with Carla Jean, where he checks his boots upon leaving her house. (And we've seen what happens when he gets his boots dirty.) I read it the second way you describe -- as Chigurh's sadistic way of saying there will be no "coin toss" for this guy -- but I love that the movie doesn't feel the need to show us a definitive outcome. The murders move offscreen later in the movie (even the non-murders: we don't even see the driver of the vehicle that hit's Chigurh's). It should become obvious by that point, I should think, that "NCFOM" isn't primarily concerned with murder, as such. And that's why it ends the way it does, with no climactic confrontation between "good and evil" -- because the movie isn't that simple...</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171992"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" rel="nofollow">jim emerson</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171992"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T14:54:50-08:00">November 29, 2007 2:54 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171992, 'jim emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Alex: Thanks again for another well-written, idea-filled post. I thought the guy who made the comment about the "green hair" was just as flummoxed by "this world" as Ed Tom is in the opening monologue. Interesting that a movie called "No Country for Old Men" seems to have so few people under 30 in it. The youngest characters (Carla Jean and the Poolside Woman) are women --until the bike-riding boys at the end. Where <i>are</i> these kids with bones in their noses? I thought the move was poking fun at the old-timers' generational paranoia. (As Ellis later tells Ed Tom: "What you got ain't nothin new.")</p> <p>I got the same impression about the comments about Mexicans -- something you'd expect from white residents of a Texas border area. It's similar to their view of the customs of youth -- a kind of xenophobia. I thought Sheriff Bell was being sarcastic with the comment about wolves not eating Mexicans, repeating an old superstition that he knew was ridiculous but that others didn't question. I'll have to pay more attention to that the next time I see the movie.</p> <p>N Farias: I was going to get into the whole dog/cat thing (the movie starts with dogs and ends with cats), but I just didn't know how to fit it in. The dead dog is singled out three times -- it has an effect on people, emphasizing the brutality of the crimes. Seems to bother some even more than the dead people. Moss first sees the wounded dog -- and later is hounded (sorry) by one at the river, in one of the most spectacularly realized, surreal moments in the movie. (I had recently marveled at a dog jumping into Lake Washington at a dog park near my house. He did the same thing, chasing after a fetch toy. He was so lean and muscular, that he could actually jump into the relatively shallow water and spring off the pebble-covered lake bottom, arcing out of the water like a dolphin. A month later I saw "NCFOM" and almost shouted with joy/fear in that scene. What a cinematic eye these guys have!!!)</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-171997"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://jdamer83.libsyn.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://jdamer83.libsyn.com/" rel="nofollow">John</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-171997"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T15:09:58-08:00">November 29, 2007 3:09 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(171997, 'John')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>A negative-nelly here.</p> <p>(No offense, Jim, but in regards to your 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraph in this entry:) in an otherwise finely-written entry/essay, it's almost as if you had to shoe-horn a swipe at people who only consider NCFOM a finely made film.</p> <p>Is it such a crime to admire the form of a film but not the content? If form and content must always be interdependent and inseparable, then how does anyone study film in a basic sense? And what would David Bordwell say about people who separate form from content? I don't think he would consider it as much of a problem as you do.</p> <p>For instance: holistically and ideologically, I think THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a problematic movie. But I think it has some great cinematography in it by Caleb Deschanel. Does that mean that I'm extremely conservative Catholic like Mel Gibson? No, not at all.</p> <p>Also: since George Lucas imitated Leni Reifenstahl's TRIUMPH OF THE WILL in STAR WARS, does that mean that Lucas was implicitly celebrating Nazis like Reifenstahl? Not at all. He was just ironically imitating the style.</p> <p>For Lack of a Better Word<br/> a 'culture' podcast<br/> jdamer83.libsyn.com</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172001"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">bill</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172001"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T15:17:01-08:00">November 29, 2007 3:17 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172001, 'bill')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Their eye is amazing. They know exactly what they want you to see and how they want you to see it at every second. For some reason, a moment that sticks out for me is the moment when Moss is scrambling out of his hotel room window, just before Chigurh busts in. As I remember it, at one point the camera is just outside the window as Moss is dropping from sight. At the top of the frame, you see Chigurh's sillouhette come in and fire his gun at the same moment. I could really feel the closeness of that close-call.</p> <p>Not to mention, later in that scene, seeing the muzzle-flash of Chigurh's gun in the distance, and the bullets (and the sound of them) coming through the windshield. It almost felt like Chigurh was aiming at me.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172006"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Drew Holton</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172006"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T15:29:45-08:00">November 29, 2007 3:29 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172006, 'Drew Holton')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p><i>JE: This was actually sent to me in e-mail hours before I published the post above, so I asked Drew if I could put it up to continue the discussion of "NCFOM":</i></p> <p>You have been discussing various reactions and impressions of reviewers and viewers of No Country For Old Men on and off for a while now. I just saw the film myself this weekend, and then read (or reread) some of the reviews on the film. In doing so, I was struck by what impressions and images seem to have stood out in people’s minds so distinctly, that they have actually elaborated or embellishied on what they actually saw. I think this is to the credit of the Coens, in that they enhanced the events in the way that they were filmed and edited, that they created certain illusions in the minds of the viewers, making them feel more than they actually saw. So here are my observations on:<br/> <br/> <b>The Illusions of No Country for Old Men</b><br/> <br/> Cattle gun<br/> <br/> Everyone viewing the film is struck by the eccentricity and unique terror of the Cattle Gun. But if you actually watch the film, he only actually kills one person with it, at the beginning of the film. And this is only because he’s just escaped from a police station, and it’s the only weapon he has at that moment What he really uses it for, is to blow out the locks on doors. Every he kills every other person using a shotgun with a huge silencer on it. When you think about it, using the cattle gun as a regular weapon would be awkward and impractical. But the impression it makes at the beginning of the film , and then the continued use on locks, is so indelible that people are taking it as his main weapon.<br/> <br/> Amount of blood/Level of violence shown<br/> <br/> Reviewers are also commenting on the amount of blood and level of violence in the film. But upon examination, while there is violence, most of what you see is not so much the violence but either the implied violence offscreen or the aftermath of violence. Llewelyn Moss comes upon the dead bodies of a drug shootout, not the shootout itself. When Chigurh kills Woody Harrelson’s character, we see Chigurh pull the trigger, but we only see the back of Harrelson’s chair, in shadow on the edge of the screen, and then a cut to a slowly flowing puddle of blood. We actually see Chigurh pull the shower curtain closed before shooting him out of our sight. And in one of the most chilling scenes, after an unbearably suspenseful conversation between Chigurh and Carla Jean, we don’t see him killing her at all. We only see him coming out of her house, then stopping on the porch to check the soles of his shoes for blood.<br/> <br/> All these are elements of the artistry of the storytelling of the Coens. They initially give us explicit scenes of horrific murders, one using a kind of terror weapon, to establish the evil of the terrifying Chigurh, but then steadily show us less and less of what he does, only implying it and leaving it to our terrified imaginations to fill in the gaps. And what you imagine is always more terrifying than the reality.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172014"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" rel="nofollow">jim emerson</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172014"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T15:41:22-08:00">November 29, 2007 3:41 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172014, 'jim emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>John: I was trying to be more specific than that (as I wrote in a previous comment). I set this up by saying that critics who'd loved the movie and who were left cold by in had described it as "perfect." (I happen to think Roger Ebert, who was among the former, did a fine job of explaining exactly what he meant by that.) </p> <p>The tone of many of these reviews was to imply that, somehow, expert cinematic craftsmanship is suspect or shallow or artificial or aesthetically invalid. It's this dismissive attitude toward craft that I was trying to address. It's something that certain critics have been saying about the Coens' work for 21 years, and (as I've written in previous posts) I wanted to put that in perspective. Their craftsmanship -- their mastery of technique, their personal style -- is essential to their artistry, and I think what they're actually doing is too often overlooked. As I keep saying: You can like it or not like it, but at least take the trouble to notice it.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172015"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">bill</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172015"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T15:47:03-08:00">November 29, 2007 3:47 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172015, 'bill')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I'm not sure I buy the idea that much of the violence was illusory. Apart from the cattle gun murder, there is the graphic shooting of the men in the desert, the graphic death of two of the men in the motel room, the graphic death of Stephen Root's character, and, most of all, the graphic death of the man in the truck. Nothing illusory about any of those.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172021"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Liz</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172021"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T16:10:17-08:00">November 29, 2007 4:10 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172021, 'Liz')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Speaking of dead dogs: the woman behind me made a quiet "aww" at the first image of the dead dog, but was silent for all the dead (and dying) people.</p> <p>There is one shot in the movie that I can't figure out: When Moss is looking at the dead guy sitting under the shade trees (he's tracked there from the scene of the drug deal), the camera all of a sudden swoops back across the grass really, really fast then cuts to Moss again. It happens so fast I'm still not sure I actually saw this. It almost feels out of place in the movie. Did I imagine this? Can anyone explain it? </p> <p>Thanks. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172032"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Michael Calia</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172032"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T16:55:51-08:00">November 29, 2007 4:55 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172032, 'Michael Calia')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p><i>JE: This is another thought-provoking e-mail I received before posting the above, but did not read in its entirety until now.</i></p> <p>From Michael Calia:</p> <p>I've seen "No Country" twice now, with two different audiences. The first was at an arthouse theater in Montclair, NJ, the second at a multiplex theater in Clifton, NJ. The first time around, the audience responded to the cut to black as if they had been roused from a dream ("And then I woke up.") If there was any grumbling about it, I didn't hear it. In fact, I heard some people outside discussing the movie compared with the book, perhaps trying to make sense of it. The second time was a mostly different story. For me, it was just as gripping as the first time, although I was taking more notice of the <i>mise en scene</i>, the lighting, etc. The audience was dead still the whole time, which I appreciated, but at the end, I heard one member yell "Okay?!?" and another yell "I want my $20 back!" At first I was outraged: How could these fools say such things? Weren't they paying attention? And furthermore, how rude of them? There were people who enjoyed it and didn't seem to have any problems with the ending, a sizable group stayed until the credits finished. But the ignorant loudmouths got me thinking: What kind of movie (and as an extension, ending) were they expecting?</p> <p>Was it the ad campaign's fault? Did it drum up interest among the bloodthirsty action-movie crowd under false pretenses? Maybe, but I think it's more about audience expectation. In a way, audience members who expect a bloody, satisfying conclusion are a lot like Llewellen, who looks for the "ultimo hombre" at the beginning, asks whether Chigurh is "the ultimate badass," and promises a violent confrontation with Chigurh. But he doesn't get his wish, and neither does that "macho" portion of the audience, so willing to see themselves as a Llewellen: tough, smart, resourceful, stubborn, protective. They want to be Gary Cooper in "High Noon" (no wonder this country "elected" George Bush twice). Instead, they're left realizing that this enemy is not like before, not like the "outlaws" of American romantic myth.</p> <p>Chigurh is a killer who at once sees himself an agent of history and its subject ("The coin and I got here the same way.") He has a code, too, but one that doesn't make sense to the average American or, for that matter, average American moviegoer. So when Carla Jean refuses to play by Chigurh's rules, he becomes visibly offended at having to make the choice himself. I'm sure the audience felt the same way when they didn't get to see Llewellen's violent end at the hands of the Mexicans. If they had the chance to make it happen their way, they'd rewind it and make sure it happens the way they want to, like the home invaders in "Funny Games."</p> <p>"No Country", then, suggests a terrible truth about America, that it's not what it seems or what we want it to be. Americans want to be the scrappy, righteous underdogs: the Brooklyn Dodgers or the 1969 Jets. But rather we're the Yankees or the current incarnation of the New England Patriots: a remorseless machine bent on winning at all costs, no matter who stands in our way. We are no longer the 13 colonies who rose against an empire; we are imperialist occupiers. We ordain ourselves as free to spread our ways of life, commerce and faith. We see ourselves as above the world. We think we're Llewellen Moss, but we're really Anton Chigurh.</p> <p>Some other notes on seeing "No Country" a second time (I know you're working on something right now, but I figured I'd throw in my two cents):</p> <p>Red light, green light: The transponder in the satchel has a red light, Chigurh's detector has a green light. Later on, during the chase/shootout in the streets, Moss looks back through the pickup's window and sees a red light before Chigurh shoots. And of course, when Chigurh is injured in the accident toward the end, he has a green light.</p> <p>"It's sure made an impression on me:" The movie is full of impressions: the scuff marks on the floor of the police station, the indentation from the shot-out lock at Llewellen's trailer, the various wounds and injuries, various bloodstains throughout, the clouds looming over the landscape, Bell's and Chigurh's reflection on the television screen.</p> <p>Money as an instrument of fate, not a maguffin: Roger Ebert calls the satchel of money a maguffin. I disagree. While it does set the plot in motion, this movie is more about plot, and there are other moments that indicate the presence of money is intertwined with fate: Chigurh's coin tosses and the way he uses coins to open the vents, searching for the money. Other characters see the money as an object of their greed; Chigurh sees it as his purpose and as a tool.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172035"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://philzine.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://philzine.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Phillip Kelly</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172035"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T16:59:05-08:00">November 29, 2007 4:59 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172035, 'Phillip Kelly')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim,</p> <p>These are just a few of my abbreviated responses to your posting here, which I go into more detail on my own blog. I pretty much agree with everything you've written, except for...</p> <p>To say that Chigurh isn’t a character is faulty. It’s like saying the film is beautiful while dismissing the rest of it - you can’t separate the two. It’s like saying that because Randle Patrick McMurphy, Nicholson’s role in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, represents something, he can’t be a character. The two, in the best films, go hand in hand. Just because Chigurh doesn’t act with the same motivations of other movie killers, what you exemplify with ”primal psycho-sexual needs” doesn’t mean he isn’t a character, because he represents something, or because he doesn’t have an arch, well, it’s insane to not call him a character.</p> <p>He has a set of subtle reactions that break from his code throughout the film, which I go into more detail...at my blog, but which I'll avoid going into here.</p> <p>I would go even so far as to describe Chigurh in the way I’m about to. There are two types of main characters I learned in my screen writing class back in college, the kind whose ideals change throughout the film to match the world around them or those who hold firmly to their ideals, who stays strong and firm and who fight against the unchangeable world around them. With this in mind it’s easy to see Chigurh as the main character. And he’s putting up a pretty good fight to get people to listen to him, but when you go looking for death, it’s bound to notice. As Brolin does when he enters back into what seems to be hell to give water to a dying man. A moment of charity spells his demise. </p> <p>Then you move on and leave that final line, “That’s vanity,” sitting untouched, as if when it’s said, nothing is meant by it, and to me it’s one of the most important lines in the film, especially when taken into context with the rest of Ellis’ speech, funny that it should come from the one character who looks like he’s been fighting off death for decades. Ellis is making a comparison between the violence and lack of safety that was then, when the “old timers” were around, and the violence that is now, that Chigurh represents. When he says “That’s vanity,” he turns the narrator’s, or Ed Tom’s, opinion on its head. </p> <p>So, perhaps when Moss took the shotgun slug to the arm, he was already dead. He was avoiding death from the get go. Moss crosses the river Styx, running from death, as the dog chases him. Maybe the whole cat and mouse game between Moss and Chigurh is the chess game that Bergman personified in “The Seventh Seal”. In that case Chigurh isn’t even a bad guy, he is simply death doing his job, he’s “Death on a Pale Horse” by Piers Anthony. He’s something only the vain fear, those that think either death has made it harder for them alone (Ed Tom) or those that think they can avoid it or fight it or pretend it doesn’t exist (Moss has a chance to save his wife but his vanity keeps him from sacrificing himself to keep her alive, or when he proclaims, ”There ain’t no devil” to the Mexican drug runner, whose asking for water) or bargain with it or contain it (Carson Wells, Woody Harrelson’s character), and even Chigurh, who believes he is above the inevitability of death almost and unexpectedly meets his demise. And that is the brilliance of the film, in the final few scenes the Coen’s very subtly flip the themes we’ve been following on their heads. First when Chigurh meets a flip of the coin, and when Ed Tom is told, “That’s vanity.”</p> <p>It turns out that perhaps Ed Tom is the "old-timer" that doesn't know how to deal with what's come.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172036"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" rel="nofollow">jim emerson</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172036"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T17:06:13-08:00">November 29, 2007 5:06 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172036, 'jim emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Liz: I don't recall that moment you describe. Have to look for it next time. Could Moss have been simply looking around in response to a noise he heard or a presence he thought he sensed? (I do recall this sequence being set up with look/see shots.)</p> <p>But, wow, do I love those two trees -- they way they stand out as the only sources of shade in this barren, sun-baked landscape. For some reason I can't quite articulate at the moment, I love that there are two (like the coin toss, or the two motel room doors). In this case, it seems to offer the illusion of choice, but no real choice at all. The guy could have died under either tree.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172051"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" rel="nofollow">jim emerson</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172051"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T17:58:00-08:00">November 29, 2007 5:58 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172051, 'jim emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Philip: I appreciate your thoughts and close observations of the movie.</p> <p>Perhaps there's an incomplete thought here (re: Chigurh as "not a character"), but I hope the rest of the sentence and paragraph (and the next paragraph) provides the context and elaboration I intended, which is to say that he's not on the same footing as the rest of the characters. He's not "magic" or "supernatural," but he haunts the other characters like a shadow. I was building on what I had previously written about how Chigurh is not provided with "serial killer" motivations, in the sense that we don't get any psychological explanation for how he got this way or why he does what he does. All we know is that he does it. ("You don't understand," Wells says.) As Hannibal Lecter <i>did</i> say about "Buffalo Bill": the killing is incidental -- to the single-minded pursuit of his goal. He eliminates what gets in his way, and anyone who can identify him. (Kinda preserves his mystery and enlarges his legend that way.) </p> <p>I think your River Styx image is absolutely what the film intends to evoke. Moss is definitely chasing death, and he knows it -- which is made explicit when he tells Carla Jean he'll tell his dead mother himself that he loves her. And again, when Sheriff Bell tells Carla Jean that whoever is after Moss will not give up, and she says he won't, either. In that sense it really is a "death match" like the chess game in "The Seventh Seal" (I love that comparison). </p> <p>As for "That's vanity" -- well, your last sentence sums it up. That's what I mean when I describe the kitchen setting of the retired man who recounts his dreams of his father (when he's now older than his father ever was), in contrast to the apprehensive man reminiscing about the "old timers" in the opening monologue. A lot more can be said about Ellis's speech, but I felt others had already dealt with that pretty well, so I summarized it by saying Ellis is "trying to shake him loose from his nostalgia." Nostalgia is a form of vanity, by definition -- a romanticization of the past in relationship to yourself. Ellis tells Ed Tom how his uncle really died, to show him the truth: that "this country is hard on people," that violence is the same as it ever was, that what he's got "ain't nothin new." (If he were speaking today's pop culture language he would have said: "It's not all about you.") The title says it: "No Country for Old Men." By the end, Ed Tom knows he's one of 'em. He's had his moment of reckoning -- at the motel -- and that's enough for him. So, I wasn't trying to leave that hanging; just thought it was pretty well-covered territory.</p> <p>You've brought up a lot more to think about. I'll read your full post as soon as I can!</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172067"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Dane Walker</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172067"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T19:20:53-08:00">November 29, 2007 7:20 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172067, 'Dane Walker')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Phillip, I really liked your post but one of us is mistaken. I thought Moss told the Mexican there are no wolves (lobos) rather than diablos. Pretty important distinction, though both make sense. And of course there was one or the other but is Chigurh a wolf or a devil? Natural or supernatural? Many of the posts regard him as death (supernatural) which helps make the case for connecting the movie to Iraq but thinking of him as a wolf (natural) preying on feeble men lost in a wilderness of money and drugs, neither of which he shows any interest in, connects the movie to more local issues, including environmental ones. I think both explanations work fine which is one more piece of evidence for the Coens' genius. Or McCarthy's, of course, I haven't read him, yet.</p> <p>On other matters: Quarters are for flipping and dimes are for screwing. This is not news.</p> <p>I agree with Jim about Bell's Mexican remark. But it was beyond sarcastic. He seemed to be saying: "You think the normal rules apply here?" (plus, regarding wolves...I'm no Marlon Perkins but maybe coyotes, simple scavengers, would avoid the work of wolves.)</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172093"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Hilts</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172093"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T20:56:40-08:00">November 29, 2007 8:56 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172093, 'Hilts')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Great continued discussion. Have to chime in again on the Room Next Door speculations, as I just returned from my second viewing.</p> <p>Without question, Chigurh is IN the room Bell enters at the end. Yes, the police tape is stretched across two hotel doors, but only the door on the left is missing a deadbolt. When Bell approaches the door, he stares hard into the opening in the door, contemplating whether he wants to play his chips. You have that screen capture in your analysis. Then we see Chigurh. He’s standing in the dark somewhere, but at first it’s hard to tell quite where. But this is followed by a reverse shot of the empty space where the deadbolt should be: darkness on the frame with light shining through the hole. The only one who could see this view is Chigurh. So he has to be in the room.</p> <p>Further evidence that Chigurh is in the room is the close-up on the latched window. This shot explicitly says “No, he didn’t slip out the back.” Now, could he have slipped through the air vent? In theory, yes. But, no. Never mind if he could fit, he wouldn’t have had enough time to wiggle his way through. More importantly though, that’s not Chigurh’s style.</p> <p>Over and over we see Chigurh’s strange code: Llewelyn’s wife meets her fate at the end even though Chigurh has his money, per the code. Bell is spared, per the code. But the code isn’t worth much if he’s in the other room.</p> <p>This might seem like nitpicking, but this whole conversation began related to the idea that shots have meaning. Therefore we must assume that the reverse shot of the empty space where the deadbolt should be (Chigurh’s view) and the close-up of the latched window are there for a reason.</p> <p>So where is Chigurh? Well, he doesn’t stay behind the door, because there’s a split second view of that space as Bell enters the room. But there are unexplored dark corners of that room where Chigurh COULD be until Bell enters the bathroom, allowing Chigurh time enough to escape long before Bell comes to sit on the bed. Here’s where we don’t really need to know.</p> <p>Also, Jim, about the previous motel incident: I don’t think Chigurh takes the “adjacent” room then either. It’s easy to assume that because Llewelyn wants a connecting room (for obvious reasons) and looks at the map. But remember that Chigurh looks at a map because he wants to enter a room with the same LAYOUT as Llewelyn’s room. Remember: he does a practice run, opening the door and deciding where the opposition might be. Most adjoining rooms ‘reflect’ one another. So this would suggest there’s at least one empty room between Llewelyn’s and the one that Chigurh rents.</p> <p>So now back to the motel at the end: It could be argued, I guess, that Chigurh is in the next room and hasn’t left the scene yet. But why would he go into the neighboring unit, which would have already been secured by police tape, to begin with? What would be the motivation? And if he did enter that room, wouldn’t he blow the deadbolt out of that door, too? Chigurh already knows which room contains the money and where it will be. He just needs to fetch it.</p> <p>Okay, forgive the rambling on this issue. But, again, I think the power of Chigurh’s ‘pardon’ of Bell is tied to their proximity. If he’s in another room -- even the room next door -- he just avoids conflict. If he’s in the same room he’s like the lion at the circus that could bite down on the tamer’s head, but chooses not to. Much different.</p> <p>Thanks again for the original analysis and to everyone else for the continued comments. This movie is becoming more special to me just because of the conversation about it.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172137"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://philzine.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://philzine.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Phillip Kelly</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172137"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T23:04:10-08:00">November 29, 2007 11:04 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172137, 'Phillip Kelly')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Ah, this is exciting. The type of conversation I love, especially when I'm sitting in a coffe shop street side Hollywood and I have a homeless guy telling me "waste not, want not" and talking about his "marijuana stick..." with cars zipping past -- a perfect evening perhaps. </p> <p>Jim, I unfortunatley haven't had the time to read other blogs or reviews until I read yours this morning and instead of doing what I should have been, devised a response. So the repition you were trying to avoid was lost on me. The great thing about this film is that it's so well written, you can pick it apart line by line and image by image, talking about each with equal value and weight. I haven't seen "There Will Be Blood" yet, but thus far "No Country" is my favorite film this year and last year.</p> <p>I look forward to your further comments, but now fully understand where you were coming from. I did like the nostalgia comment by the way.</p> <p>I think one thing that hasn't been spoken of is that Moss is a smart guy, capable. He manages to avoid his fate a lot longer than most people would and it isn't this personification of death that finally gets him. He might very well have gotten away if it hadn't been for his Mother in Law, perhaps another "old-timer" that can no longer tell the difference between sincerity and manipulation. What are the lot of us looking for a quick road to fortune supposed to do?</p> <p>Dane, that's interesting. I've seen it twice (and probably will a third), but I remember Moss telling...wait...hmmm... somehow I've gotten it mixed up perhaps. In my head. I think you're right. I imagined something, that Moss had said "devil" in english. But he does say "lobos" doesn't he. I'll have to go make a correction on my own post. Thank you for that. I don't take notes during movies, maybe I should. And I don't know Spanish all that well.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172148"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://philzine.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://philzine.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Phillip Kelly</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172148"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-29T23:31:01-08:00">November 29, 2007 11:31 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172148, 'Phillip Kelly')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Dane, Jim</p> <p>Another sample from a new post.</p> <p>There is a lot of talk about wolves not having come to the site of the drug deal, or fear of coming to the drug deal. I wonder if there's something written somewhere about wolves relationship with death...ah, the joy of internet...</p> <p>"The word "wolf" itself has a very negative meaning: The Swedish and Norwegian term for wolf is varg, in Icelandic vargr, which not only means wolf but also is used for a wicked person. The Gothic word vargs (warg in Old High German, warc in Middle High German, verag in Anglo-Saxon) stands for murderer, strangler, outlaw, and evil spirit. The verdict "thou art a warg" declared the culprit an outlaw. Those people were banished forever from human society and were forced to live in the wild."</p> <p>The wolf it seems has a very negative standing in mythology from blowing down the three pigs houses to having demonic origins. The whole write up I ran across about the mythology of wolves can be found here... It would seem that when Moss says "There ain't no wolves", he very easily could have in an ominous way and in a way he didn't realize he was doing, talking about Chigurh, or in a stretch...the devil. Ed Tom and his deputy take note that wolves haven't come, but perhaps it did, in a stretch, in the form of Chigurh. But maybe it isn't so much a stretch. Jim, you speak of Chigurh working on a mythological level, something I whole heartedly agree with. So maybe it's not so much of a stretch.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172279"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Liz</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172279"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T06:01:17-08:00">November 30, 2007 6:01 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172279, 'Liz')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim - as I think about the scene at the shade trees, I'm thinking the shot I'm talking about is what Moss sees as he lowers his binoculars - just a swooping image of grass moving back toward him. But that shot, in this film, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.</p> <p>Hilts - your analysis of the shots in the sequence at the last hotel is what I was thinking. They indicate that Chigurh is in the room that Bell walks into. What happens once Bell walks in (how does Chigurh get out?) -- well that's one of those questions that we'll never know the answer to. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172296"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Marco Pena</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172296"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T06:59:31-08:00">November 30, 2007 6:59 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172296, 'Marco Pena')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>When you were quoting the last scene as Jones talks about the two dreams (specifically the first dream) I think the script you referenced online was off from the final release. You quote him about the first dream " first one I don't remember so well but it was about money and I think I lost it." Well I remember him saying in just about as many words that he met his dad in town for money (or his dad met him in town to give him money) and that he thinks he lost it. The distinction seems important for interpretation at least for the first dream but I may have it wrong as well.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172299"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Marco Pena</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172299"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T07:05:20-08:00">November 30, 2007 7:05 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172299, 'Marco Pena')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>When you were quoting the last scene as Jones talks about the two dreams (specifically the first dream) I think the script you referenced online was off from the final release. You quote him about the first dream " first one I don't remember so well but it was about money and I think I lost it." Well I remember him saying in just about as many words that he met his dad in town for money (or his dad met him in town to give him money) and that he thinks he lost it. The distinction seems important for interpretation at least for the first dream but I may have it wrong as well.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172301"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://badfortheglass.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://badfortheglass.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">the shamus</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172301"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T07:15:30-08:00">November 30, 2007 7:15 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172301, 'the shamus')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, what do you think the Coens would make of all this analysis?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172322"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Chris K</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172322"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T08:10:52-08:00">November 30, 2007 8:10 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172322, 'Chris K')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Chigurh doesn't kill Bell because Bell hasn't "inconvenienced" him, or confronted him, or seen him to identify later. Remember: "you might even say he has principles." </p> <p>Also, Chigurh uses the cattle gun twice: once on the motorist and once on the clerk at the motel. Though the motel murder isn't shown on film, it is explained (afterward) in the book. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172364"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://tuwa.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://tuwa.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">tuwa</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172364"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T09:33:39-08:00">November 30, 2007 9:33 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172364, 'tuwa')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Dane, I agree with you about what quarters and dimes are for; I was just addressing the notion that Chigurh may have flipped the dime to decide Bell's fate. I don't think he did: first, he's used quarters for that and a dime for opening the vent, and second, he forces the clerk to call it and is annoyed when Carla won't. And also there's his line earlier in the film, "I can't call it for you; it wouldn't be fair." I think the dime was there just as a tool to open the vent, and he probably just left it there because it's only ten cents and he doesn't expect to need to open any more vents for awhile.</p> <p>Incidentally, I'm oddly intrigued by Chigurh in this film, and would love to know what happens next.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172445"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">haggie</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172445"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T12:52:59-08:00">November 30, 2007 12:52 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172445, 'haggie')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Perhaps the view that Chigurh escaped the motel room at the end of the film is false. I love the comparison to the Seventh Seal here and, running with that, if Chigurh is death personified I think you could make the argument that Chigurh is still in the room; he has simply chosen to be silent.</p> <p>In the Seventh Seal, when Death finally comes to claim the life of the knight, he also takes the lives of the squire, the knight's wife, the peasant girl, the smith, and the smith's wife. One way to interpret this is that, other than the knight, they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time ("Hey, I didn't even eat the salmon mousse!"). They have inadvertently engaged Death, like the guy at the gas station, or the driver who ran the red light, or so many others. The actor who escaped, however, saw Death and made the choice to leave. Since Death is not looking for the actors specifically, he does not pursue them and they survive (sure, there's more to all of that, but this bit serves my point).</p> <p>Bell clearly knows that Chigurh is in the motel room and he must make the choice of whether or not he should confront him. Bell realizes that the only outcome is death. He chooses not to confront him - he chooses to live. Since Chigurh is not specifically coming after Bell, and Bell has not confronted him, Chigurh does not engage and kill him. Bell can not see Chigurh because he is no longer looking for him. </p> <p>Of course, this viewpoint doesn't completely fall into line with Chigurh's appearances in the rest of the film, but I don't think it necessarily has to.</p> <p>I'm also really digging the comments about the various roles of money in the film. One element involving money in the film that really stands out to me is the $100 bill given to the kid. For a small investment, Chigurh keeps his anonymity, obtains the object he needs most at the moment (literally the shirt off the kids back), is able to continue on his quest (that will end with a massive return on that investment), and he leaves the mess and body for others to clean up. Sounds like a bloody good execution of capitalism to me!</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172449"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Dane Walker</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172449"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T13:01:41-08:00">November 30, 2007 1:01 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172449, 'Dane Walker')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Phillip--I really had some major deja vu regarding the warg stuff! I think my brother (a stage actor by avocation and way into Shakespeare, of course) was expounding on that last summer for who knows what reason. I guess I should pay more attention when he has one of his Old High German spells! You mention the three little pigs in an offhand way but it made me think: "Wow! Here's this wolf blowing down doors right and left! As well as houses of straw made from drug money!" And if you think of "house" in the old traditional sense it makes the whole family (but not necessarily the sheriff) accountable for the actions of the "head". I think the wolf idea explains the dogs in this film, as well. They are treated almost like traitors--servants of man and therefore very expendable.<br/> Tuwa--I hope you didn't take offense at my coin remarks. I was using it as an excuse to make some lame double entendre about FDR and Clinton and decided at the last moment to censor myself.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172455"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Dan</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172455"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T13:16:33-08:00">November 30, 2007 1:16 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172455, 'Dan')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>"The land is black, swallowed in the shadows. The sky is beginning to glow orange and blue. This is Genesis, the primordial landscape of "No Country for Old Men." We may think we're looking at a sunset at first, but the next few shots show a progression: The sky lightens, the sun rises above the horizon to illuminate a vast Western expanse. No signs of humanity are evident."</p> <p>It reminds me of of the beginning of The Dawn of Man portion in 2001, with the sequence of shots on the empty drought ridden African veld ending on the first sight of the lonely ape tribe. </p> <p>the first paragraph of the book (in the chapter "The Road to Extinction") contains a passage that could apply here:</p> <p>"...the battle for existence had reached a new climax of ferocity, and the visitor was not yet in sight. In this barren and desiccated land, only the small or the swift or the fierce could flourish, or even hope to survive."</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172473"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Dane Walker</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172473"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T14:00:12-08:00">November 30, 2007 2:00 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172473, 'Dane Walker')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, I liked your line that Moss is chasing death and it reminded me that whether he believed there were wolves or devils or anything else in that desert there was still no reason to leave the door (portal) open after the dying Mexican specifically asked him to close it. And when he took the jug of water back I don't think it was guilt. He just couldn't sit back and wait for whatever was going to come through that open door. He had to confront it. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172483"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Dan</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172483"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T14:32:45-08:00">November 30, 2007 2:32 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172483, 'Dan')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>By the way, I meant in the novelization of 2001, not the NCFOM book. Of course you probably knew that, since NCFOM has no chapter titles. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172486"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">David</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172486"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T14:36:41-08:00">November 30, 2007 2:36 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172486, 'David')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Regarding the scene at the motel with Bell and Chigurh, allow me to express my interpretation. I think Chigurh is and isn't in the room. As Jim pointed out, this scene is Bell's moment, where he gathers the courage to finally face the evil. I think Chigurh's presence in the room is just a manifestation of the evil Chigurh represents and adds suspense, otherwise it's Bell just hesitating to enter a dark room. So when Bell enters and Chigurh is nowhere to be found, it's not really Chigurh that we were seeing, but his presence which looms heavy over the room and every other scene in the film. After Bell checks out the room and sits on the bed, he lets out a sigh of relief since he was finally willing to face the evil of the world, but then he sees the empty vent, and he realizes that the evil will always be one step ahead.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172507"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://myspace.com/pensieri" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://myspace.com/pensieri" rel="nofollow">Joe Branca</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172507"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T15:55:51-08:00">November 30, 2007 3:55 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172507, 'Joe Branca')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim - </p> <p>A pleasant surprise to come across your writing. </p> <p>I am convinced that the thing inseparably binding a film's "style" with its reason of existence, is the conveyed narrative stance's appropriate relation between audient and story. Conveyed narrative stance is the prism which relates three vantages: the story itself, the story teller, and the reader/audient. </p> <p>Thus for example the effective way a film through its "craft" and "style" choices has ambiguous, untrusted, or competing narrators, and how this necessarily redirects the light on epistemic issues, and the qualifiers we the audience hold to in our own comprehension of reality. </p> <p>Rather than impose a closed story upon us, we might be called to examine our own story and how we have constructed story out of the raw materials of life. </p> <p>Films, at least the ones that matter, have something to do with this. There ARE films that major on style and craft yet do not convincingly carry us over, nor make much of an effort to envelope our perception with the tools available. </p> <p>The Coen Brothers are far from that problem. They know the masters well, not just in terms of style and craft but the opportunity to present multiple layers of abstraction and meta commentary that address the basic mechanics of life and art (which have more overlap than most people might realize)</p> <p>...</p> <p>as an aside about No Country, I wonder if Sheriff Bell's second dream had deliberate allusion to the Genesis story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac. A story of testing a father's will to commit his son's life to what could be certain death, for a narrative bigger than an individual life or generation. They set out on donkey (not horse), and fire was carried to the spot of testing. </p> <p>j</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172518"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Candy</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172518"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T16:30:51-08:00">November 30, 2007 4:30 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172518, 'Candy')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I wonder what you all think about the money motif in this movie. I've read other reviewers call the satchel of $2 million a "MacGuffin," but I think that's a little simplistic. The chase between Chigurgh and Moss IS about the money...but then again it's not. Chigurh WANTS the money not (I think) for the money itself, but just for the principle of retrieving it. The money itself doesn't matter to him. </p> <p>In fact, it struck me that the only pieces of currency that seem to really matter to Chigurgh -- and to the movie as a whole -- are those coins he uses to decide the fate of 1) the gas station attendant and 2) Carla Jean.</p> <p>And then, of course what started it all: Moss finds the money with a dead man under a tree. That image had been nagging at me, and now I know why. It reminds me of the Pardoner's story from the Canterbury Tales. Three young men looking for Death are told that they will find him under an oak tree. When they come to the oak tree, they don't find Death but a bag of gold instead. At the end of the tale, all three men effectively kill each other after each one schemes to make the gold his own. Maybe that's a stretch, to link Chaucer to NCFOM...but I'd like to think that was deliberate.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172553"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" rel="nofollow">jim emerson</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172553"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T18:26:15-08:00">November 30, 2007 6:26 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172553, 'jim emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p><i>...not (I think) for the money itself, but just for the principle of retrieving it. The money itself doesn't matter to him.</i></p> <p>Candy, I think you nailed it! Greed is part of what fuels the action, but I think that's only part of it. Obviously, the movie isn't terribly interested in the money (I think it is not much more than a MacGuffin), because we never even see what becomes of it (or Chigurh). In the book, there's a lot more about the money, a girl Moss picks up, and what happened with the boys on the bikes years later. The Coens chose to leave all that out -- and I think it those were wise choices for the movie.</p> <p>In an earlier post, I suggested Chigurh could probably be read as a metaphor for capitalism run amok: Get. The. Money. But, again, that's just one way of looking at all the things that are going on...</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172611"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://mylife24fps.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://mylife24fps.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Kenji Fujishima</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172611"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T21:54:02-08:00">November 30, 2007 9:54 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172611, 'Kenji Fujishima')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Since we're talking about how technique creates meaning, there's one telling dissolve in the later stages of this amazing film that doesn't necessarily sum up the film's themes---as this lengthy discussion has conclusively shown, the themes of <i>No Country for Old Men</i> are too complex, and their expression through technique in the film too rich and varied, can't be encapsulated in a single moment---but does, I think, suggest the kind of world the Coens try to create here, and what that world means to both the characters and the two directors.</p> <p>The dissolve bridges the sequences where Sheriff Bell examines the scene of Llewellyn Moss's death and the scene where the sheriff visits his uncle. From a close-up shot of a dime on the hotel-room rug---the dime significant for obvious Chigurh-related reasons---to a wide shot of the uncle's home. The rough texture of the rug almost seems to blend seamlessly into the grass surrounding the uncle's home---and the grass (if I remember correctly; I've only seen this film once) barely looks that much different in color from the color of the rug. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but that one dissolve feels like a summation of the kind of world the Coens attempt to depict in <i>NCOFM</i>: morally, it's so upside-down that the ugliness of what happens indoors---what blood gets spilled on a motel rug, for instance---isn't difference from the ugliness that's out there in nature. </p> <p>I must say, this thread---and the post that inspired it---is simply an embarrassment of riches for any fan of this film (count me as a believer, and I've tended to run hot and cold with the Coens in the past). This could go on forever...a good thing in this case!