Debate: “No Country for Old Men” Ending
By Norm Schrager at November 25, 2007 | 1:25 pm | Print
UPDATE (2/25/08): … and now the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has spoken in favor of this superb film… Let the debates and analysis continue!
UPDATE (2/1/08): This post has been up for about three months now and the response has been overwhelming. Because of the amazing Lobby community, we’ve been recognized (by “we,” I mean all of us) by David Carr of the New York Times, the official site for No Country for Old Men, and Miramax.
Thanks for your exceptional discourse, thoughtful insight and entertaining hyperanalysis. In our first seven months online, you have helped make Meet In the Lobby a cut different (and above) other movie discussion sites. Please let me know what you’d like to see next. (email: norm@meetinthelobby.com)
ORIGINAL POST
Now that the Coen Brothers’ No Country for Old Men is squeezing into multiplexes, there’ve been reports of moviegoers groaning in disappointment as the final scene cuts to black. So as Lobby readers continue discussing The Mist ending, sounds like No Country is worth talking about too. (No spoilers, of course.)
Like The Mist, No Country for Old Men is adapted from a book, but there’s a big difference. The Coens have remained remarkably true to Cormac McCarthy’s novel, right down to the actual dialogue. And since No Country has a more non-traditional ending for film, some people are turned off. I wholeheartedly disagree with them.
No Country for Old Men is a wild tale of stalker vs. prey, with a lone psychopath (the shocking Javier Bardem) at its center. But instead of providing an expected resolution, the film transforms into one man (played by Tommy Lee Jones) understanding himself and his world. To me, it’s a poetic choice, with a look at a man’s inner fears and uncertainties. Other moviegoers would rather sacrifice the poetry for a little more closure.
What do you think? Share your opinions on No Country for Old Men
See No Country for Old Men on our Movie Poster Monday
Check out No Country for Old Men on Amazon
Like this post? DIGG IT!
Trackbacks For This Post
396 Comments
-
“No Country for Old Men” reminds us that our existence on this planet is equal parts fulfilling and completely senseless. The ending proves this when one character is suddenly gone, and not in the way anyone would have expected. What we are left with, then is the musings of Jones’ character to try to make sense out of it. It’s perfect. Read my full review at http://www.scene-stealers.com/print-reviews/images-linger-in-no-country-for-old-men/
-
Does anyone relate the darkness, evilness, and abrupt and seemingly meaningless ending of this movie to “There Will Be Blood”? What is up with Texas movies?
-
-
I understand art, love it when films or programs do not wrap everything up in a big red bow, but I did not like this movie. It had its moments, but in my opinion it just did not achieve. Not everyone can be Hitchcock, the concept and stylistic choices became predictable and boring, and I simply did not care about the characters. Didn’t feel I was offered much reason to care.
-
Wow….are you ever an idiot!!! You must lover pablum disney movies!!! I bet you only read OHprah books of the month!!! U R A WE_TARD
-
-
i just want to know who gets the money in the end does antaun?
-
- Christine C –
Wow, I have to disagree with you on the predicatbility. This is probably the best movie I’ve seen this year, with plenty of plot progression and scene development that’s anything but predictable and boring, in my opinion.– Keith –
Does it matter who gets or finds the money? To my mind, the money’s just a plot device — one of the most classic and emotional plot devices there is.Thanks for joining in the conversation. Hope to see you both again.
-Norm S.
-
Yes, he gets the money. We know he does because he gives the kid a $100 bill after the accident.
-
Best American movie in at least three years. Period.
Tommy Lee Jones’ monologue at the end before the abrupt CUT TO BLACK (not FADE … LOL) serves to show two things –
First of all, the Jones character is struggling with his own mortality in the face of the world around him – a world he does not understand. The imagery of his late father going ahead of him pictures his impending death and the leaving behind of this troubled world.
Secondly, he mentions his father carrying a torch and making a fire in the middle of the cold and the blackness. It show that the Jones character feels that the world is hopeless with its course of violence, and that it will get worse. There is sadness in that final statement – Jones dreamt that someone (his father) would make a fire in all of that blackness – and then he woke up. Such hope is only reserved for dreamers, not realists.
What a terrific way to end a meditative and complex film!!!! I feel sorry for those who do not appreciate the boldness of the story and that ending.
-
- Eric –
Well put. If you’ve read this far, you’ve probably guessed that Lobby reader Ray (see above) agrees.– Charch –
Thanks for passing that answer on to Keith K. I didn’t necessarily think that signified him obtaining the money, but perhaps it does. I still say it doesn’t matter.– Ray –
Great stuff. I can tell how much you loved the film, and I felt the same. And thanks for correcting my “fade” vs. “cut”. I’ve changed our opening paragraph.Thanks guys for joining in.
-Norm S.
-
I thought it was interesting how the movie dovetailed a lot of themes from “Fargo” as well, although Marge was way more hopeful than Bell.
When the TLJ’s monologue came up at the end, I thought, wouldn’t this be a great way to end it, and then it went to black. Perfect. Can’t wait to see it again. -
- Eric –
Same here. I already get the sense this movie will feel tighter and more powerful with repeated viewings.
-Norm S.
-
Here’s a question for all you No Country mavens, who probably have it figured out (and if so, you’re way smarter than me). While I found much to admire in the film, and was not bothered by the sheriff’s monologue and dream recounting at the end… can someone please explain to me the cut to Javier Bardem, apparently hiding in a closet. Was he, a) in the closet of the motel room TLJ was in?; b) in the motel room next door?; c) was it a drastic cutaway to Bardem awaiting Kelly McDonald’s return home?; or somewhere else I am too dense to figure out? Many thanks!
-
- Tristan –
I have to be honest — as much as I love the movie, I don’t recall the context of the shot you’re asking about. And I probably won’t see it again until after the New Year…
Can anyone lend Tristan a hand? Thanks!
-Norm S.
-
I have read much debate on the scene where Anton appears to be hiding in the closet of a room Ed enters. First of all, I don’t think he was in the room while the sheriff was. It would be completely against the character’s established motives NOT to kill Ed. Is he in the room next door? The filmmakers made it seem pretty dang clear, through the editing, that Anton is in the room–he has blown out the lock, and the vent cover is off, opened with a coin as it was in a previous motel scene. I think the Coen brothers added an inexplicable element to this film, the way they have in many others–the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse in Raising Arizona, the UFO in The Man Who Wasn’t There, pretty much the entire movie of Barton Fink. However, there might be SOME explanation. In the previous scene, Ed called Anton “a ghost”. This, coupled with the Coen brothers statement on Charle Rose that they wanted to make Anton both a person and a symbol, leads me to believe the filmmakers left the door open for Anton to vanish, while leaving a more likely possibility open.
-
A few things:
Anton in the Closet: If he wasn’t in the room while Jones’ character was, that was an incredibly odd construction, pretty inconsistent with the rest of the film’s linear progression. If he was, the previous commenter was right — he should’ve whacked the old man. He seemed to enjoy that sort of thing.
The Money: Anton has it. It’s why they showed the empty air duct — only he would know Brolin’s character would hide it there — and it’s why he gave the kid a hundred. And, yes, it matters who has it, plot device or not. But that doesn’t mean it has to be made obvious who has it. In that, I liked the ambiguity.
The End: I understand people who enjoyed it, but I was disappointed. To me, Tommy Le’s character wasn’t well developed enough — I wasn’t invested enough — to have him carry the ending so fully. I was deeply invested in the cat-and-mouse game, and once it ended, the movie ended, at least for me. But that’s the cool thing about movies: Everyone lugs their own baggage into the theater, and invests in the characters they want (need?) to.
And in this case, perfect ending or not, the Coen Bros. had my heart racing — hours later, when I was trying to sleep. I’d say they hammered it.
-
I haven’t read the book – but I think the only problem with the movie is that I don’t really care about the Sherrif as much as I probably would have if Iwas reading the book (I hope) Plus after all that adventure I wasn’t really paying attention to what he was going on about at the end! And that’s that!
-
- Eric W., Joe –
Thanks for the analysis, especially the question regarding Anton in the closet. I do appreciate the idea that Anton is a symbol rather than a wholly real guy. He’s the elusive element in a world that’s passed the sheriff by. My own take, of course.
Joe, I also appreciate the Coens’ ambiguity — I didn’t find myself sifting through some details at the level you did, but I still think the movie is phenomenal. Without the ambiguity and rough edges, I’m not sure I would think so.
– Grant –
I think a lot of people are caught off-guard at the end! A friend told me her buddy was getting something from her purse during the sheriff’s monologue. She looked up and, alas, the movie was over.-Norm S.
-
I too thought that the movie was outstanding. The ending was perfect. But, I didn’t expect it to end right there, so I wasn’t paying close enuf attention. Who was the older man in the scene ?
How many movies can be carried by dialogue, scenery, and action ? I would bet that many did not realise that there was no musical soundtrack until the end.
My belief is that the whole movie was about Tommy Lee’s character. He was at that stage in his life. He was a very smart man, who relied on his experience to fiqure things out. EX: he didn’t need to go out to the desert a 2nd time, ” any more dead bodies ? “.
I feel that at the end when he talks to his wife about his dream, and then goes to see the old man, that his life changed at the hotel room. He saw that the lock was blown out. He knew Anton was in there and KNEW that he was gonna die there….. That was the main question that I was left with, why didn’t Anton kill him ?
-
There are many posts to which I’d like to respond, iI know I can’t get to them all, so I’ll try to be to the point:
I think “No Country…” is the best American movie of the year, and one of the best of the last many years. If it fails to win Oscars, it’d be a shame for the brothers Coen.
The old man at the end of the movie is “Uncle Ellis.” In the book, it’s unclear whether he is actually Bell’s biological uncle or just a father figure. Regardless, he’s an elder figure in Bell’s life with some sort of familial connection that he looks up to.
Regarding the hotel room scene: this scene was constructed entirely by the Coen brothers (it was different in the book), so it’s far from clear. I’ve seen the movie three times and I’ve also read the script, and it’s very ambiguous as to what is actually going on.
Because of the shot/reverse shot camera sequence, the viewer is led to believe that Chigurh is behind the door while Bell is outside the room (and yes, the same room). When Bell pushes the door open, it doesn’t bounce or rebound off the ball, as one might expect it to. Additionally, the shot is framed in such a perfect way so that the viewer can’t tell if there is anyone (Chigurh) behind the door, or if it merely flies open to hit an empty wall. So in theory, Chigurh might actually still be behind the door. They make a point of showing the locked window latch, and Bell sits on the bed in the motel room, defeated, knowing that he’s again missed Chigurh…or is it that he suspects all along that he might still be nearby, and that Bell is just not ready to “push his chips forward?” An interesting question, especially given his retirement and the scene with Uncle Ellis, where Bell responds, “I’m scared” when asked why he is quitting.
I’m beginning to ramble, and I could go on for ages about the film and it’s absolutely perfect ending. Suffice it to say that it’s a metaphor, that’s haunting and beautiful at the same time.
I invite any of you to respond or to read my review of the film at http://www.filmforemania.com. Thank you for your time. -
The whole movie revolves around three dead men who walk and talk and make other men dead too. Bell is an old school lawman whose idealism died long ago. He’s going through the motions, and Tommy Lee’s laconic style is a perfect fit for the resigned nature of the dead-to-this-world west Texas sheriff. Moss is an unemployed welder because he is a broken man. Part of him died long ago, with his buddies in ‘Nam and with his beloved mother. He tells his cute dumb wife that he’ll tell his dead mama personally of his affection. He goes back to thta massacre scene not out of humanity but for the adrenalin rush of pursuing and being huinted by death. The symbolism of Moss crossing the creek pursued by the dog was not lost on me the second time I saw this brilliant film. Symbolically, he had crossed the Reiver Styx, pursued by the insatiable Cerebrus hound. From that moment on, the death Moss sought hunted him remorselessly. Anton Chighur, the assassin, long ago allowed his humanity to die in order to become the consummate pro. He knows his only salvation is anonymity, and dead men make poor witnesses. And, just to be even more anti-crime drama stylists, the Coens did not arrange for any of the protagonists to meet each other nor is anyone of them killed by the other, even though the opportunity for Anton killing Bell was there for everyone to see (?) Of course, that is McCarthy’s literary doing, but how many Hollywood directors would have had the cojones to do this on film?
Many have expressed disappointment about the film’s ending. But what would they have had happen instead? Bell killing Anton in a ten minute long shoot out? That would have ruined the film for me. Instead, they have us peer in to the melancholic soul of the Old Man of the movie’s title, the has-been lawman who sipped coffee, ruminated about how awful modern crime ahd become and found solace only in his dreams of a nostalgic daddy. He had nothing left, folks, only the memory of a world where lawman helped people. -
the sheriff has two dreams, both about his father. the bad guy, aka the “ghost” walks off with a “f_–__ing bone sticking out of his arm”. at the end of the flick the sheriff and the bad guy are both left standing. the sheriff gives great respect to the bad guy when discussing him with el paso police guy. bad guy apparently hiding behind hotel room door does not shoot sheriff. what’s the point? my guess….(have not read book, and only seen flick once, about an hour ago) is that author could not bear to close out either character, and/or wants to leave the future of sheriff and bad guy to the audience’s imagination. Because both characters live on, won’t we all be begging for a sequel?
-
from the first frame of this movie, i had a good feeling i was in for a great experience you can’t get anywhere else but a coen brothers film. chighur is such a relentless force that i literally could not take my eyes off the screen. the ending, to me, was flawless. why do we need a tidy hollywood ending? where the bad guy gets his, the good guy gets the money,and the sheriff retires a hero? real life doesn’t work like that. real life doesn’t have a soundtrack. the reality is we all seek answers to questions that we don’t always get. the thing that made this film so enjoyable and really hit home was that is was set in the early eighties. when we see all the senseless violence and the evil that men do today. we realize that this is nothing new. as ellis is telling the story of the relative that was killed on his porch by desperados for no good reason. these seemingly random acts of violence have been around forever. when bell narrates that “the crime you see today, it’s hard to take it’s measure” that is just a tired lawman that has thrown in the towel on trying to explain it.
-
- Ronnie –
I was stunned and delighted by the lack of a musical soundtrack. It really brought a sense of stark doom to the film. More filmmakers should take a cue from this one and realize that silence — or ambient sound — really is golden sometimes.
– Matt Foreman -
We seriously appreciate your pitching in regarding the book and the script. You mention ambiguity, as is brought up many times in discussing this film, and I think it’s one reason the movie’s so beautiful and tantalizing. Who needs to know everything? The rough edges are far more inventive and exciting.
I like your “push the chips forward” analysis — I’ve also wondered if Chigurh is just sort of hovering, symbolically or otherwise, over the sheriff’s “last stand”.
– Hardy –
Man, you nailed it, in my opinion. I hadn’t heard the River Styx reference but that’s just perfect. Thanks.
– ivan –
I see your point, but a sequel would break my heart. This film should just hang out there for all literary and cinematic eternity.
– mark –
I very much appreciated Chigurh’s relentless. Scary as hell. I’d like to meet Javier Bardem now, just so I can be convinced that the character is fictional. He is, right?
-Norm S.
-
My son reminded me at the end that Sheriff Bell (Jones) spoke of his memories of the young killer he sent to the chair in the opening monologue.
If you’re looking for and ending to this film, you need to start at the beginning. In here lies the cunning of the film.
