No Country For Old Men

Started by Ghostboy, November 19, 2005, 08:32:58 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

idk

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 26, 2007, 01:03:24 PM
I'm hanging on to slim hopes the film will expand beyond 800 theaters or just hit my city late.
yeah why do they do this? like how do they decide where to release it and why do they only do it for certain movies?

modage

to build buzz and word of mouth so that a 'smaller' film doesn't open on the same number of screens as Enchanted and then disappear a week later.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

RegularKarate

** Spoilers **

Quote from: RegularKarate on November 20, 2007, 04:50:37 PMI didn't really like Woody H. too much...
Quote from: ASmith on November 20, 2007, 10:14:53 PMSir, you simply MUST be shitting me.  etc...

First, let me point out that I didn't HATE him in this... second, most of what you're talking about is how great the character is... yeah, it's a great character... I loved him in the book... I just didn't love Woody's take on him... he just didn't do it for me the way the others did.

Quote from: Sleepless on November 26, 2007, 09:30:28 AM
TLJ's character is not a big enough presence throughout the film to warrant taking his musings and emotions as significantly as we should AND THAT'S A WEAKNESS FOR THE MOVIE. Maybe it works in the book, I don't know. But film is a visual medium, and I think that Bell should have been more active in trying to overcome this evil rather than just idily track in in the newspaper. Otherwise, what qualifies him as a worthy narrator and expressor of emotions?

But why?  We get to see the evil he's seeing... then we get to see his take on it... why do we need to go with him, following the case and learning about it throughout the whole movie when we're seeing most of it first hand?  We get to see exactly enough of that to know what his involvement is in the case.


tpfkabi

***spoilers***


for those who have read the book - are any of the unshown killings described in the book, i.e. especially Carla Jean. i'm wondering if she just sat there calmly and accepted it and also if they explain the wiping of his boot. i don't see the book just saying "he walked out of the house, wiped the bottom of his boot, and walked away."
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.

matt35mm

SPOILERS (and a note that there's nothing in the past couple of pages of this thread worth reading if you haven't seen the movie or at least read the book, so I recommend staying out of this thread until you've seen it)


So after letting it sit in my mind for a day, I think that this is a good movie, but I don't understand the masterpiece status that people are flinging upon it.  I'd like to read some more detailed thoughts from those who think it is a masterpiece.  I could be convinced that it is, but I will need more than just that the movie kicked your ass or that the depiction of evil frightened you.

My experience of it was that I saw a lot of excellent filmmaking choices, and a lot of very interesting ideas both in the story and in the way that it was told.  Personally, I think Tommy Lee Jones's level of involvement in the story was perfect--really one of the standout choices of this movie and/or the book.  While this movie did gather its steam from multiple threads of tense, straight-forward narratives that kept you wanting to know (and dreading) what happens next, it is the parallel themes that hint at something grand.  Each character practically IS their idea of what fate is, and there's a sense of watching different sorts of philosophies collide, either violently or, as with Jones's character, with a re-calibration of his philosophy.  He is the one who is willing to consider that he might be wrong, that he might not belong, and this strikes me as both his salvation and his tragedy, because only he is armed to see the bigger, more haunting picture.  That is what the beginning and ending is all about to me.  And this, by the way, is why he is the only person qualified to be the narrator, and why his narration adds to the depth of this film.

One example of what I meant by the parallel thing (and there were plenty of examples that I noticed while watching it, but this is the one that comes to mind now) is when Llewelyn comes across those college kids who think he got in a car accident but still demand the money before handing him the coat, and that's very clearly contrasted with when Chigurh is in an actual car accident, and the boys are willing to help him out for nothing.  It's as clear a parallel as any, though I don't think there's any "message" to it, and I think much of the power of this film comes from the ideas that these parallels can evoke.

The other powerful element of this film is how it plays with the audience's expectations.  I think the story itself develops naturally enough that I don't feel cheated by the way it plays out, and I feel that the real intelligence of this film is in how it reveals that story to you.  You're allowed to imagine and anticipate all sorts of paths that the story could go down, but it doesn't go down those paths, and I think that that's what a lot of audiences find frustrating about it.  It's pretty clear in Woody Harrelson's case--you can imagine the role that this guy will play in the story, yet the way it plays out is not satisfying, but still realistic.  I don't think the character is there just to jerk your expectations around.  If audiences do stop to think about how it all plays out, then the ideas in the movie gain power and, hopefully, people don't feel jipped by the story.

So it's sort of these unexpected, unresolved things in the forward narrative alongside the parallel but more standstill Tommy Lee Jones thing that make it quite an interesting movie to think about.

