[Claeren]

The ending seems to be the biggest problem for most people...

The name of the movie comes from the opening line of one of Yeats's most famous poems, "Sailing to Byzantium".

It is "Yeats's definitive statement about the agony of old age and the imaginative and spiritual work required to remain a vital individual even when the heart is "fastened to a dying animal" (the body). Yeats's solution is to leave the country of the young and travel to Byzantium, where the sages in the city's famous gold mosaics (completed mainly during the sixth and seventh centuries) could become the "singing-masters" of his soul. He hopes the sages will appear in fire and take him away from his body into an existence outside time, where, like a great work of art, he could exist in "the artifice of eternity." In the astonishing final stanza of the poem, he declares that once he is out of his body he will never again appear in the form of a natural thing; rather, he will become a golden bird, sitting on a golden tree, singing of the past ("what is past"), the present (that which is "passing"), and the future (that which is "to come")."

(SPOILER ALERT)

The poem itself is not completely reflected in the movie, but the opening of that poem i think sets the stage for the movie, where it is the 3rd character (Tommy Lee Jones) that is the key to the ending (and IS the ending) and his journey from past (good old days he keeps reflecting on) to present (pure violence and deterioration of society that he cannot even rationalize) to future (death and salvation?) is playing out during the movie.

The 2 characters you are talking about have no climax because there is no climax - they have simply existed and lived by (or failed to live by) the codes they chose to live by. (Like the rest of us)

The true irony though is that most viewers see the Bardem character as the 'bad/evil guy' and the Brolin character as the 'good guy' but in many ways it is the Bardem character that stays true to his own code of conduct and is not tempted from it for greed or comfort or apathy or sloth or whatever while most of the other characters (and this is what the Bardem character highlights through his interactions) who seem good are in fact easily swayed by the temptations of the modern world. They steal drug money, leave people to die in the desert (although this plays out as a moral dilemma in the movie, where the audience is again left to think he is doing the right thing by bringing water, but ignore the larger picture temptation that the Brolin character is giving in to), have sex with the cheap chick by the pool (his ultimate undoing), and so on. We the audience see what we want to see, but the underlying reality might be at odds with that? What we forgive should not always be so easily forgiven and what we condemn should not be so easily condemned - especially in light of what we have already forgiven.

It would seem that what is seemingly pure evil from Bardem is simply the result of his strict life code of calling people on their bull and doing his job and is in fact a higher moral code than someone who fancies themselves as good, but bends the rules whenever they feel like it, like Brolin > Which in the American context, might represent the fact that while the average American fancies themselves a high moral Christian the reality is that if that were true we would not live in such a horrible world - it is not the bad guys that are so bad (as Jones says at the house with the old man, (paraphrase) "there were always bad men in the world, but now days...") but that the rest of us are often a bit bad too. If you knew Bardem was going to judge you, would you bend your rules so quickly? Is Bardem truly evil or are we?

Which is exactly what Jones is left pondering at the end. He is done with this world, he cannot figure it out anymore, and is ready to move on....


Re-watch the movie (which is easy with this type of movie) and think of Brolin (and other passive characters as well) as the 'bad guy' and Bardem as the 'good guy'. It is interesting!!


My thoughts on it...



Claeren.


PS - The coin flip then representing the fact too many in the world are non-actors and thus are slaves to those who take action - which in itself could be seen as a sin. Wasting away your years without taking risk is a crime of humanity and the waste of the gift of life, and Bardem rightly or wrongly has taken on the role of bringing that meaning to peoples lives. That coin flip was the most critical moment in that mans life in decades (or ever) and that is again a commentary i think... ?