If you think about it, Sheriff Bell has come full circle. He starts by expressing his remorse over society’s condition, and is forced to recognize that this condititon has not changed since he was the young sheriff sending the killer off to the chair. At the end, he is much older, wiser and still correct about the glibness of killers, and why they kill. -
Here’s my analysis of the film, in such a way that I can make sense of the ending:
Anton Chigurh and Llewelyn Moss are nearly the same symbol (if not character). Anton says at one point (referencing the bug they put in the money), “You shouldn’t have done that. There is only one right tool for each job” (or something similar). If they hadn’t used it, Llewelyn would have had no way of knowing that Anton would be there so quickly and wouldn’t have been prepared. Both use the same tools. Anton uses a screwdriver to pop the VIN plate off Llewelyn’s car and Llewelyn uses a screwdriver to open the air grate. Both of them trade the money for shirts to hide/heal their wounds.
These differences are small, but I think they lead to a powerful viewing of the film: that the world is Anton’s (the devil’s?) world. We’re just living in it. We may try to manipulate it and use it to our own ends, but ultimately Anton has all the power. I think this is why Llewlyn lets the Sheriff live–he recognizes the world as completely out of his power at this point. He will retreat to the next world (death, with his father). I think its also why Anton lets Llewelyn live so long–they are in their actions very similar and if Llewelyn would quit his connections to others (his wife mostly, his mother has already died), they would be almost the same. He almost does this for most of the film. Llewlelyn is only killed when he is about to meet his wife again. Thus Anton thinks Llewlelyn is almost as ‘powerful’ as he is, until Llewelyn is sucked back in by his wife and that woman by the pool offering him beer.I noticed the lack of soundtrack, and it was really powerful here. I saw another film with sparse soundtrack recently (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead) and I didn’t enjoy it as much.
-
I don’t think Anton is behind the door in the motel. I think it’s tlj fear that he is, and that causes him to draw his gun for the first time in the film. In the opening monologue he mentions the old time sheriffs that didn’t even carry guns. this is the time he is nostalgic for. faced with the new killer ( the weapon of choice ( air gun?) is symbolic of the way things have changed, as told thru the story about the way steer are butchered. now the killing is cold and mechanical. This is the world he is in and anton is a metaphor for it.
-
Look, it’s pretty easy to understand the ending from a closure point of view. When tommy lee jones’ character speaks with with what I can only imagine to be his brother or close friend, about the man that shot him dying in jail, he mentions his surprise to find out that he wouldn’t have been upset should he have gotten out of jail. He says that at some point you have to stop trying to take back what’s yours, because you’ll just lose more and more, and at some point, you just need to make a tourniquet. That was the reason tommy lee jones’ character never pursues Anton further. He cuts his losses, and the bad guys win.
Simple.
-
I just saw the movie tonight and thought i followed it pretty well, but the ending didn’t sit well. I understand what everybody is saying but i just don’t believe that Llewalyn or his wife are dead. They never show a shot of them in a pool of blood, you just assume that. I was thinking that the movie was based on the sheriffs dream. The whole movie was his dream. He just puts it in a metaphorical term to his wife.
Its just idea that i am throwing out there, but i need to see it a couple more times and try to pick up on a few things that i missed.Give some feedback on what you think. -
@doug: the air gun is actually just the thing they kill cattle with. that’s why you never see any bullets and why it only works at close range (head shots and door handles).
-
Right, but when tlj talks to lew’s wife, he tells the story of how the guy up the road used to butcher cattle by hitting them in the head and then trussing them up and cutting there throats. Now ” the cow doesn’t even know what hit em” However, I withdraw my earlier opinion, based on something mentioned in an earlier post. In the opening monologue, tlj does tell the story of the kid he put to death row. How it wan’t a crime of passsion, but rather detached…just like anton. So, I suppose things really haven’t changed.
-
Ray – I like your analysis of the ending monologue.
And, it’s true it’s not about the $$. By the end I didn’t care who had possession because I was so caught up in the characters.
About Anton in the motel room near the end… I just saw the movie yesterday and I was sure I could see the wall by the front door when the sheriff opened it and Anton was NOT behind it. I couldn’t figure this out either but after thinking about it I have my own theory.
There were two room sectioned off with crime scene tape and Anton may have been in the other one. It fits the randomness/luck of the draw device used in the movie with the two coin flips. Here the sheriff has a 50/50 chance of meeting Anton behind the door but selects the unoccupied room. Maybe he’s throwing in the towel when he sits on the bed and ponders the near miss because the next time we see him he is retired. Just a thought.
-
- TC –
I agree there’s a full circle in the sheriff’s presentation. And I love the closure that his opening and closing monologues provide. The opener is a voiceover that covers the landscape that will carry the story… and the closer is told while looking into his eyes, as if now we know him, now we know his fears, now we can’t look away and neither can he.– Gabe –
Interesting theory about Chigurh’s opinion of Llewelyn. And I really like your breakdown of their use of tools — that’s a fascinating analysis.– Bobbert –
You think the sheriff is cutting his losses in this particular case, or just throwing in the towel on his career (and life)? Or both?– Drew –
I don’t really agree that the action could be a broad realization of the sheriff’s dream. It could make sense, sure, but I think it takes the story too far from metaphor into fantasy. Just my take.– Chris –
Great call on where exactly Anton is standing. I like that thinking a lot, especially considering the way all the motel room ins and outs were established when Llewelyn was hiding the money.I feel like we could all talk about this film for days. I don’t think I’ve seen anything this good in a few years.
-Norm S.
-
Just saw it! wonderful. Never been to big into film analysis beyond a ciircle of friends, but this is just to cool to pass up!
I had always thought he was behind the door , but chris’s analysis is interesting, considering llewelyn had a habit of switching rooms AND he was most likely in the room belonging to the beer woman when killed.
Few people have discussed llwelyns wife’s refusal to pick heads or tails. I’m trying hard to find where this theme of cheating death comes from, but I cant put my finger on it (faust?)
however, i think judged on the wiping of the boots, she is killed, the idea of probability is certainly tied in with the coin and with the accident.
AH!! I saw this movie less than 30 mins ago and am so uncertain about so many of my ideas! I’m sure i’ll return. River Styx observation was great! Damn my lack of education in mythology!!!!
as a side note:
Its really tfrustrating to see this movie with people who found the new “die hard” more compelling -
Well I was thinking that Chigurgh was behind the door and that yes the Sheriffs life does change in that he died that night. I thought that maybe the man he speaks to in the end was his dead father that he may or may not have recognized. Just my thoughts. Amazing movie!
-
this is a very (david) lynchian film. good and evil are never separate. both are displayed at once. anton is the ghost of evil present within the good. he is in the shadows, behind the door, always there. and, if you have ever seen Night of the Hunter (1955) with Robert Mitchum, you will see similar elements. anton just shows up, no explanation on how he got there. he literally is haunting. and we are all helpless children being stalked by this mysteriously evil force. also, moss gets killed off screen without a ritual of death (a burial, closing his eyes, crossing his arms, putting something over his face, etc… nothing). death is not mourned when true evil is present. in this regard, anton is the spectre of the holocaust. the cold and logical conclusion of a world searching for cold and logical conclusions. and this explains the ending. the ending rejects this. the ending rejects the validity of this evil while still admitting it exists. good and evil, all at once. the dream speech implores that we embrace the logic of dreams, even the irrational emotions we feel, in order to reject evil. hope is not for the dreamers, dreamers are our only hope.
-
As far as the scene with Anton in the closet, or being a ghost or what not– I personally do not think Anton would’ve killed Ed had he been in the room hiding. He had no reason to kill Ed. All throughout the film Anton is killing but based on principles. Someone takes something from him–he kills them. Someone hurts him–he kills them. Someone gets in his way–he kills them. Someone has something he needs–He kills them. He makes a promise or gives his word to kill–he kills. Ed however had done nothing to Anton, so Anton based on his morals and values (if you can call them that) would not have shot the sheriff. Maybe Anton was in the room, hiding, waiting to see if he was going to have-to kill Ed.
-
and don’t forget the similarities between the coen brothers’ quirky dark humor and lynch’s (twin peaks, blue velvet)
-
Anton killed Tony Soprano
-
God! This is so not like a Lynch film!! Unlike Lynch, this film started out interesting and arresting (like most lynch films) and stayed that way through a cohesive story line (unlike lynch). The film is great! It blends symbolism seamlessly into the storyline and keeps the adrenline going from start to finish…!
-
my last comment sucked, i’m sorry.
-
Hey everyone-
First, I have to echo the sentiments of Premiere Magazine’s Glenn Kenny — I’m thrilled and flattered that film discussion of this depth has gathered here. (Glenn expressed the same on his site.) We couldn’t ask for a better cinema community.
Back to the chatter…
– Daniel -
I do think it’s clear that Chigurh checking his shoes is a sign that he’s killed her (or anyone). We see him carefully lifting his feet earlier to avoid a flow of blood. As the movie progresses, we’re privy to less and less violence — just as the spatial connections between characters seem more vague. We see less, and perhaps think more. I’m rambling a bit, but yeah, the shoe check is to let us know he killed her.By the way, I liked the new Die Hard movie. But it sure as hell wasn’t this compelling, so you have my sympathies…
– Patrick -
Not sure about the Lynch comparison — I find Lynch’s sense of humor to be absurd and the Coens to be more classically dark, with touches of comic relief. Well said anyhow, from my point of view. Studying and acknowledging evil can be simple… or satisfyingly complex, as it is with this film.– Trey -
How would you explain Anton’s apparent willingness to kill the hardware store owner? It appeared that poor scared guy was just one coin flip away…– Megan -
I don’t think your comment sucked at all! Unless you insult someone, never apologize for a post here. Just keep ‘em coming as you wish. (And if you would like me to delete the “my last comment sucked” comment, let me know and we’ll kill it.)One last thing: On the previously mentioned blog from Glenn Kenny, Mr. Kenny offers a series of freeze frames from the much-discussed scene that poses the sheriff and Anton on “opposite” sides of the door. Enjoy and tell Glenn Kenny we sent you.
http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/2007/12/more-no-country.html -
- Norm -
My statement above is something that I am still debating with myself, it was something I was thinking and seeing that no one else had touched on the possibility I thought I might bring it up…
As far as the clerk goes, Anton–going with the so-called morals and principles idea– may have thought the man’s existence pathetic and wasted. Anton also seemed insulted and bothered at the idea of the man marrying into his line of business rather than earning it. Maybe Anton gave the clerk the option, because while Anton sees a reason the man should die, Anton by his own principles could not just kill him as the man’s life or death had no impact on Anton’s needs.
-
Norm,
Can you please, by making it as clear as possible, what happens to Bell. After he said ‘And then I woke up’.. what does that signify? Did he dream that Anton was there, and thats why he retired, because he can’t take the pressure, or was it something more complicated?
Appreciate your answer ASAP
-
I LOVED the movie, hated the ending. I have read some of the reviews above and posted on other sites. I did not expect things to be wrapped in a “pretty red bow” nor did I have an “expected resolution.” I did however want resolution. Any resolution. There was no resolution with this film. Do not ask me to sit for 2 hours and then buy into a dream? This moving was intense, the acting was brilliant. The ending ………………………………………………
-
first of all, the money was no longer in the vent duct. Moss through it over the fence by the river. and the thing about Antaun in the closet–if you pay attention to other scenes in the film, time passes between some of the scenes, and most people wouldnt realize it happened. Antaun was in the room waiting, but at a different time.
-
Patrick–
Anton didn’t kill Moss. the mexicans did. they found out where he was meeting with his wife through the wife’s mother and ambushed him. Unless, i just thought about this to add to what i already said, he did kill moss and the scene with him behind the door was really him waiting for moss to come and the mexicans showed up also, which would explain why they were chased away from the motel still shooting while moss was dead on the floor. idk just a stretch. lemme know what you guys think
-
1. Who really killed Moss? I read Jake W’s second comment, and I don’t know what to believe.
2. As I asked before, can you please explain what happened after Bell ‘woke up’?
3. Why did Wells not take the money when he saw it in the riverbank? (How did he know it was there, anyway?)
-
Re the comments about Moss’s wife refusing to call Chigurrh’s coin toss:
This struck me too at the time and it seems that while she recognizes the implications of the toss (which would give her a 50% chance of surviving) her refusal to make the call is an implicit statement of faith. She chooses to live (or die) on her own terms in a world bound by her sense of right and wrong. In her moral calculus, refusing to submit to chance is worth dying. Her actions remind me of Einstein’s famous statement that “God does not play dice with the universe!”Finally, re Sherrif Bell’s dream at the end, although it has been a month since I saw the movie (and a year or two since I read the book), the imagery re the fire may well come from W.B. Yeats’ poem, Sailing to Byzantium, the opening line of which provides the title to McCarthy’s book as well as the movie. The poem is worth reading as an adjunct to the movie–here’s a link: http://www.uky.edu/Classes/A-H/322/yeatssailing.htm
-
- Trey -
Hey, from point-of-view that explanation makes as much sense as any. It’s tough to tell when the dialogue is setting up a specific point (like Anton’s distaste for the man inheriting the hardware store) or when it’s filling out scene and character development. I guess that’s the beauty of a complex script.– Ben -
Got your questions, buddy. And I can only say that my answers will be opinions, just my take on a film that’s had as much analysis as I can ever remember.I’ll say this: I think the movie is fairly simple on the surface. I don’t think the Coens have gone out of their way to confuse the story or us, the viewers. Yes, there are vague details and some unconventional visual language but, for the most part, it is what it is.
1) I think Jake is correct about Moss’ murder. They tear out of the parking lot just as the sheriff arrives too late.
2) I don’t think anything “happens” after Bell wakes up. He’s only conveying a dream that gave him some clarity, that showed him his destiny (I don’t mean to be too melodramatic.) I’m in the camp that believes the action wasn’t a dream — the only dream is the one Bell describes at the end.
3) Never thought about the money at the riverbank… as for his finding it, I figured he knew his players pretty damned well, and knew what they might do. And then there’s fate and luck of course…
– Wayne Humbyrd -
With your comment we’re getting back — way back — to the initial reason behind this post: Some people simply don’t like the ending because it lacks traditional closure. And some people, like me, love the ending. As for “resolution,” I think it exists in the sheriff’s mind. He’s resolved to call it a day. And damn, that’s good enough for me.– Jake -
With this big discussion, I appreciate the responses to others’ questions, so thanks!- Norm S.
-
The move was bad but the ending was the worst. The only thing worse than the ending was Tommy Lee’s final story at the end. Boring, to say the least. What did it even mean? If anyone should have been shot in the movie , early on, it should of been him. Don’t waste your money.
-
Ive read all the comments on this thread and the other threads that movie’s official website links to and i still have some questions.
1) What exactly is the role of the Mexicans in the movie? Are they hired to get the money and also to get Chigurh?
2) Obviously there is no closure at the end- So what happens to Chigurh? Are the Mexicans going to kill him too?
3) How much time had elapsed between the death of Moss and the death of the old mother to cancer? That seems significant because it seems that there must have been a long period between the motel scene with Chigurh and the Sherrif and the scene where Chigurh kills the wife (death is implied).Also, a comment not mentioned in any thread is that in the shooting showdown in Del Rio between Moss and Chigurh, Chigurh gets shot and FLEES without his weapon. Hardly the fearless cold “death figure” that all the overanalyzers have painted. Moss then picks up the gun and drives off. So unless im mistaken, after seeing that Chigurh had gotten away and is wounded, Moss takes Chigurhs gun and drives off in the smashed truck. Chigurh shouldnt have his special gun in any scene after that. Ill have to watch again to see if that it true.
-
Just got home from the theater. Wanted to address the issue of where did the money go, since someone above was asking if Anton Chirgur got it after all.
As mentioned, he gives a $100 bill to the kid on the bike for his shirt – a parallel to Moss giving $500 to the frat guy on the bridge for his jacket. So I think it’s safe to say that Anton did retrieve the money.