</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172641"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://philzine.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://philzine.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Phillip Kelly</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-172641"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T23:38:31-08:00">November 30, 2007 11:38 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172641, 'Phillip Kelly')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I just had the funny thought that the Coens might be not only reading us fussing over there film, but responding to our posts, fueling the flames of our absurd trains of thought.</p> <p>DANE, </p> <p>The more I thought about the wolf blowing down the pigs' houses, the more I liked it too.</p> <p><br/> JIM,<br/> The idea you put forth is that Moss chases death. It seems to me, like any unlucky bastard, he stumbles across it and then steals from it. </p> <p>What he sees first is an injured black dog. I did some research at one point into the Salem Witch Trials, and one thing the possessed girls said was that it was a black dog that led them into the forest to where the "spirits" possessed them. He follows the trail of blood into what I perceive to be hell. Rotting corpses, no water - it's certainly no place for the living. And he steals from it - clean get away.</p> <p>My thoughts are that it's simply his good nature that overcomes him and allows him to make the decision to go back. I can't imagine that anyone goes looking for death. Moss' vanity is so great that he thinks he can walk back into the bowels of hell unnoticed a second time, that he can even save someone whose already been marked by death. But he never goes in search of death, he flees from it, and unfortunately is marked himself.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172642"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">chris</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172642"><abbr class="published" title="2007-11-30T23:39:51-08:00">November 30, 2007 11:39 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172642, 'chris')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>The film: West Texas dialect was stone cold nailed. I agree that Ed Tom's phrasing and delivery were exceptional. Accurate representative portrayals in all secondary roles as well, which I took as complimentary to a hardy and hearty people from West Texas.</p> <p>In my view, Chigurh is a personification of a very real threat to civilization itself. Devoid of dialect as well as conscience, he himself defines the parameters that limit his behavior. The only externality which constrains him is his only spiritual connection - pure random chance. </p> <p>Civilization as we know it is dependent upon identifiable personal characteristics possessed by the victims: kindness, decency, a willingness to help someone in need, as well as the grit and courage shown by Llewelyn and Carla Jean. These are characteristics of an earlier age, an age that acknowledged a source of being that transcended human will and mere random chance. It also presupposed some degree of reciprocity, exploited by Chirgurh, whose vapid brutality intuitively repulses the audience.</p> <p>The times they are a-changin. Ed Tom could feel it but he couldn't get his head around it. And who can? Nietzsche was right about one thing. We are not ready for the unintended consequences of a world without God. We like the freedom but we don't want any constraints. Chigurh, like Hitler, is merely living out his will to power. Ed Tom was waiting for God to come to him. If we do the same, perhaps we will wait too long. By the way, can anyone think of another name for a teddy bear?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172881"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Jason</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172881"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-01T12:26:21-08:00">December 1, 2007 12:26 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172881, 'Jason')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Great discussion so far, but I don't think I've seen anyone mention the brief conversation before the discussion of the dreams at the end. </p> <p>Sheriff Bell doesn't know what to do with himself. He says something along the lines of "I guess I'll go out riding", then decides against it, realizing that the world out there that he'd be riding in (or into) is what he just retired from. Then he says "Maybe I'll just help out around the house", which his wife promptly shoots down and we get the sense he wasn't too earnest about anyhow. Finally he starts in about his dreams and even there he loses the money in the first one and in the second one he is the older man alongside his father and his father rides away carrying the torch, leaving him behind. <br/> Using that context, I take the title literally, not that the border-drug war region is a particular "no country for old men", but that there really is no country for old men anywhere, even in their own dreams.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-172887"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Wes Cambria</span></span> on <a href="#comment-172887"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-01T12:45:12-08:00">December 1, 2007 12:45 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(172887, 'Wes Cambria')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Any movie that asks Javier Bardem to wear a Prince Valiant haircut is begging for laughs. But what if he's killing almost every one he meets while he's wearing it? The hair is only a little funny in No Country for Old Men. Gruesome, comic, and awesomely eloquently as it was, nothing about McCarthy's book said "Coen brothers," but the staggering movie they've made is very much the precision thriller of "Blood Simple" and "Fargo"'s comedy of the broken law. But "No Country" contains very little of the regional mockery that characterizes a lot of their recent movies. Even the yokels here have a serious streak. The acting is superb across the board, from Jones and Bardem to the locals in bit parts to Kelly MacDonald as the sort of supportive wife (Brolin's) who would make Tammy Wynette proud. (Beth Grant is a riot as Brolin's nattering mother-in-law.) I love the movie's visual contours, too, the way the photography and editing perfectly dramatize McCarthy's prose and poetically blunt dialogue, a lot of which shows up here. The scale and scope are perfect. And the suspense here surpasses most horror films. This is a masterpiece.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-173085"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Lawrence Meyers</span></span> on <a href="#comment-173085"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-02T00:01:39-08:00">December 2, 2007 12:01 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(173085, 'Lawrence Meyers')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, a quick note that has larger implications. You are misquoting "Silence of the Lambs". The actual dialogue from the film is:</p> <p>Lechter: What does he do, this man you seek?<br/> Starling: He kills women.<br/> L: No, that is incidental. He covets.</p> <p>By recalling it incorrectly (you are forgiven) as "What does he seek?", you led yourself down the wrong path, per Candy's note above. </p> <p>What he SEEKS (the money) is indeed irrelevant. The question is, "What does he DO"?</p> <p>In this case, Starling would be quite correct. "He kills". Importantly, he does not kill everyone. Only those people who, as Ed says up front, have chosen to enter "This World" (as Moss does by taking the money in the first place), end up dead.</p> <p>Thus, when the accountant is asked, "Did you see me?", he is being given a far greater opportunity than anyone else in the movie. He is being given free will. He is choosing not to enter "This World" that everyone else has (and ends up dead). The best deal anyone else got was a 50-50 coin flip -- i.e. chance.</p> <p>I took Chigurh's line to mean that the accountant wisely answers, "See what?" offscreen and is allowed to live.</p> <p>Now, when Ed enters the hotel room, viewers may say, "Oh, he's choosing to enter This World!". Not quite. His motivations are not about the money. Thus, on a symbolic level, Death has no need to kill Ed.</p> <p>But let's take it a step deeper and see why this works on a plot level as well. Chigurh (Death) actually tries very hard to HIDE from Ed. Why on Earth would Chigurh do this when he's never hidden his face ever? Did he flip the coin? No. Because his potential victim is supposed to call it. This is where we must look at Chigurh as a character and not simply the metaphor of Death.</p> <p>Sociopaths do have a specific world view. It is a world view that makes perfect sense to them only. Thus, whatever code Chigurh lives by (and in this case, it appears that only by being connected to the sins of greed, coveting, or vanity earns one Death), is the reason why he does not kill Ed.</p> <p>Even more to the point, if on a plot level Chigurh only seeks the money, then killing Ed might prevent him from escaping with it. He's no dummy.</p> <p>As for the dreams, as presented by Ed at the end, their meaning seems very clear to me. The first " was about money and I think I lost it." In other words, the money is not what's important in the movie, nor is what is important in life. Hell, poor Moss thought it was his retirement fund. Wrong!</p> <p>The second dream is about Death. That his father will be waiting for him, welcoming him to the afterlife after a long tough ride, beside a warm fire. But unlike the characters in the film, who all meet violent deaths because of their association with "This World", Death for Ed is not to be feared. It will come in its own time.</p> <p>In the meantime, by rejecting the world and retiring, Ed has the rest of his life. Behind him is a window looking onto a vast expanse, reflecting this exact notion. What shall he do today? Help around the house? No way. Maybe I'll go riding. And he asks if his wife would like to join him. That is life. That's what Moss and his wife had....until he bought into the wrong dream.</p> <p>Two other final random notes: We may also note that the unfortunate driver at the film's beginning is given perhaps the most merciful death possible -- a zap to the brain he never even feels. He didn't choose to enter the world that Moss' actions created, but that's life...and Death....it was chance. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He lost the coin flip.</p> <p>As for Chigurh's car accident and subsequent escape, with money being pushed onto the kid (who initially refused it): We may read this again from both a plot and symbolic perspective. As a symbol, Death is always out there. He vanishes into a neighborhood.</p> <p>Yet remembering that Chigurh is also a character, by placing himself in "This World", he subjects himself to its whims -- primarily the concept of Chance. And, Chance obliges. Car hits him out of nowhere. Pure chance to be hit, pure chance that he survived. Unlucky, then lucky. </p> <p>Death places himself subservient to the will of Chance via coin flips. Even Death is beholden to Chance, as we see in the car accident.</p> <p>And why does Death force the money on the kid. At first, the kid is acting strictly out of compassion. He won't take money for his shirt. Yet in both Chigurh's and Death's world, money is what drives them. </p> <p>Money is the root of all Evil. Death, we may say in this film, grew strictly out of greed for money. What else can Death do but force money on the kid? What else could Chigurh do? As a sociopath, he cannot accept compassion. That would violate his reason for being. It's the One Good Soul theory from the Bible -- if there is one good soul left in the city, then God could not destroy it.</p> <p>See, this is what is truly great about this film. We can speak about it on both a plot and symbolic level simultaneously. To me, this is separates good films from truly great films. I believe we can separate form and content, but what makes a film truly great is when they are utterly intertwined. Few films do that. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-173484"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Guillaume Harvey</span></span> on <a href="#comment-173484"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-02T18:20:47-08:00">December 2, 2007 6:20 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(173484, 'Guillaume Harvey')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Lawrence : Your interpretation is the closest to what I've felt during my only viewing of the movie. </p> <p>I definitely felt that the second dream was about Death, but I didn't see it as optimistically as you did. It seems to me that Bell's refusal to stay in the fight renders his whole life meaningless, and that the only thing awaiting is Death, in a symbolical, social way AND later on in a physical way. </p> <p>His only source for optimism is the dream he had where his father lit the way for him, but he's still very much unsure about the darkness that's coming in front of him. After all, it was only a dream...</p> <p>Probably the strongest ending to a movie I've seen in years.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-174059"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Nathan Duke</span></span> on <a href="#comment-174059"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-03T14:03:25-08:00">December 3, 2007 2:03 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(174059, 'Nathan Duke')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim,</p> <p>This is the type of discussion and analysis that is sorely missing from most film criticism today. This forum - and, especially, your pieces on the endings of "No Country for Old Men" and "The Sopranos," both of which, I thought were especially misunderstood - were inspiring to an aspiring columnist and film critic like myself.</p> <p>I found your thoughts on the end of "No Country" to be especially interesting. Having seen the film three times, I'm still not convinced whether Bell's dream has a note of hope in it or whether his father, waiting in the distance with the Biblical horn of fire, represents death. </p> <p>Regardless, great post.</p> <p>-- Nathan Duke</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-174247"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Hale Gary</span></span> on <a href="#comment-174247"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-03T21:48:28-08:00">December 3, 2007 9:48 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(174247, 'Hale Gary')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>The ending of this great film made me think of a bible quote that was used on screen at the end of The Mission, from 1986: "There is light in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." It seems to me the sheriff's dream is another way of saying the same thing. At least for those of us looking for a glimmer of hope in these dark days. Great analysis of the film. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-174267"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Lawrence Meyers</span></span> on <a href="#comment-174267"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-03T23:27:16-08:00">December 3, 2007 11:27 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(174267, 'Lawrence Meyers')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Guillaume, thanks for sharing your insight. I've only seen the movie once, but I plan to see it again and see what kind of tone I pick up from it. I'm also going to read the book.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-174276"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Dennis Cozzalio</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-174276"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-04T00:09:30-08:00">December 4, 2007 12:09 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(174276, 'Dennis Cozzalio')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>One thing that has been rattling around in my head is Ed Tom’s instance on the level of crime being something new, unfathomable—an assertion we’ve been telling ourselves as a country for at least six years now, and really a whole lot longer than that. Yet what the movie is showing us, mournfully, poetically, through its visual language and its spare dialogue, are the ways in which these horrors are in no way new. They are woven into the fabric of the country. That’s why the ending of the movie is so simply perfect. As you see Ed Tom sunken into the removal of himself from the world, which he earlier assented to being part of, closed off in his breakfast nook while outside the ageless hills and plains, with their scars and blood and corpses (hidden and revealed) the same as they ever were, he relates the dreams. And the movie expands in your head with a rush of connections, tangible ones to what has happened before, and what we’ve seen and not seen (particularly the murders of Moss and his wife), as well as to feelings half dormant about the way men like Ed Tom, and men like we in the audience, willfully and often recede from experience in order to survive it.<br/> <br/> A lot of the feeling I got while watching NCFOM was related to the lies we tell ourselves within the mythology of this country. The grim experiences Ed Tom has had that have made him reconsider his life within the law may have gotten increasingly stupefying—the death-row refusal of the murderer to repent, and his claim that he would kill again if allowed his freedom—but that in no way validates his appraisal of the times becoming appreciably more amoral during his career as a lawman. It reminded me a lot of those specious claims writers like to routinely make about watershed moments like the Charles Van Doren scandal, the occurrence of which somehow marked the point where America allegedly lost its innocence. It’s total bullshit, of course. What the writers (and the film reviewers who trotted out the same cliches when reviewing Quiz Show 13 years ago) really mean by “loss of innocence” is, the moment when it became clear to anyone who cared to see that the TV-fed notion of American sanctity of intent and behavior wasn’t true. It’s not as if the revelation of Van Doren’s indiscretions were somehow a ticket for the rest of us to suddenly start misbehaving and loosening our morals. As for America’s innocence, it’s hard to truck with the notion of a country built on slavery, genocide and sustained systematic economic and social oppression as having much of a claim to anything coming close to it. NCFOMresonates with the strains of mythology we’ve built up as a nation in order to close our eyes and hope that when we open them, Anton Chigurh will have walked away, advising us not to put our lucky quarter in our pockets, for fear of mixing it up with our loose change and turning it into just another quarter. Which it is.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-174309"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">corey</span></span> on <a href="#comment-174309"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-04T02:12:14-08:00">December 4, 2007 2:12 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(174309, 'corey')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>A little observation I haven't heard too much talk about. </p> <p>The film is set in 1980, as we are told several times: the coin from 1958 that took "22 years to get here," the date on Carla Jean's mother's headstone. Other things in the film communicate the timeframe: Moss and Wells talk about Vietnam, Moss mentions 'Nam in another conversation, the cars are all period accurate, etc. </p> <p>But there were a couple things that threw me in terms of the setting. First, when Wells tries to talk Chigurh out of killing him, Wells says he can go to an ATM and get Chirgurh a large sum of money. I may be wrong on this one, which is possible as I was born in '82, but were ATMs around in 1980?</p> <p>Second, in the scene where a bloodied Moss encounters three young men on the bridge into Mexico, the three guys seem to have walked right out of the present day. Their clothing and hairstyles are those of today's college students, not young men thirty years ago. </p> <p>Maybe I'm totally wrong on this, but I don't believe I'm the only one who noticed it and found it intriguing. And I know these were not accidents or oversights, as those things don't exist in Coen Brothers movies.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-174421"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Dennis Cozzalio</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-174421"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-04T09:40:18-08:00">December 4, 2007 9:40 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(174421, 'Dennis Cozzalio')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Corey: I went to college from 1977-1981, and although they didn't really become too prevalent until later in the 1980s (at least round my neck of the Northwest woods), I distinctly remember a U.S. Bank ATM installed on the University of Oregon campus that distributed cash in increments of $5, from which I routinely drained my meager allotment of spendable dough. This was starting, I believe, around 1979. </p> <p>Someone else earlier mentioned the Domino's Pizza logo seen on the street during the shootout when Chigurh chases Moss out of the hotel room. It may seem unlikely that a small Texas border town would have had a Domino's in 1980, and certainly the sign we can see looks like it's sporting the modern-day corporate logo, but again, my college memories definitely place an oft-used Domino's outlet nearby the U of O campus round about 1979, early 1980. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-174651"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Otto York</span></span> on <a href="#comment-174651"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-04T20:09:40-08:00">December 4, 2007 8:09 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(174651, 'Otto York')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I think three essential points about the film have been missed in the comments submitted thus far, and in the reviews. The points:</p> <p>• Chigurh – the man in black – is not essentially a human character (though he is human in the story) but the personification of Death, and the film is an extended metaphor about Death. Two or three contributors have indeed described Chigurh as death personified, but these mentions seem to lack recognition of what this implies, namely, that the film is basically metaphorical, not a story designed primarily to entertain.</p> <p>• Carson Wells – the man in white – is the personification of Death’s opposite, Life, which must inevitably come to an end. Though seemingly a minor character in the story, Wells is second in importance only to Chigurh in the extended metaphor.</p> <p>• Fate, depicted not by a character but by three scenes, ranks third in importance. Fate’s role is to demonstrate that Death cannot be stopped: Death goes on forever.</p> <p> We begin with Chigurh, the villain. It wasn’t till the screen went black at the end of the show, leaving the plot unresolved, that I realized the story was not a cop story or modern-times western but a metaphor and that Chigurh represented Death. The metaphor portrays Death as something that can confront anyone: the good, the bad, and the middling; the honest and the dishonest; the brave (Sheriff Bell) and the meek (the accountant); the sophisticated (Wells) and the naive (Moss). Whether one dies in a death-threatening situation is often a matter of chance, as symbolized by both the two coin tosses and the Sheriff’s avoiding Death in the motel room. <br/> <br/> Switch to Carson Wells. Frankly, I’m amazed that most of the reviews don’t even mention Wells and that, unless I missed something, none of the discussion in this forum has focused on Wells. Chigurh, like Shane’s Wilson and dozens of other western villains (and like Darth Vader), is dressed in black, or at any rate dark clothing (possibly navy blue – I don’t remember the exact color). Carson Wells, the man hired by the drug lord to recover the stolen $2 million, wears a white cowboy hat and a white (or off-white) suit, just like Roy Rogers and Gary Cooper and countless other cowboy heros. </p> <p> I immediately noticed Wells’s white outfit but, given that Wells was hired by an unscrupulous character, I had to wonder what the white was supposed to signify. Certainly not virtue. Yes, Wells does display elements of virtue: he does not kill or even threaten Moss – he doesn’t even carry a gun – and he faces Death calmly, bravely when his time is up. But neither does Wells seem to symbolize bravery in the sense of “Death comes to both the brave and the meek.” It was only after I got home and began – well, continued – to reflect on the film’s symbolism that I realized what Wells represents. Just as white is the opposite of black, Wells has to be the opposite of Death. Wells personifies Life. And Wells’s death at the hands of Chigurh delivers this message: in the end, Death always prevails over Life. We are all mortal.</p> <p> Now, how about Fate? Fate tries three times to stop Death. In a very early scene (the first?), Chigurh has been captured. He is in handcuffs. If justice follows its normal course, his murderous past will be exposed and he will die by lethal injection, or whatever. Fate is trying to put an end to Death. But Death escapes (Chigurh strangles the deputy) and continues his rampage.</p> <p> In the middle of the film, Moss shoots Chigurh with a sawed-off shotgun. But Chigurh is merely wounded in the leg. He sews up his wound and continues to kill. Fate has again failed to stop Death.</p> <p> At the end of the film, in what only now becomes recognizable as part of a trio of Death-conquers-Fate scenes, Chigurh comes close to losing his life in an auto accident. (The scene would have been more effective if the car that ran the red light had struck Chigurh’s car on the driver’s side, making the death threat more realistic.) But Fate again fails to stop Death. Chigurh walks away – walks, not crawls -- with nothing worse than a compound fracture of the humerus. We know he will continue to kill again, and again, and again . . . Fate will never stop Death.</p> <p> A parting comment about Sheriff Bell is in order. Bell is the lawman, seemingly the stock-character adversary of the villain. (Carson Wells is another adversary of the villain, but the reviewer who called him a bounty hunter had it wrong. Bounty hunters get their money from the law, not from drug lords. And Wells is hunting the money, not Chigurh, which partially – but only partially – explains why Wells doesn’t carry a gun.) Bell, however, doesn’t wear the white had; I’m not sure he even wears a hat. And he fails to capture or kill the villain. So we know his character serves another metaphorical purpose. </p> <p> What is that purpose? Well, partly that purpose is to serve as narrator and philosopher. But mainly, I think, Bell is there to symbolize bravery – and to provide some irony. He has chosen a profession that puts his life at risk. He pursues killers. He enters a motel room he knows Chigurh has previously entered the room (the door lock is blown in)> He also knows Chigurh might still be there, armed, ready to kill. And near the end of the film, Bell says he expected God to come to him before this point in Bell’s life. I interpret that statement as meaning Bell expected to die in the line of duty before reaching a late stage of his life. How many times can you roll the dice without getting snake eyes?</p> <p> Now comes the irony. Bell, who (with the possible exception of Wells) has the most dangerous job, is a survivor. He even outlives his father. He escapes Death, or at any rate he is not among those who die prematurely. Counterpoint: the meek accountant, like Bell, crosses paths with Death but dies.</p> <p> No Country for Old Men has received mostly rave reviews. Is it really that good? Or is it, as a few people think, a lame picture? That depends on your criteria. If you admire metaphorical artistry, you might well give NCFOM a high rating. The Coen brothers have done an excellent job of portraying Death and his rampaging ways. </p> <p> On the other hand, if you judge the film by its visible story or its philosophical messages, it is a loser. The plot, taken at face value and divorced from the metaphor, is a flop. Yes, there is some routine suspense and excitement. But, with rare exceptions where an ending is deliberately ambiguous (e.g., Stockton’s famous short story “The Lady or the Tiger”) , an unresolved plot is unnecessary, uncalled for, and unsatisfying.</p> <p> As for the philosophy, it is banal, inane. “Death strikes at random.” “Death cannot be stopped.” “Death is fickle, often taking the lives of the meek and the cautious while sparing the lives of the brave and those who live dangerously.” “Death and survival are often matters of good or bad luck.” “Fate cannot bring death to a halt.” “Some fathers die before their sons.” “We are all mortal.” Who would have guessed any of these things? If this film, or the novel on which it is based, is supposed to be some sort of philosophical masterpiece, it rates an F-.</p> <p> Personally, I came away from the theater dissatisfied. I have nothing against symbolism or metaphor. Those are qualities I often admire, provided that the idea being depicted is worth depicting. But in this case, I guess I just didn’t think the idea was worth depicting. The unresolved plot and the banal philosophy deeply overshadowed the ho-hum metaphor.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-174659"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://bluecarp.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://bluecarp.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">BlueCarp</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-174659"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-04T20:42:34-08:00">December 4, 2007 8:42 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(174659, 'BlueCarp')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, love your blog and the discussions on NCFOM. But I have to nitpick: How can you say Chigurh's name is "unpronounceable" when it is pronounced in the movie and you also give the phonetic spelling in your post?</p> <p>To Lawrence Meyers: Money is not the root of all evil. The full bible verse says that "the love of money is the root of all evil." A significant difference, I believe.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-174702"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners" rel="nofollow">jim emerson</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-174702"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-05T00:02:36-08:00">December 5, 2007 12:02 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(174702, 'jim emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Otto: To me, movies are <i>all</i> metaphors. (Except when they're similes, but those aren't as good.) I guess that's one reason I loved it so much.</p> <p>BlueCarp: Carson Wells (the only person in the movie who has actually met Chigurh), corrects the Man Who Hires Wells' (Stephen Root) pronunciation of Chigurh's name. But after that, he refers to him only as "Anton." The only other mention of "Chigurh" is when Wells visits Moss in the hospital and says his entire name. Other than that, nobody knows it or tries to say it. It's "unpronounceable" in the sense that the movie treats it as something that dare not be spoken. (And even the two times it is -- only by Wells, who's actually met him -- it's a slippery sound. You wouldn't necessarily know how to spell it, or even be able to repeat it the first time you hear it...)<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-175092"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://bluecarp.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://bluecarp.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">BlueCarp</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-175092"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-05T17:35:05-08:00">December 5, 2007 5:35 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(175092, 'BlueCarp')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim: Thank you for your response. If I catch your meaning, Chigurh's name is not <i>physically</i> unpronounceable, it just should <i>not</i> be pronounced. Kinda like Valdemort.</p> <p>If all movies are metaphors, please explain "Caddyshack" and "Animal House." (I'm just kidding. Your point is well taken.)</p> <p>Otto: You make several good points. However, I would not call Moss "naive." </p> <p>Chrissie Snow from "Three's Company" is naive.</p> <p>Llewellyn Moss ain't no Chrissie Snow. He is a war veteran and has seen and probably inflicted death. His tragic flaw is thinking he's as big a bad ass as Anton - and the Mexicans, for that matter.</p> <p>(I will no longer refer to Anton as "Chigurh" since he is the one whose name should not be spoken.) </p> <p>Moss <i>is</i> a bad ass. He's just not as big a bad ass as the guys he's up against.</p> <p>I believe the Greeks called that "hubris," a failing not uncommon to tragic figures.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-175540"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Bobby Fisher</span></span> on <a href="#comment-175540"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-06T18:04:09-08:00">December 6, 2007 6:04 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(175540, 'Bobby Fisher')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>People have lauded the film and Emerson both. Good for them. I guess I am disappointed that other persons haven't reported the defeatist aspect that this film seems so easily to encompass. The katabasis portion, crossing the river into the underworld and crossing back, has Moss racing across with Cerberus right behind. It's a shocking and terrifying beautiful chase sequence that looks playful at the surface. Here, the rest of the film is intoned in the dog chasing Moss to death. Either Moss or his chaser will be killed.</p> <p>What bothered me is taking the crossing into the underworld and the return thereafter. When Moss crosses the river again, to get to the hospital, this represents the Hero's return from the Land of the Dead, either with knowledge, insight, and a means to possibly overcome the villian. However, the problem is that there is no point, there is no safety. Woody Harrelson already informed Moss that no deal could be struck with Chigurh. So, the whole phone conversation between Moss and Chigurh has no bearing or importance. Moss cannot deal with Death, and any kind of deal, no matter how enticing (sparing his wife) will have no meaning. Moss knows that Chigurh will spare no one. </p> <p>Is this the Cohens turning Western myth as epitomized in classic film such as "The Searchers," "The Godfather," and even "Star Wars." Or, as I took it, is this film simply as upsetting and fatalistic as Syriana of years before. Simply go home and put your head between your legs. Cause you can't do anything? Leave hope at the door because there is no exit. </p> <p>With people as historically ignorant to suggest that the world is worse, more violent, more perverse than previously before, the ending is a kind warm message that with all the problems, throw your hands up and walk away. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-175577"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Otto York</span></span> on <a href="#comment-175577"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-06T19:43:19-08:00">December 6, 2007 7:43 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(175577, 'Otto York')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>BlueCarp:</p> <p>You have some good arguments when you challenge my assertion that Moss represents naivete. I might have overstated the point. But in the final analysis, I don’t think so. Moss really is basically naive.</p> <p> First, consider the hospital room scene, where Wells finds Moss. Moss says – I’m paraphrasing – “Chigurgh will never find me here.” Wells replies, “It took me only about three hours to find you.” That says it all. Wells then explains exactly why Moss is naive, though Wells does not use that word (or does he?).</p> <p> Second, in the hotel room when Moss finds the transponder, he is too foolish to do what any sensible person would do: crush it under his boot, open the window, and fling pieces as far as he can in opposite directions. He let’s the transponder sit there and waits for Chigurgh to find him. Okay, you could argue that this is more an example of stupidity than naivete, but sometimes there isn’t much difference.</p> <p> Third, you say Moss’s “tragic flaw is thinking he's as big a bad ass as Anton - and the Mexicans, for that matter.” I’m not at all sure he thinks that, but let’s assume you are correct. What you call a tragic flaw can just as easily be called naivete. Moss is an amateur, inexperienced in crime, flight, deception, and dealing criminals. Good Lord, he doesn’t even understand how foolish it is to return with the water jug to the scene of the carnage, where he could reasonably anticipate that either other criminals or the law would have arrived there ahead of him. He doesn’t realize that, when the drug buyer’s men fail to return with the heroin (or whatever it is) that the drug lord shelled out $2 million for, the drug lord is going to send more gunmen to recover the drugs, the money, or both. And the drug lord knows exactly where the meeting place was – where to send the bloodhounds. (If the law gets there first, it can literally use bloodhounds to track him back to his trailer.)</p> <p> Fourth, Moss is naive in thinking he can somehow spend or invest $2 million in crisp, new $100 bills. How? Such bills are hard to cash, and he has twenty thousand of them to cash. Sooner or later, somebody will call the cops and ask them to check things out. Moss can’t keep carrying the money around or leaving it temporarily in hotel/motel rooms. Sooner or later someone will ask questions or steal it. But he can’t deposit it in banks or go to Charles Schwab with a case full of money and sit down and pay cash for a pile of stock. People would quickly ask questions. He can’t take the money to Switzerland: there’s a $10,000 (?) limit on the amount of cash you can take on a plane or ship. And if he did somehow manage to open 400 checking accounts with a series of $5,000 cash deposits in a multitude of cities, then write checks for stocks and money market fund accounts, the IRS would get interested. Liquidating all those essentially illiquid bills is a far bigger task then he realizes. He is naive.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-175986"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Bobby Fisher</span></span> on <a href="#comment-175986"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-07T10:57:40-08:00">December 7, 2007 10:57 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(175986, 'Bobby Fisher')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>All</p> <p>I read my post again and it comes across as dismissing the discussion Mr. Emerson has started, as well as the other thoughtful comments posted on this site. I am sorry to Mr. Emerson and the other contributors both. Mr. Emerson has kindly allowed others to weigh in on his analysis. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-176148"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://tullymox.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://tullymox.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Tully Moxness</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-176148"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-07T16:31:24-08:00">December 7, 2007 4:31 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(176148, 'Tully Moxness')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>On second viewing, I focused on where Chigurh was at as Bell stands at the door of Room #112. He was definitely behind the door of that room, not in the room next door. When Bell entered the room, he was gone. I may have found a possible explanation in the dialogue between Carson Wells and the Rude Businessman. There was an odd throwaway line at the end of the scene, where Wells comments that one of the floors of the building seems to be missing. Like I said, I thought it was just another attempt at humor by Wells, like the parking validation joke. Usually when a floor is missing, it's the 13th (something to do with triskadekaphobia). However, at the motel, I noticed that the number of the room next to #112 was #114. As the camera closed in on Chigurh hiding behind the door, the scene is lit to show one half of Chigurh in light, the other dark (I noticed this during the first viewing, but I assumed it was connected solely to Chigurh's 50/50 death or life proposition). When connected to the comment about the office building, it could represent the half of Chigurh that is connected to our world and the half that is supernatural in nature; when he escaped, he somehow went into the room that wasn't there (#113). Can anyone else think of a specific film reference this could be tied to? I've been trying to think of Hitchcock films, because in many ways, NCFOM feels like an homage to his films (if I can think of a character that Chigurh reminds me of, it's Uncle Charlie in Hitchcock's 'Shadow of A Doubt', another film that examined that poked holes in the myth of the idyllic American life). </p> <p>I tend to view characters in a film as organic, literal beings unless specifically told they are supernatural in nature. I didn't initially see anything otherworldly about Chigurh, but after thinking about specific instances in the film, I'm convinced he is a lot like Charlie Meadows, the seemingly mundane but truly demonic being who shows Barton the 'life of the mind'. He toys with humans and seems bent on disproving their notions of the meaning of life and death. He seems most gleeful in meting out his brand of education to those most in need of re-education: Carson Wells, who learns the hard way the importance of the rule he followed; Llewellyn Moss, who loses the thing he loves the most (his wife) due to his refusal to accept the inevitable fate coming his way; and the Rude Businessman, who learns what happens when you use too many tools when the perfect one will suffice. He reminds me a lot of the character Randall Flagg in Stephen King's novel The Stand (he even dresses like him). He's a man, but he's also a demonic being bent on corrupting everything in his path, according to his own motives and principles. That's what I saw when he gave the boy his little 'gift' and why the immediate descent of the two friends into squabbling over the money was so important to that scene. </p> <p>While I agree that the ideas the Coens discuss in NCFOM aren't new (much like the crimes depicted within), it adds additional nuance to their already rich collection of films that discuss the nature of good, evil and existing in a world that contains both. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-176170"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Jerry Ryberg</span></span> on <a href="#comment-176170"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-07T17:25:11-08:00">December 7, 2007 5:25 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(176170, 'Jerry Ryberg')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>All of the above strikes me as <br/> a classic case of extreme over-analysis. Unbelievable.<br/> I can see the Coens reading this stuff, and saying, "We did? That scene meant that? No it didn't. We had a good story. We shot some good scenes. But all this extra meaning that people are imagining just wasn't in our minds."<br/> I'm one of those people who think this movie went wildly off a perfectly good set of tracks when our "hero" was killed off-camera. I needed an ending where Chigurh meets an ironic, bloody end after threatening to kill our hero. How about more entertaining, cleverly done action, and much less conversation between the sheriff and his old relative, or whoever. And a lot less over-analysing by everyone else, please. Of course, that would lead to a lot less of these: ().</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-176209"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Christopher Long</span></span> on <a href="#comment-176209"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-07T18:56:51-08:00">December 7, 2007 6:56 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(176209, 'Christopher Long')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>On another thread, I mentioned that my lukewarm response to "No Country" has a lot to do with my inability to make sense of Chigurh's character. I don't mean in a narrative sense (who the hell cares anyway) but simply in how I receive him in a broad sense.</p> <p>Several posters have offered takes which require that Chigurh be seen as a mythological figure, or at least one who serves primarily an allegorical function. I agree that the film "makes sense" (lousy term, I know) if that's how Chigurh functions, but I find it hard to see him that way.</p> <p>To me, he is too insubstantial a figure to carry their weight of allegory. He's a cartoon, not a myth, and he's not even a particularly scary cartoon character, just a rather slight and somewhat amusing one. The most generous interpretation I can come up with is that he's comic relief, but doesn't realize that he is so he actually takes himself seriously. Unfortunately, I can't. And, no, it's not because of the hair.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-177022"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Otto York</span></span> on <a href="#comment-177022"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-09T09:04:16-08:00">December 9, 2007 9:04 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(177022, 'Otto York')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I’m intrigued by two related things: the missing room 113 and the disappearance of Chigurh from behind the door of room 114.</p> <p>Concerning why the Coens left room 113 out of the motel’s room numbering sequence, I see three possibilities, the third of which is the most likely. First, motels with indoor halls (this isn’t one of them) sometimes put even numbers on one side of the hall and odd numbers on the other side, and motels whose rooms are entered from outdoors sometimes put even numbers on one side of the office (on one wing) and odd numbers on the other (on a second wing): this could simply be realism, possibly even the actual numbering on the motel where the scene was filmed. </p> <p>Second, just as hotels customarily cater to the superstitious by omitting the 13th floor in their numbering schemes, some motels may cater to the superstitious by omitting room 13 or rooms with 13 as the last two digits. Realism again.</p> <p>Third, since 13 has become a symbol of bad luck (see above), the Coens may have conspicuously omitted room 113 to signify that Sheriff Bell was not going to encounter bad luck. This third possibility and the first two are not mutually exclusive: either 1 + 3 or 2 + 3 could apply.</p> <p>Next, what happened to Chigurh, pictured partly behind the door of the doorway Bell is about to enter. It’s been pointed out that the bathroom window was locked. Chigurh could not hide under the bed, because hotel/motel beds (not to mention most home beds) have insufficient clearance for anyone to hide under.</p> <p>Others have pooh-poohed the idea that he could have escaped through the vent. I’d like to reinforce those pooh-poohs. Chigurh could not escape through the vent (even if he could fit, which is doubtful) because there is no exit. All the other rooms have their vent covers screwed on from the other side, so Chigurh would be trapped. Also, climbing into the vent would have required a chair (really a stepladder), but none was left behind below the vent. And clambering through the vent would have made too much noise, consisting of lots of metallic clunks and echoes.</p> <p>The best possibility, though an implausible one, is that Bell didn’t have the good sense to push the door fully open to ensure nobody was behind it and didn’t look in the door’s direction to ensure that nobody had stepped out of the way when the door was opened. But if Bell was this careless, Chigurh could simply have slipped out of the room behind Bell’s back.</p> <p>One more possibility, not to be dismissed when the filmmakers are the Coen brothers, is that Chigurh was present in the room only in Bell’s imagination. Under this scenario, Bell feared that Chigurh was behind the door – we see Bell’s mental picture of Death hiding behind the door, waiting to kill him – and was tempting fate by entering anyhow. This possibility coordinates with the idea that the Coens deliberately removed room 113 (bad luck) to signify that Bell was about to run into good luck.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-177671"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Wesley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-177671"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-10T16:10:25-08:00">December 10, 2007 4:10 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(177671, 'Wesley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Carson Wells – the man in white – is the personification of Death’s opposite.</p> <p>Wells isn’t seen in white, he’s wearing a blue or grayish suit, with what I remember to be a blue shirt. I think you were looking at chigurh in a sensible manner, but that you shouldn’t look at wells as the opposite of chirgurh. I thought wells was there to show something (perhaps something we see earlier, when moss has the option of leaving the Mexican there to die without water, but decides to make the foolish but more compassionate decision), wells tries to give him another option. He can either face chigurh, or he can give wells the money and wells will handle chigurh. The point there is that wells can’t really offer him that safety from fate. Regardless of what moss did at that point, he was heading towards chigurh, and even though people see some ways that they think are ways to avoid fate and death, in the end they all lead to the same place. Oh, and wells does not face death calmly or bravely. He almost breaks down and cries, I'm almost positive that if he were given the coin toss, he'd try his damndest to call it correct. carla jean faces death calmly and bravely, accepting that a coin toss doesn't make any difference.</p> <p>I’m not so much chigurh represents death, as just “what’s coming.” I know death is party of what’s coming, but it goes further than that. I think you know what I mean.</p> <p>Next point, how is bell surviving ironic? This comment makes it seem like you don’t agree with the rest of your posts. I’ll keep going back to it, you can’t sotp what’s coming. It just means that death by chigurh, or someone else along the line, wasn’t what was in store for bell. he feels chigurh’s presence when he goes into the motel room a few minutes before the end of the film, he knows that either his death is in there, or it isn’t. it isn’t.</p> <p>Again, I don’t think fate and death should be separated in the greater story of this film. It’s not fate that tries to stop death, it’s just fate and fate hand in hand all along.</p> <p>In a later post, you describe moss as naïve. I must disagree with you here strongly. Firs,t where wells finds moss. I don’t remember him saying at all “Chigurh will never dfind me here.” And I’ve see the film twice. He just says that he knows what this guy is and he’s ready for it. What’s naïve about that?</p> <p>Second, moss finds the transponder and doesn’t destroy it or throw it out the window. Why is that being naïve or stupid? Previously, he doesn’t go into the hotel room where he had hid the money because he notices the blinds are a little open. It’s a trap, and he won’t walk into a trap. However, when chigurh is outside his door, he knows chigurh is there, but chigurh doesn’t know he has a gun pointed at him. he has the option of running from someone who won’t stop coming for him, or set his own trap. That’s not stupid at all.</p> <p>Thirdly, “Good Lord, he doesn’t even understand how foolish it is to return with the water jug to the scene of the carnage,” what?! It’s even in the previews ‘I’m fixin to do something dumber than hell, but I’m gonna do it anyway’ he knows exactly what he’s doing, he just feels that it must be done, regardless of the risk. Perhaps it’s careless, but it’s not that he doesn’t understand. He knows exactly what people will do for their 2 million dollars.</p> <p>Your fourth point, this is irrelevant. if you think that in the 1980’s he can walk across the border A) covered in blood and B) wearing nothing but a hospital gown, he’s resourceful enough to find a way to use the money. Who says (and who cares right now) if he can spend the money all at one place or take it out of the country easily? It’s not the point, he made the decision to take it, and now he’s dealing with the consequences.</p> <p>Your very next post, I agree with you on most points. I do think people who worry about the 113 of the room are looking too far into it. (the point about the 13th floor probably being why wells miscounted the floors was a very good one, I didn’t notice that) It most definitely could represent the removal of luck from things, that fate decides, not luck. But I think that point is stressed enough throughout the film. when the coin flip lands, it’s fate, not luck. We learn this in the scene between chigurh and the gas station attendant. Everything that man has been doing has been working its way to that point, the coin will land however it will land, and he will call it however he will call it.</p> <p>Lastly, if either chigurh is in the room when bell is at the door and then leaves through the window (we see it is unlocked) or is not in the room and bell just feels his presence, I’m not sure it matters either way. As I said earlier, bell knows that either he will die, or he won’t, and he’s ready to face it. So he does so. The point is that it’s not his time, but he felt the presence of fate. “This possibility coordinates with the idea that the Coens deliberately removed room 113 (bad luck) to signify that Bell was about to run into good luck.” Again, luck has nothing to do with it. It’s fate.</p> <p>sorry for the long post, hope it's a good read!! let me know your opinions.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-178260"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">hardy campbell</span></span> on <a href="#comment-178260"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-11T11:36:18-08:00">December 11, 2007 11:36 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(178260, 'hardy campbell')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>This film gets into your blood. I have seen it twice and I fear maybe thrice will be insufficient. The characters are people and metaphors, representing the past, present and future, and sometimes all three simultaneously. A line at the end of the movie, spoken by a paralyzed old lawman, devoid of vengeance, could have been equally apropos as the title; "You can't stop what's coming." And what's coming is Death.</p> <p>The Jones character is tired; tired of his age, tired of this age, tired of seeking redemption that escapes him. He can't understand the new evil, even though it's 1980 and America has just survived Vietnam, Watergate, the hostage crisis and a myriad other reminders that we as a nation are just as vulnerable as everyone else. Jones' lawman is not really interested in crime solving anymore. He says the right things in narration, the defender of public safety fretting about muderous drug thugs and all, but he sits behind his desk and sips coffee and tsk tsks the awfulness "he can't take the measure" of. Llewyllen Moss, the Brolin character, is a veteran of the Vietnam debacle. We know by his situation that he is a broken man, living in a trailer without work in a time in Texas history when welders were as prized as sultans. He is damaged goods, but devoted to his simple, clueless wife and his beloved deceased mother. He could have just taken the money and led the goodlife with his family in Tahiti, but he remembers too much death and suffering from Vietnam, the same scenes of carnage he found on that west Texas desert scene of drug sale gone bad. He says he gets up in the middle of the night to give water to a Mexican he wouldn't look twice at earlier in the day, but we know that's bovine manure. He knows the Mexican is dead. He knows that death is the only thing awaiting him at that shoot-em-up location, the death he eluded back in the jungles. He lets us know that when he promises to tell his dead mother personally that he loves her.