No Country for Old Men

[Batutta]

Bardem seems a shoe in for at least a Golden Globe nomination.

Bardem seems a shoe in for the Best Supporting Oscar if you ask me. Most haunting performance I've seen in years. I actually think the Coen's might have a shot at walking away with the whole affair. It's been a weak year, and people might just give them Best Picture as a nod not only to this film, but their body of work. There are long stretches of this film that work almost as a silent film, just pure filmmaking. The ending isn't satisfying but I wasn't really expecting it to be. It wouldn't have been honest. An example of a similar film, which is pretty good as well, but that has a more "satisfying" ending that doesn't really work is A Simple Plan. All the actors in this are pitch perfect, but it's Bardem's movie.

 

[Blaine]

Bardem seems a shoe in for the Best Supporting Oscar if you ask me.

Personally, I'd go with TLJ. It is absolutely the best performance he has ever given. (Period)

I haven't had a chance to read the source material yet, but I have a suspicion that the Coen Bros should probably get Best Adaptation, too. It's a 99% perfect movie.

 

[Batutta]

Personally, I'd go with TLJ. It is absolutely the best performance he has ever given. (Period).

I think there's a perception that Tommy Lee Jones can do that kind of performance in his sleep. He's played that same character many times before, even this year in Elah. I think he was great, but the Academy usually goes for great and memorable, which Bardem was.

 

[TheMacB]

you guys got me thinking so i looked this up:

In the last 3 years, 50% of the acting oscars have gone to actors portraying real people. And 11 of the last 28 acting oscars.

That seems like a lot, right?

 

[Luis Caffesse]

That seems like a lot, right?

It does...but, it all depends... what percentage of films nominated were based on true stories? And what is the percentage of of films released based on true stories? If those are also in the 50% range...then no, it wouldn't be odd at all.


EDITED TO ADD:
How did this turn into a conversation about 'real people'?

 

[TheMacB]

i was just thinking it would be pretty sweet to see Coens actors winning awards again and that got me thinking about what their chances are. And then I thought, well it all depends on how many actors playing real people get nominated because they seem to be the real shoe-ins.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

i was just thinking it would be pretty sweet to see Coens actors winning awards again and that got me thinking about what their chances are. And then I thought, well it all depends on how many actors playing real people get nominated because they seem to be the real shoe-ins.

Ahhhh, gotcha.
Makes sense.

Personally - I think they've got this one nailed, unless people feel they already had their day with Fargo... but I doubt that. This film so easily stood above the crowd of mediocre films this year, in my opinion. The only real competition it has, for me, is Zodiac. But seeing as that film didn't seem to go over quite as well with the masses... I can't imagine the Coens won't walk away with something.

 

[StefanHaynes]

I absolutely loved the loud groans of the audience at the end of the film. It put a smile to my face.

Wonderful film, although it occasionally came up a bit contrived. Thank gods Coens have finally put a proper stop to their suck-streak.

 

[MattinSTL]

I saw this again last night. I'm embarrassed at my previous certainty about the motel encounter... this time I tried really hard to analyze that scene and it left me puzzled. Now I have to read this entire thread again and see if I think somebody made sense of this. A girl I know said that Chigurh wasn't even IN the room the entire time and I thought she was a moron... now I'm thinking that she may not have been stupid in considering that a possibility. (although I still think he WAS in there)

Also... at the end... so it's his father that rode past him with the horn of fire... previously I thought that was symbolism for his own prediction that at some point Chigurh or some other guy he was hunting... was going to kill him (Ed)... and again... I'm definitely puzzled by the ending this time, whereas I felt certain on it the first time I saw it.

For anybody in the Saint Louis area... go see a movie at the Moolah Theater... you will NOT be disappointed... I'm amazed that I lived here my whole life and I've been missing out on this jewel.

SPOILERS:

Okay - here's my take.....





Chigurh was most definitely in the hotel room when Ed (TLJ) went into the room.
Ed knew this, drew his gun, and went in - either to make a difference or die trying - or maybe both.

Chigurh has no real reason to kill Ed - Ed is on the outside of all this mess, he is not even important enough to these events to kill. Most of the people that Chirgurh killed he did because he either 'needed' to, or because 'fate' decided that they needed to die.
Had Ed looked behind the door, it would have been the same as flipping the coin (50/50 Heads he looks behind the door, tails he doesn't) - had he revealed Chirgurh, Chirgurh would have shot him in order to save himself. Instead Ed goes to the back, sees that the window is still locked from the inside, and realizes that Chirgurh was still in the room. At that point - Chirgurh probably left the room through the open door. Ed won the 'coin toss' - he lives, and Chigurh got away.