And so perhaps we think it’s not really relevant at this point, the money being a Hitchcock “MacGuffin,” much like the the prized Maltese Falcon which we never see. But then it’s sort of interesting that Anton must walk off without the suitcase – even the “ghost,” as Bell calls him, can be injured, lose, and eventually die…
-
lol hard at daniels comment from dec.18
its hard to watch this movie w/people who thought “die hard” was better!
i know what you mean. -
A note about the motel scene:
When we’re presented with Chigurh’s point of view inside motel room, he’s looking to his left and slightly down. When we are presented with the close-up of the blown-out lock from inside the room, we are looking at it from the right side, that is, the blown-out lock cylinder is on our left. Looking at the left side of the cylinder, we see Bell’s reflection in it. But, from our point of view, Bell is standing on the other side (to the left) of the cylinder, if we assume that we are in the room that Bell is about to enter. Since we see Bell’s reflection on the left side of the cylinder, doesn’t that mean that Bell would have to be on the right side of the cylinder from our vantage point inside the room? This would put Bell on the left side of the blown-out cylinder from his vantage point outside the room. But, when we watch the movie, we see that he is always on the right side of the cylinder from his vantage point.
The reflection of Bell in the left side of the cylinder makes more sense if we are looking at the blown-out cylinder from inside the adjacent room.Just a thought.
-
To Mike D-
about Moss taking Chigur’s gun…yeah he picks up the MP5 that Chigur had but he didn’t take the shotgun. Chigur left with that. he had two guns because he wasn’t able to shoot Moss from a distance with the shotgun.
-
- JM –
Sounds like you’re in the minority buddy. Even those people that aren’t happy with the ending still got something out of the movie. I think you’re a first on this post…– Mike D. –
I’m not sure it matters what becomes of Chigurh. As some have mentioned on this post, he’s the proverbial — and maybe literal — ghost.As for the Mexicans, I assume they’re simply part of the drug deal gone wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.
– Scotty –
I agree — the money just propels the story. Where it ends up is fairly meaningless, in my eyes. I couldn’t care less actually.– billywest –
Man, that scene has become one of the most analyzed I can remember. As you state, we’re definitely relying on our innate knowledge of “film language” to figure it all out. In the long run, though, I’m not sure it can be seen as a literal series of images. Just one viewer’s point of view.– Norm S.
-
I just saw film this evening. I too really liked the film but found the ending confusing. Here’s what I thought:
Anton gets caught. That’s the whole reason for the car crash. He been deciding lives based on a coin toss and fate finally intercedes in a negative way for him. He leaves the crash scene with sirens approaching, a bone sticking out of his arm and two witnesses who saw him leave the murder scene- hundred bucks paid out notwithstanding. The following TL Jones monologue doesn’t elude to the case itself and can be applied whether the case was solved or not. My two cents only.
-
There are some great comments here.
The combination of the Coens and McCarthy is a perfect one, as they have both explored similar themes in their work, and for the Coens, this movie feels like an update of both Blood Simple and Fargo.I think the scene with Bell’s uncle is more critical than the final scene where he speaks about his dream. The unending brutality of man is a constant theme in McCarthy’s work, and the Coens’ too. The problem is that Bell can’t accept that his feeling of being overwhelmed by what he sees is his own “vanity”. That Chigurh kills the only innocent person in the movie as a matter of his own sick principles (remember how Woody Harrelson calls him one of the only principled people out there, or something to that effect), survives his potential comeuppance, and walks away only underlines that this is how the world is, and will always be.
Even as he walks away, the kids are starting to argue over the $100 bill.
Once he decides that the world is too much for him anymore, he has begun to die, and too soon, because he has no place at home (his wife makes that clear), and nothing else to look forward to.Chigurh is a force of nature, and the struggle in the movie is about how human morals fall away against the implacability of nature. This movie doesn’t take place in the desert for nothing.
That said, I feel like the end of the movie had a structural issue in the way the final three scenes were set up. The Coens telegraphed the car crash, though they didn’t kill Chigurh off as I first expected (THAT would have put an interesting moral spin on everything), and I was so churned up by the end of that scene, that I lost some focus on the final scene until about halfway through the final monologue. I would have put the scene with the uncle before the final one, after the car crash.
-
I know I’m really stepping outside of the box here, but is it possible that Bell and Anton had a partnership? Maybe that’s why Bell is so contemplative and mournful in his closing dialog-he has sold out. He isn’t despondent about the state of humanity, only about his inner moral compass. His line about how cattle are killed shows that he knows how the murders are being committed. That would explain why Bell survives the scene in the motel room where it appears that Anton is hiding behind the door. And it could explain how Bell is able to retire.
Maybe it’s heresy, but I just thought I would throw this one out to see what everyone else says about it!
-
DID ED TOM BELL DECIDE TO SUDDENLY RETIRE BECAUSE HE LOOKED IN THE AIR DUCT AND FOUND THE $2,000,000 that ANTON LEFT BEHIND WHEN HE HAD TO EXIT THE ROOM AFTER HIDING BEHIND THE DOOR WHILE ED TOM WAS LOOKING FOR HIM IN THE BATHROOM ????
WAS IT MY IMAGINATION OR DID ED TOM’S BREAKFAST NOOK LOOK DECIDEDLY EXTRAORDINARILY NICER THAN THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE IN THE FIRST SCENE ED TOM APPEARS IN? DID HE USE SOME OF THE $2,000,000 TO BUY A NEW RETIREMENT HOME?
DID ANYTHING ANTON DID AT THE END OF THE MOVIE SUGGEST HE WAS PERFECTLY AT PEACE WITH THE IDEA OF LETTIONG THE MEXICANS OR ANYONE ELSE KEEP THE MONEY THAT HAD COST HIM THE USE OF TWO LIMBS AND ALMOST COST HIM HIS LIFE (AND THE LIVES OF A DEPUTY, TWO MALE MOTORISTS, A COLONEL, TWO DESK CLERKS, THREE MEXICANS LYING IN WAIT AT THE MOTEL, THE SYNDICATE OWNER AND TWO SYNDICATE LIEUTENANTS KILLED IN THE DESERT)?
MAYBE ED TOM WAS SO NERVOUS AND ILL-AT-EASE IN HIS RETIREMENT BECAUSE HE HAD FOUND THE MONEY IN THE MOTEL AND KNEW HE WOULD SPEND HIS ENTIRE RETIREMENT WATCHING HIS BACK FOR ANTON????
HAS ANYONE ELSE Thought that ED TOM BELL left the Hotel Room in El Paso with the Briefcase full of money?
Did anyone notice how nice the Breakfast Nook appeared at the end compared with the deshelved ranch home we saw in the first scene that introduced Ed Tom?
Didn’t Ed Tom’s wife look stunningly more beautiful at the end than when we first saw her? More money spent on makeup and nice clothes and hairstyle and those icy blue eyes which weren’t portrayed when we first saw her?
Amazing what $2,000,000 can do to make you gorgeous at 65!~~~
CLAX
-
YEA,WELL………….thought I’d get a rise out of someone~~~
-
It sure would be interesting to know if Ed Tom actually did find the money, but I don’t think he did. I think he was nervous about dying while a cop and it was VERY uncomfortable in his retirement because being a cop is ALL he knew. Heck, his entire family of generations were lawmen and he simply knew nothing else.
One common thread I observed (among many) was the concept that you have no control over what happens in this life. “You can’t stop what is coming…that’s vanity” rings true. Also, when Anton says “people always say the same thing…’you don’t have to do this.’” He is so put off by this comment like people simply don’t get it. You can’t change what is going to happen, you can’t stop it. Anton couldn’t stop it. He is what he is and people telling him “that he doesn’t have to do this” just puzzles him since that is furtherest thing from the truth.
I can just tell he wanted to say to these folks that we are helpless in this life to what happens to you. When it is your time, it is your time and you can’t do anything about it. It is completely up to chance. Just like the coin flip…completely up to chance.
I see Anton as a symbol of the Grim Reaper. He is always wearing black; cold as death; has no remorse or feeling – that is, when it is your time, it is your time. AND, his silver silencer on the end of gun is reminiscent of the blade on the end of the sickle.
Finally, I agree with the other comments. Lewellen and Anton were opposite sides of the same coin. They were cut from the same cloth and it was fascinating watching the movie the second time to see the similarities. I watched it again after reading this comment board and saw SOOOOOOO much in the movie that I did not see the first time. Great analysis from folks…
-
I felt that the movie was a little clumsy at the beginning and, particularly at the end.
At the beginning, there was the need to force the audience to understand that the principal villain was a stupendously remorseless individual, but it was not succinctly connected to the ensuing… there was an unnecessary disconnect.
Further the opening promoted the idea of the ramdomness of his actions, which was achieved more efficiently by the ‘bird-shot on the bridge’ scene. At the end, the car crash was telegraphed (unfortunately) by the over-dwelling on the traffic-lights and I see this development as a sop to those who crave ‘justice/closure’. ‘Sheriff sees crippled former associate’ and ‘sheriff delivers epilogue/tie-up’ really, in my opinion, should have been dispersed earlier in the presentation. Finally, the theme… change, the relentlessness of change, familiar but novel (against common sense)… …and the strangeness and incomprehensibility of the new, hyper-violent, unpredictable crime regime for the ‘old hands’… …therefore ‘no country for old men’! K -
Had a question, how did Anton know that Moss was in El Paso at the hotel. Anyone have an answer. Thanks.
-
The CROW :
Interesting comments – I have a couple that I haven’t seen mentioned that may spark debate.
THE CROW:-
The scene in which Anton shoots at the crow is filmed very carefully compared to others, watch it a few times and this scenes cinematography stands out to me…this lends more confidence (since it appears to be a important scene) in making the following comments….firstly the camera shows his view out of the car, through the windscreen at the approaching bridge. After watching this again focus on the bonnet of his car……see anything as his bonnetpiece in the middle? I believe this to be iconography for Chaos – The turned down horns of the head signifying this….. (I know he has probably just stolen this car from another victim but I think it’s important to only this particular scene and the interactions with the crow).
I believe Chiggur is the embodiment of chaotic evil, not death – however – he interacts with death – death has been accompanying him his entire journey and at this point in the film it is personified as the crow….Anton being pure chaos shoots the crow…point blank…he cant miss….but he does…or does he? he cant kill death….but the final car crash involving Chiggur demonstrates that maybe he can cheat it….or perhaps its death’s little reminder showing him who his master is…it’s left open for debate. Maybe Chiggur is just a unknowing/knowing vessel for death, maybe he shot at the crow because he knew it?If there was more ‘death’ symbolism it would add weight to once theory or another, who knows.
The whimsical nature of death is demonstrated not by Anton during his killings but more by the car crash in which he is involved. Unexpected and ironic given all the violence he’s been party to ,but another reminder to Anton who it is he serves (maybe because after killing Carla he has indeed changed slightly through her comments and refusal to call the toss)…..There is a greater power at work than him – he’s visibly shaken (albeit not a lot but for him, more than usual), and maybe he, chiggur is the one who’s been on the run his entire life (either that or deaths been accompanying him).
The car crash shows that like Chiggur, life and death is whimsical,Chiggur is the guy who didnt get the electric chair – the one Bells refers to in his opening monologue about the boy killer he caught and how the kid said he would have killed anyone given the opportunity. Chiggur is ‘The boy who lived’ in a harrypotteresque demonic reversal…but the system didnt catch him and he’s the result…..
Not to push this too far but it’s clear that throughout his screentime Anton appears ‘soulless’…maybe he is…maybe he made some sort of parle…
Or maybe he’s just a killer who likes shooting at birds.
Anyway if you got this far, thanks for reading my thoughts, one other scene raises questions and is easily overlooked…
The first hotel Moss stays in as soon as he gets to the room he makes a phone call to a mexican car dealership called ‘Roberto’s automotive’, he has a piece of paper in his hand he has gotten from somewhere… I think maybe he’s trying to contact the mexicans and has had enough of this, he took the money, he wants to give it back – who knows, but it definately has importance and I cant think why – he gets the answering phone and hangs up, then the money chase beings.
What do you think?
-
I just saw the movie and loved it. The symbolism and correlations throughout the film were amazing. I believe that the Mexicans found Moss in the hotel room because of his wife’s mother blabbing as shown earlier at the airport. They got there first and shot and killed Moss and the girl with the beer. They drove off shouting and shooting because they’re fools or because they wanted it to seem random. Anton gets to town a little later (as instructed by the old guy with the chickens in the truck) and finds out about the shooting and knows his money is there somewhere. Anton returns later as indicated by TLJones while talking to the other officer who refers to the killer “returning to the scene of the crime” from another situation/crime. **Alternate suggestion is that Anton arrived the same time as the Mexicans and he scared them off shooting, etc. but still had to return later to get the loot.** TLJones returns to the scene but goes into the empty room while Anton is actually in the adjoining room. TLJones steps over the blood stain where Moss died trying to either retrieve or hide the money in the air duct. Anton knows this from the earlier hotel room so he went into the adjoining room to retrieve the money from the other side, just as Moss did earlier. Again TLJones is one step behind the criminal and his actions are futile. Anton has the loot, but kills the wife out of principle and yes we know this because we were told earlier how he operates, and he gives the kid the money for the shirt. The criminal gets away, the sherrif didn’t change anything, we soon forget about the insignificant folks who were caught up in it (and died), and life goes on …….. We’re back right where we started, a never ending cycle…..just like the beginning monologue and ending monlogue of the movie suggests!!
-
The most telling thing for me in the motel room sequence at the end is that it’s the first time we see Anton show any emotion—he’s scared! At the time I watched the movie, I believed he was in the same room as the TLJ character, pressed up against the wall (although it seemed implausible to me that TLJ could sit on the bed and not feel Anton in the room with him….).
-
I just saw this movie a few days ago, and I loved it. I thought that the mysterious ending…and the irony of who was alive and who was dead at the film’s conclusion really added to the story in general. I especially liked the sheriff’s speech at the end of the movie…about having seen his father in a dream. I don’t know about anybody else, but to me, that part reminded me a lot of the ending in To Kill A Mockingbird. Where Jem falls asleep but knows in the morning that his father will be there…waiting for him.
Sorry…didn’t mean to ramble there. Like I said, I loved the movie. I hope it gets some great awards. Sadly, I hadn’t read the book before watching the film, but I plan to do so ASAP. -
A “tremendous” key to the movie is the woman in the trailer park office. She cannot be moved by Amalek/chugarh, literally and figuratively.
She is the only “counterweight” to Chugarh in the whole movie.
The movie is very religious by the way.
-
Chugarh represents Amalek, an evil force that “infects” a nation every generation. This generation it is Islamic Terror, although I think in truth it is the nation of Islam.
The movie shows the four attributes of Amalek and that solves a lot of the mystery:
1. Amalek has the gift of prophecy – Chugarh predicts the money will be at his feet, and it is, he hides behind the door, and that is where the lower vent is.
Chugarh, says basically he knows how this will end, and that “it doesn’t matter where Carla is because , he knows she will be there when he comes for her…2. Amalek can practice magic — He dissapears from the room , he can be a ghost at times
3. Iniquity — Amalek kills his own “bosses”
4. Evil deeds — obvious
“The Zohar explains that Amalek has four faces: sorcery, divination, mischief (evil deeds) and iniquity (Zohar KiTetze). ”
http://www.kabbalah.torah-code.org/torah_codes/hitler/amalek_germanyab_500.png
-
Wow. I’m starting to think we have the most interesting “No Country” comment string out there… feel free to keep it coming.
