Quote:
Originally Posted by Claeren
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.
|
That was pretty much my take on it. I figured that Brolin's character represented weakness. I got the sense through the movie that he was doomed and his greed brought him into a world not meant for him. He was "chaos". He had no code and just did whatever he thought was good for himself.
Bardem represented order - as brutal and unforgiving as it is. The car accident at the end seemed to me to be the end of Bardem's order. The girl called him on his coin-flip logic so he was no longer in control.
Anyway, I like the movie a lot, but it wasn't as great as the hype.