No Country For Old Men

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Ro

I think I'm going to ask some of my "friendos" to call a coin toss and note their reactions today.

*flip* " call it!"

"whats at stake?"

"everything"


that was awesome.

[corporatejay]

Bumping this because I watched it tonight, wow, fantastic movie, so much better than There Will Be Blood. I"m trying to run the gauntlet over the next week so I should have my Oscar picks in soon, but I think it'll be tough to beat Old Country.

[RougeUnderoos]

I just watched this movie for the second time in a few nights and holy moly, what an incredible movie. Best one I've seen in years.

SPOILER ALERTS FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T SEEN IT YET

What was the deal with the number 13? It came up several times in the film. Hotel room numbers (138, 213, 112-114) and Woody Harrelson's character mentioned that the office building had a missing floor.

Anyone else notice this? I googled it but couldn't really find anything better than some sort of vague (and possibly unrelated reference) to the original 13 colonies.

[jammies]

MORE SPOILERS SO DON'T LOOK

I thought the "13" thing was just reinforcement of the irrationality at the heart of the movie; just like the coin it stands for the ultimate chaos/meaninglessness which ends up triumphant at the end of the film.

They really hammer on that theme through the movie, you never know what's really going to happen, which is much like how life really is; for example, you THINK that Llewellyn going back to give the dying drug-runner some water is his fatal mistake, but in fact you find out the money has a tracing device in it, so it didn't matter what he did. The pivotal scene (I thought) is where Carla Jean tries to tell Chirugh that she won't play his game with the coin - she is denying the power of his insanity and forcing him to admit that his talk about "promising her husband" he'd kill her is a cop-out, and so is the coinflip; he of course kills her anyway, because in the end the chaos is inside him (and everyone else) and not directed by the coin, or his given word.

And it's all linked to the speech where the old fat sheriff is telling Sheriff Bell that "if you'd have told me 20 years ago I'd see kids walking around with green hair and bones thru their noses I'd have said you were crazy" - chaos taking over, irrationality (as perceived by the characters, anyway) effortlessly knocking away the underpinnings of everything they thought they knew. That's why at the beginning Sheriff Bell is talking about how "you wouldn't believe it, but some sheriffs never even used to wear guns", and then goes on about arresting the guy who killed a 14 year old girl 'cause he always wanted to kill someone; he is witness through his life, and through the film how Western society has lost its focus and fallen apart into disorder based upon the whim of the individual and the irrelevance of society.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jammies

MORE SPOILERS SO DON'T LOOK

I thought the "13" thing was just reinforcement of the irrationality at the heart of the movie; just like the coin it stands for the ultimate chaos/meaninglessness which ends up triumphant at the end of the film.

They really hammer on that theme through the movie, you never know what's really going to happen, which is much like how life really is; for example, you THINK that Llewellyn going back to give the dying drug-runner some water is his fatal mistake, but in fact you find out the money has a tracing device in it, so it didn't matter what he did. The pivotal scene (I thought) is where Carla Jean tries to tell Chirugh that she won't play his game with the coin - she is denying the power of his insanity and forcing him to admit that his talk about "promising her husband" he'd kill her is a cop-out, and so is the coinflip; he of course kills her anyway, because in the end the chaos is inside him (and everyone else) and not directed by the coin, or his given word.

And it's all linked to the speech where the old fat sheriff is telling Sheriff Bell that "if you'd have told me 20 years ago I'd see kids walking around with green hair and bones thru their noses I'd have said you were crazy" - chaos taking over, irrationality (as perceived by the characters, anyway) effortlessly knocking away the underpinnings of everything they thought they knew. That's why at the beginning Sheriff Bell is talking about how "you wouldn't believe it, but some sheriffs never even used to wear guns", and then goes on about arresting the guy who killed a 14 year old girl 'cause he always wanted to kill someone; he is witness through his life, and through the film how Western society has lost its focus and fallen apart into disorder based upon the whim of the individual and the irrelevance of society.

Great answer. Thanks. I think I'll have to watch the movie again after reading that.

When I first noticed the 13 thing I thought it might mean that "this whole mess is all just a bunch of bad luck" but that was too easy so there had to be more to it.

I just finished a book called "I'm a Lebowski, You're a Lebowski Too" which was written by some rather intense fans of that film. They interviewed a lot of the actors in the movie and they all talked about how the Coen Brothers had things planned out right down to the syllable of the dialog.

There was that one scene in "Old Country" when Tommy Lee Jones said "somebody unloaded on that thing with a shot...gun" and it struck me as kind of funny.