– Rich -
I figure maybe Anton does get caught… but he probably doesn’t. At that stage, the guy’s an enigma in my mind and his future is nowhere near as important as the sheriff’s.– Mike (12/27) -
Your comments are some of the best we have here, and I really enjoyed them. Regardlng the car crash, I think the Coens’ intention may have been to shake us up to the point of losing focus when Bell makes his final statement. It definitely provides for a “huh”? feeling when the screen goes to black.– Kerry -
Yeah, your comment is out of the box alright. Bell and Anton partners?! I think you’re realllllly searching for something that isn’t there. Although we all know there’s a fine line between good and evil, and all that blah blah blah.– Clax -
C’mon, now. Does that look like a man who just found two million dollars?– KGB -
I like that you say “two sides of the same coin”. That coin flip really does represent the randomness of life (or life and death?) and here, Anton’s taken it upon himself to be the Grim Reaper.– Kym -
Great summary. In my eyes, the title of the movie is established right there in the sheriff’s opening monologue. Tough to tell if he’ll be the hero or not from that, but he’s got a pretty good handle on the idea that life ain’t fair.– Norm S. (Meet In the Lobby)
-
Here is how I see the kabbalistic aspects of NCFOM. Spoiler Alert
The soul of evil is manifest in Amalek, an evil force. Each generation Amalek clothes himself in a different nation. Last generation it was prob Nazis, this generation, Islamic Terror -Chugarh.
The main power of Amalek is to create doubt. The three things one must do concerning Amalek is to fight him like hell, never forget who he is/what he did, and remember how we beat him before.
The entire movie is about Amalek’s interaction with different types of people. The trailor park secretary, rigid in her beliefs could not be moved. The gas station owner, he was the weakest, actually the biggest loser metaphysically, did exactly what Chugarh wanted, and the Mosses resisted, but both were tainted by the evil of the money that even carla jean was involved with.
Bell’s discussion with his Uncle, how did he know he was there (religious belief) all dealt with bell’s attempt to understand his duty vis a vis Amalek. He couldn’t see Chugarh literally and figuratively, because he did not want to fight Amalek anymore. Amalek created doubt in Bell obviously. The last dream was Bell remembering, or being reminded, how previous generations defeated Amalek (the light of his father).
And as they say, that was that.
http://www.chabad.org/library/artic…o-Terrorism.htm
Now this Kabbalah layer is on top of the Islamic terror layer previously discussed -ad naseum, which is on top of the literal layer, ie the story obvious on the screen.
To anyone offended by the term Islamic Terror, or the idea that Islamic terror exists, there is a desolate gas station somewhere for sale.
-
Wow!! What a great blog about peoples opinions about just one movie. Just want to add, Did anybody else notice all the cars were from the 80′s?
-
Here’s the deal with the ending: it is an existential look at good and evil in this world. The sheirff is confounded by the harsh reality of violence and decides to retire. The deception of the ending is that, at one side of the coin, you think the story is truly over – the violence will continue and we will all give up and fall victum to evil. But there is another side to this: the film’s ending figuratively blacks out our viewing, meaning that beyond our experience, beyond the existential, the story continues. There are things in life that we are “in the dark” about but I do not believe we are to take away from this movie some hopeless look at mortality and the cycle of violence. Everything that is wrong and evil in this world, in time, will be overcome with good. Perhaps we will live to see it, our perhaps the Chigurhs of our worlds will face justice after we cut to black!
-
I think Anton was behind the. door: in the scene you can see the sherrif standing outside looking in and if you look closely, I think you can see Anton’s hazy reflection on the metal surface of the now hollow lock, When the camera changes position to the inside of the room, you can see a hazy sherriff reflection. Both men are scared at this point and maybe the filmakers intent is to show they each man (and perhaps everyman) has ghosts. After the sherrif inexplicably does not check behind the door, Anton may well have slipped out.
-
To me the big message from this film is the extremely destructive actions of psychopaths in our society. Anton is the classic violent psychopath who shows absolutely no remorse in intimidating and killing helpless, frightened people. The good news is that psychopaths represent less than 5% of the population; the bad news is that they all too often get to powerful positions in governments and organisations where they are at their destructive best. Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Sadam Hussain, the current leaders of North Korea and Iran, are likely psychopaths. If only there was some way to identify them early and remove them from society what a wonderful world it could be. Mind you, if they did not exist there would be billions more people on the earth. To me the Sheriff represents the other 95% of society who are caring rightous people who want justice to prevail. The ending to me is spot on because in real life the psychopath usually wins leaving effected people like the Sheriff with a sense of hopelessness and defeat.
-
My hope was the ending left it open for the sheriff beleiving he would not get peace unless he avenged the death of his two towns people–especialy the wife. The film did not have the prevalent element in our society of narcissism which affects more people. Most of us will never come across a psycopath–like being struck by lightening, but are likely to have a self-centered person with little thought except about themselves, and we are only alive to tell them yes and to do their bidding. You have a relationship with someone like that and you end up thinking your going crazy–when its’ them and our lack of boundary setting and self advocacy that turns us so-called- victims into volunteers for misery. We allow the “swamp” to sink our “tractor”–beleiving we can “fix them”. It’s like the country gas station owner in the film–he’s worried about offending the killer and its’ his sheepishness that REALLY offends, and develops the series of questions he keeps getting asked that sinks him deeper in his defenselessness.
-
Quite a bit of discussion about the final scene and the meaning of Bell’s two dreams. Forgive me if something similar has been mentioned before, but my 2 cents:
It’s funny, but Bell just briefly talks about the first dream with a look on his face that says the dream has no meaning for him. But, I think the meaning is huge. He says his dad gave him some money but he lost it. The meaning here is that his dad (?) entrusted him with something valuable (the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Moss, for example) and he failed to keep it safe. The fact that he glosses over this tells us something about his simple nature.
The second dream is of Bell and his father riding during the old times. In the beginning he mentions comparisons between lawmen of the new west and the old west. He says that his father rides up ahead of him into the cold and dark to make fire out there somewhere. The father dream figure could be symbolic of all the old-time lawmen who lit the way for modern-day lawmen like Bell. Just as Bell says “And then I woke up,” a look of sorrow crosses his face. It’s clear he has suddenly realized something at that moment. I think he connected the meanings of the first and second dreams at that moment. -
Sorry,
I just fixed a sentence from my last post here:
“In the beginning (of the movie) he mentions comparisons between lawmen of the new west and the old west.” -
Loved the movie and with everyone’s insight, I found it to be deeper than I origninally expected.
I saw it 2 times and between my friend and I we got a lot of the content. But there is one part that makes no sense to me at all.
The Milk scene. What was the pertainence of Anton leaving it out and TLJ saying “that is a shame” and drinking some of it.
With all the banter here, i am sure someone has an idea. Unless I am overthinking it.
-
Also, what was the point of Anton saving the Accountant?
I know it boils down to character of the kill, the shop owner, the lady in the trailer park.
But why was he excused?
-
billywest, your insights are truely amazing. Want to add that my first impression of the “fire” built by Bell’s father was a “Light”/guide waiting for him in the afterlife that he feared.
Phil, I was curious why the milk was left and why Bell drank it also? Great question. -
Brilliant! Best Coen movie ever. Provocative and intelligent. I was blown away by how good this was. I love every bit of this film including the ending. To me the rhythm and flow of the film personified the denial people often live in about the ability to have control over things outside themselves. This is perfectly summed up in the line in the film, “You can’t stop what is coming. And if you think you can, well, that’s just vanity.”
-
If this movie doesn’t win several Oscars there’s something very,very wrong with the Academy, but you’all know they’ll probably just give em all to that other Tom Hanks waste of film, and it won’t surprise us in the least, will it?I guess it’s all about making them more money, and that’s just pure evil…
-
When we started Meet In the Lobby, I promised all who joined in that we would respond to comments and keep the conversation rolling. I am honored to say it ain’t easy, as you guys are overwhelming us with amazing comments.
And I sincerely hope you’re enjoying the rest of the site (if not, please hit the ‘contact’ link and let us know).
– Lochnivar –
Not sure about Moss’ first phone call, maybe some else can help. As for your comments about Anton’s relationship to death, I dig that. I feel like he uses death as a tool, both physically and mentally. Will it bite him in the ass sometime? Who knows? Maybe the answer exists in the flip of someone else’s coin…– Cheryl –
Thanks for offering one of the better black-and-white summaries of the movie. Your mention of “the insignificant folks” is both both sad and true. I wonder how long it will take for the sheriff to be one of them.– Lynn –
I give you credit — how could you tell Anton was scared? I guess I thought he was alert, but too overwhelmingly confident to be scared. As for the sheriff feeling Anton in the room, check around other reader comments for thoughts on the Coens playing with time and space in that scene.– Kait –
That’s the first time I’ve heard a comparison to To Kill A Mockingbird. Interesting. While both are somber, the level of certainty you describe feels much more melancholy than that in Mockingbird. I’m sure you feel the same way, but I’m doing my own rambling now…– mleafer –
I’m not the dumbest guy, but I’m not sure I understand your Kabbalah references. We’ll keep your links up, but I think you’re making an enormous stretch for your own agenda. My own two cents.– Norm S. (Meet In the Lobby)
-
who kills moss and the women by the pool at the motel?? who is driving the blue pick up?? was it chigurh or the mexicans??
someone give me some answers please. -
Andrew,
I am pretty sure the Mexicans killed Moss and Carla’s mom.What I think we didn’t see, is that the Mexicans helped Carla’s mom to the hotel where, I assume they held her hostage to wait for Moss.
I think the person in the pool was Carla’s mom. Moss was in the parking lot (very briefly shown) and the guy in the door was a Bounty Hunter (?).
I need to see this again, but I think that is how it played out.
BUT if you look at this thread, there are tons of theories. So, whatever you think, you may be correct.
-
Norm s, you think I am stating this for my own “agenda”. Then how do you explain this:
This scene is a “big” key to the movie I think.
http://www.commeaucinema.com/bandes-annonces=76586.html
Choose Extrait 6, it is the trailer park manager clip.
Notice the gold door window Chugarh enters through. There are ten circles or spheres (most of the rows across) , linked in a triangular pattern. Chugarh forms a black triangle before he enters.
The Kabbalah deals with a universe comprised of ten spheres, linked by triangles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot
Obviously the coens are saying Chugarh has entered through the Kabbalistic metaphysical realm.
Now notice that the “tremendous lady” also forms a gold triangle.
She resists 100% Chugarh, true to her duty, and her values and cannot be moved, she is spiritually heavy. As mentioned before, Chugarh kills his “management”, which is one of the four faces of Amalek: Iniquity. She is the only true opposite of Chugarh/Amalek.
That scene is kinda cool, ya got to admit. If it was a painting, it could stand on its own , I think.
No offense, but as the movie explains in the beginning, you cannot see it, because you are not a part of that world.
-
I kind of ahve to agree with Tristan. Whoever you are, you were kind of on the money. You had the same questions i did. Why in the world didn’t he massacre tommy Lee Jones? I enjoyed the movie right up until the end. how in world are they gonna just not show how Moss got killed and then the gril in the pool!!! then, Tommy Lee Jones really was no help in the situation. He didn’t even want to catch up to the guy at all!!! Just a little upset, I couldn’t wait to see this movie and was let sown just a little.
-
In all of the scenes in this movie in which someone was killed (on-screen murders), at least one of the three main characters was present- Bell, Chigurh, and/or Moss – and the story continued on from that character’s point of view. Is this wrong?
If the death of Moss had been shown, it could have only been shown from his point of view since none of the other two main characters were present. For the scene to have the same continuity as all the other death scenes in the movie, one of the three main characters would have to be present during the scene and have the story carry on from his perspective. Chigurh wasn’t there, and a key point of the movie was Bell’s all-too-late arrival on-scene, so he couldn’t be there. That leaves Moss. But, he dies leaving only the points of view of the Mexicans and some bystanders, none of which are main characters. Thus, including the death scene of Moss would have been inconsistent with the rest of the death scenes in the movie, unless the scene continued from the point of view of one or more of the mexicans. But the movie never really involved the point of view of the Mexicans anyway. This was probably puposely done because we, nor Moss were supposed to foresee Moss’s death come at the hands of the Mexicans; a key point in the story.
Moss: “Just looking for what’s comin’.”
Woman by the pool: “Yeah, but no one ever sees that.”To keep consistency among the death scenes, the closest (in time and space) that we can get to the death of Moss is when Bell arrives on-scene, just a little too late.
Just a thought.
-
I’m hearing and reading so much of people being disappointed in the ending. But it follows the them of the movie. Real life doesn’t get tied up neatly in a bundle. We’ve been programmed to like formulaic movies: there’s a guy doing bad things and we want a good guy to stop him. But Tommie Lee Jones’ sherrif was never after Javier Bardem’s bad guy. All the sherrif was trying to do was get Llewelyn safe.
And speaking of Llewelyn Moss, he didn’t “stumble” on the money; he traced it down. He was the situation and correctly surmised that if the dope was still there, so was the money. Morally, we all could probably justify taking dirty drug money. But ethically, what Llewelyn should have done is headed straight for the authorties to report what he’d found.
And one last comment about the pivotal scene in the movie, when Sherrif Bell goes back to the hotel where Llewelyn was killed: it was the only time he pulled his gun, and you can tell he was wrestlling with his fear. Shugurh didn’t kill Bell because Bell didn’t deserve to die in Shugurh’s terrifyingly principled world. As much as other would have us think Shugurh killed everything in his path, he always has a reason, even if it’s just to steal a car.
-
Is it possible that Chugarh is slightly psychic? I mean, he could predict Moss’s future to a tee on the phone,but after killing Carla, his Karma turns for the worst by not forseeing the car coming the other way.Maybe because she didn’t call the coin toss he broke his own rule(she was supposed to live?) and maybe the tables have turned on him and now death is after him instead.And that’s maybe why he looked so scared after the crash for the first time in the film and the last we see of him.
Just a thought… -
Chugarh is not in the room (or next door) when TLJ is there. Think about it. Hadn’t he already seen Llewelyn at the morgue? He was just replaying how it played out. He’s had enough and is hanging things up. The bad guy got away this time…not you’re typical Hollywood ending. Big deal. Chugarh, however is a different story. He keeps his word by killing the wife, but what does he do with the money? He was just payed to retrieve it, right? He doesn’t strike me as the greedy type. And now, who’s he going to return it to since he killed “the big boss” for hiring the Woody Harrelson character? What exactly did the accountant tell him? And why the shootout seen at the motel? Who were the Mexicans driving away? Did they get most of the money just for telling Chugarh where LLewelyn was (remember mother-in-law commenting on how she’d never seen a Mexican in a siut before)?
Just thought I’d stir the pot a little.
-
Milk – all his life, the sherriffwas just a little too late. Milk was still sweating…just missed the killer. Lewellen was killed…just missed saving him. He never got his chance to be a hero.
Another thot, both the killer and the sherrif looked into Lewellen’s TV before leaving. What did they envision?
-
big fan of the Coen Brothers and loved “no country”. Was wondering, Josh Brolin goes back after he had already taken the money from the dealers. He goes back to give the wounded dealer some water and ends up almost being killed. The hit man goes back to kill Brolin’s wife, even though he knows she doesn’t have the money, and kills her anyway, because he said he was going to kill her. He ends up in the car crash. Any coincedence?
-
Suzanne,
A few moments before killing Carson Wells (sp?), Chigurh asks him, “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”
A major point of this story was people seeing the codes they live by bring them to ruin or failure. Even in the end, Chigurh’s rule that brought him to Carla Jean’s home also brought him to the car accident soon after. Of what use was the rule?
Many people have said that Moss bringing water to the dying (and most likely dead) Mexican was a little far-fetched. Was it? Or was Llewelyn just following a rule? A rule that had him believe he shouldn’t just be able to walk away with 2 million dollars scott-free. He saw the men who risked their lives, and ultimately gave them for the money (or the drugs – both had equal value in the eyes of those involved in the shootout), while he was able to walk away with the prize they fought and died for. I think this is what didn’t sit well with Moss. According to his personal code, there was no way he could walk away with that money without putting something out for it.