</p> <p>And death is what this movie is about. Death in all its capricious, human, sudden and violent ways. That's what you can't stop from coming, the remorseless, eternal gothic wraith of death dressed in black with a new disco haircut, a cattle stungun and a pocketful of destiny-deciding change. Is Chigurh evil? Only if we as a society decide that all death is evil, that it is not purging or purifying or natural or even decided by God at the end of the mortal day.</p> <p>Money appears to be the focus of all this mayhem, the drug money stuffed in the satchel that Moss carries around with him like some leatherbound death wish. But that's only superficial; Moss needs something to define his death. Money is the American dream of all needs and wants sated. Dying for a noble cause as the enrichment of your loved ones is heroic, right? Just like dying in the jungles of Asia for "patriotism" served Moss so well before.</p> <p>Chigurh hunts the cash too, though originally he's hired to snuff out the dudes who welched on the drug deal. But Chigurh is an American too, and killing bad people for lots of money should at leats buy him a cooler room in Hell, right? Not that he doesn't respect money for less obvious reasons. Though he murders other criminals simply because they are bad, he allows other innocents who cross his path a fighting chance. A flip of the coin decides their fate, not because he is evil or they are worthy of death. He is what he is, they are where they are, the fates brought them together, and now a thin piece of alloyed metal will conspire with gravity and physics to decide who lives, who dies and who kills. He is not so much hunting Moss as bringing him his destiny, one that Moss knows he avoided in Vietnam. The Jones lawman wants no part of this modern duel of death and the dead man walking; he dleiberately stays a step behind, just close enough to see the carnage that repells him and attracts him at the same time. When Chigurh has a chance to kill Jones' lawman in the motel room, he vanishes instead, sneaks out, hides? Who knows? It isn't Jones' destiny to die at the hands of an assassin anyway. His fate is to dream of bygone days when lawmen offered sanctuary to lost waifs in winter cold. Chigurh's fate is to be reminded that he is flesh and blood and subject to the same whims of Olympian fate,. He kills with a coin flip, others with cars at intersections. But his survival means he has a second chance to walk away from his past. Does he resume his murderous ways or become a Wall Street tycoon during the no-hold-barred Reagan years? We'll never know, thankfully. The best cinema, like the best literature, leaves its audiences with things to ponder and reflect on. Many have criticized the "un-American" ending of not having justice prevail over the forces of darkness. But this ending means we don't know who is darkness. The darkness is inside each of the characters; Moss' death wish, Chigurh's implacable hostility, Jones' apathy about life and justice meaning anything anymore, the Harrelson character's greed getting in the way of his job to kill Chigurh, Moss' wife's passiveness in the face of impending doom, the drug lord in the fancy office who reaped what he had sown. All are complicitous, and while it's easy to call Chigurh "the ultimate bad-ass," he exists because everyone has enabled him to exist. Maybe Chigurh is the most honest character in the film.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-178465"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Otto York</span></span> on <a href="#comment-178465"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-11T20:29:44-08:00">December 11, 2007 8:29 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(178465, 'Otto York')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Wesley: You raise several points that question my earlier comments. For the most point, I disagree with you, though your first point may have some validity.</p> <p>I wrote that Carson Wells wears a white hat and an off-white suit, clothing I interpreted as meaning that Wells personifies Life (which must come to an end), just as Chigurh personifies Death. You say Wells is actually “wearing a blue or grayish suit” and “a blue shirt.” I was unable to find a photo of Wells at any website, but a light blue or light gray suit jibes with my “off-white” description. And the pastel blue shirt, like my blue dress shirts, is robin’s egg blue – consistent with light clothing and contrasting with Chigurh’s deep blue denim jacket and dark brown shirt. Most important is the stereotypical cowboy white hat. All this light-colored clothing and the white hat contrasts with Chigurh’s dark hair and clothing. (Wells even has blonde hair, if I recall correctly.) I find it hard to believe that this light vs. dark portrayal is accidental. Wells is probably the personification of Life – something that always comes to an end, as it does with Wells.</p> <p>But I could be wrong. I belatedly noticed in stills on film review websites that Sheriff Bell also wears a white cowboy hat.</p> <p>Where you say that Wells, facing death, “almost breaks down and cries,” I saw nothing suggesting that. But on another website someone did comment that perspiration was forming on Wells’s brow, so you could have the right (if exaggerated) idea. I could indeed again be wrong in suggesting that Wells signifies courage in the face of death (“death comes to the courageous too”).</p> <p>Concerning your second point, you are simply wrong. Chigurh is clearly the personification of death. That’s why his character is so unrealistic. The whole film is a metaphor about death, and Chigurh represents Death, darkness. He does not represent evil. If he were pure evil, he would not spare the lives of the gas station owner (more about this shortly) and Moss’s wife (more about this too) and the accountant. Sparing these lives is McCarthy’s way of elaborating on his message about death: it strikes at random, sometimes depending on chance. If the film were a metaphor about Evil rather than Death, Evil would be depicted in a variety of ways rather than as death in every instance.</p> <p>Your third point questions my suggestion that Bell’s surviving is ironic. To me, the irony is clear. Apart from Wells, Sheriff Bell is the character who has the most exposure to death – death not as personified by Chigurgh but the nonmetaphorical death lawmen face almost every day. Other people, like the motorist pulled over by Chigurh, are not in dangerous occupations, yet they are killed. Bell, who is in a dangerous occupation, does not get killed. I do see irony in these happenings. But the point is a minor one.</p> <p>Your fourth point is: “I don’t think fate and death should be separated [because] . . . it’s not that fate tries to stop death, it’s just fate and hate hand in hand all along.” I think you missed my point. My point was that Death (personified by Chigurgh) cannot be stopped. The Coens use events of fate three times to make this point: (1) the lawman who arrests Chigurh at the film’s beginning fails to stop Chigurh, who suffers no more than some bloody wrists, (2) Moss, in the shoot-out with Chigurh, fails to stop – merely wounds – Chigurh, and (3) the fateful auto accident fails to stop Chigurh, who walks away with just a broken arm. Fate cannot stop Death. If you dislike my use of the word fate, substitute something else. Surely you get my point: Death will never be stopped but will always be with us.</p> <p>Fifth, you challenge my assertion that Moss is naive. In the Mexican hospital, you don’t recall Moss’s saying, “Chigurh will never find me here.” I was paraphrasing, not quoting. The words you quote are inferred from Wells’s reply: “It took me [just] three hours to find you.” Wells is implying that Moss is naive. You next ask why Moss is being naive by not destroying and getting rid of the pieces of (just in case signals are still leaking out) the broken transponder. The answer is obvious: the transponder will lead Chigurh to Moss, so it should be destroyed. He doesn’t keep the transponder to “set his own trap.” He actually tries to go to sleep, but fails. Then, when he sees Chigurgh’s shadow under the door, he picks up his rifle to defend himself. That isn’t a trap, it is more nearly an act of desperation. And even if it were a trap, it is a naive attempt by a rookie to take on a professional.</p> <p>But you do have a point about Moss’s saying “I’m fixin to do something dumber than hell” when he takes water to the dying Mexican. I missed that line, and you’re right: this particular example of naivete will not suffice as a water jug (i.e., doesn’t hold water).<br/> <br/> Still apropos my point about Moss being naive, you write that he is resourceful rather than naive because “he can walk across the border A) covered in blood and B) wearing nothing but a hospital gown.” Well, to begin with, he isn’t covered in blood when he recrosses the border back into the U.S. His belly wound has been dressed the hospital, the wound is surely covered with gauze, and the gown is blood-free (at least that is the way I recall the scene). Moss realizes that Wells was right in saying that Chigurh would find Wells at the hospital, just as Wells found Moss. At this point, Moss has given up the idea of keeping the money (it is in the weeds on the Mexican side of the fence) and is simply trying to get away. He leaves the money behind in Mexico. And yes, he is now less naive than he was originally.</p> <p>Your sixth point relates to whether the missing room 113 signifies, as I suggested, the absence of bad luck accompanying Sheriff Bell when Bell enters room 114, the room to the right of room 112. But when you say the missing number 13 “most definitely could represent the removal of luck from things,” I have to disagree. If the missing 13 represents anything, and I’m not sure that it does, it represents the PRESENCE of luck, good luck, which is the same as the absence of bad luck (the absence of room 113). That’s if. What we see may be no more than a conventional room numbering scheme, with all the even numbers on one wing of the motel. Given the Coen’s penchant for symbolism, however, I’m inclined to think the good luck symbolism in intended.</p> <p>Your seventh and last point is, “if either Chigurh is in the room when Bell is at the door . . . or is not in the room and Bell just feels his presence, I’m not sure it matters either way.” It has become increasingly clear to me that Chigurh is not in the room, and that it does matter. When I saw the scene with Chigurh in the room, I was puzzled. Wells had earlier located the money case that Moss through over the border fence and had retrieved the case. I assumed that Chigurh had recovered the money from Wells. So Chigurgh, it seemed to me, had no reason to go looking for the money. Even if Chigurh didn’t recover the money from Wells, Chigurh had no reason to think that Wells hid the money in the motel room once used by Moss. Why would Wells do that? Or, if Chigurh didn’t know Moss recovered the money, why would Chigurh go back and search a room he had already searched (back when Moss was recovering the satchel with coat hanger and tent poles from the room next door).</p> <p>And if Chigurh was in the room just before Sheriff Bell entered, there is no way he could have slipped out. As I wrote earlier, the air shaft is a dead end, blocked by screwed-tight vents in the other rooms, not to mention requiring a chair or stepladder (not present under the room 114 vent) to climb into the vent. The door swung open all the way when Bell entered. If Bell was apprehensive about the possibility of Chigurh’s presence in the room – Bell certainly was apprehensive – Bell certainly would have looked all over the room before going beyond the door. So it is totally implausible that Chigurh was there except, initially, in Bell’s worried imagination. </p> <p>If those facts aren’t enough to convince both of us, we can find a brief plot summary of the film at Wikipedia. Wiki certainly isn’t infallilble, but on another website someone who has read the book confirm’s Wiki’s interpretation of the Chigurh-in-the-room scene. Chigurh is not in the room. Wikipedia: “The coin (a dime) rests on ‘heads,’the side of the coin that saved the gas station attendant in an earlier scene.” (I wasn’t sure until reading this whether the station owner really survived: all we see is Chigurh walking ambiguously away from the station, just as all we see after Chigurh confronts Moss’s wife is Death walking ambiguously away from her place.)</p> <p>So, either room 113's being missing signifies nothing at all or it signifies the absence of bad luck for Sheriff Bell. This being a highly symbolic movie, I think the latter interpretation is best. Good luck (Sheriff Bell) and bad luck (the motorist slain by Chigurh, and probably also the red light runner who dies when he hit’s Chigurh’s car) are corollaries of the two coin-toss fates. Bad luck is equivalent to losing the coin toss.</p> <p>This brings us to the fate of Moss’s wife, which I was unsure of after seeing the film. Wikipedia’s analysis goes like this: “Carla Jean returns home from her mother’s funeral (she died of cancer) to find Chigurh waiting for her. He states that he promised to kill her if Moss didn’t bring him the money, and he must keep his word; the ‘most [he] can offer’ her is a coin flip. Carla Jean refuses to call.” She refuses to plead or panic; most important, she refuses to call the toss. Chigurh/Death is so startled (based on past experience and present circumstances, I presume), and possibly impressed by her spunkiness and her unwillingness to gamble with her life, that he lets her live. Anyhow, when Chigurh leaves the house, he checks his boots: they are blood-free. Here McCarthy and the Coens could be delivering a subordinate message (one of many) about Death: Death sometimes spares those who refuse to gamble with their lives. Whether or not that message is intended, it fits the context and seems to provide the most plausible interpretation of Carla Jean’s fate.</p> <p>This brings us to Bell’s two dreams that end the film. The first, vaguely and quickly summarized, makes absolutely no sense. The second, where Bell’s father (already dead) rides ahead to prepare a campsite, seems to signify that Bell (who is growing old) is going to join his father in heaven, or simply beneath the ground, before too long. As I said earlier in commenting on the film’s inane philosophy, “Who would have guessed?”</p> <p> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-178852"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Wesley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-178852"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-12T10:41:21-08:00">December 12, 2007 10:41 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(178852, 'Wesley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I didn’t think I’d convince you on my view of wells, really. I’m throwing my opinion out there. You can continue interpreting his character as life personified, but I’ll keep thinking he’s just there to show us there’s no real way to avoid fate (or death). Yes, he does indeed almost break down and cry, his eyes begin to water, he’s sweating profusely, and he almost begs for chigurh to spare his life (not on his knees crying begging, but if you watch it again you’ll see what I mean).</p> <p>I didn’t say chigurgh wasn’t death, I said that you shouldn’t try to separate death and fate. I think he represents both. He shows up and you either live or die, fate is what decides (he decides). Carla jean says it pretty clearly at the end of the film, she says “the coin don’t have no say. It’s just you.” Also, I never said he was pure evil.. and what makes you think he spares the accountant’s life? The accountant asks “are you goin to kill me?” and chigurh responds “that depends… do you see me?”</p> <p>That could mean one of two things. Either A) the accountant says “no” meaning he won’t tell anyone he saw chigurh, so chigurgh will le thim live, or B) it’s obvious that the accountant does see him, so chigurh must kill him. Depends on what you think chigurh means, I’ll go with B for now.</p> <p>Sorry, but moss is not naïve. You really have nothing that shows this. He gets in a shoot out with chigurh, both are wounded pretty badly, and both become immobile for a short period of time. When wells says “it only took me about 3 hours to find you” moss says “I’ve been immobile, that won’t happen again.” Wells replies (paraphrasing) “that wouldn’t have mattered.” Well, we don’t know if wells would have found moss if he wasn’t in the hospital, but it doesn’t much matter.</p> <p>I think you should watch the film again, he finds the transponder about 20 seconds before chigurh is outside his room. He’s asleep ,he says “no way” then gets up and finds the transponder. As he does this, he hears someone walking in the hall, calls the hotel clerk and doesn’t get an answer, he sets the transponder down on the table and walks to the door. He gets down and listens, hearing chigurh coming for him, gets his shotgun, then sits on the bed. He could have just as easily left the transponder there and jumped out the window, but he knew something chigurh didn’t know, he had a shotgun pointed at chigurh. This was a clear choice between ending the chase right then and never needing to worry about this ‘ultimate badass’ ever again or just running away. Sure, it’d be harder for chigurh to find the money, but chigurh knows moss and moss’ wife’s name. it would be foolish to not try to kill him.</p> <p>I think I said it before, but what he plans to do with the money is irrelevant. If you could take 2 million dollars and get a clean getaway, would you worry about how you’d spend it?</p> <p>“Wells had earlier located the money case that Moss through over the border fence and had retrieved the case. I assumed that Chigurh had recovered the money from Wells. So Chigurgh, it seemed to me, had no reason to go looking for the money.” Wait, what? I really think you should take an afternoon and watch the film again. He located the case, he did not retrieve it. When he’s talking with wells, wells says “I know where the money is” and chigurh says “I know something better. I know where the money will be. It will be placed at my feet.” No, he had absolutely not reason to go looking for the money, because moss is now worried about his wife. Moss will either give chigurh the money to save his wife’s life, or he’ll come after chigurh to try and kill him, chigurh will not have to go looking for moss.</p> <p>“Wells hid the money in the motel room once used by Moss. Why would Wells do that? Or, if Chigurh didn’t know Moss recovered the money, why would Chigurh go back and search a room he had already searched (back when Moss was recovering the satchel with coat hanger and tent poles from the room next door).” Um.. I think you’re mixing up the two hotel rooms. It’s not the same room. The room is 112 or 114, the original room in which moss recovered the satchel with the coat hangers and tent poles was room 38 of the royal something motel. And I think you missed a very important shot of when ed bell looked through the hotel room and saw the dime (heads up) on the ground. He went into the bathroom and saw that the bathroom window was unlocked. meaning someone could have gone through the window and closed it from the outside. Locking it at that point would be impossible, so it remains unlocked. That’s when he realized chigurh had gotten the money and gotten away, so he gives up and sits on the bed. Chigurh either wasn’t in the room or he escaped through the window. In the book, chigurh is in the parking lot watching bell, so I’m of the opinion that he’s in the room, he knows bell is there, and decides to exit through the window.</p> <p>And what the coin lands on isn’t what matters, it’s what the person calling it says. Also… you believe carla jean survived in the end? Dead wrong, sorry. He walks out of her house and checks his boots for blood. Why in the world would he check his boots for blood if he hadn’t shot her and there was no possibility of there being blood on them? Anyway, read the book if you really want to know the answer, the coen’s take dialogue and action almost word for word from the book. She refuses to call the coin flip, so he shoots her because he can’t call it for her. </p> <p>“Bad luck is equivalent to losing the coin toss.” It’s not like they lose the coin toss, they just choose the side that leads to their death. It’s not luck, as carla jean puts it. The coin has no say, it’s all chigurh. You can look at it however you’d like, but I think you’re missing the point of the film if you think luck has something to do with it. What does luck have to do with “you can’t stop what’s coming.”? It either comes for you today or it doesn’t, it’s not luck. It’s fate.</p> <p>Read what he says about the 1st dream again. It makes perfect sense. His father meets him in town to give him some money, and he loses it. Just think about it for a while.</p> <p>I don’t think you said anything new from your first posts to prove any of my points wrong. You can look at wells however you like, and you can think that the removal of room 113 means bell will have good luck, but if the removal of room 113 means good luck, why did llewelyn moss die at that very same spot? Good discussion, however. keep it going.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-179214"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Otto York</span></span> on <a href="#comment-179214"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-12T21:56:47-08:00">December 12, 2007 9:56 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(179214, 'Otto York')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Hardy Campbell:</p> <p> You have written a superb essay. I suspect – I’m almost positive -- that you write professionally, perhaps as a college professor, a novelist, or a film reviewer. That much is easily deduced from your writing’s being free of the usual errors of syntax, grammar, usage, punctuation, and all the other little flaws we see in almost everyone’s writing. Your style and your ability to express yourself also signify professionalism. “Killing bad people for lots of money should at least buy him [Chigurh] a cooler room in Hell, right?” That’s a gem! Again: “He is what he is, they are where they are, the fates brought them together, and now a thin piece of alloyed metal will conspire with gravity and physics to decide who lives, who dies, and who kills.” Those words came from the figurative pen of a pro.</p> <p> Your analysis is basically right on target. We agree that the film is metaphorical. You write, “The characters are . . . metaphors, representing the past, the present, and the future.” Here you are in essential agreement with my opinion that Chigurh is a metaphorical representation of death. He is eath personified. I’m not sure I’d say the other characters are metaphors in the same sense Chigurh is, but what you say agrees with what I wrote about how the various characters depict Death’s multifaceted approach to his task, striking all sorts of characters – good and bad, sophisticated and naive – and often letting chance determine the outcome. Since the characters do represent both personality types and circumstances, I guess you could call them metaphors too. I’m not sure what you mean about their representing past, present, and future, though. Perhaps you could elaborate.</p> <p> What I found most intriguing is your suggestion that Moss has a “death wish.” I’m not sure that’s true, given that Moss tries diligently to save himself, particularly in the hotel room scene and its aftermath; but you certainly support your point when you note that Moss “gets up in the middle of the night to give water to a Mexican he wouldn’t look twice at earlier in the day” and who he knows is dead. Moss himself says what he is going to do (bring water to the Mexican) is “one of the dumbest things I’ve done in my life” (or something pretty close to that). On the other hand, Moss’s desire to escape poverty by striking it rich seems more motivating than any death wish.</p> <p> I do have a few other quibbles, but that’s all they are – quibbles. You say, “Money appears to be the focus of all this mayhem, . . . but that’s only superficial; Moss needs something to define his death.” Aside from my reluctance to agree that there is a death wish, I really don’t see the money as being all that important to the film’s symbolism. I see the money as what Hitchcock would call a MacGuffin, something that gets the plot started and maybe keeps it moving but otherwise is of little or no importance.</p> <p> You say Chigurh hunts the cash too, though originally he’s hired to snuff out the dudes who welched on the drug deal. I doubt that anyone hired him. Someone at another website, someone who’s read the book, says the book has a different ending. Chigurh gets his hands on the money, returns it to the drug lord who hired Carson Wells, keeps $100 K for his efforts, and says he’s doing this to “establish his credentials.” In that version he certainly isn’t hired by either side in the drug deal. And in the film version he definitely isn’t hired by the drug lord, because that guy hires someone else, Wells, to recover the money. The drug lord seems to be the drug buyer; otherwise, he’d be in Mexico and wouldn’t be trying to get the money back. The drug lord’s being the buyer does leave the offstage drug seller (the kingpin, not the dead flunkies) available as an employer of Chigurh. But everything in the film suggests Chigurh is a loner, someone who wants the $2 million for himself and who additionally has psychopathic motivations.</p> <p> My strongest disagreement – this is really more than a quibble – concerns this statement of yours: “Chigurh’s fate is to be reminded that he is flesh and blood and subject to the same whims of Olympian fate.” No, he really isn’t subject to the whims of fate. As the personification of Death, Chigurh is not subject to the vagaries of fate. Death cannot die. To be sure, the story character, Chigurh, is mortal and can die, but saying the story character is reminded of his mortality when what he represents is immortal cannot be what the Coens had in mind. Earlier, I argued that a trio of events serve to illustrate that Death cannot be stopped. First, Chigurh avoids imprisonment and – this is Texas – the death penalty by killing a deputy and escaping. Second, he gets wounded but avoids being killed in the two shootouts (hotel room and street) with Moss. Third, he survives the high-speed collision in which his car is broadsided by another that runs a red light. That third scene in particular states the Coen/McCarthy metaphorical point emphatically: Death cannot be stopped, Death goes on forever, Death is above the whims of fate.</p> <p>Wesley:</p> <p> It’s good to run into someone who’s seen the picture twice, has also read the book, and is thus in a position to correct some of my factual errors. You didn’t think you’d convince me that Wells is not Life personified? On the contrary, you forced me to rethink the idea and check the web for pictures of Wells in his off-white suit. I didn’t find the picture I was looking for, but I did find one of Sheriff Bell in a white hat. That gave us two white hat characters, neither of whom is particularly heroic. Hence I no longer attach significance to the white hat. I’ve abandoned the idea that Wells personifies life. I now see him as representing both a sophisticate and a variant of the bad guy type, the bad guy who has an underlying sense of decency. Wells helps develop the story metaphor’s banal point that Death strikes all sorts of people.</p> <p> Thank you for correcting my faulty memory of Moss’s actions in the hotel room. I accept your assertion that Moss did not have a chance to get rid of the transponder, so his failure to destroy it is not evidence of naivete. (Well, he could have immediately stomped on it to prevent Chigurgh from finding his room; but you show that Moss learned that the hotel clerk probably gave Chigurh Moss’s room number, so stomping wouldn’t have helped.) I continue, however, to regard Moss as naive. Even though he recognizes that bringing water to the dying Mexican is “dumb,” he doesn’t appreciate just how dumb it is. The Mexican is surely dead already, and the possibility that either more bad guys or the law will be at the site he is returning to is strong. </p> <p>Likewise, thinking that he can somehow hang on to and spend those crisp, new $100 bills without a prior arrangement for money laundering is incredibly naive. Once he has the money, arranging for money laundering is a practical impossibility: inquiries are likely to get him killed or at least result in loss of the money. You write: “What [Moss] plans to do with the money is irrelevant. If you could take 2 million dollars and get a clean getaway, would you worry about how you’d spend it.” Well, you beg the question about the possibility of a clean getaway. But even if I were assured of a clean getaway, I’d definitely worry about how I could convert the money into bank accounts and investments that would enable me to actually spend it. Assuming that the money could simply be deposited in banks or used for over-the-counter purchases of securities is incredibly naive.</p> <p> I particularly appreciate your clarifying that there are really two motels and that room 114 is not the room where Moss originally hid the money in the heating/AC duct. A lot remains to be clarified, though, concerning what became of the money.</p> <p> You quote conversation revealing that Wells didn’t recover it; he merely saw it in the weeds and knew where it was. Moss could not have recovered it either, and therefore could not have hidden it in room 114 for Chigurh to find. Moss knew he couldn’t carry a case containing $2 million past the border police in either direction, into Mexico or into the U.S. That’s why he threw it over the fence, for later recovery once he got into Mexico. (Bribing a border guard is out of the question: the odds of finding a bribable guard are worse than 99-1, and the almost certain result of any bribery attempt would be Moss’s arrest and the law’s getting the money.) But Moss never recovered the money case. Moss returned to the U.S. without it. He could not have returned to Mexico, thrown it back over the fence into the U.S., and then come back into the U.S. and picked up the money. Official border crossing points have steady streams of customers who would see the case being flung or, at the very least, see it where it landed. It would probably land on either the concrete sidewalk or the road. The hard impact would probably break it open. Even if the case didn’t break open, it would quickly be retrieved by someone before Moss could get back across the border to pick it off the sidewalk. So how could Moss have the money in room 114? Chigurh might have removed the room’s vent cover to look for the case, but he surely didn’t find it in the air duct. I don’t recall any later scene where Chigurh actually acknowledges having the money.</p> <p> Does the book clarify anything? Or did I fail to notice something else in the film in my one and only viewing? Was Moss carrying the money case when he had his tete-a-tete with the border guard? (The idea that a crossing guard would let someone pass under such suspicious circumstances – the hospital gown – is so absurd that I can’t imagine the Coens would use that idea in their film.)</p> <p> So, I’m not the least bit convinced when you say that Bell, after entering room 114, “realized Chigurh had gotten the money and gotten away.” How could Chigurg get something that wasn’t there in the first place? </p> <p> I accept your book evidence that I was wrong in believing that Carla Jean survived. If the book says Chigurh shot her, he probably did. I say “probably” because I know the Coen’s changed the book’s ending. Chigurh doesn’t shoot the drug lord; he instead returns the money to the drug lord. It seems to me that the Coens made another change. They introduced ambiguity in the two coin-flipping scenes, situations where the book apparently shows both potential victims losing. We see neither the gas station nor Carla Jean killed. In both instances, all we see is Chigurh walking away from the premises. The person he toyed with is still inside, possibly alive, possibly dead. Perhaps this is the Coen’s way of emphasizing their point that death is often a matter of chance.</p> <p> Your argument is well taken when you write, “If the removal of room 113 means good luck [i.e., no bad luck], why did Llewelyn Moss die at that very same spot.” I assume you noticed that I expressed uncertainty concerning whether the missing number was symbolic. </p> <p> As for Bell’s two dreams, you write that “what [Bell] says about the lst dream . . . makes perfect sense.” All he says – I haven’t checked the exact wording, quoted earlier by someone else – is “all I remember is it [the dream] was about money, and I lost.” That could mean a multitude of things. The most relevant possible meaning is that the dream is really a recollection of what actually happened. Bell embarked on a mission to recover the money and save the life of Moss, and he failed in both tasks. I’m skeptical about this meaning, because it says something we already know – besides which it is but one possibility among many. Another possibility, and I sure hope that this isn’t the cliched “it was only a dream” cop-out, is that nothing in the story really happened. It was all a dream. But that interpretation just doesn’t fit the Coen brothers’s style. Your interpretation – “His father meets him in town to give him some money, and he loses it” – simply won’t fly, and not just because Bell doesn’t say “I lost IT” (he only says “I lost”).</p> <p> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-179409"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Wesley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-179409"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-13T07:14:35-08:00">December 13, 2007 7:14 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(179409, 'Wesley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Otto, if you’d like to see a picture of wells again, watch the trailer. There’s at least one shot of him in one of the two. Also, not only do wells and bell have white hats, but moss does as well.</p> <p>I won’t argue that moss isn’t foolish, or wreckless. He definitely is, I just don’t think calling him naïve is fair. I’ve made decisions before knowing full well that the consequences would make it not worth the effort, but have gone through with them anyway. I don’t think that makes me naïve... maybe stupid though.</p> <p>Concerning the money, he throws it over into the weeds on the US side of the border, crosses the border, gets his medical attention, then crosses back to the US. The next shot shows him in the same border town shop where he bought his boots, the shotgun, the tent poles, and he buys a new set of clothes. The following shot shows moss walking through the weeds and picking up the money. I’m not speculating, these shots are in this order in the film. It’s understandable to forget them after a one time viewing, going through the film a second time helps more than you’d think.</p> <p>“So, I’m not the least bit convinced when you say that Bell, after entering room 114, “realized Chigurh had gotten the money and gotten away.” How could Chigurg get something that wasn’t there in the first place?” we know moss has the money (as previously explained) plus, when tommy lee looks at the vent you can see the vent scraped clean of dust in a few places, it closely resembles the markings that were left in the dust of the ventilation duct of room 38 of the first motel.</p> <p>I don’t think I will be able to, but I’ll try to find the scene online where bell goes through his dreams. I’m well over 90% certain that he says something about both of them having his father in them, the first one he meets him in town and gets some money… then he does indeed say “I think I lost it…” then he goes into the next dream. The first dream is just about loss, about how he couldn’t save moss or retrieve the money from the bad guys. It’s about how he’s too old to handle this country and the evil in it now. The article above has this from the monologue of bell’s “Both had my father. It's peculiar. I'm older now'n he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense 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. “ I think this might be from the book though, not from the movie. As I said, I know he says something about meeting his father in town to get the money in one line, the rest of it sounds correct. </p> <p>There is one thing in the film I need some help figuring out, however. Chigurh picks up a phone bill when he enters moss’ trailer and in a later scene he’s calling the numbers on the bill, crossing them out one by one. He underlines two numbers, roberto’s and carla jean’s mother’s number. Phone bills don’t reflect very recent calls, I think they go up to 30 days ago. If anyone can remember, are those the only two numbers that have different area codes on the bill? If that’s the case, I can understand why he’d assume moss would send his wife to her mother’s and head to a different town to try to get his bearings or lose the men chasing him.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-179413"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Wesley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-179413"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-13T07:18:32-08:00">December 13, 2007 7:18 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(179413, 'Wesley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>good grief. that's a God awful way to spell "reckless," wesley.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-179438"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Otto York</span></span> on <a href="#comment-179438"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-13T08:19:34-08:00">December 13, 2007 8:19 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(179438, 'Otto York')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Wesley: One other possible interpretation of Sheriff Bell's first dream ("It was about money, and I lost") belatedly comes to mind. And I think this is probably the correct interpretation. The "money" in the dream is just a coin, a quarter. "I lost" means the coin gets flipped by Death and Bell calls it wrong -- hence "I lost." Bell dreamed about his own death.</p> <p> Note that this dream does not involve meeting his father in town or getting money from his father. The dream is instead part of Bell's musing's about death and about his own growing old. This dream coordinates well with the second dream, in which Bell's dead father rides ahead to prepare a campsite (grave) for him. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-179555"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Wesley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-179555"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-13T11:05:34-08:00">December 13, 2007 11:05 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(179555, 'Wesley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>3rd post in a row... it's a shame you can't edit your posts on here. I must have skipped over your paragraph saying "Coen’s changed the book’s ending. Chigurh doesn’t shoot the drug lord; he instead returns the money to the drug lord. It seems to me that the Coens made another change." the book ending is just as ambiguous as the film ending. chigurh brings the money to an unidentified man. he shoots the man in the office building just like in the film. the unidentified man could, however, be the man in the office's boss.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-179561"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Wesley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-179561"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-13T11:16:09-08:00">December 13, 2007 11:16 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(179561, 'Wesley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>it's very unfortunate that we have to wait for someone to approve these messages, we're probably both replying at the same time and seeing them 4 hours later.</p> <p>anyway, he definitely says "...and I think I lost it." referring to the money. it's not "...I lost." I think that the reason it's so short is because most of the movie has been telling the story of that dream - he couldn't keep up, he's too old to handle the happenings of his town now. it's about regret.</p> <p>"Note that this dream does not involve meeting his father in town or getting money from his father." if we're still talking about the first dream, it most certainly does involve that.. I'll find someone who's seen the film and confirm it.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-179770"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Patrick</span></span> on <a href="#comment-179770"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-13T17:01:34-08:00">December 13, 2007 5:01 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(179770, 'Patrick')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>The first dream, as related in the book: "it was about meetin him in town somewheres and he give me some money and I think I lost it." The film version had to be pretty close to this, if not exact.</p> <p>Overall, I think this discussion is quite valuable in considering the film. Plenty of observations I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. To start at the end, I think the second dream is more about death than "hope" - the sheriff has survived to retirement, and can look forward to a natural death, and maybe a reunion with long lost loved ones. A warm, somewhat comforting vision of the inevitable (amidst plenty of cold and dark, though).</p> <p>One of my lasting impressions of the film was of the bone sticking out of Chigurh's arm after the accident - and how he kind of takes the place of Moss from this point, someone just as subject to fate and luck. He's flesh and bone, after all (but maybe "Death" too?). I wasn't sure at first if he had the money, but I guess the hundred-dollar bill is a fair indication. And then losing himself in that very very typical neighborhood, so ordinary, so familiar. It haunts me.</p> <p>I also like how someone connected the "missing floor" dialog with the missing motel room number, although I don't think it has to do with "luck." I think, as regards the Chigurh character, the Coens are playing with the question of whether he's real, a ghost, or "Death" personified. Chigurh does seem to be in the room the sheriff walks into, and somehow sneaks out, but how? Maybe through the "missing room"? I kind of like that idea.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-179782"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Otto York</span></span> on <a href="#comment-179782"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-13T17:47:49-08:00">December 13, 2007 5:47 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(179782, 'Otto York')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Wesley: I’m not doing too well with my recollections. Thanks for explaining how Moss retrieves the money. When Moss threw the money over a chain link fence, I assumed the fence was there to close off the border in the area near the border crossing. Why? The next scene shows Moss crossing the border (with a blood-free shirt bought for $100 from one of three young men), and it seemed – still seems – implausible that he would toss the money into a fenced off compound to which he had no access, whereas crossing into Mexico would give him access to the money on the Mexican side of the fence. Anyhow, you’ve made your point. Moss got the money back and presumably hid it in the motel room. Maybe it wasn’t even hidden: he could have been getting ready to depart, knowing that Chigurh was still after him.</p> <p>(Meanwhile, since you’ve read the book, I’d appreciate an explanation of what the fence fenced off and how Moss was later able to get through the gate, wherever it was. He certainly was in no condition to climb over the fence. I’d also like to know how a wounded Moss could do something a healthy Carson Wells couldn’t do: get to the money that both knew the location of. After all, Wells’s mission was to get back the money, not to kill Chigurh. So if Moss could somehow get to the other side of the fence, why couldn’t – or didn’t – Wells?)</p> <p>You’re also right, and I’m wrong, about “I lost” versus “I lost IT [the money in the dream].” And you’re right that the first dream included Bell’s father. I knew I had seen Bell’s words printed somewhere. Turns out they are near the end of Jim Emerson’s long review that introduces this thread. Here are Bell’s words: “Both [dreams] had my father. It's peculiar. I'm older now'n he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense 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.”</p> <p>I continue to think, however, that the “money” in the dream was a coin and that, despite the "it," Bell lost a coin toss. That’s the only visible interpretation that makes sense in the contexts of both the second dream and Bell’s own conscious preoccupation with death. Bell is getting old, he’s been dealing with death throughout his professional career, and he’s consumed an extra heavy dose of it recently. But can we rationalize the word “it”? Yes. “It” fits a coin-toss dream if the antecedent is “coin toss” rather than “money.” Bell seems to be saying, “I lost a coin toss.” In other words, Bell dreamed he was going to die.</p> <p>How do you fit his father into the first dream? One possibility is that, after losing the coin toss, Bell meets his father, who we know is dead. That means father and son meet in heaven, or in the grave – the “campsite” of the second dream. A related possibility is that the coin toss is not a contest: there is no rival, no adversary – not Chigurh or anyone else. Bell just flips a coin to decide whether to go see his father, who in the dream might not even be dead (although we know that a live Bell Jr. meeting a live Bell Sr. symbolizes dead son meeting dead father).</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-179935"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Wesley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-179935"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-14T01:14:46-08:00">December 14, 2007 1:14 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(179935, 'Wesley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Hey otto, I don't think the book would help explain how he got the money more than just going through the movie scenes again. he's on the US side of the river, he throws the case over into the weeds by the river. the fence is just on the side of the bridge. he goes into mexico, gets himself fixed up, comes back into the US, walks down to the bank and picks up the case.</p> <p>we can discuss the meaning of the dream for days upon days, but it is after all only supposed to be a dream. they're more open to different interpretations than anything else in the film. for me, what makes the most sense is that bell's father passed him the money (not really the money, but passed onto him the charge of the money. he's a lawman just like his dad. he wants to take that money (the job) and make his father and himself proud. he, however, loses it.) it's about regret, he's shown that he's not able to handle the world. </p> <p>the opening monologue says "But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand.</p> <p>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, OK, I'll be part of this world...." he went out, he said ok, I'll be part of this world, and he wasn't successful by his standards.</p> <p>his father in the second dream is just an escape from this life. after he's done going out there to meet something he doesn't understand, there will be and end to it. it's a relief to him just to know that after all of this confusion and chaos, he will find relief, as his father already has.</p> <p>again, it's hard to turn dreams into concrete statements about a theme, but after some long thought on them I've come to look at them this way. the difference between you and me is that you place a lot more weight on the coins and money throughout the story. I don't believe they play a large of a role as you do. the money is just a catalyst. the coin flip is what starts the confrontation with fate, it's not what decides it. fate decides it.</p> <p>just like the money is what starts the confrontation between both llewelyn and carla jean and chigurh (fate). it doesn't decide the outcome, chigurh decides it.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-180545"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Otto York</span></span> on <a href="#comment-180545"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-14T22:11:31-08:00">December 14, 2007 10:11 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(180545, 'Otto York')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Wesley: We need a better explanation of how Moss retrieves the money than the one you just gave. Make the explanation fit these facts: (1) In the Mexican hospital room, Moss told Carson Wells very specifically where the money was. We can infer this because, in the next scene, we see Wells by the chain link fence at the spot where the money was thrown over the fence. (2) Wells sees the money, knows exactly where it is. (3) Wells has been hired by the Drug Lord to get the money back. (4) But Wells can't get at the money. The fence is unclimbable. And, since this seems to be a border fence, it really has no gate, just the border crossing. Even if it were not a border fence -- if it just surrounded some industrial facility or other compound -- it would have a locked or guarded gate somewhere. (5) If Wells, who is healthy (no belly wound) can't climb the fence or otherwise get at the money, we can be sure that Moss can't either. (6) Moss no longer has any reason to try to get the money. He has told Wells where it is and knows that, if there is any way to reach it, Wells has already reached it. In fact, Moss departs from Mexico without having tried to retrieve the money case, which is on the Mexican side of the fence (even if on U.S. soil, between the fence and the Rio Grande, the actual border). (7) To reach the money case from the Mexican side of the border fence, Wells would have to swim the Rio Grand twice, the second time with the money case in hand. Big joke. He can't swim the river with a serious belly wound. And even if he could, he couldn't do it carrying the money case. And he's no George Washington: he can't throw money across the Delaware, or whatever the Texans call the Rio Grande. (8) Even if the "river" we see beyond the fence is just a stream feeding into the Rio Grande and can be waded, you still have the problem of getting past the fence. (9) Your explanation explains nothing. Here it is: "[Moss] goes into mexico, gets himself fixed up, comes back into the US, walks down to the bank and picks up the case." Moss can't do that, because an unclimbable fence is in the way. If it were possible to walk down to the riverbank and pick up the case, Wells (who got there first) would have done it.</p> <p>It looks to me like Moss must have used magic to get the money case to room 114, where Chigurh found it. The whole scenario is unbelievable.</p> <p>The getting-the-money-back problem is just one of many implausible -- sometimes well-nigh unbelievable -- occurrences that mar the story and lower my appreciation for it. I can't begin to list all these plot problems here, but I'll give one more example. Why would anyone put a transponder in the money case, and if they did how would Chigurh come into possession of the receiver? We know the drug lord who hires Carson Wells is the drug buyer, not the seller. How do we know? Drugs flow from Mexico into the U.S. The buyer's speech and appearance mark him as American; his accountant's speech and appearance mark him as American; the drug Lord's hiring an American, Carson Wells, marks the drug lord as an American. So the drug lord is the one who put the transponder in with the money.</p> <p>But why would he do that? He wasn't planning to welsh on the deal. Doing that would cost him his supplier, and welshing by assassination would make the drug lord a target for retaliation. He intended to pay the money and take the drugs. Why, then, would he put a transponder in with the money?</p> <p>Suppose the drug lord anticipated that the Mexicans (the drug sellers) would welsh, shoot the buyer's team, and run off with the money without delivering the drugs? The transponder would still not help recover the money. The money would either be flown into Mexico on a private plane or broken into small units to be hidden in vehicles for smuggling into Mexico. If taken into Mexico by plane, the money would be out if reach, in enemy territory. And the transponder would be found and thrown out when the money case was unloaded. If the money case were unloaded in the U.S. and the money were divided into smaller packages for smuggling, the transponder would again be discovered and smashed.</p> <p>But suppose that, against all logic, the drug lord did put a transponder in the money case. Who would he give the signal receiver to if his clairvoyance had correctly anticipated the shootout? He'd give it to his bloodhound, Carson Wells. He surely wouldn't give it to Chigurh, who the drug lord did not employ. So how did Chigurh get the receiver, and why didn't Wells have a signal receiver?</p> <p>Take the analysis one step farther. Suppose Chigurh were even more clairvoyant than the drug lord. Suppose he psychically knew a transponder was hidden in the money case. Where would he get a receiver? Real transponders require big antennae and clear sight lines. But suppose, this being 1980, that a miniature, pocket-sized receiver were available. Did Chigurh buy it from Amazon.com. No, Amazon didn't exist, and Chigurh has no mailing address. Did he buy it over the counter? When? Where? Who sells them? How does a guy who's on the lam, having just killed a cop and having done something illegal before that, buy or steal a transponder?</p> <p>Let's go another step farther. Having obtained a transponder, how does Chigurh know what frequency to set it on? And if he knows that, how does he know were to start looking for Moss? For that matter, how did he find out Moss has the money? If Chigurh nevertheless implausibly learns that Moss has the money and is in El Paso, a big city, that's a lot of ground to cover for a short-range, line-of-sight receiver.</p> <p>Next, suppose you theorize that Chigurh learned all this from, and got the transponder's signal receiver from the Mexican kingpin, who planned to shoot the buyer's guys, keep the drugs, and run off with the money. How did the Mexican kingpin learn about the transponder? Transponders hidden in payoff cash can't be SOP in drug deals. No drug seller in his right mind is going to deal with a buyer whose actions reveal an intent to recover the money. Besides, if the Mexican kingpin were going to have his team shoot the buyer's team and steal the money, what need would the kingpin have for a signal receiver? He isn't the one trying to recover the money. He has the money. And if he knows the money case contains a transponder, the solution is not to use a signal receiver to find a money case that is already in his hands. The solution is to open the money case, take out the transponder, and smash it.</p> <p>Even if the Mexican kingpin knew about the transponder, he neither could nor would have provided the information to Chigurh. Nor could he have given Chigurh a receiver. As I said in previous comments, Chigurh is a loner. He is doing his own thing. He wants the money for himself (and he also enjoys killing). To make things even more difficult, the kingpin has no way to contact Chigurh, who is on the lam. What? He used a cell phone? This is 1980.</p> <p>Absolutely nothing about the transponder and the signal receiver makes any sense.