Ed comes back into the room, realizes that he's just an old man who can't really make any difference in this. He's completely powerless, and not even enough of a force to bother killing. The people he is chasing are so far beyond him that they don't even see Ed as a threat. Like someone else eluded to...it's truly 'No Country for Old men' - and Ed is an old man.

As far as the car wreck at the end - Chigurh is the major force of the film, dictating who will live and who will die. He likes to think of himself in control - he is the one in charge of dispensing 'fate' to the rest of the world with the flip of a coin. But - even he is not immune to the random acts of life. No matter how scary he might be, the randomness and indifference of fate can still change his course... the same way it changed the course of the Elk that Moss shot in the opening... and the same way it changed Moss's course when he sumbled onto the drug deal.

Just my 2 cents.



EDITED TO ADD:
I know some of you might find this a weird comparison - but Chirgurh isn't all that different from the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse in Raising Arizona.
Only imagine if the Lone Biker had won out in the end, instead of HI.

I can see why the Coens were attracted to this novel.
The story is right up their alley.

This entire post is brilliant... after seeing the movie again I appreciate this. Another thought about the comparison's of Raising Arizona and NCFOM... the name "Ed" and who Ed is... ironic, no?

 

[MattinSTL]

They way I saw this scene was a connection between AC and the story that TLJ told earlier about the cattle farmer.

The cattle farmer was so sure of his task, to kill a cow, and the bullet he put through its head ricocheted around and came out, striking the farmer in the shoulder, and making him lose all use of his arm for the rest of his life.

As TLJ put it "Even in the competition between man and steer, the outcome is not certain".

AC spends the whole movie in complete control. He is never questioned (interestingly, if you'll notice, the only people who confront or question him are women, which I found interesting). When he gets in the car crash, he is jolted. He is not in total control, because chance and accident still exist.

I found the car crash scene to be very interesting because of this. AC believed he was in constant control, and a simple twist of chance showed him that this isn't always true.

Anyway, that's how I interpreted the crash scene.

Another very intelligent post... in the story, the guy that kills the cattle loses function in his arm through a random event... Chigurh, who kills people with the cattle stun-gun, meets the same fate. Very good comparison man.

Maybe the brothers have stumbled on the ultimate gimmick...don't give the audience obvious and immediate closure, and they will come back for more...

After the movie last night the motel scene was the only thing that really had my cousin messed up... and I actually said this to him at the time... I probably should have credited YOU with this idea... that perhaps the motel scene was intentionally left kind of ragged and unsure... as a way to pull you in with questions?

Well I saw the movie twice and I've read this entire thread two or three times... I think I finally got this out of my system. Thanks.

 

[Jared Meyer]

Luis that's a great analysis of the motel room scene. Definitely helps clear it up for me.

What is the consensus on the fate of the money? Do we ever know for sure whether Anton finally procured it?

My first thought was that we aren't shown who ends up with the satchel in order to say that the satchel/money really isn't what's important to the story.

But I wanted to be sure I didn't miss something.

I wasn't wild about the ending. I can only think of one or two writers whose dialogue I like better. The only piece of dialogue that didn't work for me was:

MOSS
...if I don't come back tell Mother I love her.

CARLA JEAN
Your mother's dead, Llewelyn.

MOSS
Well then I'll tell her myself.

Blaine, that line bothered me too. It sounded like it was included to sound clever, but it makes no sense. Llewelyn really forgot that his mother was dead? Really? Come on. Other than that the dialogue was absolutely brilliant. But that one little exchange stood out because it took me out of it for a second.

 

[spidey]

the money was a maguffin just like in psycho in a sense.

 

[Jared Meyer]

Well sure, but I'm still curious if we're given any indication as to where it ends up.

I see what you're saying but I don't think the satchel is actually a mcguffin though. The satchel is not just a mysterious briefcase or an intelligence docket. It is relatively important that the object of desire is specifically a huge amount of cash. We see Llewelyn's attitude to the money in the efforts he goes to keep it, and yet how conservatively he spends it. And his stubbornness prevents him from accepting anything less than the entire stash when Carson offers him a portion of it in exchange for his protection... So I don't think it's a mcguffin per se. One of the recurring themes in the Coen Brothers films is greed, specifically the love of money, causing men to become evil and violent.