Did he really believe that the Mexican would still be alive when he got there? In the book, he said that he didn’t think the Mexican was dead during one of the conversations he often had with himself, but it seemed as if he was trying to give himself a reason to go back out there. Either way, he went back out there with the water because he felt that was what he needed to do to walk away with the 2 million and not look back. He followed his rule.
To those who said he went back with the water to make the story happen, I ask why? Why wouldn’t McCarthy just think of another reason if it were as simple as that? I think he felt he didn’t have to because of what I’ve posted above.
-
Well, thank God for the blog and comments! Missed, for sure, that Moss was dead. Drag! In all of the comments read I like the persons who embraced the sudden blacked-out end as part of life going on with and wo/out evil. That IS life. The Coen’s know what they are doing and so prove themselves and prove that they are thinking people who will wrestle with these difficult subjects. One has to see this film more than once, and on DVD I know I will get even more with English subtitles. Many thanks to all who submit. MW
-
Another kabbalah aspect of NCFOM. Chugarh baths in blood, and he mixes the Saline with his blood before he pours it on his wounds. Pharoh, who was an Amalekite, would bath in the blood of Jewish children to cure a skin condition he had. Mixing the saline with blood was to signify Chugarh’s abhorence of anything pure, and untainted, and that his blood had special powers.
Why else would Chugarh mix the saline with blood ?
Can anyone offer an explanation besides the fact to underscore that he was an Amalekite ?
-
thanks to all for your perspectives on the movie. I think the film was excellent!
I may be too simplistic . but I think the entire metaphor of the film is how hopeless we feel as americans about the situations of violence and unpredictability around us. How we wish times were simple. How people commit acts of violence without a trace of emotion. TLJ looking for a bad guy…right in front of him at he hotel room and not finding him. The bad guy doing nothing…a ghost..just waiting for the next “right time” to create mayhem.
The film ending in a sad dream of a spent man wishing he had the love and support of his late dad -
anton IS in the room with TLJ. Note how the door makes an odd noise when it is pushed all the way open. note the interplay with the shadows. this is not a wasted or cut up mistake of a scene. also note how the coens focus on the bathroom window being locked. this is to add to the suspense that there is no escape and that TLJ’s doom is imminent. (if you believe anton is just strictly a psychotic killer) however anton does not kill him because this is one of those rare instances where he is not the protaganist (in this situation). he has no idea if there is a second cop and has no idea if this furthers his principaled mission.TLJ is not his adversary/prey. TLJ does notice the grill off of the A/C vent. Unscrewed with a dime as Anton had done before. So that lets us know that Anton has the money and was not lying in wait for TLJ.
Anton also does not keep the money (or at least not too much of it) if he did he could likewise be hunted, thus overturning his preferred hunter vs. prey relationship. Also if he kept the money he would have to spend it on earthly things which would connect him to humanity and compromise his ability to be the perfect and inhumane assassin.
great movie. I’d pay to see it again. -
my take on the motel scene:
It ties in with the dream at the end where TLJ is a spectator with the ghost of his father passing him by. Anton’s ghost also “passes him by”. That’s why he is a narrator, just a witness, a teller not part of the maelstrom. He is left behind, old to “retire”. No point in killing him as he is doomed to fail anyway. Anyone agrees? -
It seemed to me that there was not only one psychopath, but two in this movie.
Not a true moviebuff, the character playing the bounty hunter was very much the psychopath, as well – and then one could add his employer in the plush office to the list.
My question is: why show movies like this to encourage the human race to accept the evil in our midst?
-
Carson Wells was the guardian angel of Moss. Study his lines carefully.
-
i thought the movie was ok, but i was mostly focused on this old man (ironic?) eating his popcorn about as loudly as anyone i’ve ever heard. let me ask this: in a theater that has about 10 people in it, where the projection is in digital and the acoustics excellent, and where the soundscape for this movie is supposed to be very important, how do you deal with an old codger that chews his popcorn like a cow and wrestles with his popcorn bag like jacob with the angel? i guess he was his own soundtrack. nonetheless, the movie was ok, my least fav of the coen’s, kinda boring, and who cares about the ending when tommy lee jones is such a boring actor.
-
Ritalin helps.
-
I think Xavier Bardham studied Muhammed Atta’s affect and encapsulated it perfectly:
http://www.nndb.com/people/780/000028696/atta-80.jpg
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/m…r=1&oref=slogin
What do you think ?
-
-
Sorry , this link should work:
http://www.movie-list.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/nocountry.jpg
-
Gold, the color of the “Kabbalistic window”, is significant because it not only represents “heaven”, but the “flaming sword of Kabbalah”. Also the second link really explains the Carson Wells character and all his weird dialogue. He is either Lewellen’s or Carla Jean’s Guardian angel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Kabbalah
http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/12-13.html
I found another “dimension” to NCFOM. The Kabbalistic truths are hidden in the movie because that is the way they are hidden in the real Universe. Get it ?
Notice the Rabbi, they feature in the Wikipedia article. His name is Cohen = Coen, which were the Priests in Judaism, and he is related to the Coen bros. Although the main guy today is Ginzburg http://www.inner.org, and the main guy that wrote the Kabbalah was Yithak Ben Luria, the “Arezal”, and everyone’s hero. The Madona stuff is BS.
Another thing I realized, by facing the demon, and forcing him to dissapear/retreat, Sheriff Bell was spiritually elevated so that he now could communicate with the angel/spiritual world. Thats why his Uncle Ellis was giving him a message from his dead uncle Mac, thats why the cats were there, they symbolize communication with the dead, and thats why Bell’s dead father was now communicating with him.
To underscore this, when Lewellen says if I don’t return “I’ll tell my (dead) Mother myself”, it was to show Lewellen’s dreams (about the water and transponder) were not on the same level as Bell’s became.
-
The number 12 stands for the connection between earth and heaven, according to Kabbalah. Thats why the guy in the high rise gave Wells 1200 dollars per day. It was to keep Wells, a guardian angel of Moss here on Earth.
Also Wells says one floor is missing , because Wells descended one (spiritual) level to get to earth .
My prediction is that the movie has a lot of hidden connections waiting to be discovered, and the surface has only been scratched.
It is disconcerting that I seem to be the only one uncovering this, but then again, most people knowledgeable in this stuff do not go to movies.
-
What a great string… I’ve been trying to keep up, so my apologies for any comments we haven’t responded to.
– Tom Heinz -
I agree with you about the film’s ending being true to the movie in total. And most people who love No Country admire the ending, including me.– thots -
Maybe they look into the TV out of habit, hoping that something will materialize that never will? Or the Coens are just amping up the tension, showing us a reflection. I’m sure some of us expected to see some revealed image pop up in the background within that reflection.– billywest -
The whole movie is about following your own personal code, I agree. Whether the code is self-imposed (Anton) or set by cultural rules and standards (the sheriff). And, as you mentioned, the characters live by those codes – even if they can’t prevent what they may bring, or change anything by way of their action.And I love your Ritalin comment.
– edith maynard -
I sincerely hope people don’t contemplate the “evil in our midst” due to a fictional film. They should either already be considering it in the real world, or looking past it to happier things. A make-believe study in evil shouldn’t be the catalyst.– shydog -
Most of us strongly disagree with your opinion that the movie’s boring. But I really sympathize with your crappy experience at the theater. Noisy people piss me off once the lights are down.– mleafer -
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by saying Bardem has taken on the effect of a killer whose name doesn’t deserve uttering, but you have your opinion and comments, and that’s fine (even though I don’t appreciate the link). I do appreciate your other analysis of the film – it’s very specific food for thought. What do others think?– Norm S. (Meet In the Lobby)
-
Adding to Ray’s post:
“Best American movie in at least three years. Period.
Tommy Lee Jones’ monologue at the end before the abrupt CUT TO BLACK (not FADE … LOL) serves to show two things -
First of all, the Jones character is struggling with his own mortality in the face of the world around him – a world he does not understand. The imagery of his late father going ahead of him pictures his impending death and the leaving behind of this troubled world.
Secondly, he mentions his father carrying a torch and making a fire in the middle of the cold and the blackness. It show that the Jones character feels that the world is hopeless with its course of violence, and that it will get worse. There is sadness in that final statement – Jones dreamt that someone (his father) would make a fire in all of that blackness – and then he woke up. Such hope is only reserved for dreamers, not realists.
What a terrific way to end a meditative and complex film!!!! I feel sorry for those who do not appreciate the boldness of the story and that ending.”
Here’s my addition: Cormac McCarthy is making all the points that Ray mentions, and because McCarthy is likely the greatest American writer living today, he is also working on a bigger stage than the life of a Texan. For years now, McCarthy has used his talents to tell us that our world (The USA), is corroding, and we are failing to notice it. We are faling to look back at our past to see how we have quit paying attention to the loss of small things, decent things, and that because of this, small evil things are appearing, and bigger evil things are growing. McCarthy is telling us that we are sliding towards a future that is bleak and cruel and populated with a randomly impersonal evil that casually destroys anything good that crosses its path. McCarthy is chronicling the fall of Rome to the Romans, who, for the most part, leave the theater no wiser than when they entered.
Read “The Road”. Read “Child of God”. Google “Meredith Emerson”. Look around you. All signs of our social apocalypse.
I’m not religious, and I’m not quoting scripture, and neither is McCarthy, but an apocalypse can come in many forms, and the fall of a Nation is certainly apocalyptic enough for me.
-
when bell crosses the threshold of the desert sands motel you see two shadows of Bell, one light one dark, straight out of kabbalah(pp 36):
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/tku/tku03.htm
“The veil of the soul is the shell of the image.
“The image is double because it reflects alike the good and the evil angel of the soul.
My comment previously with the picture of Atta, mentioned affect, not effect. Bardham was trying to convey the look “affect” we associate with terror. Sorry for the link.
-
I think the Coen brothers made this film so vague that almost anything is possible. Things in this movie can be viewed in so many different perspectives. Each time I go back and watch the movie (Online Divx) I see things way differently so that i don’t know what to make out of this movie anymore. Anyways one question I still have is what could the car crash Anton got in symbolize, besides just how things happen by chance and fate is not under our control. Also I know the Kids on the Bike are of symbolic significance, but i can’t figure it out yet. Besides that No country was great. One of the only movies that I actually go back and think about. One of the only movies that feels fresh and new every time i watch it
-
Every actor in town must be pissed off at the Coen Brothers. To follow Josh Brolin’s performance, filled with clever manipulations and droll humor, right up to the climax and then…opps, they pulled a Soprano. Cut to him dead. Cut to the blonde(I think) dead in the pool. Cut to the Mexicans escaping .Cut to Anton hiding…somewhere?//This is not only baaad storytelling, it robs the actor of a showdown and a death scene. The two most memorable moments of a movie , and which ususally influence Academy voters. Shameful, disrepectful and stupid.
-
- mleafer –
Appreciate the explanation, and no apology necessary.– Bloody Muddy –
The car crash: A repeated theme in the film is “You Can’t Stop What’s Coming” and I believe that’s exactly what the car crash is. Even for a natural force like Anton, there are higher fates at work.– Bert Berdis –
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find an actor pissed off at the Coens. This film eliminated everything you’d expect (how many death scenes are we gonna see?) and that’s one of the reasons it succeeds on many levels. It works within genre, plays around with genre, and goes in a true consistent direction.-Norm S. (Meet In the Lobby)
-
I haven’t read the book did see the movie twice – I had to get a better sense of the ending and after watching time I believe that you can come away with two fairly certain conclusions. 1) Anton ended up with the money – if you remember after the care crash he hands the kid a $100 dollar bill for his shirt – that I believe was a visual clue. Also the bolts that were removed from the vent were on the floor
2) Anton wasn’t in the hotel when the sheriff came back at night – noticing the lock was broken, he imagined what could on the other side of the door – when the scene shifts to Anton we are seeing what the sheriff fears – Anton on the other side waiting for him – he had already returned to the scene of another crime and this was on the sheriffs mind when he saw the broken lock. -
OK, I have a burning question that begs to be answered about the money…..
Everyone is talking about the open vent with the screws and the dime at the hotel (at the end) where Anton allegedly retrieved the money. We did see Moss hide the cash in the vent much earlier in the movie, but later on he threw it over the fence before he went across the border to the hospital.
Are you all forgetting this scene or what? The money wasn’t in that motel anymore. It was near the river on the other side of that fence.
-
IN FACT..the motel at the END of the movie wasn’t even the motel the cash was originally stored at. It was originally stashed at the Regal motel.
Details people…details.
-
they showed a sequence of Moss retrieving the money after he got out of hospital and then another scene with the case under his arm when he is calling his wife to arrange to meet her in el paso
whole scenes Drex… whole scenes!
-
Ummm, different motels Drex, different motels.
-
I have a few more observations on the film. One, I think the dream is there to tell the viewer that like a dream, the whole movie is not to be taken literally and is highly symbolic.
Two, for people who know something about film:
I find the following very curious:
http://www.commeaucinema.com/bandes-annonces=76586.htmlChoose Extrait 1, it is the dying-i-need-water clip. Notice the camera focuses on the open door at the end.
notice towards the end, the dying man asks to shut the door, worried about lobos.
Now choose extrait 4, Bell opens and then closes the same door exactly when Wendel talks about coyotes eating the bodies. He in fact has to push the door finally shut, for emphasis.
The religious meaning is that by not closing the door lewellen brought the devil upon himself. In fact the movie suggests lewellen’s dream to get lewellen to bring the man water, might also have been about the open door.
Finally, wolves are associated with the devil, and there were no wolves in Texas in 1980, only Coyotes, which the movie points out.
I would argue that not closing the door was the only sin Lewellen commited since he did not have water, and technically, finding that money and keeping it, is not a crime.
-
In reply to the two comments before the one above me….
Ok, well I do not remember any scene showing Moss get the money from the other side of the fence. Maybe it was brief and I didn’t catch it, or the version I saw had missing scenes. All I remember is him having the convo with the guard about being in ‘Nam, then the guard proceeding to help him “get in town”.
So the money goes from…
- The AC vent in the Regal motel
to
- The river bank on the other side of the fence
to
- The AC vent in the Desert Strike motel??
We never even see Moss enter a room in The Desert Strike. He is seen having a convo with the lady at the pool (not sure I remember him holding the satchel in this scene)…then we see him dead in the doorway of a room.
Is it just assumed that Moss got the money stowed away in the vent before this scene, or was there something we missed when it cuts from the beer lady/pool convo to Sheriff Bell arriving and finding them all dead. If that was the lady he was talking to dead in the pool, then what was Moss doing all the way over there halfway inside a room.
I must say the last 20 min of that movie keep swimming in my brain. I guess it’s suppose to be that way. Leave you thinking.
-
My take is that part of this film is about there being no easy money in America today. Think about how money is portrayed in this film. 65 cents for the peanuts and Anton makes the clerk “call it” betting his life on a quarter. 500 dollars for a coat while crossing the boarder and the kids friend wants more money for his beer. Finally, the kid in the end refusing to split the $100 with his buddy because he’s “out a shirt”. Not to mention the entire cat and mouse plot with the ultimate object (a suitcase full of cash) fueling it. As for TLJs character, his first dream explains it all…his father gave him money, and he lost it. This dream is more significant than the second because it explains his developing character and explains this part of the film. When money didn’t matter (thus he lost it) was a different time. But because his character is starting to recognize the money and crime behind it in America today, he doesn’t remember the dream that well. The transition lies within the second dream. When he passes his father by he passes the ghost that represents what he once knew. But why he wakes up is beyond me.