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-182015"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://www.oxygenfiend.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.oxygenfiend.com/" rel="nofollow">M.S.</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-182015"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-17T06:56:13-08:00">December 17, 2007 6:56 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(182015, 'M.S.')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>You know, I was really enjoying the comments on this page, in fact, the discussion that has transpired may be one of the most engaging and thorough film analyses I have ever read. Right up until Otto York, who seems to have slept through the movie or maybe he just didn't understand it, starting posting his grossly misinformed and painfully verbose dissertations. Way to kill an interesting dialogue.<br/> There's certain people that just don't want to like a movie for whatver reason; a'la the jerk who hysterically (and somewhat nervously) started laughing when the credits began to roll, proclaiming loudly "that was the worst f---ing movie I've ever seen in my life!" Man, that guy must be watching some pretty damn great movies. </p> <p>Also, Liz posted (way up there) a comment questioning a sudden pan when Llewelyn Moss is looking at the man under the trees. Watching this film for the second time last week, I too noticed the camera movement. It is a brilliant match cut from Llewelyn's POV looking through his binoculars, tilting his head (CUT) to taking the binoculars from around his neck and setting them aside.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-182505"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">R.B.</span></span> on <a href="#comment-182505"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-17T21:45:18-08:00">December 17, 2007 9:45 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(182505, 'R.B.')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I feel that the 2 dreams at the end are about death. The first dream is like spending an inheritance, and the next dream is about our ancestors and what they went through what we will all go through and they will be, (hopefully), on the otherside waiting for us. It was a good way to end the movie for me. Death is always coming for us, and we know that, but some times we don't really FEEL it until later. The younger actors go into risk much more, and much more unknowingly, and Bell is more risk averse now. I actually just witnessed a pedestrian just get hit by a car going across a crosswalk outside my house today. It was night but it was obviously the driver's fault for not paying attention. The guy hurt his leg bad but fortunately there was an ambulance nearby and he got help very quickly. I just thought of this movie, and how you can be at the wrong place and the wrong time and your life can change quickly. It's good to be aware of death in a stoic way as opposed to a depressing way simply because it puts things in perspective, and you don't worry about the small stuff that people worry about. The problem is we don't know what's coming and when. Don't take your life for granted.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-183410"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Justin Vaughan</span></span> on <a href="#comment-183410"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-19T12:25:02-08:00">December 19, 2007 12:25 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(183410, 'Justin Vaughan')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Otto, Chigurh gets the receiver from his two associates, whom he promptly kills. They even have a bit of dialogue about how it isn't picking up any signal (impying that it was already set to the correct frequency.) It seems that most of your criticisms of this movie are based on scenes you are misremembering or misinterpreting. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-185759"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://jdempcy.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://jdempcy.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Jonah Dempcy</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-185759"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-23T00:42:24-08:00">December 23, 2007 12:42 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(185759, 'Jonah Dempcy')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Great comments everyone. Really informative and nice analysis of the film. It's interesting to see so many different interpretations of the film. <br/><br/><br/> When I watched the film, I didn't see any of the symbolism, I was just wrapped up in the immediacy of it. Then after the anti-climactic ending it just left me feeling confused and full of unresolved emotions. I can definitely say the film had an emotional impact on me. The next day I was in the movie rental store and noticed the Bourne Identity series, and thought, these films have at least as high of a body count as NCFOM but the deaths are presented in such a Hollywood, sensationalized way. The main character in those films is also an assassin but its done in the predictable gung-ho, "USA" mentality. A film like NCFOM really made me ponder death and had a chilling effect.<br/><br/>Finally, who can tell me where this quote is from (paraphrasing)? "A masterpiece is a film with three good scenes and no bad ones." And if it applied to this film, which are the 3 best scenes in your opinion?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-185790"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">C</span></span> on <a href="#comment-185790"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-23T03:08:09-08:00">December 23, 2007 3:08 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(185790, 'C')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>The dime on the floor was not the result of a coin toss. It was the tool he used to unscrew the ventilation duct screws.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-185813"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">btv</span></span> on <a href="#comment-185813"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-23T04:41:31-08:00">December 23, 2007 4:41 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(185813, 'btv')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I've only read half way but have not yet seen any mention of the blaitent anagrams. </p> <p></p> <p></p> <p><br/> ANTON CHIGURH = CAUGHT IN HORN<br/> </p> <p><br/> Havn't figured out any of the others yet but i think they are the key to interpreting the dreams. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-185994"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Otto York</span></span> on <a href="#comment-185994"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-23T12:07:12-08:00">December 23, 2007 12:07 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(185994, 'Otto York')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jonah: According to Roger Ebert, Howard Hawks defined a "good movie" (not a masterpiece) as "three good scenes, no bad scenes." (My faulty memory didn't help -- Google advanced search provided the answer.)</p> <p>Justin: Discussing the movie (not the book), you say Chigurh gets the receiver from two associates, whom he promptly kills. If this is so, there is definitely a gap in my memory between (a) the scene where he walks away from the gas station, having either killed or not killed the proprietor, and (b) the scene where he searches Moss's original motel room while Moss is in the room next door trying to fish out the money satchel from the air duct with his tent-poles-and-hanger rig. Please elaborate on the scene or scenes where Chigurh somehow acquires two associates (how? why?) and then kills them.</p> <p>Please also explain why any rich drug lord would hide a transponder in with his purchase money. Do you believe that a transponder has ever been used this way in real life -- by a drug buyer, not the FBI? If you were a drug seller, how would you react if you found a transponder hidden in the satchel of payoff money? Would you ever sell to that drug buyer again? Would you try to assassinate him, thinking that he intended to steal the money back from you?</p> <p>Another question: Why did the drug lord give a receiver to those "two associates" of Chigurh, whereas he did not give one to Carson Wells, the man he hired to recover the money?</p> <p>And why did he decide to hire Carson Wells, working without a transponder, to recover the money when he (the drug buyer) had already sent out those better equipped "associates" to recover the money?</p> <p>Also, if Chigurh and two associates were given the transponder (set to the proper frequency) by the drug buyer -- the same fellow who later hired Wells -- why did Chigurh later decide to murder his boss? They were on the same side, and Chigurh had the money. (You don't readily establish your credentials as a hit man by killing those who hire you.)</p> <p>Possibly you think the drug buyer is the one whose team initiated the shootout, where everyone on both sides died. If the buyer intended to take the drugs without delivering the payoff money, why did his team bring along $2 million in real money (with or without a transponder)? If he thought bringing the $2 million was necessary for payment verification purposes, so that shooting the sellers could delayed until the sellers' backs were turned, why did he include a transponder? No need for a transponder when you shoot the sellers and reclaim the case.</p> <p>From whom did the seller plan to buy his next order of drugs, once he established a reputation in Mexico as a buyer who shoots the seller's men and takes the drugs without paying?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-186955"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://www.darrylasher.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.darrylasher.com/" rel="nofollow">Darryl</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-186955"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-25T01:58:44-08:00">December 25, 2007 1:58 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(186955, 'Darryl')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Liz said: <i>There is one shot in the movie that I can't figure out: When Moss is looking at the dead guy sitting under the shade trees (he's tracked there from the scene of the drug deal), the camera all of a sudden swoops back across the grass really, really fast then cuts to Moss again. It happens so fast I'm still not sure I actually saw this. It almost feels out of place in the movie. Did I imagine this? Can anyone explain it?</i></p> <p>Maybe this is too late for you to see, but I'll answer anyway. The swooping was Moss's point of view through the binoculars as he too them down from his eyes to look at his watch. It's a common kind of shot, but, in true Coen style, it is cut in a way as to make it somewhat jarring.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-187424"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">toosinbeymen</span></span> on <a href="#comment-187424"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-26T03:11:24-08:00">December 26, 2007 3:11 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(187424, 'toosinbeymen')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>You recommended "No country for Old Men" as a great movie. I'm sorry but it was a completely gratuitous blood porn giving a pass to gross police incompetence of the "lone wolf" sheriff and his "country wisdom". The affect of this genre on our society is to view this casual brutality as the norm and sensible. </p> <p>It's technically perfect? If so it's technically perfect brutality porn.</p> <p>With all respect, your judgement is flawed. Please come back to earth, read some real literature, listen to Bach, pay attention to a string of good films to get your judgement back. But it's not just you.</p> <p>Obviously the US film industry has sunk to this very low standard and is blindly stoking anxiety so high that we can barely recognize it for what it is; it's become so integral to our society.</p> <p>Rolling Stone, Variety, Village Voice, Roger Ebert, Christian Science Monitor, the Onion, Premiere, USA Today, SF Chronicle, Boston Globe, LA Times, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Time, Miami Herald, Baltimore Sun, Seattle Post-Intelligencer all gave it a maximum rating of 100 in metacritic.com like it was Shakespeare or Tolstoy. This is how warped we are as a society. This is how deep our numbness to wholesale death goes.</p> <p>What should be called a low budget horror film is called "the most ambitious and impressive ... in at least a decade" by Salon and "for formalists ... it's pure heaven" NY Times. "I haven't seen a stronger or better American movie all year" Christian Science Monitor. "An indisputably great movie, at this point the year's very best" Rolling Stone.</p> <p>When we use these words for this kind of film, small wonder the world thinks we're killers without remorse.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-188133"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">btv</span></span> on <a href="#comment-188133"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-27T04:03:18-08:00">December 27, 2007 4:03 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(188133, 'btv')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Darryl</p> <p>Titus Andronicus</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-189382"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Aaron</span></span> on <a href="#comment-189382"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-28T17:27:33-08:00">December 28, 2007 5:27 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(189382, 'Aaron')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Great analysis. Any thoughts on the number 13 motif? Carson Wells' reference to the floor numbers, and all the motel rooms containing the number 13 except the one Llewelyn is killed in. Where is that going?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-189400"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Otto York</span></span> on <a href="#comment-189400"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-28T18:37:00-08:00">December 28, 2007 6:37 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(189400, 'Otto York')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>He of the pen name “Tosinbemen” is right but mostly for the wrong reason. He is right that NCFOM is a weak film and definitely the most overrated film of the year. He is even right that sheriff Bell’s “country wisdom” is not something to applaud. That “wisdom” is no wisdom at all, just the commonplace observation that society is plagued by too much killing and violence. That’s wisdom? No, that’s pessimism, maybe even depression. </p> <p> It’s going overboard, however, to call the film “blood porn” and “a low budget horror film.” There isn’t much blood, and No Country is in no sense a horror film. The film’s problems lie elsewhere. One problem is that the plot has too many implausible and unexplained details. Outstanding, and even good, drama films should make sense. I’ve elaborated on this problem in previous contributions, so here I’ll focus on the other problem. The sheriff’s philosophy and philosophizing – the stuff that seems to have inspired all the praise – is pretentious and banal. </p> <p> That philosophy is summed up in Bell’s two dreams, which he provides nebulous summaries of near the film’s end. “The first [dream] . . . it was about money. I think I lost it.” The critics have seemingly admired this metaphorical dream without having any clear idea what it represents. I too was stymied until now. But now I think I get the point. Bell’s father was also a sheriff, and both Bells were sheriffs in different Texas towns at the same time. The younger Bell evidently admired his father’s work and was inspired by his father to become a lawman. That inspiration is the metaphorical “money” Bell’s father gave to him. “I think I lost it” means that Bell failed to live up to his father’s inspiration: he failed to stop or appreciably slow the crime and violence that now surrounds him. “I think I lost it” means “I think I’ve been a failure.” That recognition, the recognition that a small-town sheriff couldn’t bring crime under control, and understands this fact, is philosophy worthy of high praise? I think not.</p> <p>“The second [dream] . . . I was on horseback goin’ through the mountains at night. It was cold and snowin’, hard ridin’ . . . He [the father] rode past me and . . . I seen he was carryin’ fire in a horn the way people used to do and . . . I knew he was fixin’ to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there.” Well, Bell's father is dead, and “there” is the grave, which the father got to first and where the father now waits for his son. The grave is seemingly visualized as heaven, the warm campfire waiting for Bell amidst all that darkness and cold, all that crime and death.</p> <p> This second dream is a psychologically worn out man’s expression of exhaustion, defeat, world-weariness, and pessimism. Bell’s world has become a place from which he wants out. Out means out of this world. Bell is not just ready to die, he looks forward to death as escape from a place he can no longer face. At best this is a philosophy of defeatism, bad enough. At worst it superstition, the belief that this world is but a stepping stone to a happy life beyond the grave in a supernatural realm called heaven (the warm campfire). Granted, religious people might find this “wisdom” worthy of praise, but if any of the critics are basing their evaluations of the film on personal beliefs in heaven, they should be open and honest about this.</p> <p> No Country boils down to the philosophy that “there’s too much killing in this world, and especially too much homicide.” Hardly a brilliant or original philosophy. Hardly worthy of all that praise. As I said, it’s pretentious and it’s banal – commonplace, pedestrian, trite. And the derivative philosophy exalting the “next world” that will be so much better than this one is a philosophy that gives “country wisdom” a bad name, a philosophy grounded in superstition. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-189661"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://coosacreek.org/mambo" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://coosacreek.org/mambo" rel="nofollow">Rick</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-189661"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-29T00:13:19-08:00">December 29, 2007 12:13 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(189661, 'Rick')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Man, I can't believe that this discussion has gone on for a month. What a great film, and a great analysis, Jim.</p> <p>Someone once said that there are only three Western plots; I can't remember the other two, but one was the replacing of the old ways (cattle with sheep, grazing with farming, country with city, etc.) By this reckoning, NCFOM is a classic Western gone off the tracks, with Bell the chief purveyor of the view that things are changing, and not for the good. Whenever he opines about that, his words seem to me quaint, not only from another time, but from another movie, and perhaps that was the point ... </p> <p>As you point out, Jim, the opposite view is voiced by Ellis, the cynical disabled lawman who says that it's the same as it ever was ... but we, along with Ed Tom, know better. I do love to see Barry Corbin, btw ... I miss him from Northern Exposure.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-190710"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Burton Levy</span></span> on <a href="#comment-190710"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-30T04:01:03-08:00">December 30, 2007 4:01 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(190710, 'Burton Levy')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I took note of similarities between Moss and the Sheriff. To wit: </p> <p>Both men happen across the aftermath of a shootout, and they act the same. Moss when he encounters the drug deal in the outback, and the Sheriff when he arrives at the motel looking for Moss. Both Moss and the Sheriff ignore the pleas of injured people -- Moss the man in the truck, the Sheriff the man on the pavement. <br/> Why do they ignore them? Could it be that in the moment, they are after something more important to them, such as personal enrichment? After the initial motel scene, <br/> the Sheriff wonders out loud about the fate of the money with his deputy, and figures that the Mexican gang made off with it. Perhaps it was a nagging doubt about the fate of the money that led him at night, by himself, to go back to the motel. Like Moss, the Sheriff is not happy with his life circumstance and wants to change it, and in America, money is the ticket.<br/> This time at the motel, though, he notices that the lock has been blown out -- it hadn't been earlier. He goes in, and finds the coin and the vent -- and realizes that he lost it. The money had been there, now it is gone. The Sheriff sits down and is clearly disappointed. The Sheriff, it turns out, is not quite the do-gooder -- he is pulled by the same money lust as Moss. </p> <p>It may well be that the entire story is really just a dream for the Sheriff, part of his mental process dealing with his upcoming retirement. The movie ends with him telling his wife about his dreams, the first one being about money that he doesn't get. Dreams are often full of episodes encountered in real life and replayed in a different context. Some of the film suggests a blurring of the Sheriff and Chigurh characters. There are thoughts and events that the Sheriff and Chigurh have that seem more than coincidental. Each pulls over a driver at the very same spot (Chigurh the older man that he kills with the cattle gun, the Sheriff the trucker hauling bodies). Chigurh makes use of a cattle gun, and the Sheriff makes awkward use of the slaying and processing of steers when he has his talk with Moss's wife -- he concludes with saying that they do it different now, with a cattle gun. When the Sheriff enters the motel room, he is shown as a silouette against the door, a silouette almost identical to Chigurh's. The Sheriff drinks the milk and looks at his reflection just like Chigurh does. The Sheriff refers to Chigurh as a ghost. Consider also that the movie starts with the Sheriff's narration about a teenage murderer he had arrested and brought to justice, a horrible young person who had wanted to kill someone since childhood. Perhaps Chigurh is who that person would have become had the Sheriff not gotten him. It is not implausible that all these things are regurgitated in the Sheriff's dreams. </p> <p>Money and its role in American life is a consistent theme in the movie, and really the only redeeming thing in the film. Each character has a different relationship to money and work. Moss is "retired" and living in a trailer with his wife. For him, work is out of the question and finding and making off with that money is a chance at a new start. In the gas station scene, Chigurh presses the station owner about how he came to own the station -- he keeps at it until the man admits that he "married into the money." The Sheriff wants to retire, but the prospects are bleak if judged by the life of the former sheriff that he visits. Interestingly, Chigurh is the only character for whom money does not represent a life-changing possibility. We know he gets the money in the end, and yet he still goes about his business by going to kill Moss's wife. </p> <p><br/> For me, No Country is a weak film. Most Hollywood films are too obvious and leave nothing to the imagination, but this one tries too hard to be whatever the viewer wants it to be. Thus we have all these opinions about what the film is and what it all means. For me, I have to make the Sheriff fit into the movie, because if viewed at face level, he is out of place, he is simply a buffoon. The Coen Brothers have followed the formula of throwing out a bunch of questions and oddities, while providing few answers. Many reviewers quickly embrace that kind of thing. <br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-201241"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Liz</span></span> on <a href="#comment-201241"><abbr class="published" title="2008-01-09T20:34:52-08:00">January 9, 2008 8:34 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(201241, 'Liz')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Don't know if anyone will read this, but when I saw the film the second time, I realized that the shot I had questioned was indeed through the binoculars. I must have blinked or glanced away momentarily the first time I saw it and thought I missed something. When I saw it again and kept my eyes open I realized it was perfectly done and made total sense.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-214147"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://www.agerstle.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.agerstle.com/" rel="nofollow">alan</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-214147"><abbr class="published" title="2008-01-21T15:59:01-08:00">January 21, 2008 3:59 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(214147, 'alan')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>There are a number of things which direct us to the main theme of the movie, and I may have missed whether anyone has alluded to them. For one, origin of the title of the movie; it is of course from _King Lear_, which should at least give some hint as to thematic elements, although I won't summarize the play here. I'm also surprised that no one (unless I missed it) has addressed the fact that time of the film 1980 was the same year as the election of a rather 'unusual' President, who,in his own way revised the idea of what a President does or represents. From Tommy Lee's opening monologue (a borrowing from Greek tragedy convention, i.e., using the function of the Greek chorus to describe the past and reflect on the future) -- usually when a human or divine upheavel has occurred -- should also help frame the purpose & theme of the movie. Note how he mentions that the 'old timer' sheriffs did not always carry guns, but even one who patrolled an Indian reservation knew it was better not to. In reviewing the people Chigurh murdered, one is described as a Leutenant Colonel. Which one was that? And why was he referred to in that way? To include all the clues of why this movie is a meditation on the twilight of authority and the denigration of law and tradition would take much too long, but it's all right there. ALso, didn't anyone read the book upon which the movie was based? But that's another story, or at least another medium.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-217514"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Paul</span></span> on <a href="#comment-217514"><abbr class="published" title="2008-01-25T20:04:36-08:00">January 25, 2008 8:04 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(217514, 'Paul')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>The story is told in flash back. Who got the money at the end? The sheriff was on scene directly after Moss was shot. Moss had the money ready to give to his wife so she could get on a plane. Moss was obviously suprized as the girl he was with at the pool got blasted. The Sheriff had a couple of conversations after discovering Moss at the hotel. One with another law enforcement official stating how times had changed. The the Sheriff goes back to the motel and sees the lock blown out. It had not been like this before. He draws his gun goes in as sees the screws and the dime on the floor. But inside the vent it is shallow and leads me to believe that the bag was never in the vent. The Sheriff leaves and visits the deputy of his father. The Sheriff has a moral delima and the old deputy mentions that the Sheriff wife said that he was soon to retire. Then you go to the next scene and the Sheriff had retired and recanted that in a dream that his father had given him some money. The Sheriff got the money at the Hotel before the local poliece arrived and although he felt morally bad about it, he realizeed that this is no country for old men.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-218120"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Cionster</span></span> on <a href="#comment-218120"><abbr class="published" title="2008-01-26T17:13:43-08:00">January 26, 2008 5:13 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(218120, 'Cionster')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Pardon me if I am repeating something another post has already pointed out; I have read only a few. No one has mentioned the Minator Story from Greek legend. It is a story mirrored in many movies. It can always be recgnised by a humble character,Moss(or Sarah Connor from Terminator) being persued through corridors, alley ways or other wise confined spaces,which are reference to the Maze in the Minator (This might explain why there are so many confined soaces in the film, lock cylinders, air vents, hotel corridors, alley ways), by a creature which is half man, half beast. Anton is certainly that. We see him as a cold blooded killer, the beast and yet we see him bleed and get injured, the man bit. The Minator always repesents death or at least the presance of darkness. I read, too in another blog on the Movie the reference to The Siver Styx. The river Styx, again from Greek Myth, was a river that separated the world from Hades. The scene where Moss is chased by the hound across the creek is reference to the River Styx. He has left the life he knows and crossed over into 'the darkness'. The hound could be seen as a reference to Cerberus, one of the hounds of Hades. I'm wondering too if the use of 'The Border' is refering to the same thing, the border between, good and Evil, Light and Dark. The Coen's have visited the Greek myths before in Oh brother, Where art though? so it wouldn't surprise me if they were using many motifs and references to that tradition. Greek Drama always told a moral tale. The difference being that a justice was, normally, served. This is one turn The Coen's take from this film being a re take on Greek Tragedy. Pardon me again if I have repeated anyone elses; ideas and forgive the ramshackle stucture of my 'essay' I'm off to watch this movie again tomorrow and maybe get more out of it.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-218124"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Cionster</span></span> on <a href="#comment-218124"><abbr class="published" title="2008-01-26T17:31:35-08:00">January 26, 2008 5:31 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(218124, 'Cionster')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I must add a post script to my last entry. Because the movie is basically a morality play or allegory using motifs from Greek drama, viewers should suspend their disbelief and surender to the world of the movie. Don't ask questions like 'why was their a transmitter in the money? We are not watching the News or a documentary. One didn't ask of Star Wars; How did a creature covered in hair who comunicates only in barks and growls ever become buddies with Harrison Ford? :) </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-218744"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">wkadler</span></span> on <a href="#comment-218744"><abbr class="published" title="2008-01-27T15:02:07-08:00">January 27, 2008 3:02 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(218744, 'wkadler')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Just saw the film -- late to the party, but my wife came up with a brilliant comment that I didn't see in this fascinating and rich thread (sorry in advance if I missed it): Chigurh, in getting struck by the car, is a victim of his own penchant for "following rules:" He drives like an old lady, hands at the top of the steering wheel, rigidly looking ahead. We see a LONG green light and he's fixed on it. Traffic lights are rules, which he follows, but a random violation strikes him from a blind side. Even Chigurh is subject to chance violence! Good point.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-219364"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Cionster</span></span> on <a href="#comment-219364"><abbr class="published" title="2008-01-28T14:28:10-08:00">January 28, 2008 2:28 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(219364, 'Cionster')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Very good point about the car accident. I saw the movie again and noticed a few more things. The idea of rivers being boundries, between light and dark, heaven and hell. First there's Moss being chased across the creek. Then later, at the boarder, the boarder post is at the end of a bridge, rivers agian. Woody H's Well's carachter tells Moss in the hospital;'I'm staying at the Eagle hotel on the other side of the river' He's staying on the light or good side and he wants to bring Moss with him and save him. Well's strikes me as an Angel or something similar, an agent for good perhaps, hence his remark to Chigurr 'I'm a day trader..'<br/> Also, what do people make of the scene when Moss finds the transponder in the money. Moss pulls out a bundle of notes from deep in the sactchel, it's made up of 10$ and 1$ bills! Is this to say that your ill gotten gains are never as much as you first believe? The point being that Moss has 'death' or dark destiny hot on his tail because of this money which isn't even as much as he first thought....all this trouble for very little gain.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-220814"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Brian</span></span> on <a href="#comment-220814"><abbr class="published" title="2008-01-30T10:39:31-08:00">January 30, 2008 10:39 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(220814, 'Brian')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Just an extra note, and comment on the final recipient of the money:</p> <p>I assumed that Chigurr got the money. He knew to look in the vent from previous experience and it was opened with a coin, apparently his tool of choice. He also payed the boy with a hundred dollar bill, the biggest note I saw him use in the entire movie.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-226209"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Greg</span></span> on <a href="#comment-226209"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-07T20:46:27-08:00">February 7, 2008 8:46 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(226209, 'Greg')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Is it just me or is there a significance with the number 58 in the movie? The quarter at the gas station was from 1958, and Carla Jean's Mother was 58 years old when she died in the end.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-226962"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Stanley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-226962"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-09T13:40:26-08:00">February 9, 2008 1:40 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(226962, 'Stanley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Maybe it's another reference to the tracks and trails theme. All these numbers arriving to the same place by different paths.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-231145"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">steph</span></span> on <a href="#comment-231145"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-16T08:01:19-08:00">February 16, 2008 8:01 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(231145, 'steph')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>in fear of sounding really ignorant, i ask you what did the ending achieve? Alot of un-answered questions, true to the rest of the films enigmatic style. However i was dissapointed with it and felt the film ended when lewellyn died in the motel room, it was unlike his character to be in the room with the girl and i felt that the abrupt death of our main character was boring, help me see the light! </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-231499"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">OWEN FOGEL</span></span> on <a href="#comment-231499"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-17T02:31:08-08:00">February 17, 2008 2:31 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(231499, 'OWEN FOGEL')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>This is the way I see it: I think I understand why the film doesnt work. A great film for 3/4 of the way through. A real search and seek puzzler with every scene complimenting the one before it...all up until Moss is killed. This is where the Coen Brothers decided to kill off the one character(flawed-hero) who the audience is banking on to kill Mr.Death. When he dies, the good-guy role(flawed-hero) is supposed to be taken up by Sheriff Bell, but unfortunately, he has neither the motivation, skill, or will power to seek out and confront Mr.Death. This is the real let-down of the film, and why is fails to be a masterpiece. Audieneces need closure, and most importantly, for them to stay interested in the plot, they need someone to root for. Im not saying the coen brothers needed to end the film in the classic tradition of good-buy kills bad-guy, but we did need a CONFRONTATION, which the filmakers decided for whatever reason to omit. The scenes following Moss' death are the weakest, especially that kitchen scene between Bell and the old-timer w/his cats. Pure drivel. Another bad scene, was Death's encounter with Moss' wife..not only was her reaction to seeing a perfect stranger in her bedroom so unbelievable,(anyone else would have yelled and ran out of the room-NOT CALMLY SAT DOWN). At this point we are hoping for Sheriff Bell to show up, but he isnt even thinking about it. Audience has not only been taken out of the film, but we are still deciding if we want to join up with this wishy-washy sheriff. We need a hero, Moss WAS OUR Hero, and if you are going to kill off the main good guy in your film, at least have the decency to show us how it happened, not give us a POV after the fact, as the sheriff pulls up to the motel(how convenient?) Weak. All the rest of the symbolisim of the film(fate/money/death/life)--all these things dont mean a damn if you PULL an audience away from Thier Hero without a struggle or a clear explanation. OWEN</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-231500"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">OWEN FOGEL</span></span> on <a href="#comment-231500"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-17T02:44:49-08:00">February 17, 2008 2:44 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(231500, 'OWEN FOGEL')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>One final thought on why the film ends when lewellyn dies in the motel room. Just before he dies, the film taints him as a cheating husband, was this supposed to shake our commitment to our hero ? Does he deserve to die now ? Because he shared a lousy beer with a flirtatious woman ? I want to remind you that this is the SAME HERO who hung up the phone on Mr. Death a few scenes earlier when MR.Death threatened to track down and kill his wife. Did he cower and give in ? No. He told him off and told Mr. DEATH to beware, that HE had better watch out. It was a bold play, the highlight of the movie actually. the film had finally lined up the GOOD GUY for a face-off with the BAD GUY--Only it Never delivered the goods !?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-231811"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Stanley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-231811"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-17T16:39:17-08:00">February 17, 2008 4:39 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(231811, 'Stanley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>In response to OWEN's comments just above. Fistly, The Coens decieded nothing, they were adapting a book for the screen. Cormac McCarthy 'decieded' to have Moss killed when he did.<br/> Secondly, I am growing extreemly frustrated by responses to this movie. Not because people have differing opinions about the film, but because people are blaming their lack of understanding not on their own limited intellect, but rather on the film?!?!? I simplly don't get that response. It is made clear that you are one of these Owen by the remark 'audiences need closure' I've seen this movie twice, I'm therefore a member of the audience and I don't need the 'closure' you speak of.I take the movie as it is and love it for what it is. What you should of said was 'I need closure'. Not everyone that saw this film needed it to obey your limited criteria.<br/> Bu you do have a point, of sorts about the scene with Moss and the beer drinking prostitute though I interpreted it slightly differently. Up till then Moss had been playing at the top of his game,so to speak, in order to try and stay one step ahead of Anton, using his every wit to try and'...see what's coming'. This scene by the pool is the only time he let's his guard down, the only time he relaxes from his 'misson. He lets his guard down and the next time we see him, he's dead on the floor. It reminded me of a phrase the old IRA quoted to Margret Thatcher in the late 1980's. She had narrowly escaped death when the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton in the south of England. She boasted on the news of her survival, to which the Provisonals replied 'We only have to be lucky once(to kill you), you have to be lucky all the time' I think this scene was the only time Moss didn't get lucky. But at least he may of died with a smile on his face!!</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-236924"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">moiiv</span></span> on <a href="#comment-236924"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-24T07:06:52-08:00">February 24, 2008 7:06 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(236924, 'moiiv')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Was wondering about the symbolism of:</p> <p>The River<br/> The Milk<br/> The Cats<br/> The color Yellow<br/> The Number 13</p> <p><br/> And, did you notice the irony throughout the film?</p> <p>The back of the newspaper<br/> The name of the border control ("Cash")<br/> The things in the trailer (dental floss, and iron...)<br/> The FREE HBO in the first hotel</p> <p>SO MUCH MORE....! I can't wait to see the movie again, just to catch more!<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-237674"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Cionster</span></span> on <a href="#comment-237674"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-25T12:28:49-08:00">February 25, 2008 12:28 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(237674, 'Cionster')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>The river is a symbol of the river Styx. It was the river that divided the world of the living from hades,or hell, in Greek myth. Once you crossed it you were in the underworld. I think this symbolism extends to the use of the boarder too. The number 13, tht's just to create an unsettled feeling, it being an unlucky number.<br/> As fo the irony...the news papers had death notices, am I right?<br/> What's the relevance of the dental floss? And the HBO?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-237685"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">cionster</span></span> on <a href="#comment-237685"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-25T12:47:11-08:00">February 25, 2008 12:47 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(237685, 'cionster')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>In response to Candy's post dated November 20th. You mention that story from the Caanterbury Tales. You are so right. When trying to get a message or idea across, an artist will always use a motif we already know, though they will twist it slightly to make it their own and to fit the story they are telling.For example, why not have the money is a black, plastic bag? Why is it in a sturdy case? Cause it resembles a box...Pandora's Box. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-240680"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">John Swift</span></span> on <a href="#comment-240680"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-29T11:55:54-08:00">February 29, 2008 11:55 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(240680, 'John Swift')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I just saw the movie yesterday.</p> <p>Some random thoughts:</p> <p>--I find Sheriff Bell a fascinating character, and easily the most important presence in the film, as he provides the moral foundation for the story.</p> <p>In some ways, he reminds me of a Hemingway hero, in that he doesn't care to understand the world, but simply wants to live in it. Which makes his uneasy transition to retirement all the sadder, I think, because he remains acutely aware of society's ever increasing evil and the need to battle it, while knowing this "dismal tide" is unstoppable. Ergo, all he can do is intellectualize about it, which leads him to frustration, disenchantment and alienation.</p> <p>--For those that find the ending unsatisfactory, revisiting Sheriff Bell's opening monologue might be of benefit, because it sets the tone of the film by identifying him as an interpreter of significant events (including Llewellyn's death later on).</p> <p>--As for Lewellyn's death, there's been acrimonious debate over the fact he's dispatched offscreen. </p> <p>Why such complaint about this point, I wonder? </p> <p>I quite like how the scene is staged because it's entirely in keeping with all that precedes it. Not to mention, as I said above, Sheriff Bell filters the shooting through his wise but conflicted point of view, which imbues the tragedy with tremendous power. Just look at his face as he visits the morge to pay his last respects, and in the darkened car after he and the second officer conduct their "what can you do?" conversation. His state of sadness, resignation and despair is palpable. </p> <p>--Chigurh, with his over-sized, compensatory weapon and acquired limp, strikes me as an impotent figure. Even more so after the car crash, when he's literally disarmed and broken, reduced to a spectral, wheedling shell (that white face!) soliciting the help of children to make his getaway. I might be alone in this view, but I feel the story makes an obvious point of cutting him down to size here, short of killing him, because he really appears to be a spent force.</p> <p>--To me, the most significant lines in the film occur when Llewellyn speaks with the hooker beside the swimming pool. </p> <p>Llewellyn': "I'm just, uh, looking for what's coming." </p> <p>Hooker: "Yeah, but no one ever sees that. There! <i>That's</i> what's coming." </p> <p>Which is precisely what the self-appointed Messenger of Fate, Chigurh, discovers when he drives through that final intersection. I love the irony</p> <p>--Jim, you noted that Chigurh doesn't choose to kill or not kill; but if fate puts someone in his way, then so be it.</p> <p>Are you sure he doesn't choose? Watch the sequence where he confronts the woman in the Trailer Park office. Just before he leaves, it looks as though he very much wants to kill her, and then decides against it. To me, this is one of the most chilling moments in the movie.</p> <p>--During the milk drinking scenes in Llewellyn's trailer, where Chigurh and Sheriff Bell respectively gaze at their reflections in the dark TV, their expressions speak volumes. Chigurh appears just as blank as the TV screen, terrifyingly so, while Sheriff Bell gazes deep into himself and dislikes what he observes there. Brilliant moments, and a wonderful contrast.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-240836"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://-" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://-/" rel="nofollow">the country of NoMam</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-240836"><abbr class="published" title="2008-02-29T16:12:14-08:00">February 29, 2008 4:12 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(240836, 'the country of NoMam')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Whell. all here from US? me not... and I have to say: bleah...<br/> The movie is nothing special really...<br/> I can NOT understand how these can be promoted as state of the art, wtf ? <br/> I don't care how you film it, if it's a shitty story, => a shitty movie. Some guys shoot eachother, until my eyes pop out. </p> <p>From a movie I expect to be amaysed : Crash, The Prestige, Parfume- Story of a Murderer, Sweeney Todd, even the Matrix or the LOTR[ the first ones]<br/> I would apllaude a movie like: the Man from Earth 10 times before NCFOM,,,</p> <p>I can not understand the direction, PLEASE: Sparta, NCFOM, Broadback ... k, they express a truth... so not original... com'on</p> <p>My oppinion might be different but, the movie really left me with a : WTF ... this movie is BAD.</p> <p>For all who says this is a part of history, and should be seen as such, I ask you 1 thing:</p> <p>What about Idiocracy ? An award or something ? If NCFOM is more then some people shotting them selfs... Idiocracy is a original point of view right.. ?</p> <p>asjdclkgv </p> <p>hate this movie. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-241920"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">John Swift</span></span> on <a href="#comment-241920"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-01T17:45:30-08:00">March 1, 2008 5:45 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(241920, 'John Swift')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Whups. It appears my above transcription of dialogue between Llewellyn and the flirty woman (hooker?) at the swimming pool was wrong. When Llewellyn tells her he's just looking for what’s coming, she instead replies, "Yeah, but no one ever sees that. BEER! That’s what’s coming."</p> <p>Oh, well. Despite the slight change in wording, I still find that snippet of dialogue significant.</p> <p>While I'm at it, here are more thoughts about the film, regarding Chigurh in particular.</p> <p>Although it's apparent the story wants us to entertain the conceit Chigurh represents Death, I'm not sure I can do so, because of many nagging, literal questions about his nature. </p> <p>For example, if he is indeed Death, why is he in human form?</p> <p>My only way around this question is to believe he's chosen to appropriate and/or fabricate a human body to use at this particular time and place on earth. </p> <p>Unfortunately, this notion simply raises further questions. </p> <p>Namely, in choosing to adopt a human body, why has he settled for one that has such a deranged mind? </p> <p>Doesn't he find it intensely annoying to now have to shoot out door locks to gain entry? Drive stolen vehicles to get from A to B? Create explosive diversions to shop at the pharmacy? </p> <p>For such a sophisticated, top-level, high-functioning entity, isn't that rather declasse? </p> <p>Why would he stand for it? </p> <p>What's his reasoning behind it?</p> <p>Could he possibly be slumming? Doing research? Indulging some bizarre variety of hubris? </p> <p>Moreover, <i>why</i> would Death concentrate on a demanding, time-sapping stint in some dinky corner of Texas, when countless other humans are dying all over the globe every second, demanding his attention? Considering his workload, wouldn't he be needed extensively elsewhere? Or are we simply witnessing select moments when he's not driving/flying/walking to other destinations to dispatch whomever? (Indeed, perhaps he's given those other death's door candidates a temporary dispensation because he finds Texans more interesting?) </p> <p>To me, it all adds up to something beyond the pale, even in a Coen-esque movie universe where reality bends like putty.<br/> <br/> Ergo, the sole conclusion I can reach? Chigurh is not Death, but he's certainly human and insane (as Carson expresses so bluntly when he tells Chigurh, "You have any idea how crazy you are." More statement than question).</p> <p>Ah, the beauty of subjectivity.</p> <p>...And still and all, I think the movie is brilliant. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-247609"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Dave</span></span> on <a href="#comment-247609"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-07T23:06:59-08:00">March 7, 2008 11:06 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(247609, 'Dave')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I have to comment on this thread in relation to another recent film, "I am Legend" (bare with me here). It seems like every review (including Mr. Ebert's) made some comment about the impossibility of the mother and son driving to Manhattan after all the bridges leading to the island had been destroyed. I watched the movie closely waiting for the line that exposed this major blunder but it never came. No one ever says they drove to the island, in fact how they got there is never explained. My guess is they took a boat and then commandeered one of the thousands of cars abandoned across the city. In Mr. Ebert's review he does mention taking a boat but then asks "Why take the risk?" What risk? Rowing a boat across a short inland waterway? Hell, people row boats for pleasure every day and I bet some row then even further then the two characters had to in the film! Besides zombies only come out at night, it's a sunny day, and Mr. Smith's character clearly states he'll be at the pier each day at noon. Plenty of time to meet and retreat to a safe refuge. If you were one of the few remaining humans in existence wouldn't you take the risk to add one to your number?</p> <p>Now compare this to NCFOM, a film filled with so many plot holes and miscues that...looking for clever analogy but not finding one...ok, lets just say there's lots (the man didn't need "agua" he needed an ambulance. Drive to a phone booth, make an anonymous phone call and the man gets help. That scene was nothing more then a "grown-up" version of the teenager heading into the dark basement). Yet somehow those inconsistencies and cliches are conveniently dismissed or better yet explained away using existential mumbo-jumbo. Even though "I am Legend" is obviously based in fantasy and the Coen bothers go to great lengths to root NCFOM in reality (the spot on accents and dialog, the gruesomely realistic violence, the endless shots of run down motels) the fantasy film is dismissed because of <i>imagined</i> plot inconsistencies and the "art film" is praised, in part, because of <i>real</i> inconsistencies. So why the double standard? I'm not praising IAL, it was what it was. A holiday money maker but at least it was honest about what it was. NCFOM is a nicely constructed film, close to technically perfect but the plot? It's only there to provide a skeleton from which to hang some clever dialog and a few pretty pictures. The emperor has no clothes.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-251227"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">David</span></span> on <a href="#comment-251227"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-12T11:41:41-08:00">March 12, 2008 11:41 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(251227, 'David')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>The movie did not live up to its hype. I watched it in DVd last night with my wife and both of us were 'shocked' and angry with the cheap ending. Cheap because it gives in to the all the politically correct nonsense still prevalent about 'happy endings' being 'immature'. It is about answering questions posed to us by the Coens, "what happened to the killer and where is the money and how did the last battle at the motel unfold and why offer time to a brute from hell justifying killing Moss's wife? When you spend two hours with a movie you deserve answers, not frustration and anger at the filmakers. The ending was putrid, it just plain stunk. Ed Tom should have killed this monster with his own weapon or weapons, after Ed Tom lost a coin toss. Instead these great filmakers gave honor to chaos, obtusity and abstraction. Because of the stupid ending, this movie is an utter failure. Period.