That said, I don't think that it's a masterpiece status because, while it is an interesting film, and probably many steps forward again for the Coens (I haven't seen any of their stuff since O Brother, so I can't comment for sure on their quality), there are several parts that are not particularly spectacular about it.  I was disappointed in much of the main narrative.  I disagree that Javier Bardem gave any sort of an enlightening, surprising, or special performance.  I think he was very good at carrying the brute force of the idea of that character, but I don't think that there's as much there as people are claiming.  Again if someone can show me otherwise, I'm sure that my opinion could be changed.  Brolin was very good, and to me more interesting than Bardem, because how a man like this deals with a brute force is more interesting than the brute force itself.  He's a fairly simple man, simple character, but it's very impressive to carry so much of the movie entirely alone and with little dialogue, and still allow us to get to be inside this man's thinking process.

I like Kelly MacDonald but really here I think she was just Kelly MacDonald with a southern accent.  I re-watched the new Lassie a few days ago and her five minutes in that movie felt surprisingly similar, performance-wise.  I think that's because, beyond the accent, I don't think she has a deep understanding of a character like Carla Jean, or at least the movie doesn't give her much of an opportunity to really be that woman, just like how her five minutes in Lassie didn't really give her an opportunity to do much either.  So she just came off like Kelly MacDonald with a southern accent... I daresay that a different actress with a deeper understanding of southern women would have more effortlessly exuded those qualities, and maybe would have fought and won the little battles that an actor can sometimes win to create a truly memorable performance.

I frankly would have liked to have seen a lot more of the women in this movie.  Tommy Lee Jones's wife especially, I wish was not so peripheral.

So I have pretty much listed what I think is impressive about this movie, and also why I don't think it's a masterpiece.  I also think the quality of the filmmaking was uneven.  There are the standout moments of wonderful construction, but then also some lazy bits here and there, which I'm not gonna rail against but I would like to not have the filmmaking be hailed as something that it's not quite.

With all of that said, the best part of this movie was Stephen Root, because he's Stephen Root.  Watching a whole bunch of episodes of Newsradio before watching this movie reminded me of the big bright shining light that he is.  And that is the one thing that the book could never come close to touching.

john

Quote from: bigideas on November 26, 2007, 04:27:54 PM
***spoilers***


for those who have read the book - are any of the unshown killings described in the book...

Absolutely.

I don't want to ruin anything if you are actually considering reading the book (you should) but, if anything, the Coen's spare the audience from quite a bit. There's a quite a conclusion to it all.




Maybe every day is Saturday morning.

matt35mm

SPOILERS still


Quote from: matt35mm on November 26, 2007, 07:21:12 PM
[Sheriff Bell] is the one who is willing to consider that he might be wrong, that he might not belong, and this strikes me as both his salvation and his tragedy, because only he is armed to see the bigger, more haunting picture.  That is what the beginning and ending is all about to me.

I thought about this some more today and changed my mind.  I now think that Bell has no particular salvation.  He is no more "saved" than anyone for being able to see the sad, full picture.

Today I thought more about the scene when he almost encounters Chigurh, and my interpretation of the scene is not that Chigurh is in another room, but rather simply decides not to kill Bell, and my guess as to why that would be is due to luck.  When Bell sits down and sees that the vent has been unscrewed with some coins that are still there, the coin has been established as a symbol of pure chance, and even though Chigurh probably didn't flip a coin just before Bell stepped in, I still formed that connection in my mind that it is by chance alone that Bell wasn't killed.  Because clearly Chigurh has no qualms with killing anybody, including coppers.

So that Bell was even able to live on and have that dream was also just luck.  It is the randomness--the manner in which Chigurh goes about his business of killing people, and even how Llyewlyn gets involved in all of this--that adds to the tragedy.  And although Bell's eventual death will probably not be as violent as it could have been, it will in many ways be no less brutal.  You could also argue that he already is dead by the last scene, whether literally or figuratively.

Anyway, I'll keep on-a thinkin' about it, and now I think I'd like to see the movie again, which I didn't want to do after I first saw it.  Still not masterpiece status as a movie, but I'm getting more and more interested in reading the book and swimming around some more in these ideas.

Sunrise

SPOILERS

Matt, there is no room between the door and the wall for Chigurh to hide. When opened, the door is flush against the wall. I saw No Country for a second time last night, which confirmed this fact. As a result, the only way for me to interpret Chirgurh behind the door is that it is Ed Tom's imagination...I think the editing of Ed Tom's arrival, approach to the hotel room door, shot of Chigurh, then the light coming through the key hole, then Ed Tom's entry into the room support such an interpretation. The other possibility is that Chigurh is actually some sort of supernatural. Ed Tom calls him a ghost at one point, he is able to withstand incredible pain and punishment, and he is seemingly able to carry weapons pretty much anywhere. But if we're being literal, the first interpretation holds more water.