[Wookie]

Weird,

I just kind of watched this movie and at the end thought. WTF was that about? I don't konw if I like it or not. Just, seemed to be a story that had no point.

I felt exactly the same way after watching There Will Be Blood, "it's over? WTF?"

[fatso]

I'm not a fan of the Coen brothers necessarily, but I liked 'Fargo' (mostly I liked William H. Macy's performance). I am a fan, however, of Cormac McCarthy. 'All the Pretty Horses' and 'Blood Meridian' are brilliant novels. 'Blood Meridian' in particular is absolutely incredible. I see they're making a movie of it at some point...

Anyway, I was excited to see this film in the theatres, but didn't get a chance. I rented the DVD the other day...

I thought it was absolutely awful. I stopped watching it half-way through. I am the furthest thing from a prude, but the violence of the first half was so completely decontextualized it really bothered me. I also get that they were trying to go for a black humor vibe, but it just fell completely flat. Maybe it picks up in the second half... but I saw nothing in the first half that merited my time in finding out.

[koop]

Originally Posted by Wookie

Weird,

I just kind of watched this movie and at the end thought. WTF was that about? I don't konw if I like it or not. Just, seemed to be a story that had no point.
"

I felt the same. For example right near the end there is that car accident, and I kept looking for some kind of significance, and then the movie ended. I didn't dislike the movie, but I definitely agree with the "WTF was that about?" feeling after it was over. I really liked Fargo, so it isn't that I don't like the Coen brothers, just really didn't understand all the hype around this movie.

[JiriHrdina]

My only beef with the film, which I thought was outstanding, was that we were robbed of the final confrotation. The entire movie is a chase between two men - and I don't understand the choice not to include the final show down. Strange.

Apart from that I thought it was excellent.

[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... ?

[BuzzardsWife]

This must be a 'guy' movie because I thought it was terrible. I , like most people, was so psyched to see it. I usually like strange movies, and absolutely love Coen brother movies, but this was just violence at it's finest form, used to sell tickets. It wasn't the ending that bugged me as much as the entire movie. I could have come up with a better idea for a movie myself. IMO. sorry to those who loved it.

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by 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) and so on.

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..." 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....


My thoughts...



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... ?

This post was informative, but I couldn't help but laugh. It reminds me of something Cliff Clavin would say.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by BuzzardsWife

This must be a 'guy' movie because I thought it was terrible. I , like most people, was so psyched to see it. I usually like strange movies, and absolutely love Coen brother movies, but this was just violence at it's finest form, used to sell tickets. It wasn't the ending that bugged me as much as the entire movie. I could have come up with a better idea for a movie myself. IMO. sorry to those who loved it.

To me the 'pure evil' was simply 'pure good' flipped upside down.

Sometimes it is hard to define what something is directly so it is easier to define its inverse?

But then in so doing the realization comes that pure evil is closer to pure good than 'usually good but sometimes bad'. The absoluteness and dedication to that doctrine of pure eveil takes more faith and purpose than the randomness and wish-washiness of most people?

In short, you are (the masses) as close to being pure evil as you are pure good - because you are too weak for either.

Subconsciously you (the masses) don't like people being judged through violence, not because it is violent, but because you would fail that judgement even if it was by someone who was pure goodness (like god).

Is it reasonable for anyone to be purely good? Does any of it REALLY matter then? While there is a nihilest undertone there, i think it is in the larger context just putting forth the notion that morality itself is a funny thing and we should not think ourselves any more good than we truly are or see the world as any less a reflection of our (bad/good) actions as anyone elses (are we all 'criminals' in our own way at a given moment?)?




And i am a bit Cliff Claven like in person - although i think i am better looking a whole lot younger!

Claeren.

[FlamesAddiction]

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.

[BuzzardsWife]

Did he kill the girl in the end?

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by BuzzardsWife

Did he kill the girl in the end?

Yes.

[Saint Troy]

My second best of last year behind There Will Be Blood, loved the fact that the Coen's went against convention with penultimate happening in the film. Though if you're a fan of their films it really shouldn't be any surprise.

[Burninator]

I like this movie more and more every time I watch it.

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Yes.

How did u know that? I mean, I assumed he did, but how do we know for sure?

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by Saint Troy

My second best of last year behind There Will Be Blood, loved the fact that the Coen's went against convention with penultimate happening in the film. Though if you're a fan of their films it really shouldn't be any surprise.

I want to see There Will be Blood, but everyone I know that has seen it has hated it. They all say you just say wtf at the end? Anyone know why?