I had a small Fargo flashback when Bell and Roscoe are talking in the diner after Llewelyn has been shot-

Roscoe
It's all the goddamned money, Ed Tom.
The money and the drugs. It's just
goddamned beyond everything. What is
it mean? What is it leading to?

Marge Gunderson
And for what? For a little bit of money.
There's more to life than a little money,
you know. Don't you know that? And here
ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well, I just
don't understand it.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Another thought about the comparison's of Raising Arizona and NCFOM... the name "Ed" and who Ed is... ironic, no?

Hhaahahhaa
That's hilarious...though, you know... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Batutta]

I know some of you might find this a weird comparison - but Chirgurh isn't all that different from the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse in Raising Arizona.
Only imagine if the Lone Biker had won out in the end, instead of HI.

I can see why the Coens were attracted to this novel.
The story is right up their alley.

I did a paper on the Coens for college, and one of the recurring characters in many of their films is the lone, amoral killer. In Blood Simple, it's Visser (M. Emmet Walsh), in Raising Arizona, The Lone Biker, in Miller's Crossing, The Dane, in Barton Fink Charlie Meadows (John Goodman), in Fargo it's Gaear (Peter Stormare), in O, Brother it's John Goodman again, in No Country it's Anton Cigurth. Interestingly enough, most of the films that don't feature this character prominently tend to be their weaker efforts, although weak for the Coen's is better than most filmmakers best.

 

[MattinSTL]

Chigurh ends up with the money. The coin on the floor at the vent, in the room Moss is in... tells you that. Plus, Chigurh killed Stephen Root's character (the guy who HIRED Chigurh in the first place) because he sent BOTH the mexicans to try and find the money (with ANOTHER transponder) AND then Harrelson to corral (meaning possibly kill) Chigurh... at that point Chigurh's previously argued principles for his actions would still justify him simply keeping the money.

The dime on the floor of moss' motel room... at the open vent, says Chigurh has the money. If they hadn't shown the dime on the floor then I would have assumed that the mexicans that shot Moss had the money... because otherwise what's the point of that shootout? (from the Mexicans' perspective)

 

[DeSica]

Chigurh ends up with the money. The coin on the floor at the vent, in the room Moss is in... tells you that.

Yes. I saw it that way too...but as for who he returns it to....

Plus, Chigurh killed Stephen Root's character (the guy who HIRED Chigurh in the first place) because he sent BOTH the mexicans to try and find the money (with ANOTHER transponder) AND then Harrelson to corral (meaning possibly kill) Chigurh... at that point Chigurh's previously argued principles for his actions would still justify him simply keeping the money.

Okay, that makes sense in answering I question I posted early on about who Chigurh would be returning the money to...since he killed them man he was working for, yet his ethics seemed to require him to see a job through to the end.

I can buy him keeping it due to a perceived slight.

The dime on the floor of moss' motel room... at the open vent, says Chigurh has the money. If they hadn't shown the dime on the floor then I would have assumed that the mexicans that shot Moss had the money... because otherwise what's the point of that shootout? (from the Mexicans' perspective)

Exactly...the dime was set up previously when Chigurgh wasted the other Mexicans and searched the vent in the motel room moments after Moss retrieved the stash.

On thing nobody really mentions is how the whole sordid drugs and cash thing goes back to a reputable looking business type operation...with acoountants and offices and high rises...and how the matter of recouping the missing assets is discussed in a very plain business manner.

I thought it made for a subtle, yet interesting juxtaposition.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Not to split hairs, but to me the dime on the floor only sets up that Chigurgh opened the vent - it shows us he looked for the money, not necessarily that he found it....who's to say that the money was still in there?

Then again, from a dramatic point of view I honestly I don't really care who ended up with the money, in the same way I don't really care why Jerry needed the money in Fargo. It doesn't enhance my enjoyment of the story one way or the other to have that question answered.

 

[Brandon Rice]

So, I saw this movie, and though I thought the writing, and acting was awesome... and it was a haunting film... I wasn't at all satisfied at the end of the day.

 

[Drew Ott]

So, I saw this movie, and though I thought the writing, and acting was awesome... and it was a haunting film... I wasn't at all satisfied at the end of the day.

Brice I thought you sheltered yourself from R rated films.