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-254234"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">kate</span></span> on <a href="#comment-254234"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-16T12:36:23-08:00">March 16, 2008 12:36 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(254234, 'kate')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Beautiful analysis. I just want to clarify an important opposition. Seeing forward (Moss) *vs* looking backward (Ed Tom). </p> <p>Moss is set up as a character who is always looking forward, looking ahead, looking in the distance. The binoculars, his looking into vents (which at one point is superimposed onto the image of a road). His statement that he is looking out the window for what's coming (and being told you can't see what's comng). He's in denial because he believes he can stop what's coming by seeing it first. </p> <p>Ed Tom is always looking backwards/into the past. He's reading about it, interpreting crime scenes, remembering/imagining the "oldtimers". His seeing the image of the cowboy/an iconic image of the past shows up twice: in the television in Moss's home; and in the motel room where he doesn't see the future (death/fate/Chigurh) he sees the cowboy image - the shadow on the wall, the past. (And perhaps that saves him for the moment?) His backward-looking inability to see the future/death is why he calls Chigurh a "ghost" - he can never see him. Ed Tom's in denial because he believes he can stop what's coming by living in the past/dropping out of the future/halting time (making what's coming wait on him). </p> <p>Yes, the characters never confront each other directly because they can't. They don't live in the same timeline. Moss looking forward, Ed Tom looking into the past and seeing the same scenes in the past, and Chigurh as fate/the future itself, which is the end of the road/the end of time itself. </p> <p>This is why we can only see Moss' death from Ed Tom's point of view. It's also why Ed Tom is the narrator. He's the only one who can be - he's the only one who sees the past. </p> <p>There are other permutations on seeing/seeing death. e.g. the accountant who asks Chigurh if he's going to shoot him, the answer: that depends, do you see me? (I'm confused by this, since throughout the movie, the outcome seems precisely never to depend on whether the character sees Chigurh or not). Also, the car which slams into Chigurh (presumably not seeing him and also presumably killing the driver). Carson (who represents the blase/too cool for school attitude towards death) is snuck up on by him and only grudgingly looks at him directly. The deputy who never sees death even while he's being killed. Carla, who knew it wasn't over, knows what death is when she sees it, looks at death directly, and refuses to see it as under her control (it's not the coin, it's you). </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-254241"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">kate</span></span> on <a href="#comment-254241"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-16T12:45:26-08:00">March 16, 2008 12:45 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(254241, 'kate')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I also disagree completely with your interpretation of the dream. The dream is Ed Tom's confrontation with death "all that cold and all that dark." And he sees it in the only way he can see it as someone who only looks backward - in a dream (compare to seeing Chigurh as a "ghost") and by looking into the past at his father going into it (who also went into it with his head down). Death to him can only be joining the past. </p> <p><i>JE: That's a beautiful interpretation, and I don't disagree with you. The important thing, I think, is that he sees his father preceding him. As he says before he tells the two dreams, he is now older than his father was when he died -- so, in death, his father is still his father, but a younger, stronger man leading the way into all that cold and all that dark.</i></p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-254254"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">R Vadam Roberts</span></span> on <a href="#comment-254254"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-16T13:16:16-08:00">March 16, 2008 1:16 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(254254, 'R Vadam Roberts')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>NCFOM and Blue Velvet should be contextualized in the mode of comedy, regardless how dark.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-255621"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">angela</span></span> on <a href="#comment-255621"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-18T12:02:28-08:00">March 18, 2008 12:02 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(255621, 'angela')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>No one ever said what happen to the money? And did carla die?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-257861"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Tom</span></span> on <a href="#comment-257861"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-21T13:48:16-08:00">March 21, 2008 1:48 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(257861, 'Tom')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Does anyone else see Llewellen as a completely unsympathetic character. I get the feeling that some of you are saying that. I think he gets everything he deserves and in the one moment of "human-ness" that Anton shows ("You can save your wife if you give up yourself" conversation) Llewellen takes the "evil" route and practically gives up his wife for the sake of his pride in winning/losing the chase. </p> <p>Anyone else think that Llewellen practically embodies all that is evil in Anton without actually pulling the trigger?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-257884"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Tom</span></span> on <a href="#comment-257884"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-21T14:43:57-08:00">March 21, 2008 2:43 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(257884, 'Tom')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Let me follow up with my stance on Llewellen as an unsympathetic character if that is OK.</p> <p>Llewellen is certainly a man seemingly "down on his luck" I also grant that there is no doubt that the money he has "found" would be put to "good" use to strengthen the lifestyle of his family. I think there is no disputing that he is a guy that has his OWN strands of moral fiber running through his life. (Didn't Anton have HIS OWN strands of morality ruling his life though?)</p> <p>The reason I do not consider him a sympathetic character is that he CHOOSES his destiny. He knows full well when he picks up the money that he has broken a "moral code" He even lays awake that first night to the point that he rises to take some water to the dying driver. Is it possible that he is taking the water in a feeble attempt to redeem himself in his own eyes for the "sin" that he just committed? Is it reasonable that he knows darn well that what he just did could have and already DOES HAVE consequences that are beyond his control?</p> <p>Even though he is the protagonist for the bulk of the movie, he exudes moments of antagonism even in the face of his last chance to BE the sympathetic character. When posed with the one chance he has (other than not taking the money in the first place) to sacrifice himself, turn in the money, and save his wife, Llewellen CHOOSES to let pride and his own shot at revenge to override the safety of his own wife. SHE is the sympathetic character. The only one with no real fault, thrown into a situation she neither created nor asked to be engaged in. </p> <p>As Anton forgoes his own set of standards or morals to allow one last chance for Llewellen to redeem himself for his transgressions, he disguises his own pride for male bravado and seals his wife's fate. Much like the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery, he is not only an accomplice to the crime, he is the criminal himself.</p> <p>Not the first time that he played the criminal in the movie, of course. After all, he did technically steal the money. The use of the money does not override the fact that he took money that was not his. Llewellen was another case of evil existing in the world. The real difference between he and Anton is we who watched the movie. We place some kind of weight on the heinousness of the crime, and as a result, place some kind of tragic feeling onto Llewellen's demise. </p> <p>The real tragic (and, in my opinion, only sympathetic character) is the Wife who is needlessly thrown into harms way.</p> <p><br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-258443"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">UncleLongHair</span></span> on <a href="#comment-258443"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-22T08:38:21-08:00">March 22, 2008 8:38 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(258443, 'UncleLongHair')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Thank you everyone for the interesting discussion. I watched this movie not knowing what I was getting into. I heard about all the Oscars, and admire the the Coen brothers, so I thought I was going to watch a good thriller. I will admit, though, that I was sorely disappointed by the movie, especially the ending. This led me to seek out various discussion areas online including this one in hopes of trying to make some sense of what I saw, and I found a lot of other people just as confused as I. </p> <p>I know this movie is highly regarded, but ultimately I think a movie has to have a theme and deliver a message and be entertaining at some level. If audiences walk away scratching their heads and remain confused days and weeks later, I don't feel that the film was successful. Many seem to take the attitude of "I didn't understand it therefore it must have been good". Everyone likes an unexpected twist or bit of symbology, but a story can't be completely opaque or it isn't a story, instead it's an indulgence of the author. James Joyce was said to have made Ulysses intentionally incomprehensible in a cynical attempt to give the critics something to think about, and NCFOM seems to be in the same category.</p> <p>To put it another way, if the film didn't have the brilliant visuals, and if the acting had been anything less than superb, I believe it would have been a flop, because all other aspects of the movie were lacking.</p> <p>The ending and its subsequent discussion reminds me of the last episode of the Sopranos (which incidentally aired at nearly the same time as this movie, June 2007 vs. an initial release of May 2007 for NCFOM). The disappointment felt by the legions of Sopranos fans was made obvious by the cable TV call centers that were overloaded with calls from people who thought their cable service went out at an inopportune time. Clearly the dedicated fans didn't "get" the show. Many viewers of NCFOM reported that audiences had a similar impression, and even asked for their money back after the movie.</p> <p>I enjoy movies and books that are symbolic and philosophical in nature and cause me to think, and I greatly enjoy the works of Hitchcock and Kubrick for example. However, after NCFOM I was left with so many fundamental questions that I was not sure of the point of what I saw.</p> <p>For instance, who was the main character, or protagonist? I can imagine it being any of Moss, Bell, or Chigurh. Was it a flawed hero? Or an anti-protagonist? What is the basic theme or conflict? Was it really good vs. evil? Or just demonstrating randomness? What was the message? How were Bell and Chigurh changed by the events of the movie? There is really no answer to these questions.</p> <p>It's astonishing to me that there is widespread uncertainty about what actually occurred in the climactic scene in the motel room near the end. Even extremely diligent observers and frequent viewers are unable to determine if Chigurh was in the room or not. Many have watched the scene many times, frame by frame. Many have read the book and some have even obtained the text of the actual movie script. Yet there is no certainty. As extremely skilled film makers, I can only conclude that the Coens made this ambiguous on purpose. But why? Is this some kind of rejection of conventional film making, to have a climax that is both anti-climactic and ambiguous? Maybe there is some "higher art" to this that I am missing, but to me this is just poor story telling and extremely self-indulgent on the part of the creators.</p> <p>My take on that scene was that Chigurh was indeed in the room, and that Sherriff Bell swung the door open and Chigurh was obscured behind it. The Sherriff -- who in many other scenes had noticed the minutest of details -- intentionally did not look behind the door or notice that it didn't bang on anything as it swung open, walked into the room to check the bathroom window, and knowingly had his back to Chigurh. I think that Lee wanted to be killed, and, facing emptiness and depression at the end of his life, was unable to commit suicide and instead wanted Chigurh to do the deed for him. Chigurh refused, knowing that his best chance of escape was to spare the sheriff, and he must have snuck out of the room while the sheriff was in the bathroom. But this is just my take -- an attempt to place a theme and a meaning onto that scene and the movie which may be completely incorrect.</p> <p>There are many tantalizing symbols in the movie, such as the use of pairs -- two trees for shade, pairs of motel rooms, heads or tails on the coins, etc. My take is that this is meant to symbolize good vs. evil which, if the film has one, seems to be a theme. This plus the visuals and acting I really enjoyed.</p> <p>However, and I am not one to nit pick over continuity problems, but the film had so many of them that I found it to be a major distraction. These are things that I just couldn't help noticing which, while I'm willing to overlook them, detracted significantly from the "willful suspension of disbelief" necessary to enjoy a movie.</p> <p>For instance, the film was supposed to be set in 1980 (as we learned from the comment about the date on the coin). Yet even the most casual observance of many scenes shows numerous things that clearly existed after 1980. Many of the cars were obviously from the mid to late 1980's. The cars on a typical street in 1980 were primarily from the 70's and 60's. Many restaurant signs and food items were clearly from later periods. </p> <p>Carson Wells makes a comment about withdrawing $14,000 from an ATM. ATM's were not even widespread in 1980 and those that were had very low limits, such as $100-200.</p> <p>Regarding the transponder in the money satchel, I don't think that sort of thing existed nor was readily available in 1980, remember this was a time when cell phones were the size of a briefcase. This seemed like a very incongruous piece of modern technology.</p> <p>Chigurh's strange "silenced shotgun" was also incongruous. I suppose it was meant as a dramatic tool of death, like Dirty Harry's pistol, and perhaps not to be taken too literally. But it was far too silent, had far too much range (such as in the scene when Moss was running away from Chigurh at the first motel), it seemed to be a shotgun, pistol, or rifle in different scenes depending on the need, which I just found to be very awkward.</p> <p>So, in all, while the film did succeed in sticking in my head for a few hours afterwards, I believe it was a failure, and I'll certainly look at future movies by the Coen brothers with a great deal more skepticism, worried that their awareness of being renowned artists is getting in the way of making good movies.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-258884"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://www.takezer0.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.takezer0.com/" rel="nofollow">Peter</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-258884"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-23T00:01:28-08:00">March 23, 2008 12:01 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(258884, 'Peter')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>UncleLongHair, it seems that your continuity problems stem from gut feelings. If you were an 80s historian, I would see what you're getting at; but perhaps the eighties were more sophisticated than you think? Besides, cars and other details from different eras spill over the decades (it's the 2000s, and I still see twenty-year-old cars from the 80s).</p> <p>The fact that Chigurh changed weapons means that, well, the guy changed weapons, that's all. It irks of that saying "I hate the color blue because it's not pink." In other words, this isn't criticism at all, because it argues against something for what it clearly is not, and can never be proven. If you are willing to apply that much reality to a movie that is obviously unreal, the catch is this: can you prove that Chigurh *didn't* stop by a gun shop between scenes?</p> <p>For some reason, viewers hold the belief that movies must emulate reality. Art must do no such thing, because it is subjective versus the real thing.</p> <p>Most of the details in the book are unchanged in the movie. I take it the Coen's wanted to use the book's level of detail as a stylistic device, just like The Odyssey in "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" So there you have it: a stylist mimicking a stylist mimicking (mocking?) real life. Maybe Cormac McCarthy, the author, should be blamed. Then again, the guy uses a lot of incongruities and plot devices to elevate his style; thus, his art. And again we enter the realm of subjectivity, of true art, of any art.</p> <p>There is no holistic *point* to art, because if there were, it would no longer be art. The worst thing one can do is impose upon a work of art in the guise of criticism. To be disappointed in a movie for what it never wanted to be... To extrapolate your own meanings from a meaning of a meaning that may have been confused to begin with, well... The trick is to like a movie because it's blue, and not pink. From that point on, it's easy to "get" it.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-259070"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Arne Hartmann</span></span> on <a href="#comment-259070"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-23T08:02:30-08:00">March 23, 2008 8:02 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(259070, 'Arne Hartmann')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Greetings from Germany where the movie has just started. </p> <p>I would like to add two comments.</p> <p>The movie leaves a strange feeling for most of the audience, because it constructs itself towards a climax and then basically falls into pieces just before the audiance expects the big showdown between Chigurh and Llewelyn. The Mexicans kill Llewelyn before he can face what he is suppose to face: Chigurh, his destiny. That is not the ending you are neither familiar with from a typical Hollywood movie nor a classical Western where you expect the good guy facing the bad one at the end. Why did the Coens deconstruct their movie like this leaving the audience puzzled?</p> <p>The most important scene for me is where Carla Jean meets Chigurh. Chigurh wants the woman to play is game, to seal her fate with a coin toss. All other characters played by the rules of Chigurh, the personified symbol of destiny. But in the end it was up to simpleminded Carla Jean to rebel against her destiny. She was the one to call Chigurh's game, she retained her free will. Not Chigurh/Chance/destiny but Carla Jean herself determins her life. Or with the Words of Sartre: Existence precedes Essence.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-259455"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Fulker</span></span> on <a href="#comment-259455"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-23T23:57:16-08:00">March 23, 2008 11:57 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(259455, 'Fulker')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Wow, great review of NCFOM and some interesting interpretations of the movie. Like many of the people out there that have seen this movie or read this book I have my own ideas of this story, I'll try to keep it to the point.</p> <p>Sheriff Bell = Faith<br/> Chigurh = Fate</p> <p>The question to ask yourself is even tho faith and fate are similar what is the key difference between these two belief systems. To me the answer defines the difference between the antagonist and protagonist of this story. </p> <p>I like reading that people think that Chigurh is a ghost in this movie but wished that more would dig deeper as to what they mean by ghost. What did most of you think when Sheriff Bell enters the motel room after Llewelyn's death and we the viewers know that Chigurh is waiting for him inside the room. It's clear from the close-up that the window in the bathroom window is locked from the inside so it's likely Chigurh is still the room. There was only one area of that room we the viewer were not privy to seeing and that was opposite side of that bathroom. But its clear Sheriff Bell looks to that side of the bathroom and sees nothing. It's curious that Coen brothers didn't allow us to see what he was looking at. My belief is that Chigurh is standing face to face with Bell only feet away, both of them looking directly at each other. Why didn't Bell see him and why didn't Chigurh kill him? Remember Bell telling the story about the cattle bolt gun but never making the connection? Remember what Chigurh asked the accountant when he was asked if he was going to kill him? Hmmmmmm.</p> <p>One more bit of blabbing for those of you willing to read my post. What was the symbolism of the Jacket Llewelyn attains and the shirt that Chigurh attains? Which belief system champions these two interactions, faith or fate? </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-259853"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">anon</span></span> on <a href="#comment-259853"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-24T15:38:30-08:00">March 24, 2008 3:38 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(259853, 'anon')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>What was the significance of Moss's spraying his feet for ahtlete's foot before putting on new boots? Simply that he was walking a lot? Seemed to be shown on purpose. Also, why did he keep returning to the same store to get clothes? Why not go to a different store and not create suspecion. After all, he was being followed. Why make himself so memorable to everyone around him? </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-259875"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Mikey</span></span> on <a href="#comment-259875"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-24T16:30:41-08:00">March 24, 2008 4:30 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(259875, 'Mikey')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I would like to weigh in on the bridge crossings aspect. Anton crosses his own bridge where he shoots at the crow from inside of his vehicle. What does this signify? What does the crow represent and why is it an obstacle he deems worthy of killing? <br/> I wonder if he crossed a point of no return himself. He gets shot by Moss and impassively treats his wound, not a trace of pain on his face and continues his ceaseless pursuit. After being hit by the car he is grievously injured and must pause to rest for the first time. He is clearly in pain and barters for not only the shirt, but the boys' silence and cooperation. Has he violated his principles here and 'walks away' from his pursuit? Great discussion here, by the way. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-260352"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Stanley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-260352"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-25T08:38:57-08:00">March 25, 2008 8:38 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(260352, 'Stanley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I reply above,<br/> I have been trying to say that in several posts but you said it superbly. This movie is art and is not bound by any specifics we know as reality. Anything can and should be able to happen. Thus a movie that appears to be about a drug deal gone wrong can also be a take fabel or allegory about the randomness of fate and the inevitability of death. Like you Peter, I grow tired of people giving out about the film because it wasn't the movie they expected. There is no introduction to the movie that says it will be a strict cops and robbers story so why do folk imagine it's going to be. It's fine that people don't get the movie, it's a free world and all that, don't take your lack of understanding out on the movie though. Good post Peter.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-260652"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Tom</span></span> on <a href="#comment-260652"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-25T19:44:03-08:00">March 25, 2008 7:44 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(260652, 'Tom')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Still curious if anyone else sees Llewellen as an unsympathetic character?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-264518"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">S</span></span> on <a href="#comment-264518"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-30T17:35:14-08:00">March 30, 2008 5:35 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(264518, 'S')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I live near where the scene near the end was filmed, with TLJ going into the hotel room and we see the glimpse of Anton etc. I even drove through the hotel parking lot to double check what I recall. The Coens' didn't have anything to do with the hotel room numbering. It remains as you see in the film and has always been that way. The Coens might have chosen those two rooms for that reason, but they didn't change the numbering. Much of the film was shot in the Albuquerque NM area, and that hotel is on Central, in Albuquerque. Did you notice the Carl's Jr across the street from it? I thought that might be anachronistic for the 1980s, but there it is! If the Coens were total control freaks of the mis-en-scene, they might have chosen a non-Carl's Jr location -- and might have tinkered with the door numbering. </p> <p>It has ever been a hotel with no room #113...</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-264638"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">dave</span></span> on <a href="#comment-264638"><abbr class="published" title="2008-03-30T20:38:09-08:00">March 30, 2008 8:38 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(264638, 'dave')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>When Chigurh is given the transponder receiver he then kills Root's associates, and thus becomes a 'loose cannon' to Root. This leads to hire of Carson Wells, the second receiver being given to the Mexicans, and eventually Root's death. What is Chigurh's motivation to kill these two men? They delivered the receiver to Chigurh. Other than making Chigurh 'ride b***h' what is their offense? </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-269071"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Tom</span></span> on <a href="#comment-269071"><abbr class="published" title="2008-04-06T21:27:11-08:00">April 6, 2008 9:27 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(269071, 'Tom')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Quick question:<br/> In the scene where Sheriff Bell goes back into the hotel room near the end of the movie and Chigurh is hiding behind the door, does he leave out the window before Sheriff Bell enters the room? This is what seems to make sense and what I originally thought, but someone I discussed it with swears that the close-up of the window indicates that it is locked and that Chigurh must still be in the room. I would appreaciate anyone who could help me out on this one. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-271016"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Lezlie</span></span> on <a href="#comment-271016"><abbr class="published" title="2008-04-08T22:35:01-08:00">April 8, 2008 10:35 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(271016, 'Lezlie')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Fascinating post. Am I the only person who doesn't understand Chigurh's last scene with Carla Jean? She won't call the coin, why? What was Chigurh's internal reaction to her? Did he kill her? Or, if he didn't, why?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-271454"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">rob</span></span> on <a href="#comment-271454"><abbr class="published" title="2008-04-09T10:52:35-08:00">April 9, 2008 10:52 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(271454, 'rob')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>This movie should have been called "No Rules" but No Country for Old Men adds more of a mystique. For the record, Sheriff Bell is the main character of which the theme of the movie is built around. Imagine dropping Wyatt Earp into LA, Vegas or Arizona and asking him to control violence, DRUGS, murder, illegal gambling, illegal aliens crossing the border, etc. He like Sheriff Bell would realize that his time and understanding of and the parameters of law has come to an end. It would be beyond Earp's means of comprehension. Earp in his own time had to relinquish the reins of the law to a generation immersed in lawlessness. This is essentially what Sheriff Bell did. Give up or die trying to make sense out of the senseless. This is now a country that has no rules to abide by and morally out of Bell's comprehension. To answer Tom '08... Chigurh is in the room and Bell knows it. I think that Bell chooses to leave whether than confront his own life or death situation. As he sits on the bed and at that precise moments sees the bolt on the floor he knows. He can't see Chigurh, but is not sure that Chigurh can't see him and in essence has the drop on the old man. During the day when Llewleyn was murdered, the bolt was in tact. This is the second time that Bell has gone to a hotel and noticed that and realizes the Chigurh returns to the scene of the crime because he looking for something. When Sheriff Bells speaks to his ole friend and wife the next day, he confronts his own mortality and weariness and thinks, do I in essence, pursue my own death, because this is too much for me or do I let this one go and live on. I don't see Bell as Faith and Chigurh as Fate or as the devil. Chigurh is a psychotic killer with his own skewed code of conduct that allows him to do business void of a conscious. Bell must be realized in his own frame of existence, he is a cop, keeper of the law, bold, arrogant, fearless and in its own form, mentally deranged. What makes a fireman run into a burning building? What makes a policeman position himself between a waive of gunfire and a civilian. It is irrational to me. To sum it up...Sheriff Bell in his hey day had his own code of pursuit not much unlike Chigurh, today he is old and too dam'd tire to care anymore. Don't think to much...stay with the main themes and remember the KISS theory. keep it simple stupid.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-275885"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Frank</span></span> on <a href="#comment-275885"><abbr class="published" title="2008-04-14T07:18:50-08:00">April 14, 2008 7:18 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(275885, 'Frank')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Great analytical review. Just watched it the other day, and this really put it all together for me. And it gives me a new appreciation of the film as well.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-279833"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">WWL</span></span> on <a href="#comment-279833"><abbr class="published" title="2008-04-17T14:05:06-08:00">April 17, 2008 2:05 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(279833, 'WWL')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I would like to make a few observations. I want to comment on the quarter used in the game of chance with the store clerk. The quarter was dated “1958.” Ingmar Bergman’s movie: The Seventh Seal was released in 1957. The Coen brothers are kind of saying: this is a new version of The Seventh Seal. Also, throughout the Seventh Seal the knight is playing chess with death in a vain attempt to protect his queen. However, the movie ends with death securing both the knight and the queen. In my opinion, to understand to properly understand this movie, one must delve into the symbolism of the 1957 movie classic: The Seventh Seal.<br/> I am left with one inescapable conclusion: Anton Chigurh is death himself. Moss is being chased (not by Chigurh) but by the Mexican drug lords. This chase brings with it the symbolic figure of death (represented by Chigurh) that is simply waiting for the Mexicans (through fate and chance) to finally catch up with Moss.<br/> As to whether Chigurh was in the hotel room when Bell entered: of course he was there! Death is always lurking around each one of us, and is literally a moment behind us if fate and chance converge. However, in Bell’s case, that moment simply wasn’t his time to meet his maker.<br/> The other obvious reference to The Seventh Seal is when Carson wells directly compares Chigurh to the Bubonic Plague. That was what was ravaging the Knight’s homeland when he returned from the crusades in The Seventh Seal. The bubonic plague is what eventually killed the knight; death was simply waiting for that moment to occur.<br/> In The Seventh Seal death dresses up as a priest in a confessional and the Knight discusses chess playing strategy with him (even thought the knight does not realize he is conversing with death). This is eerily similar to the conversation between Chigurh and Moss on the phone, while Moss is in the Mexican hospital.<br/> Some are asking as to whether Moss’ wife died. Of course she died! But I really don’t know how. She may have committed suicide or the last remnant of the Mexican drug lords may have been waiting to ambush her. Yet, death (Chigurh) did get her and she becomes the second to last person to die in the movie. Who was the last person to die you ask? Answer: the random stranger in the car who (through chance and fate) encountered death on the way home, just like I might today, tomorrow or 30 years from now. I suppose, in the end, there is nothing I fear more than death (or the death of my children or wife). As such, it made the Chigurh character the most terrifying villain I have ever seen on film.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-284663"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Amy</span></span> on <a href="#comment-284663"><abbr class="published" title="2008-04-21T22:50:16-08:00">April 21, 2008 10:50 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(284663, 'Amy')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Let me begin by saying that I love the Coens. Fargo is by far one of the best films ever made. That said, I did not particularly like No Country for Old Men. I can't disagree that the visuals and the acting were superb, but I found the movie as a whole to be confusing and unsatisfying. I think that a film can be so saturated with symbolism and ambiguousness that it detracts from the pure enjoyment of the story. I would prefer a better balance of symbolism and a graspable storyline.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-286309"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Kim</span></span> on <a href="#comment-286309"><abbr class="published" title="2008-04-23T06:14:23-08:00">April 23, 2008 6:14 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(286309, 'Kim')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Good review and thanks for pointing out some of the symbolism and reoccuring motifs. </p> <p>As far as theme, I have to say that in many ways I think Iraq (for the film) and Vietnam (for the book) is the shadow from which this story is told. I think that, as you said, Chigurh is not as important to examine as much as peoples response to him. It's an exercise in "know thyne enemy". To many, Chigurh is a walking evil automaton who indiscriminately kills everything in his path. However, in a few short scenes (with the store-clerk, Carla Jean, and Carter Wells) we get to see a man of principle but principles that these West Texas characters do not entirely understand or simply dismiss. To say that he is some incomprensible evil, as Sheriff Bell would see it, or merely a crazy psychopathic killer, as Carson Wells figures it, is to suggest that he has no value system at all. He does have a moral compass, one deeply rooted in the concept of chance and fate.</p> <p>In many ways, McCarthy seems to be suggesting that in the new world (post-WWII) our enemies are not going to be of a European persuasion with common morality and shared values. That we will be witnessing enemies that have drastically different takes on the value of life and motivations that don't always seem obvious to us.</p> <p>Both Bell and Moss try to combat this new enemy, one through a nostalgic sense of forlorn weariness and one, Moss, by being every bit as resourceful (or, at least nearly) as Chigurh but too preoccupied with keeping Carla Jean and his money safe to focus exlusively of the danger that Chigurh poses. I say that Moss is only nearly as resourceful because he himself gets caught up in a hospital which allows Chigurgh to get closer to him while Chigurgh, when injured, is able to take matters into his own hands and patch himself up. Also, he does not have to worry about money or a wife. Moss, like America, has to juggle doing battle with his enemy while keeping the homefront safe and his economic concerns intact. This puts him (and our country) at a distinct disadvantage to an enemy who only has to worry about his target.</p> <p>More of the Iraq allegory plays out when from the beginning, Moss inserts himself (in the desert no less) into a hostile situation with depths of danger that he cannot fully comprehend. But still, he takes greedy advantage of the misery of others, a slight for which he must now pay retribution. Chigurgh is that retribution. Moss' punisher does not care that he did not create the situation, he only cares that he is involved. As far as Chigurh is concerned, all those who die along the way are dead through the fault of Moss who allowed these people--motel clerks, random late-night drivers--to come between Chigurh and himself. The two people who did not directly effect Chigurh's ability to capture Moss (the store clerk and Carla Jean) he left it to chance to decide their fate. Although, it must be said that Moss had the opportunity to save Carla Jean's life by giving himself up. Additionally, Carla Jean sealed her fate when she (like Carter Wells) wrote him and his game of chance off as bogus, thus belittling him and casting him as simply crazy. </p> <p>The most ironic thing about the cat and mouse game between Moss and Chigurh is that Chigurh isn't even the one that does Moss in. Both men, though focused on each other, take their sights off the chase for one short moment (Moss while flirting with the woman poolside and Chigurgh while looking at the kids on bikes in the rear-view mirror) and it is in these two instances that they each get blind-sided. Moss simply doesn't get as lucky as Chigurh.</p> <p>In the end, I think this is a story about not selling your enemy short and trying to find creative ways to confront him. Relying on nostalgic nobility or greedy self-sufficiency is not enough. You have to try, as best as possible, to see what your enemy sees. Don't fear the confrontation but don't enter into it lightly either. You have to use light to guide you into the dark.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-295151"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Don O'Brien</span></span> on <a href="#comment-295151"><abbr class="published" title="2008-04-30T06:39:40-08:00">April 30, 2008 6:39 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(295151, 'Don O\'Brien')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>When I first saw the film, I had the same take as Jim: Chigurh is in the other room. However, looking at the scene shot by shot, I realize that he's not in the other room. The set-up shots show he's in the room that Ed Tom enters.</p> <p>In the set-up shots, Chigurh's back is to the wall in front of the door, and the door is on his left. Motel rooms mirror each other, so for Chigurh to have his back to the wall in the other room, the door would be on his right. Look at the shots of the room before and after Ed Tom enters.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-297521"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Brian</span></span> on <a href="#comment-297521"><abbr class="published" title="2008-05-01T20:00:00-08:00">May 1, 2008 8:00 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(297521, 'Brian')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Can't say I agree that the film is "masterful." How can you praise a movie that keeps its leads separate throughout?</p> <p>One peeve of mine in relation to perceptions of the film: "Bell is reluctantly playing catch-up throughout the whole picture"--*Is* he? To me, his "playing catch-up" is lackadaisical at best, with no real effort or method behind it.</p> <p>The illogic of Bell's entry of the hotel room and Chigurh's presence just caps the film's problems. Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" is more understandable than this film.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-310605"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">bill</span></span> on <a href="#comment-310605"><abbr class="published" title="2008-05-10T15:35:08-08:00">May 10, 2008 3:35 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(310605, 'bill')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Did anyone catch the amount of times that cats were pictured in the movie? The first one was dead under Moss's trailor when he went to hide the gun. There was also the cat at the Clerk desk. Lastly was the multiple cats at the scene when it shows Bell talking to the old man in the wheel chair. I think that the dead cat in the begining means that he had made a terrible mistake and he is going to die. It is said to be that cats have nine lives and the dead cat could symbolize that Moss is going to die. Also I thought that the scene at the end where Bell talks to the old man, i think the old man is his dad, and its a dream because his dad is dead. All the cats in the backround symbolize heaven in a way. I am not sure but i think this might have somthing to do with the movie. Commet back, thanks.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-313265"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Jesse B.</span></span> on <a href="#comment-313265"><abbr class="published" title="2008-05-12T11:13:08-08:00">May 12, 2008 11:13 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(313265, 'Jesse B.')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>First, I would like to express my apologies if the remark that I am about to make about the film has already been expressed. I have not read most of the comments that have, to this point, been provided. </p> <p>I did want to expound upon one thing, though. I have notice that many people have expressed a profound sense of befuddlement to the anti-climactic ending of the film; an ending where the bad guy seems to get away and life (at least for some people) simply goes on. From the very beginning of the film we encounter a simplistic ideology, one presented by the film's antagonist, the Sheriff played by Tommy-Lee Jone. He expresses a similar sort of befuddlement in response to the growing range of crimes that he, in his old age, is unfortunately privy to. He can no longer understand the motives behind such reckless behavior, if ever he could in the first place. The story that the movie portrays is, of course, seen through the nobles eyes of this "simple" country boy. Now, I am not going to waste a lot of time going into the details of the plot. In all reality, the plot in this film is merely a device used by the writers to make abundantly clear the moral of this tale. At the end, after witnessing a man murder a dozen or so people in the coldness of his blood, we simply see him the victim of a senseless act, a car accident. After that he drives away, never to be heard from, rather chronicled, again. We hear a short tale devised by the dreamy mind of our old sheriff about his father, and that is it. What does it all mean? It means that what we have just seen are a number of senseless acts. We as an audience would love to have seen Josh Brolin get away with the money, the Sheriff catch the bad guy and the bad guy go to jail, and possibly executed. This would smooth out the wrinkles of our mind a bit by the end of the film, but in a stroke of pure genius, we are not given a reason, or resolution, because the acts of violence and the choices that were made were truly senseless. That is the whole moral of the story. The senselessness of violence. And in that case, this is "No Country for Old Men". </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-323184"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Tim Schoch</span></span> on <a href="#comment-323184"><abbr class="published" title="2008-05-19T07:42:59-08:00">May 19, 2008 7:42 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(323184, 'Tim Schoch')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>When a film is too elusive for a general audience, how can it become so popular and praised? Certainly a film can't be predicated on the assumption that the viewers read the novel. And if, in the tradition of Andy Kaufman, the film is not about the story (or the joke) but the upsetting lack of resolutions (punchlines), it creates places viewers in a situation where closure is not forthcoming. In this film, we had no idea there'd be no closure to the story, only endings for the marvelous and poetic characters. This film is vaporous to me, a beautiful quilt where the pieces keep changing and the colors fading, and its value untrustworthy. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-328625"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Jason</span></span> on <a href="#comment-328625"><abbr class="published" title="2008-05-22T07:58:49-08:00">May 22, 2008 7:58 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(328625, 'Jason')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Wow, great blog! I've enjoyed reading the many interpretations of this film. I don't have one myself, but would like to offer analysis on the motel room scene.</p> <p>I think it is posible to elimate two possible scenarios from discussion. The first is that Chigurh escaped from the room after Bell entered. Having watched the film on Blu-ray, there is a split second after the POV switches from outside to inside the motel room, where the area behind the door is visible. Chigurh isn't there. One could argue that it was never intended for the viewer to observe this, but we also hear the door hit flat against the wall and there isn't room for a person to be behind it. Furthermore, not only would Chigurh have to be hiding behind the door, but also his cattle gun, air tank and satchel of money. It just isn't possible. When the Coens focus long on the the locked bathroom window, they are telling the viewer "Chigurh didn't escape from the room. What happened to him?". Hiding under the bed or in the closet (which was open) which Bell walked right by are not possible options. We have to look at other possibilities.</p> <p>The second scenario which can be eliminated is Chigurh was hiding in the adjoining motel room. First of all, the room didn't even play in the movie. The room was roped off for the crime scene only because of the location of the pillar outside. The lock of the adjoining room does not appear to be blown out, and if it had been, certainly Bell would have checked that room. In the scenes at the Del Rio motel, Chigurh DID NOT rent the adjoining room to Moss. He rented a room a few doors down which had the same floor plan and orientation, so he could test run his break in of the room. The movie shows him on his way to Moss's room walking past a few rooms in his stocking feet.</p> <p>Finally, the adjoining room has the opposite (mirrored) floor plan to Moss's room. Chigurh was shown hiding behind the door with the door and the light coming in from his left. However, if Chigurh was hiding behind the door in the adjoining room, the orientation should be reversed, the door and the light coming through the lock (had it been blown, which it wasn't) should be from Chigurh's right. but it isn't.</p> <p>For me, that leaves two possibilities. The first is that Bell imagined Chigurh on the other side of the door. One could argue that although Bell had never seen Chigurh heretofore in the movie in order to imagine his face, that Chigurh as a symbol of evil REPRESENTED what Bell feared most (as detailed in the opening monolgue). However, there is one shot from the inside which shows what Chigurh is seeing through the blown lock. So Bell would have to be imagining what Chigurh is able to see from his POV. Thats seems to be a bit of a stretch.</p> <p>That leaves only one possibility in my opinion. That Bell did not see/meet Chigurh for metaphorical reasons. Chigurh represents death or greed and Bell did not "see" him because Bell wasn't greedy or Bell wasn't ready to meet the evil that he said he didn't want to meet in his opening monologue.</p> <p>So I just wanted to throw this out there. I look forward to others comments and interpretations.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-338351"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Purple Dingo</span></span> on <a href="#comment-338351"><abbr class="published" title="2008-05-28T02:11:57-08:00">May 28, 2008 2:11 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(338351, 'Purple Dingo')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Anyone else think there is something to be said for the people/animal dichotomy? Chigurh's weapon of choice is usually reserved for steer. The California killer family is not noticed for their human graves, but for the victim wearing a dog collar. The dying Mexican who asked for water managed to choke out "The door... there are wolves." This is not to mention all the other dogs, cats, and other animals in the story. I'm thinking that the two killers' animal references are supposed to underscore their takes on the value of human life. The other possibility is that people are animals in relation to the "contest between man and cow", which becomes particularly interesting when Chigurh finally meets his match in an otherwise lowly character.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-345224"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">PARadtke</span></span> on <a href="#comment-345224"><abbr class="published" title="2008-05-31T20:15:07-08:00">May 31, 2008 8:15 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(345224, 'PARadtke')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Chigurh follows the money with a tracing device. How did he know the frequency of the device? <br/> The tracing device is gone yet Chigurh shows up at a motel at the end. . How did he know? Did his wife tell Chigurh. <br/> What an ending, two geezers yapping. What happened to the money? Okay, it doesn't matter.<br/> Wait for Old Men II.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-347232"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">ec</span></span> on <a href="#comment-347232"><abbr class="published" title="2008-06-01T20:01:18-08:00">June 1, 2008 8:01 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(347232, 'ec')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Did anyone notice that there is a shadow formed on the motel wall from the do not cross police tape as Bell enters the room where Chighur may or may not be, but when he comes out of the bathroom, that shadow is gone. This suggested to me that Chighur was in fact hiding somewhere (besides behind the door) in the room. Just an observation.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-350516"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Stanley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-350516"><abbr class="published" title="2008-06-03T10:56:09-08:00">June 3, 2008 10:56 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(350516, 'Stanley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>To PARadtke May 31st,<br/> Are you serious?!? How did chigure know what frequency? I am imaigning a sceen around a table with adults talking and a child watching. The child wants to take part in the grown up conversation but can't follow the subject matter. Instead the child asks, in as adult a voice as they can muster and asks a childish question. This is my immediate impression of you. <br/> The story is told from Bell's point of view, it's his narative. After buying the DVD and watching the movie a couple of times over the last few days, I have a theory or two. Moss oddessey is Bell imaginging how things worked out. Remember, when bell meets Carla-Jean in the cafe he admits 'My mind wanders' I think we can assume his mind can wander to the extent it conjours Moss' entire adventure. Remember, McCarthy was writing a novel. He wasn't writing an acedemic piece on fate, chance, free will and the affect they have on the humand condition. He was writing an entertaining piece which covered the above themes but also had to include a 'page turner' narative. <br/> In short, the movie is Bell's imagination trying to come to terms with what is unfolding and the meaning of it all. It is akin to Mulholland Drive in that respect.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-367952"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Hans van der Made</span></span> on <a href="#comment-367952"><abbr class="published" title="2008-06-14T05:15:47-08:00">June 14, 2008 5:15 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(367952, 'Hans van der Made')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Personally, I feel Chigurh isn't death, even if he personifies the image of death on a certain level. For me he's a mortal character: human, but without humanity. No real identity, no conscience, alienated from the people around him. The rules he follows aren't there to control his victims but exist mainly for him to hold on to, as he has nothing else to guide him. He has nothing meaningful in life and holds a grudge against the ordinary people, whose lives do have meaning, yet they take it for granted. They have what he has not (humanity, love, morality) so he proves that humanity is flawed (paying the kid, telling Carla Jean her husband is responsible for her situation) and how easily it is destroyed.</p> <p>Both the kid who refuses money and Carla Jean, who refuses the coin toss, really annoy him, as they refuse to confirm his image of humanity as weak and corruptable. Carla Jean may have survived, or lost her life, but it isn't really that important as she has won either way, by not playing his game and showing her superiority, as a real human being.</p> <p>About the money at the border crossing, I'd like to think that the only the first part of the movie is about the money case. At a certain point, it's simply thrown over the fence, put aside. It's not that relevant anymore. In the end, Chigurh walks out, not drives, damaged, with a severely broken right arm (can he ever shoot again?). The car crash shows his fragility and the friendly suburb, kid and Carla Jean all expose him as a freak without a soul. Llewelyn falls victim of his greed and pride, making the wrong choices and paying the price. He is neither a read bad ass or a real human, so he loses on both fronts and dies without his wife by his side. Like the others, Sheriff Bell is shown a mirror as well: he is no longer part of the action. Llewelyn is, and he clearly sympathises, but Llewelyn's fate shows him what happens when humans try to fight an animal's fight. Having lost his identity (as a tough guy sheriff), he mourns and struggles to move on.