-
I think the movie definitely draws from “Raising Arizona”. Nicholas Cage’s character in “Raising Arizona” takes something that is not his and is hunted relentlessly by a mercenary. The mercenary in “Raising Arizona” (again a deranged Mexican incidentally) callously shoots a rabbit for kicks on his hunt for Cage, again reminiscent of Bardem shooting the bird as he crosses the bridge.
“Raising Arizona” (possibly my favourite Coen brothers movie ) is played for laughs, “No country for old men” is obviously much more philosophical.
The title “No country for old men” most likely comes from a poem by W.B. Yeats called “Sailing to Byzantium” which has the first line ‘This is no country for old men.’ The poem is partly a reflection on earthly mortality. Cormac McCarthy the writer of the book on which the film is based is also Irish.
-
Drex – You notice when TLJ enters the car park he spots empty bullet shells at the pool area and then we see a body in the pool. My take on this was that there was a gun fight, with moss fighting his way back to his room before being killed in the door way. It seems he decided to have a beer with the lady he met. Hence finally being caught out.
I thought the film was superb and its had me rushing for more Coen films. I also loved Moss’ character. I always hate my fav character being killed off but it really had to happen that way for this film to end in the right way. For him to be able to run off into the sunset with $2m would have ruined it.
-
This story is an allegory!
The title is from the first line of Sailing to Byzantium by William Butler Yeats, a poet classically trained and considered by many to be the greatest 20th Century poet.
Death is Anton Chigurh. His hair style (hood-ish, shroud-ish) and black clothing suggest Death. Death kills the innocent as well as the guilty and has his own set of rules. When the witness to the high-rise killing asks, “Are you going to kill me?” Death answers, “It depends. Do you see me?” When the kids on the bicycles help him after the car accident he tells them, “You didn’t see me.” If you see Death, you die; if not, you may live. Chigurh seems to come and go at will and seems to know where Moss is without trying very hard. His rules are his rules and they seem arbitrary and random. He is referred to by the sheriff as a “ghost” and he seems to be able to go wherever he pleases.
Death kills with a cattle stun gun, almost like a member of the clergy administering a cross to the forehead of a parishoner. Death is often portrayed as a hooded figure with a scythe; in this case he’s a “hooded” figure with a cattle stun gun.
Man is Llewellen Moss, part sinner, part saint. He is offered a deal with Death when Death offers to ignore his wife but take him. Instead, Llewellen challenges Death and chooses declines the offer. This is straight Faustian bargaining. By declining Death’s “This is the best deal you’re gonna get” Moss signs not only his own death warrant but his wife’s, too.
Llewellen challenges Death to a showdown and when his wife tells the sheriff, “He won’t quit, neither. Never has.” the audience expects a later showdown because we’ve been trained to see the protagonist take on the antagonist at the climax of a story — but before that can happen life’s randomness gets in the way and the Mexicans kill him. This is the major turn in the movie and the one that takes the sail out of the audience, which has been cheering for Man in his struggle against Death without realizing it.
Free Will is Carla Jean. She chooses at the end of the film not to allow Death to be random. She has a 50% chance of saving herself but chooses not to avail herself of the opportunity. She is the bravest of the lot, choosing to die by her own decision and not the randomness of Death.
The sheriff is the philosopher trying to understand the universe. He cannot and is defeated by Death in his attempt. At the movie’s end the Sheriff bemoans the fact that God never entered his life. One of God’s creatures, Death, was in the Sheriff’s life but he didn’t realize it (see “Scene with Sheriff” below). The story is the Sheriff’s, his quest to understand Life, and the dream he tells at the end of the movie explains that his own father, long dead, has gone before him into the darkness of death and awaits him.
Interesting parallel — Moss pays money for a coat as he crosses into Mexico; Chigurh pays the kids money for a shirt after his accident. What is meant by that? Cannot be a coincidence.
Chigurh walking away from the accident at the end shows that Death cannot be stopped. It will always walk the streets. It is a part of our existence forever.
Scene with the Sheriff and Death at the same hotel room at the same time but the Sheriff does not see Death. This scene is vital — it solidifies the allegory. The Sheriff enters the room but does not see Death and so he does not die. Death sees the sheriff but chooses not to kill him because he’s not seen in return. This scene is the “supernatural” scene which signals that we’ve watching an allegory, that what we’ve been watching is more than it appears.
Why 1980 for the book/film when it was written in 2005? Could it be it was begun then and the author simply chose not to update it? What is the reason? Must be one. Might be nothing more than the author started this 25 years ago and didn’t feel like updating it to present times.
Fantastic movie!!
-
To Dave,
Yes,you’ve written a very nice breakdown of the metaphors in the story, and yes, it is an allegory…but really, you need to go read more of Cormac McCarthy’s works…..NCFOM is more than just the death of an individual or an allegory about death. McCarthy (like Yeats at the time) is getting old now, and he is seeing not only the end of his life (as a man, as an artist), he is seeing (and writing) on a bigger stage than himself, or any one individual.
Read “The Road”. Read “Child of God”.
McCarthy is writing this book now NOT because he “started it and didn’t finish it until now”…he wants to allow us to see story as it follows the trajectory in time that takes us to now. Drugs, Evil, Corruption….all the dialogue of the Sheriff with the older Sheriff…all point to the disintegration of our world, and the resulting death of innocents. (not “innocence”, but “innocents”).
I am convinced that he is preaching the fall of Rome to the Romans (that’d be us, btw), and we are not hearing him.
This is a much, much, much bigger story than an allegory about death.
-
The crow shooting sequence may have no more significance than the fact that has become a Coen motif. Very similar shot/reverse shot drive-by sequences appear in both Blood Simple and Fargo.
-
I have to disagree with the idea that McCarthy is depicting a world in decline, a world disintegrating. A careful reading of his books shows that his novel’s depict a world that has always been chaotic, violent, and (possibly) meaningless. In NCFOM, for instance, it is–as Uncle Ellis states–Bell’s “vanity”, his elderly and nostalgic romanticizing of the past and his own youth, that causes him to think the world is more violent today. This is also indicated by the brief mentions of the multiple wars that many characters and their families have taken part in in the past.
Moreover, if we look at McCarthy’s other works we–most of which are set prior to NCFOM–we find that these times are similarly chaotic and violent. “Child of God” takes place–if I remember correctly off hand–in the thirties, fifty years prior to NCFOM. But perhaps more intriquingly, McCarthy’s masterpiece, “Blood Meridian,” set in the mid 1800′s, depicts the horrific violence and chaos surrounding the expansion of the Nation into the West. This book is lightyears more violent, chaotic, and depraved than NCFOM, and such a depiction clearly undercuts Greg’s assertion that McCarthy’s novels depict a land in decline. Rather, it seems more plausible and consistent to see such violence and chaos as an unalterable ontological fact in McCarthy’s world(s), to which people are blinded by their faith in a romantic and nostalgic understanding of the past.
-
A few more random comments about No Country for Old Men:
Having had more time to ponder this fabulous film a few more things have become evident:
Carson Wells, when asked by the businessman in the tall building, compares Anton Chigurh to the Bubonic plague. The plague, one recalls, was vectored by rats, upon which contaminated fleas resided. Where I grew up, one small flea-like parasite was called a “chigger”. Yes, like “Chigurh”.
Sheriff Bell at the story’s end bemoaned that God hadn’t come into his life. The irony was that God had. God had visited a plague upon Sheriff Bell’s land in 1980 and it, like the Great Death of 1348, chose its victims pretty randomly.
There’s no question both Chigurh and Bell were in the same motel room. Bell did not see Chigurh and therefore lived.
The story is narrated by Bell. It’s his story, not Llewellen Moss’s, though we certainly misinterpret the protagonist until later, that’s for sure. Excellent misdirection by the filmmakers. The High Noon showdown never occurs. That which does is off-screen, to boot! Some have criticized that after Moss’s death the story is anti-climactic. Viewed with Moss as the protagonist it certainly would be. But Moss never was the protagonist. Bell is. Though a case for Chigger might be made, too, but would fail to the near-soliloquy by Bell at the end.
No filmmakers chose a time 30 years ago to film a story unless it’s relevant to the story — it costs extra money to rent those old cars and to be sure the backgrounds are authentic and the prices of items are retro’d and the clothing is non-anachronistic. 1980 was chosen deliberately for a very good reason. I’m still working on it. It may be obvious to others but I don’t see it yet. Perhaps the Barry Corbin (Ellis) scene near the end is a clue — he says “it’s coming”. By now it’s here. Maybe that’s the message. Stay tuned.
I’m also pondering what it was Carson Wells represented. Was he perhaps a symbol for the attempt to reconcile Man (Llewellen) to God’s creature Death? No, I don’t see him as a Christ-figure but am open to suggestions.
Both Death and Carson Wells were sent forth by the man in the high glass tower to do specific things. I don’t want to stretch the allegory too far here but “man in the high glass tower” has obvious symbolic religious connotations. And Death obviously rebels against that man later so let’s not jump to conclusions about Death rebelling against God, etc.
There were significant differences between the book and the film — specifically, Carla Jean refused to call the coin in the film; the hitchhiker was eliminated in the film, probably because of time limitations and the fear some might misinterpret Moss’s intentions toward her. I think the changes in the movie increased the effectiveness of the allegory. Free will and self-determinism are more evident in Carla Jean’s film portrayal than in the book. It is also possible the book’s author, McCarthy meant something different than the screenwriters did. The film also omitted Bell’s “confession” and one great cause of his regret. Again, to the betterment of the film.
Carla Jean’s mother probably just died of the cancer from which she suffered. There’s no thought that the Mexicans killed her, too, as well as Llewellen. Presumably, Carla Jean had already buried her husband then later her mother died and Carla Jean then buried her. A period of weeks or even months might have taken place here. It was then that Death showed up to claim her, after she’d settled her affairs, so to speak. He advised her not to worry about the unpaid bills. Her refusal to call the coin was the self-deterministic free will mentioned earlier. And there’s no question Death took her then — checking his shoes eliminated any possibility of any other result.
Another thing — please do not consider Death to be evil. Death is as much a part of life as its other facets and remember Orson (not Carson) Welles’s quote, “Without death, life would have no meaning.” It does make one wonder whether the screenwriters recalled this quote when assigning the name “Carson Wells” to the Harrelson character.
I’m fascinated by Moss’s purchase of the coat at the bridge and Death’s purchase of the shirt from the bicycle boys. This was intentional and has meaning but I’ve not nailed it down.
The scene where Chigurh shoots at the bird as he drives across the bridge puzzles me — was the bird a black bird (also symbolic of death) or another colored bird? Why shoot at it? I could use some help on this one as well as others, obviously.
I just noticed another thing — Ellis, in the Blue version of the screenplay, is described as having “one clouded eye”. I also mentioned that Yeats’s classical Sailing to Byzantium offered the title of the book/movie. In the Coen brothers’ hillbilly tribute to Ulysses/Odysseus they utilized classical mythology — remember John Goodman’s portrayal of the Cyclops and the blind Homer figure on the handcar at the beginning? Is Ellis the Greek Sophoclean chorus? There’s no question that the screenwriters have used allusions effectively before, so why not now, too?
Ellis says, “You can’t stop what’ comin’” and Llewellen, when asked by the girl at the motel, answers, “Lookin’ for what’s comin’”. Her answer to him is “Yeah, but no one ever sees that.” This is good thematic planting and I wish other moviemakers took the time and effort to produce quality work like this instead of offering us the drivel they do.
-
One disgruntlement — the media seems to want to sell the Chigurh character as a “deranged serial killer” and compare him to Hannibal Lector. Doing this announces to the world that those media personalities have NO idea what this movie was about!
-
Here is a good possibility…..
Bell drives into el passo and walks straight into a crime scene at which point the mexicans have slaughtered lewellen in cold blood and escaped in panic empty handed without the money…Broad Daylight Killing. Previously in the film lewellen used a technique to hide the briefcase in an airduct by pushing it to the back of the vent so as could be accesed from a room located directly behind the room it had been pushed in from. lewellen booked into two rooms in el passo just as before in the motel. It worked before so he decided to do it again. Anton was aware of this technique as he saw the scratches in the air duct when lewellen dodged him there and got away with the money. Lewellen was unaware that anton learned how he hid the money. Now bell when speaking to the sheriff in old el passo was told anton “the ghost” is known for returning to the crime scene. Bell decides to return to the old el passo hotel try and catch anton there. Finds the lock blown out and draws his gun and enters the crime scene room. Anton hears Bell enter the crime scene from the hotel room where he is able to aquire the briefcase(room directly behind the crime scene). Anton is aware that he has been into the room where the crime took place and undone the air duct which may lead bell to him, so hides in the wardrobe. Bell see’s the air duct open and thinks anton has been and gone has got the money and is too late. Anton just waits quietly there is no need to draw unneccesary attention to himself at this point he has completed his objective. The shot of the door with the light shining through the barrel of the lock mabey from the room anton is in? Bell accepts defeat on both counts that he could not protect lewellen and had no power or jurisdiction in this area and could do absolutley nothing in fact he should not even be there and was always too late to make a difference. Anton has the money and this is confirmed as he gives the kid $100 bill.
Did Anton Kill the wife of Lewellen?
Probably, he did give her 50/50 chance that is all that is left to interpretate. He would have had the definate motive of anominity, and went there to enjoy the kill for missing out on revenge with his run in with lewellen. This however had unforseen consequences for anton and after the car accident will probably rather die than get treatment in hospital, you cannot fix a wound like that by yourself. I think he disappeared to die somwhere and the money is now useless without his life.
all 3 main characters failed through greed in some way shape or form.
-
I was frustrated with the ending of this movie. I had many unanswered questions like: Did “Sugar” get his money? Futhermore, I did not understand the analogy of the sheriff’s dream… was justiced served or does life just suck????
-
Just saw this movie tonight and I was DISAPPOINTED. Sorry, but I just don’t get into all the symbolism, etc. etc.
It started off very intense, then at some point it went off into some very difficult to follow sequences. I do NOT understand what Woody Harrelson’s part was in this movie at all. He is supposedly hired to be this “expert”. He manages to find Llowelyn in the hospital in Mexico. Proceeds to explain how he found him. Then it shows him finding the bag of money.
Next thing you know, he’s being blown away by the crazy guy. Didn’t quite get that? If he was such a professional at finding out all this stuff, how did he end up sitting in front of the guy getting blown away? AND, what difference did it make to the movie?
After that, things went downhill for me. I think I would have been at least a bit happier if the ending had been that the evil guy died in that little car accident. Sort of a karma thing or whatever. But the actual ending left me shaking my head and going “that’s it?”
Guess I like to be entertained more than I like to think about all the meaning behind the story. Just had to put my 2 cents worth in!
-
Having read the book a few times, the way this film ended was perfect. I think most important to the completion of the movie was not to have a happy hollywood ending, rather to leave a more realistic ending where we are left to face each day without an exact resolution. Thank you to the Coen Bros.
-
Never has a film ended in such a fashion that made you feel like you were physically mugged of your cinema ticket money. No country for old men has been January’s film howler which has been nominated for over 19 awards, obviously by people with crack pipes. Seriously, Woodly Harroldson i would of expected better in you than to even agree to take part in such a dior attempt at a outback killer thriller. In fact, the only thing impressive about this film is the actual customised gas canistered shotgun, which i can only imagine must be painful beyond belief.
To say this film has much of a plot other than one mans stumble upon millions of dollars ended up seeing him swim with the fishes. No country for old men sent ripples of disappointment across the cinema as the film finished in an abrupt halt with no explanation, the killer seemingly able to get away with killing well over 10 people in the film duration and plot plantations remained unanswered and not complete, what the heck was this movie! This is the worst movie I have seen at the cinema, somehow managing to make shitachingly poor Black Christmas seem like a reasonable effort. Do yourself a favour, steer clear of this shitpool of script mess by the coen brothers.