To tie your coin/chance theory into my interpretation above, I would say that Chigurh just left the room...similarly to when Ed Tom and his deputy just missed him at Moss' trailer. I think that sequence of events still works with your argument.

matt35mm

SPOILERS

I didn't think that Chigurh was behind the door because that's the first place I looked when the door opened, and I noticed immediately that there was no room for that sort of thing.  But I'm sure there are more than a few things that I didn't catch.

I don't think that Chigurh was hiding, just because that seems very unusual given everything that we've seen of Chigurh.

And then I also don't think that the editing showed two different rooms or two different moments in time to simply suggest that they were both about to meet, because that idea doesn't hold much power beyond trickery.

So I don't take the scene literally.  I read some things online that contrasted the book with the movie, and there is apparently a big change from the book for this scene.  The way it plays out in the book (assuming that these online postings are accurate) would make more literal sense, and I think the change for the film was deliberately to give us this symbolic image of (I know that this will sound terribly lame but here it goes) Bell at Death's door, but without the cringe-worthiness of those words, rather just the power of that particular image.

So, to me, Bell and Chigurh are both there, separated by only a door, and then Chigurh (Death) is gone.  Not hiding but gone.  And you can sort of take that to mean what you will.  I think that whether you think that Bell has literally faced death, as in Chigurh killed him then and there and the last scene does not take place in reality, or not, it makes sense to me that Bell, in one way or another, dies in that room.  Personally I think of it as more the latter--that he doesn't physically die.

What I'm going to think about when I see it next time is whether or not EVERYTHING after the fade out and cut back in resides in a different world, and if I can find any clues to suggest that.  I don't mean literally in a different world, but just that the whole plot stops right there, and then everything else when it cuts back in is different kinds of deaths and meanings of death playing out.  The film becomes a different film.  I do have to see it again because I can really discuss that idea in detail, though.

I just think that the Coens could easily have given a perfectly good explanation of everything if they wanted to, and the fact that this whole last part is confusing suggests to me that there is no perfectly good explanation.  After the fade out and cut in, the movie either becomes greater than or less than everything that came before for the audience, the movie either loses itself or finds itself, etc. depending on how you've absorbed the ideas of the movie before the fade out.  And I don't know, maybe it's a perfect great, tight chase movie ruined, or it's revealed that it was never a chase movie at all.

Anyway, at this point I'm really just giving myself things to consider when I go see the movie again, and I'm not really claiming anything about the movie yet.  (except that I don't think it's quite a masterpiece and that Stephen Root is a big bright shining light)  Thanks for responding to my thoughts, though, Sunrise.

MacGuffin

A Ghost And A Dream: Notes on the final quarter of 'No Country For Old Men':

**SPOILER WARNING**

http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/2007/11/a-ghost-and-a-d.html
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Gamblour.

WWPTAD?

tpfkabi

Has anyone asked the Coens directly (or are they ones not to discuss meaning of their films)?
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.

The Perineum Falcon

Last time we met for coffee the topic completely slipped my mind. Sorry.
Besides that, I really don't think they'd discuss it anyway. What would be the point of making something mysterious just to turn around and discuss it openly, revealing everything (or even a piece of everything)?

I wouldn't want them to, either.
We often went to the cinema, the screen would light up and we would tremble, but also, increasingly often, Madeleine and I were disappointed. The images had dated, they jittered, and Marilyn Monroe had gotten terribly old. We were sad, this wasn't the film we had dreamed of, this wasn't the total film that we all carried around inside us, this film that we would have wanted to make, or, more secretly, no doubt, that we would have wanted to live.

Sleepless

Mac, thanks for posting that. Some really interesting ideas there. Particularly thought the response which interpreted the ending as optomistic was getting at some very novel thoughts. I do look forward to seeing this film again.
He held on. The dolphin and all the rest of its pod turned and swam out to sea, and still he held on. This is it, he thought. Then he remembered that they were air-breathers too. It was going to be all right.

tpfkabi

Quote from: The Perineum Falcon on November 28, 2007, 04:46:42 PM
Last time we met for coffee the topic completely slipped my mind. Sorry.
Besides that, I really don't think they'd discuss it anyway. What would be the point of making something mysterious just to turn around and discuss it openly, revealing everything (or even a piece of everything)?

I wouldn't want them to, either.

I meant in interviews and the like.

you don't wish kubrick would tell why the people are in period dress in the last scene of ACO?
i durrs.  :yabbse-grin:

this is a pretty big scene in No Country though, whereas Hitchcock did it in Vertigo with the hotel scene and later said it was to inspire water cooler talk (but the Vertigo scene doesn't affect the final thoughts as much as this does, nor come so close to the end of the film).
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.