</p> <p>Both sheriff and bad guy are shown their nature, through each other, and neither walks out unharmed. A direct confrontation seems avoided by both, in the motel scene. I can't tell why, but it makes sense in a way. Bell gets to choose, if he's still a believer, willing to fight and die for the cause. His reluctance shows and Chigurh, by not killing him, confirms that Bell is obsolete and no longer a true adversary.</p> <p>A very interesting movie, can't wait to see it a second time. Thanks for all your opinions here. I'm glad to see more people tend to dig a bit deeper than the usual shallow reviews.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-433120"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://top250.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/no-country-for-old-men-dvd/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://top250.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/no-country-for-old-men-dvd/" rel="nofollow">Chloe Wheeler</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-433120"><abbr class="published" title="2008-07-28T02:56:31-08:00">July 28, 2008 2:56 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(433120, 'Chloe Wheeler')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Really great analysis, makes me wonder how so many people can bash NCFOM --- amateurs!</p> <p>i just recently downloaded the ipod version -- i have been watching bits on my commute to work to decipher some of the points brought up on this post. thanks again!</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-435582"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Strangefate</span></span> on <a href="#comment-435582"><abbr class="published" title="2008-08-02T06:24:00-08:00">August 2, 2008 6:24 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(435582, 'Strangefate')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Is it possible there’s a more mythical framework behind things? With the Man in the Office a sort of God-like figure? He’s up in some lofty tower, on a floor that according to Wells doesn’t exist, and he’s the one who gives a transponder to Chigurh and the Mexicans, then later sends Wells after it. In other words, he sets the events of this world into action, but proves unable to contain them. Indeed, Chigurh/Death eventually shows up and kills him too. </p> <p>There’s also an interesting recurring theme in the film that all good deeds go punished. Various characters are mowed down because they try to do the right (Christian?) thing and help someone. This suggests Bell’s view of his movie world is correct. It’s a hell on earth, with forces running amok that cannot be stopped or even understood. Death strides across the land unimpeded and nothing can defeat him. </p> <p>Not grit/cleverness (Moss), not the people we’ve designated to protect us (Bell -- the sheriff’s cowardice throughout the film is overwhelming, he avoids facing death or danger at every possible juncture, this possibly being why he didn’t see Chigurh in the hotel room; he was there but Bell refused to face him, not sure that Chigurh ever kills anyone who didn’t first look him in the eye), not a heaven-sent savior (Wells -- who arrives on the scene dressed in white/light colors, offering to save Moss from the bad guy and even give him a fair share of the loot, only to end up shockingly inept), and not even random chance (the unseen car driver). </p> <p>So to me it seems like a very dark fable. Mankind is simply overwhelmed by a hostile world and maybe it’s always been that way. Nothing can meet it or even slow it down. Although I think there *is* a suggestion that Bell is in some way despicable/pathetic for not doing more/trying harder. His father perhaps riding on without him to light a fire, because Bell proved incapable of lighting any fires in the darkness himself.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-458511"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Feral Kitty</span></span> on <a href="#comment-458511"><abbr class="published" title="2008-09-10T16:46:19-08:00">September 10, 2008 4:46 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(458511, 'Feral Kitty')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>My interpretation of the story is that it is all about Bell dealing with aging/lack of control (ergo. No Country for OLD MEN). </p> <p>The recollection of the events between Moss and Chigurh are merely a story/allegory that he recalls which justified the moment of his retirement=coming to terms with the fact that he has no control over the world/the world does not conform to his rules of the way life should be. </p> <p>The Moss/"Drug deal gone bad" case probably wasn't the worst that Bell ever saw... what made this case different is it was the moment where his feral side/youth was overshadowed by his age/years of experience. </p> <p>In this way Chigurh and Carson weren't representations of good and evil, as much as they represented the choices that lead to potential fates of Moss as perceived by Bell.<br/> <br/> Carson represents the choices that Moss could have made that would have led to a more favorable fate in the perception of Bell and Chigurh is the choices that are not understandable to Bell. </p> <p>For Bell, the metaphor of Moss giving the money to Carson, represents Moss contacting Bell for help. Bell thinks he understands the likely fate for this choice as favorable which would be Moss saving his wife (at the very least), if not his own life also. </p> <p>The choice of Moss to run with the money and attract the unwanted attention of the drug dealers was a choice that Bell did not understand, so his perception wrapped the choices leading to his eventual fate up in the metaphor of Chigurh. Chigurh's demeanor was so cold because Moss could not understand him/his motivations/the events that lead to undesirable fates. Chigurh, as represented in the end, was an "accident waiting to happen." </p> <p>At the beginning of the movie Bell talks about the situation where the young man willingly went to the death chair because of a desire to kill. Bell cannot understand how a desire to kill would overshadow a desire to live... Bell doesn't understand the choice that the young man made. </p> <p>Bell come's to the conclusion that the world does not conform to his sense of justice and that feral (explained in a moment)/random/not understandable choices will always be made by people and that there is nothing that he can do to change that. </p> <p>When Bell talks to the Sheriff of the town that Moss was shot in, they discuss their confusion of the world. This discussion reveals their belief that the world has changed and left the moral center that they live by.</p> <p>When Bell talks to his uncle later, his uncle tells him that the world has always been a confusing/random place without any specific moral center. (Much like animals who are motivated instinctually.) His uncle explains that Bell only thought that the world conformed to his sense of justice and right and wrong, when the reality is that the world has always been wild/feral and random... and that there have always been unexplainable lethal choices that have been made.</p> <p>A good example of this is how a lot of older people think that the world is worse than it's ever been. The reality is that an individuals Civil rights worldwide are more respected than they have been at any other time in history, there have been tremendous medical and technological advances that help people who would not have been helped in the past etc. There is a sense of nostalgia that makes people long for the good ole' days... but when re-examined factually, are the good ole' days as good as people perceive them?</p> <p>People are a lot like the cats in the Uncle's house... as we age, the rules that we conform to and believe that we should live by tame us/domesticate us in a way. As we get older we tend to think that those ideals are the only way... you can't teach an old dog new tricks. When we are young, like Moss, we are a bit more feral and are willing to challenge our ideas and the ideas of others as to what is "the way to live". </p> <p>Moss, while conflicted with the choice to make that would lead to a more favorable fate, was still young enough to not totally be tamed by one idea of "the safe/right way to live". This allowed Moss to make the choices that he did. In general, young people tend to take more chances than older people. </p> <p>Bell on the other hand realized that the world did not conform to his sense of justice/his sense of justice was an artifice that he created and not some universal state of being. In turn this made him realize that his fight as a Sheriff was not one that could be won because his sense of justice was an illusion. His loss of a sense that the world conformed to his rules of life made him uncertain/lose his conviction, a man without conviction has nothing to fight for. Carson represents Bell's feelings when Chigurh says something to the effect of... "If your rules lead you here. (To his fate.) What good are they." (I'm paraphrasing Chigur's quote.)</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-496153"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Sam</span></span> on <a href="#comment-496153"><abbr class="published" title="2008-09-14T18:00:28-08:00">September 14, 2008 6:00 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(496153, 'Sam')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Another believer in progress. Old times are clearly less violent than new times. I think the Uncle's comment about vanity is critical in understanding this story, but to deny that society is much more violent in these days is missing the point. </p> <p>The fact that the movie takes place in 1980 is of no surprise. Juvenile arrest for violent crimes jumped 64% between 1980 and 1994. Furthermore, gun violence peaked in this period. This peak is clearly related to the illegal drug trade.</p> <p>Bell chooses to retreat from this new world rather than to loose his soul. He is tired and so, retires. The dream from which he awakens is a metaphor for death. Furthermore, I think that in his dream, his father is a metapher for God. He knows He will be there when he catches up with Him. The darkness at the end of the movie happens when he awakes.</p> <p>Chigur's comments about the rules reminds me of Satan's comment at the end of Paradise Lost. You have to remember who is speaking. There is a line in the film that reflects on the country's loss of politeness, of say "yes sir" and "yes mame." The loss of politeness has resulted in the terrible world of today. Chigar is usually very polite when speaking, yet he clearly disdains polity.</p> <p>Of course, we could both be right. There is much room for interpretation in this film. Did Chigur kill Moss' wife? Can we be ceratin that he did? The book might be more explicit, but the movie isn't. What is Chigur's fate? We are left to wonder.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-496326"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Charles Cox</span></span> on <a href="#comment-496326"><abbr class="published" title="2008-09-14T21:54:02-08:00">September 14, 2008 9:54 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(496326, 'Charles Cox')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I still think the Coen's best film was their first, "Blood Simple". The settings, score, and the fact that nobody suspects M. Emmet Walsh as killer, but each suspects the other is brilliant.</p> <p>And the knife through the hand and the shooting and punching of the plaster on the walls is riveting.</p> <p>Only "Chinatown" exceeds "Blood Simple" as film noir.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-497544"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Jacob Ladder</span></span> on <a href="#comment-497544"><abbr class="published" title="2008-09-16T07:32:23-08:00">September 16, 2008 7:32 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(497544, 'Jacob Ladder')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>In my opinion, I think Uhaul missed it. Sheriff Bell is dead at the moment he steps over that pool of blood in the final motel scene. Notice the sort of slow motion way Tommy Lee Jones (TLJ) steps over the pool its not footage that slowed down it’s him stepping slowly, it’s a man taking the last step of his life, everything after that point is a dream sequence. This technique was also used in the last soprano’s episode. In the sopranos the entire show is always from Tony Sopranos POV, he is the protagonist, once he opens that door to the diner and sees himself eating at the diner, he is toast we never see him get shot like so many of the other characters in the show. TLJ is the protagonist; Anton is obviously the antagonist, his named even sounds like the word antagonist, maybe even Anton the atheist. Listen carefully to the words TLJ uses in his monologue at the beginning about pushing in all his chips and putting up his soul and being part of this world, it could be that the whole movie is his explanation to god. Like the movie Jacobs Ladder, Tim Robbins character is dead the entire movie is a dream sequence. But for sure Sheriff Bell is dead the moment he steps over that blood it just isn’t shown to us in the traditional manner, ask yourselves would Anton stand quietly in a room with a man walking a around with a chambered weapon with the hammer back, No. As far as where the money is maybe the Mexicans sped off with it, maybe Anton has it, I’ve heard of stories of people doing renovations on buildings and houses and tearing out a wall and finding a ton of cash stuffed inside of it, hidden for years. When TLJ is talking to his wife at the table in the end look closely at the pleasant smile she has on her face, talking about his father going ahead and making a fire for him and a dream about losing money. Listen to the words with his uncle about “things have always been this way; and it aint all waiting on you; and about this country being hard on people; about vanity and about getting a letter from his wife about family news; about while your trying to trying to get things back and mores going out the door; about god never coming into his life and not blaming him.” I suggest you turn the subtitles on and pay attention and read between the lines. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-551900"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Fig Newton</span></span> on <a href="#comment-551900"><abbr class="published" title="2008-11-15T10:41:48-08:00">November 15, 2008 10:41 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(551900, 'Fig Newton')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Sheriff Bell is not killed by Chugurh in the motel that Moss is killed in. If you look carefully, Bell is reflected on the far side of the lock's inside chamber. This could only happen if that lock belonged to the room beside room 114, room 112. This room was shown to also have its lock blown out as Bell was driving up to the rooms. Also, when Bell opens the door, you can clearly see that there is no-one hiding behind the door. This is because Chigurh is in the next room.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-561137"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Kyle</span></span> on <a href="#comment-561137"><abbr class="published" title="2008-11-27T11:15:33-08:00">November 27, 2008 11:15 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(561137, 'Kyle')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I thought that the money references were interesting too. Like when Luellen is going into mexico and ask for the guys jacket, and pays him 500 for it, then the guy with the beer asked for more money then the 500 already paid. Then when chugurh gets into that car crash, he gives the kid 100 dollars for the shirt, then the other kid says he gets some of the money too. Maybe an undderlying theme is money has the power to do bad things.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-575262"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">H G Bottled Water</span></span> on <a href="#comment-575262"><abbr class="published" title="2008-12-15T18:36:01-08:00">December 15, 2008 6:36 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(575262, 'H G Bottled Water')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I'm delighted people are still discussing this movie. It's a wonderful movie, one of the most profound studies of the human condition since Waiting for godot...yeah, I said it!! <br/> . The last few posts talk of Bell being killed by Anton. This is not the case. Firstly, would the final scene in the kitchen be more joyus if he was dead, fianlly set free from a world of corruption and murder? Second, if Bell was dead, there would be no need to have the ticking clock(the last sound we hear before the end credits). The ticking of the clock reminds Bell and, indeed us all that every passing second brings us closer to our death.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-577846"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">H G Bottled Water</span></span> on <a href="#comment-577846"><abbr class="published" title="2008-12-18T16:36:41-08:00">December 18, 2008 4:36 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(577846, 'H G Bottled Water')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>It would be more correct to say Bell is 'retired' when he steps over the threshold of the Motel room. Retired in the movie seems to mean 'opting out' of hard living, the hard life Ellis describes when he says 'this country's hard on people'. Once he crosses the threshold and finds Anton and the money gone, he knows he can do no more. He didn't save Moss, he didn't catch Anton and he didn't find the money. The reason I cited Waiting for Godot is in that play, the characters fill up their time with nonsense talk. This is to high light the absurdity of life, to ask what is the point of being here at all when at the end we leave with nothing. In No country.....Bell imagines he is filling up his time fighting for good, ridding the world of crime and making it a safer place to be. He has failed to prevent anything at the end so that scene in the kitchen is high lighting the same absurdity. why are we here?!?!? We change nothing and then have to fill in time towards the end looking back on a life that changed nothing, at least this is how Bell, now he's retired, see it. The ticking of the clock reminds him he still has many empty hours to fill with reminiscences of a life that changed nothing. How frightening is that prospect?!?!? Almost more frightening that having Anton Chigurh on your tail. Does Bell almost wish at that moment he had lost his life?! It's such a powerful scene. It has reverberated in me since I saw the film. The most discussed movie you have encountered in a few years Jim? </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-578852"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">josh</span></span> on <a href="#comment-578852"><abbr class="published" title="2008-12-19T14:24:10-08:00">December 19, 2008 2:24 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(578852, 'josh')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Good thoughts H G Bottled Water, but not entirely accurate I don't think. The movie ends with the sherriff describing a dream where his dad was on ahead of him with a light. I took this to mean that while evil is pervasive and stronger than ever, Sheriff Bell couldn't bring himself to give up. The movie -- much like McCarthy's "The Road" -- is about the slimmest of hope being found in the middle of hopelessness ... or so it seems to me. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-583711"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Tim</span></span> on <a href="#comment-583711"><abbr class="published" title="2008-12-24T14:04:25-08:00">December 24, 2008 2:04 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(583711, 'Tim')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I agree with Hans van der Made; Chigur is a psychopathic character, whatever he may symbolize in the movie.<br/> It isn't any moral compass on Chigur's part that saves the West Texas lady's life in the rental office; it's the sound of the toilet flushing indicating somebody else is there, making it more problematic to kill her.<br/> Moss and his wife see through Chigur's game-playing. Carson Wells doesn't. Carson tries to bargain with him. Moss and his wife both separately realize that Chigur is a cold-blooded killer with no real rules beyond his own subjective preferences, and so bargaining with him and accepting any deal with him are pointless (like the result of the deal at the beginning of the movie between the drug runners/buyers). Moss has no choice but to go after a psychopathic killer pursuing him. Clara has no illusions about the type of person she is facing. "It's you" (subjectivity), not any moral system or transcendent set of rules.<br/> It is the rise of these type of killers that bothers the sherrif. It's not historically new, as his uncle(?) tells him of a murder in 1909 (although they did not kill his wife, unlike Moss's wife's fate), but the increasing level of this type of cold-blooded killing is new to the sherrif. That is what he is grappling with.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-595837"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">gizmo</span></span> on <a href="#comment-595837"><abbr class="published" title="2009-01-07T01:36:14-08:00">January 7, 2009 1:36 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(595837, 'gizmo')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Chigurh definitely is a personification of death. Many are killed as a consequence of the “line of work they are in.” The deepest parts of the movie to me are watching characters reactions as they stare death in the eye. In real life if someone were to be held at gunpoint by a robber most people would say “you dont have to do this” just as they characters in the movie say. Humans can do all of the healthiest things in the world to try to live as long as possible to ward off death but if your card is pulled its your time to go. Moss gives death a run for its money but its only a matter of time for him. As far as previous posts about the nature of time Im not sure if that has much significance but Lweleyn and wells both remeber the exact time when they were both confronted with the possibility of their own demise. Lweleyn for when he was in Vietnam and Wells for the last time he saw Chigurh. They may not have realized at the time but they had near death experiences and were spared. Neither seem to change their way of life and therefore encounter death a second time. Lweleyn is uncompassionate for others as when he has no care for fetching the man some water in the begining and wells is arrogant and egotistical as to how he could retreive the suitcase despite Chigurh. Both have fatal flaws. As far as the reflections when Chigurh and Bell drink the milk Im not sure if that has some deeper purpose but I did not notice that Bell has a split reflection and Chigurh’s is just one image showing that Chigurh is not completely human because he does not cast a shadow. </p> <p>My interpretation of Bell is that hes had enough of this cold world and is ready to checkout. Hes afraid of both life and meeting death, but as the movie rolls on he becomes less afraid of death than of continuing on living. He walks into the crime scene room with his gun barely drawn its as if hes taking a suicidal like action. When death is not their for him he sits down with a look of despair. He is a good person at heart. Hes not in control of when its his turn to go. He represents the only character who is searching for an end not trying to avoid it but somehow he is the last man standing. Their are many parallels throughout the movie I could write a thesis on it but thought I would share my thoughts criticism welcome.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-595838"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">gizmo</span></span> on <a href="#comment-595838"><abbr class="published" title="2009-01-07T01:37:35-08:00">January 7, 2009 1:37 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(595838, 'gizmo')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Some other things I noticed: The color white is represented in may forms before Chigurh strikes- Carson wells has a white hankerchief as he walks up the stairs, the cat in the last hotel is drinking out of a white bowl as lewelyn checks in (which later when he runs back in after climbing out the window the same bowl is red), Carley Jean is looking out the window with white sheets blowing in the wind before she sees Chigurh. White is the official color of surrender, and in some cases can represent cowardice or fearfulness. </p> <p>It was also interesting to observe ed toms obsession with death towards the end. Hes staring at the body in the morgue and every conversation he is in it is brought up in some fashion. While talkling with uncle ellis he asks when his uncle died. If you compare the two dreams at the end the second has a deep impact on him but the first he just glances over as if it had no meaning. His father had given him money and he thinks he lost it. Ed tom is not impressed with nor seeking material possessions as are the other characters.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-595841"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">gizmo</span></span> on <a href="#comment-595841"><abbr class="published" title="2009-01-07T01:39:23-08:00">January 7, 2009 1:39 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(595841, 'gizmo')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>One other thing as far as the surrender is that one of the things Chigurh says to carson is “you should admit your situation there would be more dignity in it” …he is in denial that hes facing the end.<br/> Another thing occured to me about the dreams, the first dream may have been some sort of attempt by ed toms father (or ed toms imagining him doing so) at helping ed tom come join him in heaven…because we all know what happens throughout the movie to characters when they hold on to or seek out money. When ed tom loses the money, the end for him is not so easy and he must encounter the second dream wheres hes in the cold waiting to be warmed by the fire his father has created up ahead in the dark.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-597329"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">H G Bottled Water</span></span> on <a href="#comment-597329"><abbr class="published" title="2009-01-09T06:43:46-08:00">January 9, 2009 6:43 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(597329, 'H G Bottled Water')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I suppose Josh, it depends on one's own perspective if you think there's hope in that last scene. Why would The Coens give us an unambiguous thought at the end when it's been ambiguous throughout?!? <br/> Having said that, I don't see much hope in Bell's face at the end. I always feel like 'the glass is half empty' at the end of the movie. I am not that kind of person in life so I have to assume that's what the message is. I try not to read in any 'hope' as that would be my wishing there was hope. Does that make sense? It is only a movie after all, a reflection of life and not life itself so it would be ok to have a movie that does paint a bleak view of the world and our existence in it, I don't have to take that thought or view and live my life by it. This film is telling some very harsh and profound truths about existence and I think many folks flinch in the face of that and thus read in hope because the truth is too scary for them.<br/> I wouldn't assume for one second that you or anyone else is a bleak individual for seeing bleakness in this film. I would just assume you are a thoughtful individual for having the intelligence to think about this wonderful work of art.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-614599"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Gail</span></span> on <a href="#comment-614599"><abbr class="published" title="2009-01-27T10:50:14-08:00">January 27, 2009 10:50 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(614599, 'Gail')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Who is Chigurh working for? Why did he turn of the money to him?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-615638"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">flyingpadre</span></span> on <a href="#comment-615638"><abbr class="published" title="2009-01-28T17:51:44-08:00">January 28, 2009 5:51 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(615638, 'flyingpadre')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I take the story and the film at its most literal level - a wakeup call that a violent change not only looms on the horizon but has crossed our borders. Javier Bardam's character represents a new world order that uses any means (violence being one of them)to achieve its goals. The specific motivation is beside the point. The victims are small town Americans who believe in the goodness of man and have no concept or experience with someone like Chigurh. Tommy Lee Jones represents the old guard, tired, ineffective and confused, lost in reflection, incapable of understanding or dealing with this new phenomenon. Hence the title of the film.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-623521"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">douglas</span></span> on <a href="#comment-623521"><abbr class="published" title="2009-02-06T14:23:58-08:00">February 6, 2009 2:23 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(623521, 'douglas')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>....how did you miss the triangle motif? all the numbers save 22 years and 1958, evoke freud's beloved...</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-637090"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">douglas</span></span> on <a href="#comment-637090"><abbr class="published" title="2009-02-21T11:14:06-08:00">February 21, 2009 11:14 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(637090, 'douglas')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>the triangle motif throughout the film is emphasized for what purpose. Examples such as the bridge chigur drives over, the hanger, the stars on the sherrifs, the three people in a car, three dead in the desert, three dead dogs, sherrif..shigur..moss, 69cents for the nuts, 21 cents on the cash register, I will be back at 930, the police will show up at 930, its midnight 12, room 138, room 213, room 114, room 324, the license plate of the hold still guy, 30609, and the three oclock time of the first killing of the sherrif... all these numbers are multiples of three, including Wells, 1200 a day for every 24 hour period, and 12 floors in the building, and 12 murders until the ambiguous 13th unlucky murder of carla jean if she was killed, and 1958 plus 22 is 27 another multiple of three..., rooms 30-42, highway 90...</p> <p>the statistical probability of all these numbers by 'chance' being three is one over 3 to the 15th power, about one in a billion... so it was designed by the mise en scene brothers, for what purpose... is there a beloved (three syllable pronunciation?) Moss obviously, imperfect or less perfect than grass, gets himself into a 'mess', more name puns, anton the anti- christ, as he washes his bloody wrists, Bell.. ring his bell he keeps hearing over and over, <br/> shigur... sugar? pun on sweetness? Wells, rhymes with Bell, and Well he should 'admit' his situation... the feathers fly out of the chair he sits in as he is blasted, then later, more feathers from another victims chicken truck...</p> <p>ok, i noticed the details, this is what explication de texte is all about, the theory being i can't get to the higher meaning, until i locate the significant details, then interrelate them, not just for the sake of artful cleverness, but for something larger....</p> <p><br/> theme is usually overrated in terms of analysis, and here the brilliant interrelatedness, down to the same color of socks, and taking boots on and off, by the seemingly symbolically different characters suggests that good and evil aren't that far apart....</p> <p>this is an Aplus analysis, done by an 11th grader...</p> <p>douglas</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-663257"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">yyz</span></span> on <a href="#comment-663257"><abbr class="published" title="2009-03-23T20:53:53-08:00">March 23, 2009 8:53 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(663257, 'yyz')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I just watched this a second time and had a bit different take and not-so-deep analysis. When Chigurh gets hit by the car, my immediate response was....is he dead...well I'd suppose so based on the whole death and chance theme....but wait, he isn't dead, in fact he pretty much walks off with little care at all. Then I got to thinking....esp after the dream discussion, this movie is about chance and it's impact on our preconcieved notions of justice. Yes, TLJones has his dream but while your not expecting it to be the end of the movie and anticipating 'he will get his man', it dawns on you that fate, chance and justice are so intertwined. Justice is a dice roll.</p> <p>That's my take on it anyway.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-684884"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">babette</span></span> on <a href="#comment-684884"><abbr class="published" title="2009-04-27T21:09:17-08:00">April 27, 2009 9:09 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(684884, 'babette')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>FlyingPadre: "Javier Bardam's character represents a new world order that uses any means (violence being one of them)to achieve its goals..."</p> <p>Chigur's murderous, relentless advance is, indeed, comparable to that of the new world order's (global dictatorship) and "No Country" can, and perhaps should, be taken as a warning, or rather a declaration, that a greater and more ominous "dismal tide" is about to engulf the USA.</p> <p>Douglas: "...but for something larger...."</p> <p>The occult meaning of these numbers (3). The NWO gang is obsessed with numbers to which they attribute magical/occult significance or importance. Everything they do must coincide in some fashion to a specific cosmic timetable. There is something larger... </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-685048"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">stef</span></span> on <a href="#comment-685048"><abbr class="published" title="2009-04-28T07:25:40-08:00">April 28, 2009 7:25 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(685048, 'stef')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I have a question for our illustrious panel: Was Moss' intention, in going back out to the "goat-fuck" in the desert, really to bring water to a dead man? </p> <p>Or, as he says to Carla Jean, he "forgot to do something" as in grab a few packets of dope from the truck? </p> <p>In for a penny, in for a pound, so to speak. Now, that's greed. And does it prove to be the "dumbest thing" he ever did in his life? It does, if nothing else, get him to move with a purpose. </p> <p>"No Country's" three main protagonists can be viewed as a twisted, macabre version of the Christian trilogy: The Father (Bell), the Son (Moss), and the Holy Ghost (Chigur) whom Bell actually describes as a "ghost." </p> <p>Furthermore, the film overflows with occult imagery and symbolism such as: </p> <p>Cats: Egyptian goddess Bastet; </p> <p>Proliferation of the color yellow: Horus, the sun god; </p> <p>Dogs: Sothis (Sirrus), the Dog Star associated with Isis; </p> <p>Jackals (mentioned but not seen): Duamutef is the jackal son of Horus; </p> <p>Chickens: Used in sacrificial rites. Think voodoo.</p> <p>Numbers: Occult significance of the number 3.</p> <p>Now, I'm no warlock, but this film seems to be a celebration of the occult and a condemnation of Christian beliefs. I'd also add, I'm no priest, but is it impossible to view: </p> <p>Sheriff Bell, as a tired, impotent, disillusioned God the Father who laughs at the world's perdition so incapable is he of altering events.</p> <p>Moss, as his surrogate son, a greedy, indifferent, uncommunicative (that's important) Christ-figure. </p> <p>In the Christian faith the "Holy Spirit/Ghost," is traditionally depicted as a white dove hovering over whatever proceedings as the "Spirit of God." </p> <p>Chigur, as the black crow of hate/chaos + the unhappy bird on the bridge = two. Two crows (or more) are called a murder (or storytelling) of crows. You may arrive at your own conclusions...</p> <p>Wheel-chair bound Ellis' admonition "You can't stop what's coming" encapsulates the cryptic message of this film. "No Country" and it's "dismal tide" proclaims the death of Christianity and the coming of the Anti-Christ. What say you?</p> <p>911TruthNow <br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-685055"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">stef</span></span> on <a href="#comment-685055"><abbr class="published" title="2009-04-28T07:56:18-08:00">April 28, 2009 7:56 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(685055, 'stef')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Hollywood is the Mercury/Hermes of the "NWO elites" and for decades has brought "messages" of planned, coming-soon-to-your-neighborhood, world events ie. "Fight Club" depicting controlled-demolitions like those on 911.</p> <p>It's an inside joke, you might say.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-685156"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">stef</span></span> on <a href="#comment-685156"><abbr class="published" title="2009-04-28T12:08:18-08:00">April 28, 2009 12:08 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(685156, 'stef')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Hey! Where did my long comment go? </p> <p><i>JE: Found it in the spam filter and published it.</i></p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-686901"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Nancy Butler</span></span> on <a href="#comment-686901"><abbr class="published" title="2009-05-01T13:43:34-08:00">May 1, 2009 1:43 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(686901, 'Nancy Butler')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I've been thinking about the two dogs in the beginning, the dead brown dog and the wounded, fleeing black dog. Is it too much of a stretch to suggest that the dogs in the beginning mirror the ending of the film -- that the dead brown dog represents the brown-haired Moss, and the wounded but moving black dog is the black-haired Chigurh? I know, I probably had too many English Lit classes where I had to dissect a story, but I like finding symbolism in art, even where the creator didn't intend it. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-702653"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">andrew</span></span> on <a href="#comment-702653"><abbr class="published" title="2009-05-30T14:00:10-08:00">May 30, 2009 2:00 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(702653, 'andrew')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>why did Moss return to the scene of the crime? On the surface of it, to give water to the dying man in the truck. But, why does he suddenly care? Who is he talking to when he says "alright" while lying in bed? His return sets everything in motion, the beginning of the expanding candy wrapper. Like the universe expanding, it can't be stopped. But why does he go back?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-704549"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">babette</span></span> on <a href="#comment-704549"><abbr class="published" title="2009-06-02T22:55:41-08:00">June 2, 2009 10:55 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(704549, 'babette')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Because he's stolen the money and seen the drugs and realizes he could of had both! Characteristic human behavior. Read the comments at least once all the way through. You won't ask stupid questions no more.</p> <p>Listen, this is way too much verbiage for a joohollowood movie, no matter how good you might think it is.<br/> 911TruthNOW </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-721205"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Malcolm</span></span> on <a href="#comment-721205"><abbr class="published" title="2009-07-02T20:58:27-08:00">July 2, 2009 8:58 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(721205, 'Malcolm')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>You know . . . sometimes things can be appreciated in a lot simpler way.</p> <p>What's Chirgurh's "problem", for example?</p> <p>Well, consider it this way. You have to do something with your life, right? Everyone feels that -- to one extent or another.</p> <p>Then . . . maybe you decide on standards (such as they may be) for how you want to do . . . whatever you do. Easy enough to understand that, too.</p> <p>And finally . . . there are circumstances . . . that you have to overcome to do what you want to do in the way you want to do it. Pretty familiar to us all.</p> <p>So how is Chirgurh's "problem" . . . any different than our own? </p> <p>It's NOT a rhetorical question . . .</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-741169"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Code Monkey</span></span> on <a href="#comment-741169"><abbr class="published" title="2009-08-04T21:59:28-08:00">August 4, 2009 9:59 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(741169, 'Code Monkey')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I can't believe I read this whole long blog, skimming towards the end, and nobody has mentioned these things...</p> <p>Chigurh gets hit by the car in the end because he's gone against the rules by killing Carla Jean, by 'calling it for her'. He crossed fate, and fate crossed him. The point of the quarter is that only chance or fate (they are the same thing) can decide if somebody lives or dies. People say 'you don't have to do this', but he does, because fate brought him there *to* do that. He can ask fate for leniency for them, with a coin toss, but that *really is* the best he can do.</p> <p>Another point is about inevitability. Chigurh could have had the satchel in 20 minutes, but there is no need to hurry (he never hurries in the entire movie) because it's inevitable that he'll get it. He goes to Odessa even though 'she won't be there' because 'it doesn't matter where she is'. He'll find her. Same with Moss in the hospital... it's only 'three hours work' to find him there, but there's no hurry to get him. All in due time. Also the transponder is completely irrelevant... it only helps Chigurh find it faster, to compress time so the story happens directly.</p> <p>The other thing is that if you "see" Chigurh (if fate brought him to you, or if you crossed his path) then your death is inevitable. Wells has to die because he has seen Chigurh in the past. The two henchmen that take him out to the original shootout have seen him, so they have to die. The first sheriff sees him so has to die. The gas station guy "sees" Chigurh when he puts his nose in Chigurh's business (I seen you coming from dallas), but after talking with him Chigurh doesn't want to kill him, so he asks fate with the coin toss. The hotel clerk (with the cat and the bowl of milk) has to die because he's on the lookout for 'a swingin dude'... he sees Chigurh. etc</p> <p>It resolves some other problems, like the accountant. Chigurh isn't *offering* the guy a choice or being sarcastic, but indicating that it is the accountant's choice whether to see him or not; if he does, then inevitably he'll die. This sets up the end, where Chigurh *is* in the hotel room and we and Bell know it, plain as day, but Bell *chooses* not to see him. So he doesn't have to die. That's the point of showing that Chigurh was trapped in the room, that there's *no way* Bell wouldn't see him... unless he just chose not to.</p> <p>Also Chigurh is clearly human, that's the point of showing him get injured. But he's acting as the agent of fate. Fate conspires to let him do these things. Just like the quarter, if fate didn't want him to do these things it wouldn't have brought him there. It wouldn't have put him in a police station with one sheriff that could be strangled. Death is a person's final fate, and Chigurh is it's chosen enforcer. He isn't "Death" itself, he's just a tool. The one right tool for the job.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-813365"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">David Glassey</span></span> on <a href="#comment-813365"><abbr class="published" title="2009-11-09T14:10:06-08:00">November 9, 2009 2:10 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(813365, 'David Glassey')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I don't know if it has been pointed out already but not only is Chigurh an expert at doling out death but he is an expert healer as well. I suppose it fits the theme of his invincibility and resourcefulness by his ability to regenerate himself through the surgery he performs to quickly heal himself <br/> from Moss's shotgun blast to his leg.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-840832"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">robert</span></span> on <a href="#comment-840832"><abbr class="published" title="2009-12-28T15:24:12-08:00">December 28, 2009 3:24 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(840832, 'robert')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>NCFOM aired on Encore for months and I never bother to watch it. Once I did, I asked myself why didn't I watch it before. Since the first time I watched the movie I must have watched it a dozen times.<br/> My question is how did Anton get shot in the left leg. When Moss stood up and took aim, Anton turned, droped his weapon and attempted to avoid the gunfire from Moss. He had his r/leg exposed to the shotgun blast.<br/> Thanks,<br/> R t<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-842480"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">powermatic</span></span> on <a href="#comment-842480"><abbr class="published" title="2009-12-31T13:25:01-08:00">December 31, 2009 1:25 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(842480, 'powermatic')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Good comments, 'Code Monkey'-makes up for some of the idiotic spewing of others ('Otto' and 'Uncle Longhair', I'm talking to you) who can't seem to suspend disbelief long enough to fill in story blanks that haven't been minutely chronicled. Seriously, to write lengthy, detailed monologues over the difficulty of getting the satchel from the Rio Grande river bank, or Chigurh's shotgun being "too silent" makes me wonder how you can appreciate any movie, ever. As others have said, you basically killed a great thread-well done.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-843078"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">antipowermatic</span></span> on <a href="#comment-843078"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-01T17:57:21-08:00">January 1, 2010 5:57 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(843078, 'antipowermatic')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>For those who like to engage in fantasy and seek to understand god's nature the movie was great. I am more in line with UncleLongHair. It is worth a few hours of thought. Get the initial taste of the movie. Hopefully be inspired to do good like the sheriff and then move on.</p> <p>People who can spend days watching and re watching the movie to seek "hidden" meaning are like those who keep going back to church to try to get the meaning or meaningless bible versus. No resolution. Bubblegum for the mind.</p> <p>one more point - "Nutrition Facts" as part of standard labeling didn't start until the 1990's.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-850405"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Loomis</span></span> on <a href="#comment-850405"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-13T17:19:44-08:00">January 13, 2010 5:19 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(850405, 'Loomis')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Ed Tom Bell - The Sheriff of "No Country" - Man of Hope</p> <p>I would like to start by saying the Coen brothers are in fact phenomenal directors about this fantastic film. I've been watching "No country" in my film class. I'm not much of a film scholar, but in fact a film student.</p> <p>My focus is on none other than, Ed Tom Bell. In this film, Bell is seen as a man of a brighter side. Bell is going place to place trying to find the maniac, who we all know is Chigurh. He, Bell dreams of the lost money and the memory to his father.</p> <p>First of all, when Bell goes into the motel room, and crosses the do not cross sign. Bell goes in and finds Chigurh's coin heads up. When Chigurh showed up to Moss's room he knew death coming, but didn't know what time. Bell found Chigurh's coin and it emphasizes his deadly trail. </p> <p>Bell is sometimes captured in the sunlight. The sunlight is represented as hope. In this case, Bell has hope that will end this man's crime and leave everyone alone.</p> <p>I know there are religious references in this film, as well as symbolism in here too. There are times when Bell's face is half in shadow, a hint to us that he is criminally insane.</p> <p>What stands out to me are Bell is shot in, what I believe is 2 restaurants. All of which has light colors that go greatly with the lighter side of him. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-850481"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">amanda</span></span> on <a href="#comment-850481"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-13T21:50:10-08:00">January 13, 2010 9:50 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(850481, 'amanda')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, everything you said seemed like it could have came straight from the directors mouth. Being in a film literature class I don’t have much experience analyzing movies on my own, so your blog helped me tremendously. I agree with you about Chigurh, he’s not really meant to be a character or even human for that matter. Although being such an unstoppable monster, one would think humor would be absent and his appearance would be gruesome. Instead, he occasionally gives off a dry sense of humor and doesn’t look all that intimidating. Also what comes to my attention is the fact that he must flip a coin to determine the death of someone, rather than just blatantly killing. Maybe he’d kill them whether they called the right side of the coin or not, but it just makes me wonder if he does have some extent of humanlike feelings. I’m not really sure why the Coen’s do this but it definitely adds a sense of eeriness to the film. Throughout the entire movie the angles of the scenes are set up just right to leave each outcome of an action open for interpretation. Not one guess I made in the duration of the film was correct. Everything is so unexpected and breathtaking. I believe this continuous guessing is done to foreshadow the extreme ambiguous ending. The ending did not bother me because an ending is not necessary with the way the film is created. The actual storyline is not what is important. What is important is the overall hidden meaning the Coen’s are trying to get across, and Bell’s dreams just so happen to describe the main point of the film. I agree completely with your interpretations of the dreams and find no other meanings for them. Bell realizes that he has done as much as he can do in the world, and there is no longer a place for him so he must retire from all the action. <br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-850822"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Major Cornbread</span></span> on <a href="#comment-850822"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T12:00:39-08:00">January 14, 2010 12:00 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(850822, 'Major Cornbread')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim I would have to disagree with you when you say that Chigurh isn’t a character. Even if he is a psychopathic killer, he is still human. Just like every other character in the movie his surroundings and the people around him affect him. One of the biggest examples of this would be when he gets hit by the car towards the end of the movie. It was because the person driving the car wasn’t paying attention, to Chigurh walking in the road, he got hurt. So it is the fact that Chigurh can be so easily affected by someone else’s negligence that leads me to believe that he is a character just like everyone else in the movie.</p> <p> I believe that Chigurh thinks that he is not the one killing people, but that it is fate (I am not sure if this point has been brought up already on this blog since I have not read every comment, so if it has I apologize). He is just there to follow through with whatever fate decides, therefore he believes that it is not because of his own desire that he kills people. By thinking this way it is obviously easy for him to kill with no emotion because he believes that their death was something inevitable. This way he can ignore their pleads for life, because to him it is just a job that has to get done and if he doesn’t do it fate will just find another way. The first taste of this is during the interaction of the gas station owner and Chigurh. When the gas station owner keeps questioning what the coin toss is for you can see Chigurh get visibly annoyed. This is when he first realizes that if the gas station owner refuses the coin toss he will have to kill him, without an order from ‘fate’. This annoys Chigurh so much because he believes that whenever he kills someone it is because of fate, but if fate gives him no verdict and he kills the person anyway that would obviously put him in the category of psychopathic killer in his own mind. That is why the scene where Carla Jean refuses the coin toss has such an effect on Chigurh. It is fairly obvious that Chigurh killers her anyway even without the coin toss from ‘fate’, which causes him to be so distraught that he manages to get hit by a car. Chigurh finally realizes that he’s not killing people because it is their fate, but because of his own will.<br/> </p> </div> </div>   <div style="margin-left: 25px;"> <div class="comment" id="comment-850886"> <div class="comment-header">  <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Jim Emerson</span></span> replied to comment from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/no_country_for_old_men_out_in.html#comment-850822"> Major Cornbread</a> | <a href="#comment-850886"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T13:51:21-08:00">January 14, 2010 1:51 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(850886, 'Jim Emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I don't remember exactly how I put that, but I'm sure I didn't mean it literally. Better to say that Chigurh functions within the movie on more than one level -- both as a character (made of flesh, with a human history, and glimpses of emotion as you say), and as a messenger of death. I think you're right: He sees himself as the instrument of a larger force, while fate makes the actual call about who dies and who doesn't.</p> </div> </div>   <div style="margin-left: 25px;"> <div class="comment" id="comment-850978"> <div class="comment-header">  <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Major Cornbread</span></span> replied to comment from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/no_country_for_old_men_out_in.html#comment-850886"> Jim Emerson</a> | <a href="#comment-850978"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T15:45:47-08:00">January 14, 2010 3:45 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(850978, 'Major Cornbread')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Well I knew that you didn't mean it literally, but by saying that he is some sort of "messenger of death", makes it sound as if he is on a higher level than the other characters in the movie (which I don't believe). I believe Chigur probably does believe that he is a messenger of death, and the audience starts to believe it as well. But at the point in the movie where he gets hit by the car because he is distressed, it makes the audience realize that he isn't a messenger of death, but just a serial killer. He used 'fate' and the thought that he was meant to carry that 'fate' to make an image that he was some sort of 'messenger of death', but in reality it was just an elaborate excuse as to why he was killing people. So when I addressed that you said he is not a character, I did not think that you meant it literally, haha. Sorry for the confusion.