-
I read the book before I saw the film. Finished the book Friday, saw the film Sunday. Many of the questions that have been raised in this thread are clarified by reading the book. I didn’t see the ambiguities in the film as I so recently read the novel.
One warning though.. and maybe it’s just me being pedantic.. the text doesn’t use quotation marks to distinguish between ‘thoughts’ and spoken language. I found this very hard to follow and had to re read some of the passages to try and decide which was which.
I can’t say I liked the ending, however I was moved by it. If it had been a smarmy and moralistic outcome that most of us secretly craved, it would have lost all credibility and become just another movie. We all know that in reality the baddies don’t necessarily reap what they sow. The sociopathic Chigurh would have probably been incapable of the base emotion of empathy required to express remorse anyway. How do you call someone with no concept of compassion to account? Words are pretty meaningless without the feeling behind them, his apprehension would ndoubtably been an empty victory on moral grounds. Whatever his fate in his imaginary world may be, it would be frustrating for those of us wanting him to recognise the impact of his actions on those he despatched.I bet he tortured animals as a kid
-
Rethink the flick – “Call it, friendo”.
Every decision we make in life is accompanied by the illusion that we can know the outcome. What if life is chaos(Anton), death is not cloaked in any meaning(Bell – esp his ideals and dreams), and we fling ourselves endlessly about with our attachments($2 million of them)? -
i just watched it last night and thought it was a great film but at the same time realised it’s the kind of film you have to see more than once to fullly grasp it. Let’s face it,if somebody is gonna go to all the trouble of making such a deep film there’s bound to be lots to it and you’d have to be some kind of genius to take it all in first go. Reading the comments here though have helped clarify a few things. By my reckoning the film is in a way pretty bleak;the world is the way it is and there’s not a whole lot you can do about it at times. But at the same time it’s positive as if you realise this you can try to make the best of it. The coin-flipping shows this,life is a coin flip;some people get on a bus that crashes and die,others walk and live to tell another tale. That’s just the way the universe is set up,the film is very atheistic,there is no masterplan and you just have to accept it. A lot of the sheriff’s scenes involve him talking about fate and how things can’t be easily predicted,often things just don’t make any sense and it’s no good trying to. At the end the sheriff has basically just come to realise that and good for him;he made the right the choice because if he’d pursued Anton he’d more than likely end up dead,quitting his job was kind of like his coin-flip. A lot of Americans won’t like the film’s message because there’s no place for God. A lot of the characters who were slaughtered by Anton at his whim,the flip of a coin were probably God-fearing,law-abiding,good people but at the end of the day that counted for nothing. There are many other themes that you could pick up on but for me it all boiled down to a man,the sheriff,struggling to come to terms with the world around him,of which he had no control.
-
Great discussion,
I just watched the movie and I’m not entirely convinced that Moss is dead. Is there any hard proof for this?
We see the Mom’s burial but not Moss’s. We see the mom (i think) in the morgue but not Moss. I know the Sherriffs talk about “not being able to help that boy” but there was something in Bell’s language that indicated to me that he hid Moss and acted like he was dead…the other Sherriff/authorities wouldn’t have known Moss from one of the Drug guys. Remember that Bell was the first on the scene at the motel and could have covered things up if he wanted to. Please help me on this.
Great movie….
-
Regarding hard evidence for Moss’s death,seeing him on the floor dead in the motel with gunshot wounds to his upper chest kinda did it for me. Sorry to be a bit sarcastic but that was one of the clearest parts of the film.
-
- James Joell –
I don’t agree with your comments at all, but reponses like yours are the reason this post was initially kicked off in late November. I’d been to a theater and heard others’ disappointment, and my colleagues found the same at some screenings.I couldn’t disagree more with your take on the narrative and conclusion, but that disagreement is all a part of this conversation.
Thanks for joining in.
– Nick –
Thanks for the dry humor. This thread gets kind of serious sometimes, and we can use it!-Norm S. (Meet In the Lobby)
-
i believe that Chigurh is in the room with bell and that he in fact kills bell. Then, in the afterlife bell meets his father who has been waiting for him., as was forshadowed by moss’s statement that he would tell his mother that he loved her if he did not make it back. Finall, in his recollection of his dream bell is found by God, symbolized by a mysterious rider who has gone before to light a fire in a cold and dark place.
-
Real quick – the idea for the young version of Boden was he showed instead of his father and the Coen Brothers said what the hey. Fear of the unknown is the premise and it’s what fosters in the old – hence they seek religion, but in Jones’ case – God didn’t find him and he sought the devil instead.
-
Thank God for this website tying up the loose ends as I was another punter thinking I’d been mugged of my ticket money with the negative ending.
Anyhow I think the significance of Llewellyn buying the jacket and Anton buying the shirt shows which character is in control of the money at each stage of the movie. Although Anton hobbles off down the street not being able to carry the case at the end I guess he has the money (or have the Mexican’s managed to get it back?). Similarly when a busted up Llewellyn awakes on the Mexican sidewalk he gives money to the random Mexican band and later buys some clothes.
-
Big McCarthy fan here. I loved the movie, was not crazy about the ending–I hadn’t yet read this book, but wiil be running out soon to get it. McCarthy always takes his readers to the outter fringes of society, the part that that mainstream movies never deal with, and the meastream media and politicians want to ignore. I recommed “Child of God.” I hope someone makes that into a film. Maybe I will. Who wants to fund it?
-
The ending is in reference to Cormac McCarthy’s other novel The Road which soon ill be reading. Ive read No Country For Old Men and the end of Jones speech is a way of interpretation of the two dreams.
The 1st dream he loses the money his father gives him or he has to send it to him.
But the 2nd is most important its about holding close to your family values his father in the dream. The Sherriff pondered god the world But you cant always look and find god its not always your first option and in his line of work a sheriff whose sees so much He question s what did i live for ? Nothing s changed with the law people like Chigurgh are out their and he cant stop it.
-
This story is an ALLEGORY! To see it otherwise is to recognize only one level of meaning.
The title is from the first line of Sailing to Byzantium by William Butler Yeats, a classically trained poet and considered by many to be the greatest the 20th Century produced. This should signal author McCarthy and the Coen brothers may be up to more than just the surface story of a drug deal gone awry.
Who is Anton Chigurh? He is Death. His hair style (hood-ish, shroud-ish) and black clothing suggest Death. As we know from the universe in which we live, Death takes the innocent as well as the guilty and has its own set of rules. When the witness to the high-rise killing asks, “Are you going to kill me?” Chigurh answers, “It depends. Do you see me?” When the kids on the bicycles help Chigurh after the car accident he tells them, “You didn’t see me.” You don’t die unless you see Death. No one in the film dies at Death’s hands without seeing Death. Sometimes you don’t die even if you do. His rules are his rules. Chigurh walking away from the accident at the end shows that Death cannot be stopped. It will always exist and is a part of our existence.
Carson Wells compares Anton Chigurh to the Bubonic plague. The plague was vectored by rats upon which resided contaminated fleas. One small flea-like parasite is called a “chigger”. Yes, like “Chigurh”. Probably no coincidence. Death is not evil, however. It is as much a part of life as any of life’s other qualities and remember Orson (not Carson) Welles’s quote, “Without death, life would have no meaning.” It does make one wonder whether McCarthy recalled this quote when assigning the name “Carson Wells”.
Death kills with a cattle stun gun like a member of the clergy administering a cross to the forehead of a parishioner. In Western culture, Death often is portrayed as a hooded figure dressed in black with a scythe. In this case he’s a hooded figure,due to his haircut, with a cattle stun gun and black clothing.
Man is Llewellen Moss: part sinner, part saint. Offered a deal by Death (“This is the best deal you’re gonna get”), Llewellen instead challenges Death and by doing so signs his wife’s death warrant.
When Carla Jean tells the Sheriff, “He won’t quit, neither. Never has.” the audience expects a later showdown because we’ve been trained to see the protagonist take on the antagonist at the climax of a story in a High Noon ending. Before that can happen, however, life’s randomness gets in the way — the Mexicans kill him. This is the first major turn in the movie and the one which takes the sail out of the audience, which has been led to expect the showdown later and is now deprived of it. The audience is now adrift and probably is hoping Sheriff Bell will take vengeance. The audience is in for more surprises.
Free Will is Carla Jean. She chooses self-determinism and refuses to allow Death to be random. She has a chance to save herself but chooses not to call the coin toss. She is the bravest of the lot by choosing to die by her own decision.
The scene with the Sheriff and Death at the same hotel room at the same time is vital — the Sheriff does not see Death and thus lives. This scene solidifies the allegory. The Sheriff enters the room but does not see Death and so does not die. This is the “supernatural” scene which signals we’re watching an allegory, something more than it appears.
Death then claimed Carla Jean. Her refusal to call the coin is self-deterministic free will. There’s no question Death took her then — checking his shoes upon leaving her home eliminated the possibility of any other result.
We misinterpret the protagonist at first. This is excellent misdirection. The High Noon showdown never occurs. That which does is off-screen! Some have criticized that after Moss’s death the story is anti-climactic. Viewed with Moss as the protagonist it would be. But Moss isn’t the protagonist. Sheriff Bell is. It is Sheriff Bell’s story — he is the philosopher attempting to understand the universe. At the end the Sheriff bemoans the fact God never entered his life. The irony is that God had. God had visited a plague upon Sheriff Bell’s land in 1980 like the Great Death of 1348.
No filmmakers chose a time 30 years ago to film a story unless it’s relevant to the story. 1980 was chosen for good reason. Perhaps the Ellis scene near the end is a clue — he says “it’s coming”. By now it may be here.
Ellis is described in the screenplay as having “one clouded eye”. The Coen brothers’ tribute to Ulysses/Odysseus utilized classical mythology — remember Goodman’s portrayal of the Cyclops and the Homeric figure on the handcar at the beginning? Is Ellis the Sophoclean chorus? Ellis says, “You can’t stop what’s comin’” and Llewellen, asked by the girl at the motel, answers, “Lookin’ for what’s comin’”. Her answer to him is “Yeah, but no one ever sees that.” Excellent thematic planting.
Ponder this parallel — Moss buys a coat from some boys as he crosses the border; Chigurh buys a shirt from some other boys after the car accident. Think about it.
Enjoy this excellent film again!
-
The End: Tlj’s dad gave him money but he lost it, hence the two people in his town under his protection were killed and the cop in the beginning, the 2nd dream his dad went on with his head DOWN meaning his dad was dissapointed in him for just standing by and watching all this go on around him and since he is on the mountain alone he will have to climb up his way in the dark and cold alone until he forgives himself for not doing more.
Chugar: the whole thing about if the rule you always followed lead you to your demise of what use was the rule thing bit him in the ass, He went for Miss moss and after killing her because she was afraid of death much like woody harrilson(‘you don’t have to do this’ ‘people always say that…’) got into that car wreck, he walked off with what Tlj had to live with, almost getting what they wanted but fell a little too short, much like Moss who almost met up with his wife with the money, the sheriff who almost had chugar locked up, Woody harrilson who almost had the two million, and the dead mexican at the tree who almost ran off with the money but didn’t ultimately make it all the way. Everyone who was harmed(besides the sheriff in the beginning) had something to do with the money, besides TLJ so maybe thats why Chugar didn’t kill him in the Motel room, he knew that the old man had no interest in the money or for that matter in general. AWESOME THOUGHT: The money was like the Bubonic plauge it affected everyone it came in contact with! -
No Country for Old Men is actually a simple movie especially the beginning and the middle parts of the movie – there’s not much of a plot – baddest guy chasing after the not-so-bad guy, while the good guys are left chasing shadows – except until the ending makes an ass of the whole movie and tries to muddle up an otherwise simpleton movie. If this movie is attempting the artsy, mysterious or thought provoking type shit ending, it is definitely not in the same league / class as 2001: Space Oddyssey’s or Apocalypse Now’s ending.
-
Good stuff here. I thought I had at first viewing though maybe not. Here goes; Tommy Lee Jones character realized his father moved ahead and was waiting for him, for his death was coming. The “Killer” in the movie understands this from the beginning. Death is coming. If one accepts the inevitable regular events and life become meaningless. Anxiety is defined as the realization you knowingly exist. The Killer is calm and calculating… dead already to a degree. Tommy Lee Jones accepts death is coming and all of his experience are summed up to nothing… hence “No Country for Old Men” or once you accept death life is pointless.
-
The draw for me to sit in my seat was the west Texas late 70′s scene-the cars and trucks, the desert, the gritty cowboys (I loved their use of common everyday items to unscrew, patch-up, conceal, heal and what not). I guess i need to read the book…or watch it again w/one of you yeh-sayers. That would be fun. I look forward to seeing how the film does w/the Academy.
-
The major theme is GREED and its consequences (“there are no clean getaways”) and fighting with our conscience. It is NOT about death finding us. This is the point of the movie – move away from obsessing about death and instead look at the real root of all evil: GREED. Are you greedy? Do you fight with greed (Anton) in your mind?
Read the reasons below, rewatch the movie and everything will become clear!!! This is the one and only explanation of the movie.
There are two layers to this movie, the real part and the sub-conscious part:
Real Layer/Story: Moss finds some money beside dead Mexican drug dealers. He goes back to bring a dying Mexican some water but other Mexicans spot him (see his face/car) but lose him. However, they now know who he is via his rego plates – they go to his trailer park but he is not there so they track his wife around via the phone number of her mother (there is no tracking device (see below)). They find out where he is staying via his mother in law (helping her with her bags). When they do eventually find him they kill him in the hotel but do not find the money. Bell finds the money at the crime scene by checking the vents but he turns it in to the authorities (not shown but implied – see below). Carla Moss kills herself in grief after her husband’s funeral. Bell retires because he cannot make sense of all the greed and evil in the world (a good man like Moss dies because of it), he cannot seem to stop it (“There are no laws left”). In the dream he and his father try to bring ‘light to the darkness’ but in the end he ‘wakes up’ to reality.
Conscience Layer (see below for more explanation): Moss does not meet Anton for awhile into the movie. He initially has a cleanish conscience (i.e. going back to give the dying Mexican water). When Moss decides to run from the Mexicans instead of just leaving the money in his trailer for them to find and leave him alone, Anton (greed) focuses his attention on Moss and begins tracking him. There is no tracking device. The tracking device in Anton’s possession symbolizes Anton (greed) getting closer and closer from Moss’ sub-conscience to Moss’ conscience. Moss begins to understand that his wife will be in danger , he sees/realizes Anton/his greed, finding the phone list (which is actually the Mexicans finding the list in reality). He then discovers the tracking device at which point he meets Anton (greed) in his conscience. The next scenes are him fighting with greed in his conscience. He wounds greed (Anton) but does not kill him. Since greed is wounded you then see him talking to Carson Wells (his reasoning conscience) who says he might be able to help him and his wife if he just hands over the money (give up his greed). The hotel room across the street is Moss’ mind. There Anton (greed) kills Wells (his reasoning conscience). We then see Moss having a direct argument with his greed (Anton) and Anton says that it is Moss’ fault that his wife will now die – it was his choice (in his sub-conscious he thinks that the Mexicans will find her). Moss is then killed by the Mexicans but they do not find the money. Bell is not possessed by greed (you see him mirrored by Anton(greed) in the tv). Bell goes into the hotel room where greed (Anton) is potentially ‘waiting’ as the $2 million has not been found. He goes in there and sees the vent, he knows there is $2 million in there but he knows he won’t take it (the heads on the coin symbolizes he made the right choice) so he does not see greed (Anton) – presumably he turns the money in. Carla kills herself (meeting Anton (death/greed) was her husband’s fault). With his work done Anton finds some new ‘victims’ for greed when spots the kids on the bikes. He is wounded by the car crash so greed is wounded but then as he heals himself they begin fighting over the $100 bill (which in reality they probably found on the street – the cycle of greed begins again). Bell retires because he cannot make sense of the greed and death (we know he does not know greed), him and his father tried to shed light in the evil of the world but he ‘wakes up’ to reality that it will always be there (You can’t stop what’s coming).