</p> </div> </div>   </div>  </div>   <div class="comment" id="comment-850884"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">filmlit213</span></span> on <a href="#comment-850884"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T13:40:22-08:00">January 14, 2010 1:40 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(850884, 'filmlit213')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim’s analysis of the film seems to be dead on. What I found most interesting about it was how he said Chigur is the coin. That he sees it as fate for him to kill people. That it is out of his control. The thing Jim pointed out that I didn’t notice was how the wrapper unfolds during the first coin toss in the gas station. Chigur crumbles up the wrapper but it unfolds out of his control. This shows how Chigur thinks about killing people. It is fate and out of his control. The thing I disagree with Jim about is when he say’s Chigur kills only because it has to be done. Although I think that Chigur thinks about and justifies it like that, that he really enjoys killing. He has the choice to let people go and not kill them. They won’t effect him if there still alive but he kills them anyway. I see Chigur as an evil character not just “The Reaper.”</p> </div> </div>   <div style="margin-left: 25px;"> <div class="comment" id="comment-850893"> <div class="comment-header">  <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Jim Emerson</span></span> replied to comment from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/no_country_for_old_men_out_in.html#comment-850884"> filmlit213</a> | <a href="#comment-850893"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T14:06:14-08:00">January 14, 2010 2:06 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(850893, 'Jim Emerson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I was writing that from Chigurh's point of view, the way he sees himself. I would say that anyone who thinks he is acting as Bringer of Death for the power of Fate is, by definition, evil. It's just that I don't think "evil" is the most interesting way of looking at him. It's a label people often use to distance themselves from things they're afraid to look at or confront, so I prefer to just talk about how he operates in the movie, outside of conventional notions of morality. Again, I think he sees himself as "beyond good and evil" -- operating on another plane of "morality" on which he is simply the messenger of fate. If you come face-to-face with him, your fate is not in his hands, or yours, but up to Fate.</p> </div> </div>   </div>         <div class="comment" id="comment-850980"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">jml</span></span> on <a href="#comment-850980"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T15:51:33-08:00">January 14, 2010 3:51 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(850980, 'jml')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I think the boots on the ground part of the blog was very interesting because the whole time during the film I was thinking of what this meant and what it symbolized. It makes you curious as to what will happen next and it adds a little more suspense to the film. I think that it kind of adds to the characters and when all you see is their shoes you get to guess which character it is and what they are going to do next. You’re also thinking what will happen next, a fight, accident or maybe another killing? I like films that grasp you attention just like this one did. I think out of all the scenes this one just stuck out to me more. I personally think that they show the shoes of the characters all through the movie to put you in their shoes, their point of view so you can see how they feel around Chigurh. They might associate Chigurh with the ground a lot to show how violent he is. These scenes just cause you to think and analyze it in your own way and state your own opinion. You’re interpretation of this can be whatever you want it to be, however you see it and understand it.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-850994"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">sjschoices</span></span> on <a href="#comment-850994"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T16:24:45-08:00">January 14, 2010 4:24 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(850994, 'sjschoices')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>This is an essay for my film lit class. I have to say that while the ending of No Country for Old Men was in fact ambiguous, I enjoyed it very much.</p> <p>Choices</p> <p><br/> In Jim Emerson's review of No Country for Old Men I thought he was dead on when he said, "...But it's about loss." No Country for Old Men symbolizes loss and choice in many ways. One of the points where we see choice is when Chigurh tosses the quarter with the old man in the gas-station. The man protest that he, "didn't put nothin up," when Chigurh says to him "What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?...Call it." I think that Chigurh is telling him that he's never had a risk like this at a coin toss, when he says, "...And it's either heads or tails and you have to say. Call it." The old man has a choice to make but Chigurh holds the power of the decision, just like Carla Jean says later on in the film. It is not just the means as he wants to believe. <br/> The loss in this situation would be the chance of the old man losing his life or having the chance to live on, as he does because he wins the coin toss. Another symbol of choice in No Country for Old Men would be the two trees in the middle of the desert. Again, this offers the illusion of choice. The illusion because like Jim Emerson said, "...it seems to offer the illusion of choice, but no real choice at all. This guy could have died under either tree." <br/> The last chance of choice I saw in the film was when Ed Tom crosses the yellow tape and enters the blue door of the dark motel room. Inside there is nothing. And like Emerson writes, "Inside: Nothing. Just a loose vent and a dime -- a coin tossed. Heads. Chigurh disappeared into the shadows... of the room next door." My thought on this is that Chigurh tosses the coin when Ed Tom enters the room and it comes up heads, so he is to let Ed Tom live. This is the chance Ed Tom takes, but it is the most he has ever put up in a coin toss without knowing it. <br/> Throughout No Country for Old Men the characters face life changing choices, even though they may not know it. With these choices comes the chance of loss. Even if No Country for Old Men all about the loss, there is hope just because of those small chances given by a not so simple coin toss.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851025"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Tim McInnis</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851025"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T17:26:46-08:00">January 14, 2010 5:26 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851025, 'Tim McInnis')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p><br/> I am a film literature student attempting to analyze “No Country for Old Men”. That was an incredible analysis of the film. I was thinking that from the beginning of the movie Bell has been considering retirement, but just doesn’t know because he’s so accustomed to his job and everyone he works with. Throughout the movie he runs into situations which seemingly don’t make him despair too much, such as the man whom Chigurh killed with his air tank device. He appears to think about if the world really is no country for old men. I for one believe that it is actually past Bells’ time. He comes from a day where the police didn’t even carry a gun on them, but now you have men running around killing anyone who doesn’t win a coin toss. By the end of the movie I do believe that Bell believes it too. He retires and lives at home with his wife. His final line of the whole movie is and then I woke up, like the whole movie was just a dream and that inspired him to retire. He didn’t want to disappoint his father by failing again like he did with Chigurh.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851043"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">wizkid1358</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851043"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T18:08:23-08:00">January 14, 2010 6:08 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851043, 'wizkid1358')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>No Country for Old Men is not about just one thing. There are many different stories being told at the same time. We have Ed Tom Bell who is a veteran sheriff and has seen his share of violence. The movie begins with a voice over from Bell that tells us that he recently sent a boy to the electric chair because he killed a thirteen year old girl just because he’s been planning to kill someone for as long has he can remember. This makes me think about the real reason Bell retired. He says to his Uncle Ellis that he feels “overmatched” after dealing with Moss’s killing at the hotel. I would think that after seeing a thirteen year old girl killed for no apparent reason would have been what sent him into an early retirement, but it was the grown man that was running off with someone else’s drug money that upset him more. Another thing I don’t understand about his retirement is that he is told by his Uncle Ellis that the world has always been violent and is probably getting less violent over time, but this one incident pushed him over the line. Another thing about Ellis’s “lecture” to Tom is how he says “This country is hard on people.” This line is what the title of this film is all about. The way we need or want to get money sometimes leads people to violence. That theory is what leads to the death of many people in this film. Before our story even began the Mexicans in the desert killed each other because of greed (the want for both the drugs and the drug money.) In Moss’s case he was greedy and not willing to give up the money. Which lead to his and his wife’s murder. Another thing that is huge in this film is the idea of fate. People who have analyzed this film say that Chigurh is the symbol of fate. I think that he is not but he views himself has the one who has to make fate reality. This is why he gets angry when people refuse his coin toss solution to whether you die or not. I believe he thinks everyone must serve an important purpose. In the famous coin-toss scene he almost chokes on his peanuts when he realizes the cashier married into it instead of earning it. Which makes me think this is one of those weird principles Carson Wells was telling Llewellyn about.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851062"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://cradaszewski" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cradaszewski/" rel="nofollow">cameron radaszewski</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-851062"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T18:56:01-08:00">January 14, 2010 6:56 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851062, 'cameron radaszewski')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>The movie "No Country for Old Men" is one of my favorites, at least in the top 20. It has very intersting characters, </p> <p>and I think thats saying something, because its a dull movie otherwise. Those three men and girl make the movie, of course im <br/> talking about the sheriff, Chigurh, and Carla Jeann and her husband Liewelyn. The movie starts off very westerny, classically <br/> its in texas by the border of Mexico, which he goes to in a part of the film. The sheriff is a big part and is very important <br/> although, I feel like he wasn't shown in as much of the movie than he could have been. Liewelyn "is" the movie, without him <br/> starting his little hunting escapade, there wouldnt of have been the chase to get the cash. Thats were Chigurh comes in, he's <br/> big, ugly, slow, but always makes his way to that cash. Which in my mind, that remindes me of a Friday the 13th movie, as <br/> always like micheal, Chigurh is the same. He is deffinitly Inhuman, I mean god, he takes a shotgun blast and walks away , <br/> gets in car crash and has bone sticking out of his arm....AND WALKS AWAY!!! This guy is the real HULK. While Liewelyn gets a <br/> cut and needs to be put in the hospital. I absolutly did not like the cowboy, whats his name, Carson I think. He seemed like <br/> he was just added on to the plot to make Chigurh seem more powerful and menacing, like he really needs that. The cash is the <br/> central point in the movie to watch, but the personal clash between the three men is the real point to watch I thought. A <br/> little extra homage to Chigurh, is his coin trick he does to everyone that he thinks is deserving of a chance at life, by <br/> him. Its a odd trait, that adds to a odd man. Also "The Coens" are the first to make a silenced shotgun and cattle killer a <br/> deadly duo, that could only be used by this goony man.The end of this is with carla Jeann, I first thought she was a worry <br/> woart and seemed constantly as if she had something on her mind. But keep watching, at first she seems the same until the <br/> last confrontation between Chigurh and herself. She is a brave human to stare "Death" in the eye and say "no" to his games <br/> that could in actullity save her life. So honestly she is the best character in this film, sorry Chigurh.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851075"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">RitcheyProductions</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851075"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T19:35:32-08:00">January 14, 2010 7:35 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851075, 'RitcheyProductions')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I agree with Jim on what he says about Chigurh. As Jim said, I believe that Chigurh is not a character. I believe though that Chigurh represent the hidden fears inside people and can be compared to the grim reaper. Chigurh is like a ghost throughout the whole movie. He seems to mysteriously vanish from every murder scene. Other than being a reaper of death, Chigurh also seems to be a healer in a way. I believe this was said in another comment but I completely agree. Chigurh doing surgery on himself shows the audience that while he is a man of death, he is also a man who can heal. This also makes him seem almost invincible because even though he was wounded badly by Moss, Chigurh was able to get back on his feet.<br/> Chigurh’s use of the coin toss to me symbolizes his belief that fate is deciding his victims’ life or death. Because he forces his victims to call the coin he believes he is not actually doing the killing. Near the end of the movie when Chigurh tries to get Carla Jean to call the coin and she rejects, I believe when he makes her decision for her negative karma effects him. This is because Chigurh is breaking his own rule of fate. Breaking this rule causes him to get in a car crash.<br/> I was not able to read all of the comments due to there being so many but I’m sorry if any of these points have already been stated.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851081"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://bearrrr11" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://bearrrr11/" rel="nofollow">Bearrrr11</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-851081"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T19:52:40-08:00">January 14, 2010 7:52 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851081, 'Bearrrr11')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I agree with filmlit23. Jim Emerson's analysis is right down to the bone. What my favorite scene was the coin toss with the gas station guy. It's ery confusing at first but as the scene goes on it gets very suspensful it makes you think about what is going to happen to the old man. I think the wrapper symbolizes a time to kill as it unrevals like that. I agree with the whole Chigur enjoys killing people even they lost a coin toss game. I think that Chigur is a bit of a pyscho to make him do what he does, or he has money on his mind. I also think he does the killing just to get to the money like an obstiel(sp) course. The only person that he doesn't kill is the old guy from the gas station. Everybody has a fate and I do believe that Chigur's fate is killing people. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851084"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">JenElizabeth</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851084"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T19:55:26-08:00">January 14, 2010 7:55 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851084, 'JenElizabeth')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p><br/> Chigurh is by no means the focus for No Country for Old Men, Emerson states but I disagree. He is the catalyst of the entire movie. Chigurh represents the fates of the characters and acts like a God like figure in his way to manipulate and control the other characters with his words. “What’s the most you’ve ever lost on a coin toss? Call it.” He is forcing the man to choose heads or tails, but at the same time deciding his fate. Without Chigurh asking for this man to “call it” the man as Chigurh states will still be, “putting it up as he has his entire life.” This is a way that Chigurh can be seen as the main character or the main focus due to his control he has over people in his way to change their lives just by a simple two sentences.<br/> Chigurh seeks control, this is not certain, but can be seen. His presence is like that of a God like presence when he is outside Llewellyn’s door in the hotel. Llewellyn knows that Chigurh is there, but still does not know who he is. This is just like we live in our knowledge of God, we do not know who God truly is nor do we know what he looks like, just like the character Chigurh. The movie goes according to Chigurh. He marches to the beat of his own drummer. It is his world that he is controlling. I agree with The Shamus when he states, “… whereas somebody else you mention, Hannibal Lecter, now he really scares me,” I believe this to be true. Chigurh does not scare me as much as he mystifies me. He is a mystery figure that seems to be calm and controlled when everyone else is in a chaotic frenzy. When he is shot by Llewellyn after the chase from the hotel and into the street he goes to another hotel and performs surgery on himself, removing the bullets. His calm and controlled demeanor adds a sense of Godliness because it is as if he as invincible and even though he is hurt and is not hurt enough not to survive through every injury he receives. This can also be seen in the ending scene where he gets into a car crash and is deeply injured, but walks away as if nothing has even happened. Though I agree with most of Emerson’s excellent blog this is the one thing that I strongly disagree about. I believe that Chigurh above all is the main focus and main character for No country for Old Men. <br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851088"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">krobinson</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851088"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T20:00:25-08:00">January 14, 2010 8:00 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851088, 'krobinson')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>In Emerson's essay he describes the first opening shots as Genesis, taking reference from the bible. As we read on we become informed that the opening shots begin to show life, again taking reference to Genesis. With the camera stirring to life as the viewer begins to view signs of human life; this is just a phenomenal art of cinementogrphy. This could be seen as symbolism as life when the camera begins to move and we see life. When he talks about the land is black, swallowed in the shadows at the beginning of his essay. I myself think that the land being black symbolizes that where ever you go in this town or what ever you do you can never see what comes next. This happens to show up through this whole movie. Surprises always pop up. When they show the fence it looks like no one can get free, everyone is trapped in and no one really knows about anything else just their small little town. Chigurh seems to be invincible. He has no care and just walks around and no one knows who he is or what he does. The only thing that he does distinguish where he was is the locks on the door. He uses his pressurized air tank (slaughterhouse implement) to blast through the locks and get in to where ever that he wants to be. He even uses it to kill people on his way. There is always a trail and trails always lead to something good. Close to the beginning of the movie when Moss is shooting at an animal he hits but it doesn’t go down. He goes to look and finds blood from a limping dog follows it and leads him to the scene which then leads him to the money which got him into the trouble in the first place. Chigurh finds Moss from the tracker that was hidden in the case one of money, and Chigurh also finds out where his wife will be staying from the phone calls Moss/Moss’s wife made. Everything leads to something, but everything that you do find doesn’t always end up being something good.</p> <p></p> <p><br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851089"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">abc123</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851089"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T20:02:13-08:00">January 14, 2010 8:02 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851089, 'abc123')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>One point that I like of Jim Emerson’s essay would be about Chigurh’s first coin scene in the movie. After reading this I notice something about that scene that I didn’t notice at first. Such as when Chigurh gets done eating the pack of nuts of some sort and crinkles up the wrapper in his hand and then its unwraps itself. Even tho Chigurth tried to make it into a ball. I guess the wrapper represents the coin toss and how fate is going to make the decision for him. He doesn’t choose to kill that man it’s fate telling him to do it. But in all reality he has the choice to not to kill the man. There is something that he does have insight on but I don’t think its right. This is the sheriff’s last dream he had at the end of the movie. He said that he seen his father ridding passed him and he was behind his father. I think why he really had the dream is because he never did anything great in his career of being a sheriff. Not like his father, he always trying to compare himself to the old timers but never looking at himself as better then them. The new sheriff are not going to even remember him as a great and are not going to try to compare themselves to him as he did with the old timers. So that makes him sad that he tried so hard to be as great as the old timers but got too old to try harder to become a great.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851095"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">estan11</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851095"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T20:12:44-08:00">January 14, 2010 8:12 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851095, 'estan11')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p><br/> The movie No Country for Old men is very ambiguous and leaves a lot to be considered while analyzing the film. <br/> I disagree with the statement “…he is not the one responsible for the decision to kill or not kill.” Chigurh is clearly responsible for the decision. When saying that he is not responsible is saying that it’s in fates hands whether these people get killed. I believe that it was fate that put a psycho serial killer in their path. Throughout the movie Chigurh plays the role of god. Yes Chigurh does leave some of his victim’s lives up to the simple toss of a coin, but in other cases he has clearly made up his mind. Chigurh is simply playing games with life and death and does as he pleases. <br/> I agree with the statement, “Man's violence always leaves its traces on the ground.” But those marks will not stay there forever and will probably be cleaned off. The scuff marks on the ground from the strangled officer can be erased. I think this symbolizes how little of an effect some people leave after they’re dead and how easily all traces of their life, or anyone’s life can be erased. This man’s tragic death was only presented as scuff marks on the ground. Maybe this means how little of an effect Chigurh’s victims have on him. <br/> I believe that Chigurh represents the problems or conflicts that the characters are facing before Chigurh actually comes into their life. Chigurh is the fate that is brought to attention to these characters lives after ignoring what was right in front of them for the longest time. Chigurh is probably the last person anyone wants to see showing up on their doorstop. From the clothes to the creepy haircut, to the emotionless manner. Life is nothing more that a game of chance. <br/> I agree with the fact that first dream was a about loss, whether it was about money or a coin toss. I think that loss is a reoccurring theme throughout the whole movie. Nothing is certain and you can’t stop what is going to happen. All you can do is hope.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851102"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">lyni123</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851102"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T20:28:02-08:00">January 14, 2010 8:28 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851102, 'lyni123')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I think Jim is right when he talks about how Chigurh lives by fait and he does seek to kill it just happens. Chigurh many times leaves it up to the coin toss, and I think somewhere deep inside his cold character he wants that coin to be what the victim called it. When he was killing the officer with his handcuffs he wouldn’t look at the officer only the ceiling, because maybe if he looked at the officer he might feel remorse for him, and have second thoughts. In this movie Chigurh always has a blank expression on his face like what he does is just a job. In my opinion he chooses to have no emotion because that emotion in some way might show that he’s week and if he looks into the eyes of the officer will he think twice? Even when he is taking his shoe of it almost seems like its causing him more pain to show emotion than the actual pain itself. Because if he shows emotion he will become weak to himself. He has to live by a code and his set of rules and codes don’t fit in well with emotion of any sort. It is true that the only time he shows emotion is when Carla Jean won’t call the coin. He seemed more angry, on the inside that someone wouldn’t play by his rules than annoyed. I think that because Chigurh is so emotionless its almost like the angel of death where you can feel his presence.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851104"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">KK</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851104"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-14T20:39:24-08:00">January 14, 2010 8:39 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851104, 'KK')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, Although I’m not that experienced in analyzing films, I’ve learned all I can from my film literature class that I am currently taking, and by reading your interpretation of the film as well to help me write this response. I completely agree with you when it comes to thinking of Chigurh as more of a representation of the evil and chaos throughout the plot of the film rather then a character alone. It’s almost as if he may be apart of the “supernatural” or far from being considered human, which was made very blunt when he was first introduced because of his unpredictable ways and constant emotionless face toward surrounding characters. It makes me believe his character was created by the Coens specifically to invade a small quit town, where nothing ever happens, to create a greater emotional response from the audience to get them to want to continue watching to see what he may do next. Without a doubt I agree that Chigurh is most defiantly a psychopathic killer, and a smart one at that. I believe that this is because of the stereotype of people from rural areas, like in western movies, of being less intelligent then others, thus, causing more unexpected deaths by the outsider Chigurh. I agree that Chigurh is the coin, and the physical coin was just a representation of his mind and the decision that he would end up making regardless of the luck of the coin. I also think that involving a physical coin to determine someone’s death is strictly his sense of humor. It shows his point of view as to what he believes is humorous, as an obvious mentally disturbed person and how much of a game he thinks human life is. I agree Chigurh does think his destiny or calling is to control life and death of others around him, along with being able to do as he pleases. But I do disagree when it comes the deaths of the other characters being fate and him not choosing who he kills. I believe he does choose because of the fact of the matter that the people he does end up killing throughout the film, he tracks down and kills or finds out their location by putting clues together and kills them shortly after he finds them. I believe the only fate in this film is Chigurh being seriously injured a few times. This was expected and bound to happen eventually, as it happens to the majority of “villains” or “bad guys” in films, although it was unexpected for Llewelyn, “the good guy”, to be killed. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851223"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">devin</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851223"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-15T04:33:14-08:00">January 15, 2010 4:33 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851223, 'devin')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>In this movie No Country For Old men I do agree with Jim Emerson.<br/> The ending of the film is good. Also, he talks about the main guy who shots everyone I didn’t think about it the way he did so it makes the movie better he says not to think of him for who he is and what he represents; and just think of it as he wants the money in the leather bag there really is no other meaning to him that is all he cares about. Also, Jim Emerson talks about when the kid that has the money gets home walks in and grabs a beer out of the fridge showing like safeness kind of; But when he comes home after meeting the killer he grab a <br/> Glass of milk and drinks it showing that he is no longer safe or relaxed he now knows it is going to be harder than it looks and his death is pretty much predicted.<br/> After, reading this I now understand the movie a lot more and like it better before I just kind of thought that it was confusing and had no purpose and it was just a bunch of random old men shooting each other. Now I realize there is meaning to how he shot it and it just expresses the hole film through the shooting of the film as well.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851249"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">LittleHillbilly10</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851249"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-15T05:47:51-08:00">January 15, 2010 5:47 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851249, 'LittleHillbilly10')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>No Country For Old Men is an outstanding movie. I agree 100% with this analysis. My favorite scene of this movie would be the scene that Anton has taken his boots off and is walking down the hall way to the room where he thinks the money is. the fact that he was smart enough to hide the sound of him coming, but when getting to the room not finding the money, but 3 Mexican men there instead. Him closing the shower curtain before he kills the 3rd man was showing that he doesn't want to make the mess. Also I liked the scene when he finds the room that Llewelyn is in. They fight to the very end. The chase was an intense. Everything from the lock being blown out of the door down to Anton getting shot was amazing. Also the way he cleaned up his leg wound was intelligent. All in all this is an amazing movie. Evey scene is great. Thanks to my film lit teacher I got to see this amazing film.</p> <p>KK, I agree with you on the "supernatural". Anton is just an outside man that comes into town looking for what he wants. He's kinda like disturbing the peace.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851385"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Bkimbrell</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851385"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-15T10:19:52-08:00">January 15, 2010 10:19 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851385, 'Bkimbrell')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I recently watched "No Country for Old Men" in my film literature class. I did enjoy this film surprisingly, saying that because its not the typical movie I would have chose to watch. Being the age that I am, I don't have much experience with analyzing movies. As that was being said, reading your blog I began to understand the film more. What really interested me was when you replied to a previous post you said how "Chirgurh is always in the room next door, and never shares a frame with the others". The Coen brothers did a wonderful job by making that true because even when Chigurh was in the same frame as Bell he didn't have the main focus as if he was praying on his next target. My favorite scene in this film would have to be the coin toss. While you think to yourself in suspense, you wonder what is going to happen to the man if he gets heads or if he gets tails. In my opinion either way I thought he was going to kill him. Although he manipulates the man to chose his fate without him even knowing what is going on. What I'm wondering is why does Chigurh chose that man as his "victim"? <br/> A thing I'd like to point out is that in this case, when Chigurh finishes with his peanuts he clenches the wrapper right when he asks the guy "how much did you ever lose in coin toss?" Right as he says that, the wrapper lets go as if it's a time bomb waiting for its response to explode!<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851402"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Skippy00004</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851402"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-15T10:58:39-08:00">January 15, 2010 10:58 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851402, 'Skippy00004')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, in your entry you talk about how Chigurh “is the coin.” How he himself can decide whether or not to kill his victim. However, I think that instead of Chigurh himself being the coin, he is actually being controlled by it. He says in the film, “I can’t call it for you,” which signifies he is not in control. He is just the messenger who carries out the deed. As far as the gas station proprietor goes, I believe that Chigurh never has the intention on killing the man. He more or less wanted to teach him a lesson on why he shouldn’t stick his nose into other peoples business, no matter how subtle it might be. Also, the cashews wrapper, in my opinion, does not only serve as a tension builder, but a symbol of how the proprietor is unraveling due to Chigurhs questioning in front of our eyes. Representing how easily he (or anyone who chooses to) can get under a persons skin and find out almost anything he wants to know. For instance, just from the conversations between Chigurh and the proprietor, Chigurh now knows that the proprietor is scared and confused, when he goes to bed, where he lives, and how long he has owned the store. The proprietor has given up his life story to Chigurh for the simple reason of being uncomfortable with the present situation. Now I don’t think the Coens were alluding to anything in this scene, but I would like to make the suggestion that they were referring to how easily people today are oblivious to the fact that they give out personal information on a regular basis to people that they do not know personally, when it could in fact have severe repercussions.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851524"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://jmbbpies" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://jmbbpies/" rel="nofollow">Jennifer Pieszchala</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-851524"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-15T14:24:55-08:00">January 15, 2010 2:24 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851524, 'Jennifer Pieszchala')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>No Country for Old Men Blog Entry</p> <p> I discovered something in this blog entry that I never would have caught on my own and it just struck me, it was so spot on. The passage that got me details how Chigurh faces his “prey” dead on with an expressionless face knowing what he is about to do. The part about this excerpt that caught my attention the most was the detailing of Chigurh’s entry of Llewelyn and Carla Jean’s mobile home. Chigurh even though he never truly faces Llewelyn, Chigurh’s been where Llewelyn’s been, Chigurh has done what Llewelyn has done, Chigurh lived as Llewelyn lived even if for just a brief moment. This was their face-to-face moment Chigurh would usual have with his victims. </p> <p> Also, in the same short passage, even though in parenthesis, Jim talks about a startling similarity between blood and milk of all things. Jim puts it as Chigurh drinking their (Llewelyn and Carla Jean) milk is like drinking their blood in this instance. I never would have made a connection to blood with a liquid as pure and white as milk. I only believe this connection because Chigurh was essentially “facing Llewelyn” at the moment Chigurh drinking something of Llewelyn’s is to be nothing more than what Chigurh really wants, which is Llewelyn’s blood. There is one more thing that made the blood milk connection true as Jim stated. The kitten drinking the spilled milk at the hotel already shows us that there would be a dead man there, with his blood spilled as the milk was. <br/> <br/> These are the bits of information that I got and understood form Jim Emerson’s blog entry for No Country.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851583"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">jake_hazzard</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851583"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-15T15:56:39-08:00">January 15, 2010 3:56 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851583, 'jake_hazzard')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I believe in fate and chance just as much as everybody else, but i believe that the movie displayes more than that. Sir Isaac Newton once said, " To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." If i decided today that I wanted to change the future for myself or somebody else all I have to do is go out and "take action." <br/> I believe the Cohen brother display how fate is what we make it through sherrif Ed Tom Bell's (Tommy Lee Jones) story of a child kller. Fate is based on the choices we make, but things change when you add ucontrollable variables. Like a man with a mental disorder that chooses at a young age to kill somebody (so happens to be a 14 year old girl by the time he acts on his desires). In his mind fate may have deemed this necessary. <br/> Most criminals of hanus crimes have had some sort of mishap in their lives that cause them to think and act the way they do. Maybe Chigurh's parents split up as a chid and he believed it was the cause of fate, so he became a psychoathic murderer to cope with this.Dealing out his own fate. In his own eyes though, it is just fate. <br/> I think it's coincidence. Things randomly happens n that causes a series of chain reactions.<br/> Life. When Chigurh went into Luella's motel room he intended on killing everybody in the room. He did not use the coin to decide the fate of the cowardly unarmed man in the shower. He simply chose for him. If you treat everybody different (giving some people the chance of a coin toss and some o option at all) and act irrationally, fate falls secondhand to coincidence.<br/> Another thing, How did the mexicans find out where luella's motel room was? Chigurh was the only one with the transmitter detector. And who was the Ron Jeremly look-a-like in the shower hiding?what was his significance?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-851644"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Tess</span></span> on <a href="#comment-851644"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-15T18:30:57-08:00">January 15, 2010 6:30 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(851644, 'Tess')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Great article with great insight! : )</p> <p>It seems to me that Chigurh is the character with the most comprehension on life. He is the character who realizes and embraces that life or death is determined by “the flip of a coin.” Chigurh is extremely authentic as he simply goes where the road takes him and does whatever comes his way. He realizes he doesn’t have control over what happens, he doesn’t kill when he feels like it, he gives the decision to a greater power, fate. When he flips the coin he is embracing his lack of control in life, rather than proving he is in control. The entire film portrays the course of character’s lives, how one thing leads to another, and all along the way they encounter many uncontrollable things, and eventually they will encounter life or death circumstances. Sometimes these characters don’t even realize it or see these situations coming, because fate leads them to life rather than death. But sooner or later, the “coin” will land the wrong way, and their fate will be death. If we are constantly searching for these situations, then we will waste our entire lives. I do not think the message of this film is to kill people who get in your way, but I do believe the message is to just live, embrace life and realize that you cannot control everything. And once you achieve that, then you will “wake up” and recognize the hope from the final dreams.<br/> </p> </div> </div>      <div class="comment" id="comment-855126"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Joe McIntosh</span></span> on <a href="#comment-855126"><abbr class="published" title="2010-01-20T19:09:30-08:00">January 20, 2010 7:09 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(855126, 'Joe McIntosh')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>In this film there are a couple of things that caught my attention such as the missing room 113 and the disappearance of Chigurh from behind the door of room 114.It just seems odd to me why room 113 is missing and why Chigurh is not behind the door anymore. Concerning why the Coens left room 113 out of the motel’s room numbering sequence, I see three possibilities, the third of which is the most likely. First, motels with indoor halls (this isn’t one of them) sometimes put even numbers on one side of the hall and odd numbers on the other side, and motels whose rooms are entered from outdoors sometimes put even numbers on one side of the office and odd numbers on the other, this could simply be realism, possibly even the actual numbering on the motel where the scene was filmed. Second, just as hotels customarily cater to the superstitious by omitting the 13th floor in their numbering schemes, some motels may cater to the superstitious by omitting room 13 or rooms with 13 as the last two digits. Realism again, since 13 has become a symbol of bad luck (see above), the Coens may have conspicuously omitted room 113 to signify that Sheriff Bell was not going to encounter bad luck. Next, what happened to Chigurh, pictured partly behind the door of the doorway Bell is about to enter. It’s been pointed out that the bathroom window was locked. Chigurh could not hide under the bed, because hotel/motel beds (not to mention most home beds) have insufficient clearance for anyone to hide under. Others have frowned upon the idea that he could have escaped through the vent. I’d like to reinforce those people. Chigurh could not escape through the vent (even if he could fit, which is doubtful) because there is no exit. All the other rooms have their vent covers screwed on from the other side, so Chigurh would be trapped. Also, climbing into the vent would have required a chair (really a stepladder), but none was left behind below the vent. And clambering through the vent would have made too much noise, consisting of lots of metallic clunks and echoes. The best possibility, though an implausible one, is that Bell didn’t have the good sense to push the door fully open to ensure nobody was behind it and didn’t look in the door’s direction to ensure that nobody had stepped out of the way when the door was opened. But if Bell was this careless, Chigurh could simply have slipped out of the room behind Bell’s back. One more possibility, not to be dismissed when the filmmakers are the Coen brothers, is that Chigurh was present in the room only in Bell’s imagination. Under this scenario, Bell feared that Chigurh was behind the door – we see Bell’s mental picture of Death hiding behind the door, waiting to kill him – and was tempting fate by entering anyhow. This possibility coordinates with the idea that the Coens deliberately removed room 113 (bad luck) to signify that Bell was about to run into good luck.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-867320"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Martin H. Leaf</span></span> on <a href="#comment-867320"><abbr class="published" title="2010-02-08T22:43:48-08:00">February 8, 2010 10:43 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(867320, 'Martin H. Leaf')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Chigurh disappears magically three times in the movie.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-886615"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Bob</span></span> on <a href="#comment-886615"><abbr class="published" title="2010-03-10T12:14:11-08:00">March 10, 2010 12:14 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(886615, 'Bob')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I haven't seen the similarities between Bell and Chigurh discussed. Start with their names which sound almost the same. Ed Tom, Anton. They both have no sense of humor. Ed Tom is the only main character who never sees Chigurh but spends most of the movie in places Chigurh was. Chigurh spares Bell his life even though they are alone and Bell is clearly inconveniencing him. Bell later refers to him as a ghost but maybe in part he is his ghost. Chigurh walks away probably after securing the money and finishing his project. After this, he would no longer be employable in his line of work (since he killed his boss and everyone associated with him who would ever hire him again?) So we can assume he retired along with sheriff Bell. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-940243"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Ty</span></span> on <a href="#comment-940243"><abbr class="published" title="2010-05-31T23:31:09-08:00">May 31, 2010 11:31 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(940243, 'Ty')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p> <br/> Is “fate” that all that separates us from being murdered by a silenced shotgun waving “psychopath”? Is that all that keeps us from stumbling upon 2 million dollars worth of money in a briefcase? “The way he sees it, he (Chigurh) is not the one responsible for the decision to kill or not kill. There are rules and he must enforce them, if only because he's the only one who understands them…” Chigurh is obvoulsy responsible for the deaths of all those people and fate is not to blame. If fate were to blame, Chigurh wouldn’t follow a mental law that whoever is in his way is simply collateral damage. He had to make a conscious choice that either you live, or die. As Jim said, “he doesn't choose to kill or not kill; but if fate puts someone in his way, then so be it.” I agree with you in the fact that “so be it” but he still made a decision. If he didn’t care who lived or who died, the man at the gas station would surely be killed. However, he wasn’t. What would make Chigurh decide to spare his life but not the seemingly innocent motorist (to be shot in the head). “The toss, and the call, those are beyond his control -- and, frankly, beyond his concern.” How is the coin toss beyond his control when he is the one performing the coin toss? Did Chigurh have to make the gas attendant “call it”? Could Chigurh have simply left? I think this reinforces the fact that he is making conscious decisions affecting the lives of those he has been in contact with.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-940739"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">HayleyAM</span></span> on <a href="#comment-940739"><abbr class="published" title="2010-06-01T18:15:58-08:00">June 1, 2010 6:15 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(940739, 'HayleyAM')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>I do think you are deadon about alot of things in this artical. You pointed out the two things that I loved about this movie. The coin and the foot movement. Both to me at least add suspense and make you sit back and think of what is about to happen and makes you focus less on the center of the screen and more on what you think the future events will be. With the guy at the store when he tells him to choice the man hesatates and the viewers begin to think that if he does choice correct that Chigurh is going to shot him not let him live. But when he guesses right and he doesn't it makes everyone think more about his charactor and what kind of person he really is. This is a very thought out movie and I think you did a wonderful ideas on this movie. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-940749"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Lauren</span></span> on <a href="#comment-940749"><abbr class="published" title="2010-06-01T18:46:58-08:00">June 1, 2010 6:46 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(940749, 'Lauren')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>After reading Emerson’s blog there are various places that I agree with him, however I also have occasional disagreements with the article. First, I agree with Emerson when he calls No Country for Old Men a “existential thriller” because I do see the existential theory being put to use in the film. Mostly I see those qualities in the Chigurh. Additionally, I strongly agree with the fact that Chigurh simply leaves it up to fate when deciding on whether or not to kill someone. I think he is simply thinks that the rules are laid out and there is no changing them which is why he leaves it up to fate. Furthermore, I agree when Emerson points out the contrast in characters from Chigurh to Bell. However, to expand on Emerson’s theory I think you could go so far as to say that Chigurh follows Camus absurdist theory because he feels nothing for the human condition or the people that he is killing. Furthermore, Chigurh does not think ahead of time who is going to kill, he merely leaves it up to fate when he flips the coin. In contrast to him, Bell is not because he understands the human condition and feels for the victims. Lastly, I disagree with the fact that Emerson states that the film is not centered around Chigurh but mainly the people reactions that he encounters. I oppose this thought because I view Chigurh as absurd so other peoples’ reactions would not matter to him; he exists for himself and himself only. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-941565"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Lysielu</span></span> on <a href="#comment-941565"><abbr class="published" title="2010-06-02T22:20:40-08:00">June 2, 2010 10:20 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(941565, 'Lysielu')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Dear Jim,<br/> Your analysis is fabulous. Thanks for helping struggling movie studiers understand all the ins and outs of NCFOM. I have to say, on my own I would never have watched this movie. I’m really glad I was forced to watch it for class. The suspense was killer. I love westerns and that made the movie even cooler to me. Until reading your analysis, I was confused why Chigurh was never apprehended by Sheriff Bell. I came to realize the continuous motion and chase throughout the movie symbolize life. Our lives are in constant movement from the instant we’re born, and at that moment we’re being pursued by death. Chigurh viewed himself as “destiny” and he acts it out by killing people who go against his rules. Llewelyn ran and planned to fight Chigurh just like we try to evade death by any means possible. Eventually, no matter what precaution taken, it will eventually catch up with us. That’s why Chigurh goes free. Death is victorious in the long run.<br/> Yet in Sheriff Bell’s second dream, his father carries the light ahead of him. The light going forward symbolizes hope. Thinking about it in the sense of death, that hope is heaven where eternal death has no victory. <br/> <br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-941575"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Nina</span></span> on <a href="#comment-941575"><abbr class="published" title="2010-06-02T22:33:59-08:00">June 2, 2010 10:33 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(941575, 'Nina')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Chigurh may not have been the main focus of the movie, but in my opinion he was an integral part of the movie. His riveting character was more important to the story than just being the Coen brother's tool for sounding off the other affected character's responses. I found myself wondering often where the cold and emotionless Chigurh would take us next. What really made this human become so non-human? Some would think it was just about the money in the leather satchel. I'm not so sure that was the only thing that drove him. So many of the characters introduced in this movie were way beyond unique, but the portrayal of Chigurh is what you will remember when thinking of this movie in years to come. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-974126"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Dinsdale</span></span> on <a href="#comment-974126"><abbr class="published" title="2010-07-12T08:25:34-08:00">July 12, 2010 8:25 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(974126, 'Dinsdale')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>No Country For Old Men:<br/> - It's about life in the capitalistic USA, as Ellis put it, "This country is hard on people.... You can't stop what's comin. Ain't all waiting on you."<br/> - We all chase the american dream, (money).<br/> - If you're over 45 in this country...good luck.<br/> - Chigurh is time or fate, you can't stop him.<br/> - Doesn't matter who you are, sooner or later...<br/> - Great movie, but unsettling.</p> <p><br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-1045254"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">SPatrick</span></span> on <a href="#comment-1045254"><abbr class="published" title="2010-09-12T18:58:50-08:00">September 12, 2010 6:58 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(1045254, 'SPatrick')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>"No Country for Old Men" is a modern American version of Turgenev's "Father and Sons." The film is about the "savage new times" -- to use a prophetic phrase from "Videodrome" -- that we inhabit. The older characters in the movie represent a more civilized generation and older America that is quickly disappearing. This world is juxtaposed against Anton, drug cartels, and brutalized war vets. This "Old Order" or "Ancien Regime" is not equipped to handle the violence, ruthlessness and new breed of Man -- a new breed that has cast off whatever values or restraints were in place from a dying, enervated civilization. Just as Turgenev's Bazarov and Dostoyevsky's Stavrogin culminated in the real lfe Nechaev and Bolsheviks, the Coen brothers seem to be suggesting we are in the midst of a radical cultural and spiritual transformation that bodes ill for those governed by the last remains of "bourgeois propriety." Hence, the title -- No Country for Old Men. The way Anton kills his victims suggests we are all set as "cattle" -- being led to slaughter by evil forces that ensure success for the Antons of the world and irrelevance and disenfranchisement for the "old men" who refuse to adapt to our savage new times.</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-1126792"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Dean M</span></span> on <a href="#comment-1126792"><abbr class="published" title="2010-11-07T07:11:17-08:00">November 7, 2010 7:11 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(1126792, 'Dean M')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>No Country for Old Men evoked an actual experience. Waking in the middle of the night, sweating from sheer discomfort, shaking from an omnipotent presence.Sheltering myself in a bathroom for hours, battling the shadow to no avail. Opening my parents bedroom door, touching my sleeping father who responded " You were seeing if I was dead." The shadow was gone, the presence left for my memory.<br/> Nothing is finite until the end, when it just might start all over again. An excellent film. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-1194487"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Brad</span></span> on <a href="#comment-1194487"><abbr class="published" title="2010-12-05T03:58:59-08:00">December 5, 2010 3:58 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(1194487, 'Brad')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>This was an awful film. Who cares about craftsmanship if it doesn't serve a dramatic purpose? I don't know; did the whole country, including the Academy, suddenly lose their intelligence and love of film? OMG... I mean, remember when truly wonderful films with emotion and substance won the Oscar for Best Film? (Say, "American Beauty"?!!). This film has no dramatic dynamism. Let me break it down for you: 1) There's this murderer running around shooting people while flipping coins 2) There's a sheriff who sits around and does nothing 3) There's a guy who found lots of money and keeps trying to hide it... THAT'S IT FOLKS!! What kind of drama is that?</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-1407796"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://www.packerjerseyshop.com/ajhawk-jersey-c-8.html" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.packerjerseyshop.com/ajhawk-jersey-c-8.html" rel="nofollow">A.j.hawk Jersey</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-1407796"><abbr class="published" title="2010-12-31T14:36:32-08:00">December 31, 2010 2:36 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(1407796, 'A.j.hawk Jersey')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>this post will almost certainly be deleted! . it???¨º?¨¨s obvious that pathetic liberal tree huggers are selling us down the river. Simple answer: stand up and be counted. Is it a tune too familiar from our news paper?!!!</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-1617584"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">babette</span></span> on <a href="#comment-1617584"><abbr class="published" title="2011-01-23T18:08:23-08:00">January 23, 2011 6:08 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(1617584, 'babette')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>A splendid analysis of NCFOM. </p> <p>Here's my take:</p> <p>Chigurh is 9/11 as inside job. "You can't stop what's coming."</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-1640310"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://kosketch.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://kosketch.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Ken O'Connell</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-1640310"><abbr class="published" title="2011-01-26T12:40:42-08:00">January 26, 2011 12:40 PM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(1640310, 'Ken O\'Connell')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Jim, Good to read your reviews. Here is my take on the two dreams at the end. Sorry that it is a bit long. Ken </p> <p>Two Dreams- explored</p> <p>Although I am coming to this discussion late after just seeing the film in 2011, I wanted to add to the discussion about the two dreams at the very end of the film by Bell, the retired sheriff.</p> <p>Remember he starts by saying that he has outlived his father by 20 years so that his father is younger in these dreams.</p> <p>Dream one is the sheriff meeting his father in town and he is give some money by his father. “I don’t remember much but I think I lost it.”</p> <p>Then he quickly goes onto dream two, but let’s pause here. Isn’t this dream a simple summary of the whole movie? Moss gets some money and then looses it! Amazing and fitting for the role dreams often play in films or plays. A summary of what has happened or what will happen.</p> <p>Dream two is more complex and takes longer to tell and we have a harder time visualizing the imagery.<br/> I copied this description from the entry about this film in Wikipedia.</p> <p>“Bell was riding his horse in a pass in the mountains where there was snow on the ground and cold all around him. As he rode, he could see his father up ahead of him carrying a horn lit with fire the color of the moon, and he knew that his father would ride on through the pass and fix a fire out in the dark and cold. And then he woke up.”</p> <p>Also, remember Bell describes his father who rides right past him saying nothing, all covered by a blanket, his head is down, almost like his is dead. Then, I was caught off guard by the description of the color of the fire like the “moon,” which is bluish, very cool. Wood fire is yellowish, warm in color, even reflected in a metal horn it would glow warm or yellowish.</p> <p>Then he says his father would ride through the pass and fix a fire out in the “dark and cold.” Bell pauses then says, “I knew that whenever I got there he’d be there.”</p> <p>I think the horse rider is Death or certainly Bell’s father in death. He has taken the metal and fire from Anton, never to bother Bell again and is taking it through the pass into the next world. The bluish light is the color of Anton’s weapons, metallic bluish, cold and they definitely bring darkness and cold wherever they go. The metal horn refers to the metal of these weapons.</p> <p>Bell knows that his father will be up ahead fixing a fire for them, for their reunion. At this point the meaning switches to a warm fire.<br/> </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-1705832"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Sam</span></span> on <a href="#comment-1705832"><abbr class="published" title="2011-02-05T09:17:53-08:00">February 5, 2011 9:17 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(1705832, 'Sam')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Thanks Jim,<br/> Great review and wow great movie. Award winner and written and directed by the best. Everything that could be said about McCarthy has been said. The book, the script the cinematography, every aspects of film making are here. All awards well deserved and a true drama for the collections. McCarthy does not write docu-dramas. This is all original.</p> <p>BUT, here we see Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, Barry Corbin, all playing characters they have played before, nothing new except the great script. </p> <p>I would think the directors could have not allowed this to happen and gotten more out of them, especially Jones. They all are great but should have been insulted by the way they came across as actors in this film.</p> <p>The West Texas accents were close enough for the movie and the words of the script were mostly correct but not quit. The movie needed a dialogue coach and old timer sheriff to lead them through it.<br/> Bary Corbin almost got it right except he ( Director Powell) didn't pick up on the correct way to portray the time of references and telling his tale of the shot uncle. It worked because the movie goers new right up front they were going to have figure out most of this movie because of the Pulp Fiction jerky scene changes. <br/> Other great actors could have done better in Texas characters as we have seen from Robert Duval in Tender Mercies. <br/> You can tell the pace of the dialogue was methodically and deliberately slowed and it worked well for the actors and the audience.<br/> The stories that some of these old sheriffs can tell and how some of them wound up in the book<br/> is another book. Anyone that goes out to these parts after seeing this movie will see people out there differently. Better I think. </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-2319429"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author"><a title="http://stuffgetsquicklyreviewed.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://stuffgetsquicklyreviewed.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Austin</a></span></span> on <a href="#comment-2319429"><abbr class="published" title="2011-04-12T03:41:05-08:00">April 12, 2011 3:41 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(2319429, 'Austin')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>Wow... what a masterful, insightful and fascinating read. I never really thought about the movie much but this article just... wow</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-2518748"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">elan gusto</span></span> on <a href="#comment-2518748"><abbr class="published" title="2011-05-05T07:55:25-08:00">May 5, 2011 7:55 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(2518748, 'elan gusto')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>So Anton fixes himself up like a Jason in a Friday the 13th flick, and all the bellybutton gazers pleasure themselves to the cinematography and tangental refrences to existentialism. It's a damn fine film and NO amount of ANALysis can change that. I like chocolate/ I like vanilla... Dumbocrat/RepubliCON. It DOESN'T matter. Some folks like Dumb.. Some folks like Pretensious (sic), Why cain't we all git along? </p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-3197685"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Bob Driscoll</span></span> on <a href="#comment-3197685"><abbr class="published" title="2011-09-23T11:24:44-08:00">September 23, 2011 11:24 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(3197685, 'Bob Driscoll')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>look for shocking similarities to Ingmar Bergman's 1957 spellbinding The Seventh Seal</p> </div> </div>    <div class="comment" id="comment-4086289"> <div class="comment-header">  By <span class="byline"><span class="vcard author">Roy Wesley</span></span> on <a href="#comment-4086289"><abbr class="published" title="2012-02-16T11:20:29-08:00">February 16, 2012 11:20 AM</abbr></a> | <a title="Reply" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="mtReplyCommentOnClick(4086289, 'Roy Wesley')">Reply</a> </div> <div class="comment-content"> <p>A question to those who've read the book as well as seen this movie...<br/> Is Anton Chigurh the ultimate cynic? </p> </div> </div>  <div class="comments-open" id="comments-open"> <h2 class="comments-open-header">Leave a comment</h2> <div class="comments-open-content"> <form method="post" action="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi" name="comments_form" id="comments-form" onsubmit="if (this.bakecookie.checked) rememberMe(this)"> <input type="hidden" name="static" value="1"/> <input type="hidden" name="entry_id" value="5296"/> <input type="hidden" name="__lang" value="en"/> <div id="comments-open-data"> <div id="comment-form-name"> <label for="comment-author">Name</label> <input id="comment-author" name="author" size="30" value=""/> </div> <div id="comment-form-email"> <label for="comment-email">Email Address (not published with comment)</label> <input id="comment-email" name="email" size="30" value=""/> </div> <div id="comment-form-url"> <label for="comment-url">URL</label> <input id="comment-url" name="url" size="30" value=""/> </div> </div> <input type="hidden" name="parent_id" value="" id="comment-parent-id"/> <div id="comment-form-reply" style="display:none"> <input type="checkbox" id="comment-reply" name="comment_reply" value="" onclick="mtSetCommentParentID()"/> <label for="comment-reply" id="comment-reply-label"></label> </div> <div id="comments-open-text"> <label for="comment-text">Comments <i>(Your comment needs to be approved before it will appear. Thanks for waiting. <br>      You may use HTML tags for style. )</i></label> <textarea id="comment-text" name="text" rows="15" cols="50"></textarea> </div> <div id="comments-open-footer"> <input type="submit" accesskey="v" name="preview" id="comment-preview" value="Preview"/> <input type="submit" accesskey="s" name="post" id="comment-submit" value="Submit"/> </div> </form> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="beta"> <div id="beta-inner"> <a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://murielcommunity.blogspot.com/"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011muriels.jpg" width="185" height="120"></a><br> <p> <h2 class="widget-header">epigraphs</h2> <div class="widget-content"> <p> <i>"One can summarize a plot in one sentence, whereas it’s fairly difficult to summarize one frame."</i> -- Raymond Durgnat <p> <i>"Young man, let me explain something to you: </i>Every<i> shot in a picture is the most important shot in a picture."</i> -- Ernst Lubitsch <p> <i>"I don't think you go to a play to forget, or to a movie to be distracted. I think life generally is a distraction and that going to a movie is a way to get back, not go away."</i> -- Tom Noonan <p> <i>"Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out."</i> -- Martin Scorsese <p> <i>“An idea does not exist apart from the words that express it. Style is not an envelope enclosing a message; the envelope </i>is<i> the message.”</i> -- Dwight Macdonald <p> <i> "There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear."</i> -- Daniel Dennett <p> </div> <div class="widget-recent-comments widget"> <h3 class="widget-header">recent comments</h3> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="recent-comments-list"> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4703605">Brandon commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: I think the wording is mo </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4698109">Brian A. Oard commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: White, seedy dandelions a </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4696489">Sean commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: Michael Bay, Bryan Singer </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4695937">Colin F. commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: Yes, it's depressing that </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/avenge_me_avenge_me.html#comment-4695356">kmcclun commented on "Avenge me! AVENGE ME!"</a>: Captain America is a ster </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4695279">KWJ commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: How about "notable"? We' </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4694070">Max commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: I think they deserve to b </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4693749">Alex L. commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: Jim, Don't you know, as </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4693679">Clifford Jackman commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: That pretty much fixes th </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/04/tree_of_life_the_missing_link_.html#comment-4691004">Glenn Davey commented on Tree of Life: The missing link discovered!</a>: I knew immediately what t </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/avenge_me_avenge_me.html#comment-4689002">Jason Haggstrom (haggie) commented on "Avenge me! AVENGE ME!"</a>: I appreciate a lot of wha </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/avenge_me_avenge_me.html#comment-4687651">Head Buckaroo commented on "Avenge me! AVENGE ME!"</a>: Come on, Jin. It's not th </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/avenge_me_avenge_me.html#comment-4686269">Andrew commented on "Avenge me! AVENGE ME!"</a>: Just want to remind peopl </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4685992">The Witch from Next Door commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: Wasn't the word "prominen </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/avenge_me_avenge_me.html#comment-4685179">The Filmist commented on "Avenge me! AVENGE ME!"</a>: "At least the Watchmen is </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/avenge_me_avenge_me.html#comment-4684338">Lamar Kukuk commented on "Avenge me! AVENGE ME!"</a>: Two things at play here. </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4684034">Frank McDevitt commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: I think Duncan Jones made </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html#comment-4682725">Pedro commented on Are these America's most prominent filmmakers?</a>: Meaning no disrepect, but </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/avenge_me_avenge_me.html#comment-4682557">Jim Emerson commented on "Avenge me! AVENGE ME!"</a>: My fault -- I had an uncl </li> <li> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/avenge_me_avenge_me.html#comment-4682342">czf commented on "Avenge me! AVENGE ME!"</a>: Jim. You should put the c </li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="widget-archive widget"> <h2 class="widget-header">selected articles</h2> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="widget-list"> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinepad.com/bathroom.htm">Plumbing in the Cinema</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinepad.com/busterk.htm">Buster Keaton</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinepad.com/twin_peaks/tp_enter.htm">TwinPeaks</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041025/EDITOR/40924001/1023">Barry Lyndon</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/06/birth_of_a_bunuelian_notion.html">'Birth' of a Buñuelian Notion</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041102/EDITOR/41022001/1023">Donnie Darko</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19991025/EDITOR/40828001/1023">Fight Club</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050707/EDITOR/50707002">War of the Worlds</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050101/EDITOR/40828002/1023">Mind Games & Head Trips</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041014/EDITOR/41018001/1023">Politics & Movies</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinepad.com/reviews/millersx.htm">Miller's Crossing</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19530101/EDITOR/40827002/1023">Sansho the Bailiff</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinepad.com/coens.htm">The Coen Bros.</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050304/EDITOR/50304001/1023">Million Dollar Baby</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinepad.com/reviews/biglie.htm">The Big Lie</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinepad.com/badmovies.htm">When Bad Movies Happen to Good People</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051214/EDITOR/51215001/1023">Munich</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinepad.com/filmschool/pantheon.htm">Jeeem's Pantheon</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" "href="http://cinepad.com/awards/beloved.htm">120Favorite Movies</a></li> </ul> </div> </div><div class="widget-archive widget-archive-category widget"> <h3 class="widget-header">categories</h3> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="widget-list"> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/a_serious_man/">A Serious Man (5)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/acting/">Acting (33)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/books/">Books (15)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/cgi/">CGI (3)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/censorship/">Censorship (23)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/cinematography/">Cinematography (11)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/comedy/">Comedy (174)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/contrarian_week/">Contrarian Week (12)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/contrarianism_blogathon/">Contrarianism Blog-a-Thon (5)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/critical_thinking/">Critical Thinking (100)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/critics_criticism/">Critics & criticism (449)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/dvd/" title="Formerly the immediate future of movies. Now, basically, the present of movies.">DVD (35)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/directors_direction/">Directors & direction (148)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/dogs/">Dogs (12)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/editing/">Editing (13)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/exhibition/">Exhibition (9)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/extras/">Extras (1)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/festivals_events/">Festivals & events (61)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/film_noir/">Film noir (3)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/funny_games_experiment/">Funny Games experiment (6)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/horror/">Horror (57)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/in_the_cut/">In the Cut (3)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/inglourious_basterds/">Inglourious Basterds (10)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/journalism/">Journalism (86)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/language/">Language (32)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/mad_men/">Mad Men (6)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/movies/">Movies (195)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/music/">Music (46)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/no_country_for_old_men/">No Country for Old Men (19)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/obits_tributes/">Obits & tributes (44)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/opening_shots_index/">Opening Shots Index (1)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/opening_shots_project/">Opening Shots Project (87)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/opening_shots_project_part_2/">Opening Shots Project, Part 2 (5)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/oscars/">Oscars (37)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/politics/">Politics (123)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/religion/">Religion (45)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/sex/">Sex (26)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/sound/">Sound (3)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/tiff_2006/">TIFF 2006 (24)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/tiff_2007/">TIFF 2007 (21)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/tiff_2008/">TIFF 2008 (12)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/tv/">TV (87)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/technology/">Technology (79)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/the_biz/">The Biz (95)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/the_dark_knight/">The Dark Knight (19)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/the_descent/">The Descent (4)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/the_social_network/">The Social Network (8)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item">Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/trapped_in_the_closet/">Trapped in the Closet (6)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/viff/">VIFF 2009 (7)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/viff_2011/">VIFF 2011 (4)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/video_essay/">Video essay (21)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/writing/">Writing (8)</a> </li> </ul> </div> </div> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.caminobrowser.org/"><br/><img border="0" <img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/getcamino.png" width="184" height="63"></a><br> <div class="widget-Y! APT widget"> <div id="index_rightad">  <script type="text/javascript"> displayAdSlot("x01") </script>  </div> </div> More Great Movies, books, DVDs and Blu-ray inside! <script type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://www.assoc-amazon.com/s/asw.js"></script> </div> </div> <div id="gamma"> <div id="gamma-inner"> <div class="widget-search widget"> <h3 class="widget-header">search</h3> <div class="widget-content"> <form method="get" action="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi"> <input type="text" id="search" class="ti" name="search" value=""/> <input type="hidden" name="IncludeBlogs" value="28"/> <input type="submit" accesskey="4" value="Search"/> </form> </div> </div> <div class="widget-archives widget"> <h2 class="widget-header">tweet / facebook</h2> <div class="widget-content">  <div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style"> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=jeeemerson" class="addthis_button_compact">Share</a> <span class="addthis_separator">|</span> <a class="addthis_button_twitter"></a> <a class="addthis_button_facebook"></a> <a class="addthis_button_google"></a> <a class="addthis_button_reddit"></a> </div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js#pub=jeeemerson"></script>  </div></div><div class="widget-syndication widget"> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="blog-feeds"> <li class="blog feed"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/mt-static/images/status_icons/feed.gif" alt="Subscribe to feed" width="9" height="9"/> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/atom.xml">Subscribe to this blog's feed</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="widget-twitter widget">  <div class="widget-content"> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://cdn.widgetserver.com/syndication/subscriber/InsertWidget.js"></script><script>if (WIDGETBOX) WIDGETBOX.renderWidget('800bbc4a-31a6-41ba-8fef-4e86087197c1');</script><noscript>Get the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.widgetbox.com/widget/twidget">Twitter Widget</a> widget and many other <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.widgetbox.com/">great free widgets</a> at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.widgetbox.com/">Widgetbox</a>! Not seeing a widget? (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://docs.widgetbox.com/using-widgets/installing-widgets/why-cant-i-see-my-widget/">More info</a>)</noscript> <p> </div> <div class="widget-recent-entries widget-archives widget"> <h3 class="widget-header">recent entries</h3> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="widget-list"> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/02/tinker_tailor_critic_eye_some_.html">Tinker Tailor Critic Eye: A great movie<br>inspires some excellent writing</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/02/why_dont_the_critics_oscars_au.html">Why don't critics, Oscars & audience agree?</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/02/why_brad_pitt_should_win_the_o.html">Why Brad Pitt should win the Oscar</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/02/the_artist_everybody_loveshate.html">The Artist: Everybody loves/hates a frontrunner!</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/01/missing_bingham_personal_alche.html">Missing Bingham: Alchemy and the movies</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/01/come_ona_tree_house_of_life.html">Come ona Tree House (of Life)</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/01/tinker_tailor_moneyball_betwee.html">Tinker Tailor, Moneyball: Between the lines (Part 1)</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/01/finchers_girl.html">Watching (and listening to) Fincher's Girl </a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/01/desert_island_dvds_matts_mine_.html">Desert island DVDs (Matt's & mine & yours)</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/01/moments_out_of_time_2012.html">Moments Out of Time 2012</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/12/when_i_fall_in_love.html">When I fall in love...</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/12/shame_tree_of_life_ambiguity_o.html">Shame, Tree of Life: Ambiguity or bust?</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/12/my_first_2011_ten_best_list.html">My First 2011 "Ten Best" List</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/12/idiocracy_and_the_ten-best_.html">Idiocracy and the ten-best trolls</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/12/hey_girl.html">Hey girl,</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/12/art_shame_and_hype-season_back.html">The Artist, Shame and hype-season backlash</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/12/david_cronenbergs_dangerous_me.html">A piece of David Cronenberg's mind</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/11/goodfellas_badfellas_scorsese.html">Goodfellas & badfellas: Scorsese and morality</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/11/we_could_shoot_a_russian_unico.html">We could shoot a Russian unicorn</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/11/it_aint_the_meat_its_the_motio.html">It Ain't the Meat (It's the Motion): Thoughts<br>on movie technique and movie criticism</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <h3 class="widget-header">google connect</h3> <div class="widget-content">  <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://www.google.com/friendconnect/script/friendconnect.js"></script>  <div id="div-8845412050278115963" style="width:180px;border:1px solid #cccccc;"></div>  <script type="text/javascript"> var skin = {}; skin['BORDER_COLOR'] = '#cccccc'; skin['ENDCAP_BG_COLOR'] = '#e0ecff'; skin['ENDCAP_TEXT_COLOR'] = '#333333'; skin['ENDCAP_LINK_COLOR'] = '#0000cc'; skin['ALTERNATE_BG_COLOR'] = '#ffffff'; skin['CONTENT_BG_COLOR'] = '#ffffff'; skin['CONTENT_LINK_COLOR'] = '#0000cc'; skin['CONTENT_TEXT_COLOR'] = '#333333'; skin['CONTENT_SECONDARY_LINK_COLOR'] = '#7777cc'; skin['CONTENT_SECONDARY_TEXT_COLOR'] = '#666666'; skin['CONTENT_HEADLINE_COLOR'] = '#333333'; skin['NUMBER_ROWS'] = '4'; google.friendconnect.container.setParentUrl('/' /* location of rpc_relay.html and canvas.html */); google.friendconnect.container.renderMembersGadget( { id: 'div-8845412050278115963', site: '11749121899976083588' }, skin); </script> </div> <div class="widget-archive-monthly-dropdown widget-archive widget"> <h3 class="widget-header"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/archives.html">archives</a></h3> <div class="widget-content"> <select onchange="nav(this)"> <option>Select a Month...</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/">May 2012</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/04/">April 2012</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/03/">March 2012</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/02/">February 2012</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/01/">January 2012</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/12/">December 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/11/">November 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/10/">October 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/09/">September 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/08/">August 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/07/">July 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/06/">June 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/05/">May 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/04/">April 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/03/">March 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/02/">February 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/01/">January 2011</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/12/">December 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/11/">November 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/10/">October 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/09/">September 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/08/">August 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/07/">July 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/06/">June 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/05/">May 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/04/">April 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/03/">March 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/02/">February 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/01/">January 2010</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/12/">December 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/11/">November 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/10/">October 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/09/">September 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/08/">August 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/07/">July 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/06/">June 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/05/">May 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/04/">April 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/03/">March 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/02/">February 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/01/">January 2009</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/12/">December 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/11/">November 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/10/">October 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/09/">September 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/08/">August 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/07/">July 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/06/">June 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/05/">May 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/04/">April 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/03/">March 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/02/">February 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/01/">January 2008</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/12/">December 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/">November 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/10/">October 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/09/">September 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/08/">August 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/07/">July 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/06/">June 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/05/">May 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/04/">April 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/03/">March 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/02/">February 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/01/">January 2007</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/12/">December 2006</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/11/">November 2006</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/10/">October 2006</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/09/">September 2006</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/08/">August 2006</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/07/">July 2006</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/06/">June 2006</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/05/">May 2006</option> <option value="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/04/">April 2006</option> </select> </div> </div> <script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"> function nav(sel) { if (sel.selectedIndex == -1) return; var opt = sel.options[sel.selectedIndex]; if (opt && opt.value) location.href = opt.value; } </script> <div class="widget-calendar widget"> <h3 class="widget-header">May 2012</h3> <div class="widget-content"> <table summary="Monthly calendar with links to daily posts"> <tr> <th abbr="Sunday">Sun</th> <th abbr="Monday">Mon</th> <th abbr="Tuesday">Tue</th> <th abbr="Wednesday">Wed</th> <th abbr="Thursday">Thu</th> <th abbr="Friday">Fri</th> <th abbr="Saturday">Sat</th> </tr> <tr> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td> 1 </td> <td> 2 </td> <td> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/avenge_me_avenge_me.html">3</a> </td> <td> 4 </td> <td> 5 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 6 </td> <td> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/random_thoughts_while_attendin.html">7</a> </td> <td> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/05/as_prominent_as_it_gets.html">8</a> </td> <td> 9 </td> <td> 10 </td> <td> 11 </td> <td> 12 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 13 </td> <td> 14 </td> <td> 15 </td> <td> 16 </td> <td> 17 </td> <td> 18 </td> <td> 19 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 20 </td> <td> 21 </td> <td> 22 </td> <td> 23 </td> <td> 24 </td> <td> 25 </td> <td> 26 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 27 </td> <td> 28 </td> <td> 29 </td> <td> 30 </td> <td> 31 </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> </tr> </table> </div> </div> <div class="widget-archives widget"> <h2 class="widget-header">critics</h2> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="widget-list"> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/">Roger Ebert</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://search.msn.com/results.asp?search=MSNBC&q=%22david+ansen%22+site%3Amsnbc.msn.com&submit=Search&id=3053419&FORM=AE">David Ansen</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.zeroforconduct.com/">Michael Atkinson</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://davidbordwell.net/">David Bordwell</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/burr/">Ty Burr</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.time.com/time/columnist/corliss">Richard Corliss</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=MANOHLA%20DARGIS&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=MANOHLA%20DARGIS&inline=nyt-per">Manohla Dargis</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.newyorker.com/search/results?query=%22david+denby%22&page=1">David Denby</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/index.html">DVD Savant</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://newyorkmetro.com/nymag/edelstein/">David Edelstein</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://ehrensteinland.com/">David Ehrenstein</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_lawsearch&Itemid=301&searchword=scott+foundas&searchphrase=exact&section=11&occurrence=author&ordering=newest&start_date=&end_date=&submit=Search">Scott Foundas</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.insanemute.com/">Chris Fujiwara</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3032428/">John Hartl</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.villagevoice.com/film/">J. Hoberman</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.queenannenews.com/main.asp?SectionID=83&TM=44461.53">Richard T. Jameson</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://davekehr.com/">Dave Kehr</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/">Glenn Kenny</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://leonardmaltin.com/">Leonard Maltin</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://sunsetgun.typepad.com/">Kim Morgan</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/morris/">Wesley Morris</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://parallax-view.org/category/contributors/by-kathleen-murphy/">Kathleen Murphy</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/btm/">Andrew O'Hehir</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://film.guardian.co.uk/patterson/">John Patterson</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://geraldpeary.com/">Gerald Peary</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_lawcontent&task=more_by_author&author=John+Powers&Itemid=9">John Powers</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/arts/movies.html">Peter Rainer</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/">Jonathan Rosenbaum</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=A.%20O.%20SCOTT&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=MANOHLA%20DARGIS&inline=nyt-per">A.O. Scott</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://henrysheehan.com/">Henry Sheehan</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://davidbordwell.net/">Kristin Thompson</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.moviecitynews.com/columnists/wilmington/index.html">Michael Wilmington</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/">Matt Zoller Seitz</a></li> </ul> </div> </div><div class="widget-archive widget"> <h2 class="widget-header">blogs, journals & zines</h2> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="widget-list"> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://altscreen.com/">AltScreen</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://antagonie.blogspot.com/">Antagony & Ecstasy</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.artofthetitle.com/">Art of the Title</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://aspectratio.wordpress.com/">Aspect Ratio</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.balboamovies.com/news/index.html">Balboa Theater Newsletter (Gary Meyer)</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/">Big Media Vandalism</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.breakingtheline.com/breaking-the-line/">Breaking the line</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.virtuel-book.com/cdc/cdc00/">Cahiers du Cinema (English)</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cerebralmastication.blogspot.com/">Cerebral Mastication</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.cinebeats.com/">Cinebeats</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.cinema-scope.com/">Cinema Scope</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinemasparagus.blogspot.com/">Cinemasparagus</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinemastyles.blogspot.com/">Cinema Styles</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinematreasures.org/blog">Cinema Treasures</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://tedpigeon.blogspot.com/">The Cinematic Art</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.cinepassion.org/">CinePassion</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.coffeecoffeeandmorecoffee.com/">coffee, coffee ... and more coffee</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://coolercinema.blogspot.com/">The Cooler</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinema-discourse.blogspot.com/">Discours du Cinéma</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://eddieonfilm.blogspot.com/">Edward Copeland</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://elusivelucidity.blogspot.com/">Elusive Lucidity</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://theeveningclass.blogspot.com/">The Evening Class</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://filmbrain.typepad.com/">Filmbrain</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" http:="movies.groups.yahoo.com=group=" a_film_by="">a_film_by</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://filmint.nu/">Film International</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://thefilmsaurus.com/">TheFilmsaurus</a></li><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://filmstudiesforfree.blogspot.com/">Film Studies For Free</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.filmsounddaily.com/">Filmsound Daily</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://thefinecut.blogspot.com/">The Fine Cut</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://flickhead.blogspot.com/">Flickhead</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.filmsite.org/index.html">The Greatest Films</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://girishshambu.blogspot.com/">Girish</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.com/">Greenbriar Picture Shows</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://daily.greencine.com/">GreenCine Daily</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://hellonfriscobay.blogspot.com/">Hell on Frisco Bay</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/">The House Next Door</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://tsutpen.blogspot.com/">If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger...</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://ifcblog.typepad.com/ifc_blog/">IFC Blog</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.imagesjournal.com/index.html">images: a journal of film and popular culture</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.jjmurphyfilm.com/blog/">j.j. murphy on independent cinema</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/">Kubrick Multimedia Archive</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://livingincinema.com/">Living in Cinema</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://aspectratio.wordpress.com/">Aspect Ratio</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.lolajournal.com/index.html">LOLA</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.mastersofcinema.org/">Masters of Cinema</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://brendonbouzard.com/blog/">My Five Year Plan</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://nilesfilmfiles.blogspot.com/">The Niles Files</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://notcoming.com/index.php">Not Coming to a Theater Near You</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.offscreen.com/">Offscreen</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://parallax-view.org/">Parallax View</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://philzine.wordpress.com/">Phil-zine!</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/">Press Play</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.reverseshot.com/">Reverse Shot</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.rouge.com.au/">Rouge</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://screenville.blogspot.com/">Screenville</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.sensesofcinema.com/">Senses of Cinema</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/">Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://theseventhart.info/">The Seventh Art</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.sheilaomalley.com/">The Sheila Variations</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://girishshahane.blogspot.com/">Shoot First, Mumble Later</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/">Sight & Sound</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://opalfilms.blogspot.com/">Silly Hats Only</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://sixmartinis.blogspot.com/">sixmartinis and the seventh art</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://drnorth.wordpress.com/">Spectacular Attractions</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.filmref.com/">Strictly Film School</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.offscreen.com/">Offscreen</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://odienator.blogspot.com/">Tales of OdieNary Madness</a> </li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.theyshootpictures.com/">They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://vinylisheavy.blogspot.com/">Vinyl Is Heavy</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.fipresci.org/undercurrent/index.htm">Undercurrent (FIPRESCI)</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cansesclasseled.wordpress.com/">when canses were classeled...</a></li> </ul> </div> </div><div class="widget-archives widget"> <h2 class="widget-header">publications</h2> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="widget-list"> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.prospect.org/">American Prospect</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.theatlantic.com/">Atlantic</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.suntimes.com/">Chicago Sun-Times</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://film.guardian.co.uk/">The Guardian</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.harpers.org/">Harpers</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.lacitybeat.com/">L.A. CityBeat</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://dailynews.com/film">L.A. Daily News</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.laweekly.com/film/">L.A. Weekly</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.thenation.com/">The Nation</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.tnr.com/">The New Republic</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.newyorker.com/">The New Yorker</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.theonion.com/">The Onion</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.slate.com/">Slate.com</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.salon.com/">Salon.com</a></li> </ul> </div> </div><div class="widget-archives widget"> <h2 class="widget-header">reference</h2> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="widget-list"> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://imdb.com/">IMDb</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.mrqe.com/lookup">Movie Review Query Engine</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/">Rotten Tomatoes</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.metacritic.com/film/">MetaCritic</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://movies.msn.com/">MSN Movies</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://movies.yahoo.com/">Yahoo Movies</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://dvdtalk.com/">DVD Talk</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/">digitallyOBSESSED</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="widget-archives widget"> <h2 class="widget-header">the biz</h2> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="widget-list"> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://moviecitynews.com/">Movie City News</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/">David Poland</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://reporter.blogs.com/risky/">Anne Thompson</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-columnist-goldstein,0,5207822.columnist?coll=la-home-entertainment">Patrick Goldstein</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://cinematical.com/">Cinematical</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://ifcblog.ifctv.com/ifc_blog/">IFC Blog</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://indiewire.com/">IndieWire</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/">Hollywood Elsewhere</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://boxofficemojo.com/">Box Office Mojo</a></li> </ul> </div> </div><div class="widget-archives widget"> <h2 class="widget-header">media commentary</h2> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="widget-list"> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/">Andrew Sullivan</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45">Jim Romanesko</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/">Josh Marshall</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/index.jsp">Editor & Publisher</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.cjr.org/">Columbia Journalism Review</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.ajr.org/">American Journalism Review</a></li> <li class="widget-list-item"><a target="_blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://www.regrettheerror.com/">Regret the Error</a></li> </ul> </div> </div><div class="widget-recent-assets widget"> <h3 class="widget-header">recent images</h3> <div class="widget-content"> <ul class="widget-list"> <li class="item"><a class="asset-image" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/IMG_3140.JPG"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/assets_c/2012/05/IMG_3140-thumb-autox70-47211.jpg" class="asset-img-thumb" alt="IMG_3140.JPG" title="IMG_3140.JPG"/></a></li> <li class="item"><a class="asset-image" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/bsing.jpg"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/assets_c/2012/05/bsing-thumb-autox70-47192.jpg" class="asset-img-thumb" alt="bsing.jpg" title="bsing.jpg"/></a></li> <li class="item"><a class="asset-image" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/rojs.jpg"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/assets_c/2012/05/rojs-thumb-autox70-47189.jpg" class="asset-img-thumb" alt="rojs.jpg" title="rojs.jpg"/></a></li> <li class="item"><a class="asset-image" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/IMG_3142.JPG"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/assets_c/2012/05/IMG_3142-thumb-autox70-47186.jpg" class="asset-img-thumb" alt="IMG_3142.JPG" title="IMG_3142.JPG"/></a></li> <li class="item"><a class="asset-image" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/odiejimboone.jpg"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/assets_c/2012/05/odiejimboone-thumb-autox70-47183.jpg" class="asset-img-thumb" alt="odiejimboone.jpg" title="odiejimboone.jpg"/></a></li> <li class="item"><a class="asset-image" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/vtbalcony.jpg"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/assets_c/2012/05/vtbalcony-thumb-autox70-47168.jpg" class="asset-img-thumb" alt="vtbalcony.jpg" title="vtbalcony.jpg"/></a></li> <li class="item"><a class="asset-image" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/dbstagecoach.jpg"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/assets_c/2012/05/dbstagecoach-thumb-autox70-47164.jpg" class="asset-img-thumb" alt="dbstagecoach.jpg" title="dbstagecoach.jpg"/></a></li> <li class="item"><a class="asset-image" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/tsrain.jpg"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/assets_c/2012/05/tsrain-thumb-autox70-47161.jpg" class="asset-img-thumb" alt="tsrain.jpg" title="tsrain.jpg"/></a></li> <li class="item"><a class="asset-image" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/tshel.jpg"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/assets_c/2012/05/tshel-thumb-autox70-47158.jpg" class="asset-img-thumb" alt="tshel.jpg" title="tshel.jpg"/></a></li> <li class="item"><a class="asset-image" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/patang8mm.jpg"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758im_/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/assets_c/2012/05/patang8mm-thumb-autox70-47155.jpg" class="asset-img-thumb" alt="patang8mm.jpg" title="patang8mm.jpg"/></a></li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="footer"> <div id="footer-inner"> <div id="footer-content"> <div class="widget-powered widget"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div>  <script language="JavaScript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/STM/assets/js/s-code.js" type="text/javascript"></script>  <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120514120758js_/http://s31.sitemeter.com/js/counter.js?site=s31scanners"> </script>  </body> </html>