Who is Anton?:
Anton is greed conscience. He is a ghost. He is not real. “Can you see me?” We have a choice to succome to greed (coin toss). He wears black/dark clothes.
Movie Poster Titles:
“You can’t stop what’s coming” (Anton). He survives the car accident and bullets but you can wound/slow him down.
“There are no laws left” (greed/Anton can’t be controlled by laws/by Bell it is up to the person).
“There are no clean Getaways” (greed/Anton eventually wins – greed has dire consequences)Who is Carson Wells and what is the Business Office?
Carson Wells is the good/reasoning conscience of Moss. The meeting in the office is the reasoning part of Moss’ mind (the high rise office symbolizes his mind – the top of the building). The man behind the desk is Moss’ sub-conscience saying that he wants his good conscience (Wells) to stop his bad conscience (Anton). Wells (good conscience) names a date, 28th November last year, when he last met Anton (bad conscience) – possibly this was a time that Moss had conflict in his conscious before. Wells says he knows Anton “every which way”.
Moss talks to Carla on the phone and could end everything but instead insists on keeping the money. He says he has to find ‘him’ and she says “Find who?” She asks about the safety of her mother and Moss says she’ll be alright (he knows the Mexicans will find his Mother in Law). At this point Anton (greed) bursts into the office (Moss’ mind) and kills Moss’ reasoning part of his mind. The other character, accounting, is just another part of Moss’ mind probably accounting for his money. Moss knows in his mind that the Mexicans will find his wife (says the Mexicans were given a tracking device).And there are many many more parts in the movie that support all this. Now watch the movie again and you’ll be going “Of course!” “Oh, that line makes sense!”
THE DEBATE ENDS HERE! -
Anne,
I’m betting that this film sweeps the Academy awards.
Matty,
You’re insane. Dave Hopkirk has it mostly right. Read his comment above yours.
TTFN
-
Hi Greg,
Initially I was thinking along the same lines as everyone else (i.e. Dave H) whereby Anton represents DEATH. This is sort of the obvious answer but it does not explain every situation, whereas Anton representing GREED, does. He is not real – he is in our minds.
Greg, you argued above that McCarthy is trying to make Americans ‘see’ the evil. From most of the comments above I think it is safe to say that most people in the world are very familiar with death and evil and do not need to be reminded by a book/movie, it is pretty obvious it exists and people will always quickly blame the worlds problems and what they don’t understand on death and evil (as they have in debate about this movie).
This movie is a wake-up call to Americans to start looking at the root of all this evil and death – it is GREED for money (drug dealers, oil, diamonds).
The sheriff and the man in the petrol station both just want to live simple lives. The do not succome to greed.
In the end the sheriff realises there is so much Greed in the world. There are no laws to stop greed, thus the sheriff can do nothing. Only the person who has succomed to Greed can fight it (Moss’ fight with Anton).McCarthy wants you to look past death America, and see that the cause of much of the suffering in the world is Greed. Ask yourself, “Am I greedy?”, have that sub-coscious fight in you head right now. You will come up with excuses that you aren’t (Anton winning the fight) but deep in your sub-conscious you can hear a voice saying you might be (Wells talking to Moss).
Will you win the fight against Anton Chigurh America?
-
Matty,
Wait, wait, I’m seeing it now! It’s all so clear! Except, except, it’s not that Anton represents GREED!!! No, no, it’s that he represents a HATRED FOR COWBOY HATS!!! That’s it! Everybody dies that wears a cowboy hat!! If they wear a COWBOY HAT in front of Chigurh, THEY DIE!
Think about it! The only person who encounters Chigurh, and lives, is the Sherriff, and he HAS HIS HAT OFF WHEN HE’S IN THE ROOM WITH CHIGURH!!!!So, America, will you win the fight against hats?
-
i loved the movie but the only thing i didnt like is the mian guy getting shot near the end. like it was so unexpected and we didnt even see the shooting. i thought that was diapointing seeing as he played such a big part
wat do u guys think?
-
Greg,
Apart from that last comment being ultra hilarious – it actually makes a lot more sense than your previous comments. In fact, it seems like you are getting smarter each time you post a comment. Keep posting buddy! I can’t wait to see what you write next! No really, I mean it, everyone is waiting to see what incredible insight you come up with next. There’s a little tick box below this comment box that says ‘Notify me of follow up comments made by Greg via e-mail’. We all can’t wait Greg, come on, write something funny and insightful!
-
Just saw the movie tonight. Loved it and after the initial shock love the ending which is so opposite of what one has come to expect from Hollywood. It is going to be pretty hard for Anton to patch up that compound fracture by himself no? I think the way his part in the movie ended signals that he, like Ed, is nearing the end of his time: if not immediately then soon. Ed does not have the money, Anton does. There is no way a character like Ed’s would have kept it. The thing that makes evil truly frightening is that those perpetrating evil fervently believe that what they are doing is right. Suicide bombers, Hitler, Stalin and Anton, the list is endless. Evil does not know it is evil, that is why it is so banal and why it rears its ugly head everywhere you look. By the way to comment a bit on an earlier post, it is not Islam that is evil, it is extremist Islam. Big difference.
Just for the record there was an audibe gasp in the treatre when the movie faded to black with several out loud “WTF” and “what the hell?’ comments as well. I want to see the movie again to pick up what I missed the first time. I really want to know if Anton was in the room, clearly, from the views expressed in this forum, that remains up in the air. -
Ed,
Great observations; people yelled in my theatre too…I have a suggestion, though. Go read the book by Cormac McCarthy before you see it again, if you have the time…you’ll get even more out of the second viewing after you’ve read the book, and having read the book will not detract from the movie at all…just my experience.
This is by far my pick for Picture of the Year. -
I had read the book some time ago so I had some idea of the ending but I was still disappointed. The way I look at it is, you could cut the scene with the ex-deputy in the wheelchair AND the scene where the Sherrif is talking at the end and it wouldn’t make any difference to the film. I think it would have been better if it ended with the villain limping down the street.
-
Greg
I think I will do just that. I have always found that the books which movies are based on provide insight into characters and events which the movie can not due to time constraints. As for the ending, among other things, it deals with the inevitable transition into obscurity and irrelivance that we all must face as we age. Crap, now I’m really depressed! -
saw the movie tonight and loved it. detail was applied to everything on screen. i want to answer some things before my own conclussions are displayed. the girl in the pool was the beer girl. and carla”S mom was getting out of the taxi when carla is reading TLJ”S face. brolin deffinitely had the at the desert sands hotel. the only thing i thought was wierd or maybe my hearing is wrong. toward the end when TLJ was meeting with the cop at the diner. when the cop said good night he to TLJ as anton. i think this may have a couple of more times earlier in the movie as well, but that one really stuck out in my mind. this leads me to believe that whole secnario was dream by TLJ. you could still draw all the same conclusions with anton being a personal demon and everything else included. may be his convo with ellis at the end after he wakes up helps validates his feelings about growing older. i love the main character dying not enough of that in american cinema. imagine if bruc willis died in die hard or even rambo. i love all the other thoughts on this film and i hope i did not over simplify my opinion.
-
I keep reading these comments and somehow feel people are either missing the (complicated) points or over-analyzing. First, everyone needs to see the movie twice: you’ll pick up so much more.
Llewellyn Moss is not a good guy. We like him and want him to defeat Shugurh, but Moss screwed up when, instead of reporting what he saw to the authorities, tracks down the money and takes it. He pays the ulitmate price.
Sheriff Bell basically gives up. Oh no! We don’t like our heroes to do that. But you know what? He’s too damned tired to continue what he sees is an increasingly frightening world, and since God didn’t come into his life, he can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel.
And Shugurh…yes, he’s the symbol of Death, but he could also be the symbol of God, the vengful God of the Old Testament. When a five-year-old rides his trike into the street and gets killed by a car, people say “How could God let something like that happen?” Shugurh isn’t evil; if he were evil, he’d be torturing his victims if the opportunity presented itself. He’s simply doinig what will happen eventually.
I think one of the key concepts in the movie is when Bell and the other sheriff are having coffee in the restauarant, lamenting the state of young people, talking about purple hair, body piercings, etc. And Bell says, “I think it starts when they don’t say ma’am and sir.” But the setting is 1980. Twenty-eight years later, kids with purple hair, body piercings and tattoos are saying “Sir” and “Ma’am.” They just look weird.
This is juxtaposed against Bell’s conversation with his uncle (in the wheelchair) when his uncle tells him about an incident in the early 1900′s: a sheriff is gunned down on his front porch in front of his wife by a group of bad guys..
Bell retires because he doesn’t want (or can’t?) deal with it anymore, but the fact is, it never changes, it just takes a different form. -
Like most people that have taken the time to comment on this movie, I too enjoyed it. That said, I’d wager that a whole lot more feel the movie was so bad it’s not worth spending time discussing it further.
I personally didn’t find this movie to have nearly as much depth as it is being given credit for. In fact, I tend to agree with many of the nay-sayers here. Could it be that it’s only because No Country isn’t your typical Hollywood slop that so many people find it fascinating? The fact that there is sooooo much left unfinished seems to stimulate our imaginations. As I said, I enjoyed the movie but it seems to be just another movie with lots of carnage…and a different slant. If the Coen brothers weren’t already celebrated directors I doubt there would be any hype surrounding the film at all…except from those crying foul!
It seems that the Coens set out to make a film that mixes the grittiness of great westerns from a by-gone era with the typical modern day “drug & money deal gone wrong” scenario. They chose an era…somewhere in the middle, between then and now…and simply missed their goal. Really sticking my neck out now, I’ll even go so far as to say it seems as if “movie-producing pressures” (perhaps time and money) became an issue for this film. Could it be that those types of pressures combined to force the Coens to launch a movie that was hastily edited and in the end they simply did their best to salvage the thing. Perhaps the movie wasn’t originally scripted to leave so many loose ends? Maybe…just maybe this film was a valiant attempt to try something new in Hollywood but simply turned out to be a mediocre film with slightly more substance than some of Tarantino’s work of the same genre. Imagine if the reason No Country is getting so much recognition is simply because moviegoers are tired of seeing
the same old thing all the time. Leaving questions unanswered makes people think. What a novel concept! By not spelling it out at an infants level, many have found this movie to be ingenius!All in all, I tend to agree with those who think there is a significant amount of over-analyzing going on here. It seems I’m guilty of it too….
-
I feel that when Tom Bell is at the Hotel crime scene looking through the whole in the door lock he actually sees the reflection of Anton’s gun. Being of strong character, Tom Bell faces his fears and enters the room. I fell that Anton is behind the door when it opens. The reason Anton is still in the room is because he has not found the money. If he had the door would have bounced off of the square case. After Tom Bell enters the bathroom and notices that the window is locked, he realizes that the money is probably just outside that window. That is when he gets scared. He realizes that Anton had not checked the bathroom before Tom pulled up in his car. After Tom leaves, Anton finds the money outside of the window. That is my take. I did not read all of the bloggs, so I apologise if someone else has this theory. I think this movie was on point.
-
Hey, Anton is in the other room, If you go back and look extremely close when Tom Bell drives up the other lock is blown out, my dad(a cop ironically enough) caught this and if you notice when they cut to the second time of the lock Tom Bell’s reflection is on the left side of the lock meaning Anton is behind the door but in the other room. If you don’t believe me watch it again and just trust me lol there is no arguement for it Anton is behind the door just in the other room. The only thing I don’t get is why he is in the other room. But the other lock is blown out! lol
-
Okay, the cohen brothers have withheld a scene from the movie. Anton is in the room with Tommy Lee Jones. The directors choose not to show you the rest of the scene. Anton confronts the sheriff and offers him the same deal as the others in the movie: a coin toss. He wins the coin toss but immediately retires because he has faced death and seen pure evil. That is why he visits his uncle and why he dreams of seeing his father. He thought he was going to join him but alas, he survives. His father tells him he’ll be waiting for him when it is his time. The Cohen brothers are genius for leaving this scene out. It makes the viewer think.
Also, Tommy Lee is the only character who deals with Anton and survives. The gas station attendant doesn’t count because he is unaware of what has happened to him. Tommy Lee is our only living example of what happens to a person who comes that close to the devil.
Oh, and Anton does get the money. He was in the process of taking it out of the vent when he was interrupted. Presumably he takes it before he leaves.
-
Great movie, i loved it! But it has no ending, i was very disappointed! the movie just stops,
-
Fran: Where did you hear about this deleted scene?
Daniel: What a great ending. It could not have ended any better.
My favorite device is how both Sheriff and Anton stare at their reflections in the television set. It makes sense of the later scene when they look at each other’s reflection in the lock cylinder. Sheriff comes in the room and the door slams against the wall. The door can’t hit the wall if Anton is behind it so Anton is not there. The dime and screws are on the ground suggesting that Anton has come and gone, I think, and that sheriff imagined death hiding behind the door, thus his hesitation when entering. He was afraid of confronting death just as he was when staring at the same reflection Anton saw in the television set. The reflected silhouette perhaps represents mortality. It was, after all, a deathly shade of green and black.
Question: What the hell does Anton say to Woody before killing him and what is the point? I think he says, “Of what is was the rule?” Im really not sure what this is supposed to mean. Please help.
And, in case you didn’t know, Anton is death. He says to the accountant, “That depends. Do you see me?” then presumaby kills him. He says to the kids at the end, “You didn’t see me.” With surprise, Woody’s character says to Moss something like, “You’ve seen him and you’re still alive.” Moss’s virtuosity—his fight against death, surviving in Nam twice, his bringing water to the dying Mexican—makes him, for a while, impervious to death. In a way, we are all supposed to be like Moss: hunting, providing for our families, trying to survive and trying to make sure others survive, getting distracted by a nice piece of ass every now and then. Even good people make terrible mistakes. Sorry, but I repeat myself about this later.
This film means many things for many people which, in part, makes it a true work of art. After the film I told my Dad it’s a commentary on the degradation of society via capitalism (maybe many films are about this). He said I was reading too far into it.
Remember the chicken crates? Anton behaves like corporation—his actions are purely utilitarian, devoid of emotion, and he methodically obtains his bottom line. “You pick the one right tool,” he said. He embodies the same cold, mechanical nature shared by most corporations. When people complain about corporations taking jobs overseas to minimize labor costs they more or less say, “People always say the same thing,” and go on doing what they do best, killing in the name of benign commerce, doing what they do best. Anton is death and the thing he does best is kill people, so he does.
Think back to most of the old-timers in the film: Most were helpful, caring, endearing, honest–what you might expect from old-timers. None would ever take 500 bucks for a jacket nor would they ask to first see the money as did the kids near the border. This is the dismal tide: losing our youth to greed, sex, drugs. Moss is no exception. He is talking to his wife on the phone when a pretty girl walks by and he gives her a subtle look over his shoulder. Also, Moss flirts with the girl at the pool and is killed in the next scene to perhaps illustrate the danger of infidelity and the consequence of letting down one’s guard. His wife should have been enough for him—think blade runner.
The next generation seems better adapted to an increasingly complex world of opportunists and cutthroats. They are more confrontational and less trusting. Moss is not your average dumb cowboy. The Mexicans who take the mother’s bags are shrewd. Everyone schemes on everyone. And opportunists are not very interested in helping his or her neighbor. Perhaps this is what needs to change.
The kid at the end said he could give him his shirt. Greed had not yet consumed him, but his friend wanted half of his money.
Thanks guys for letting me rant. This is easily my favorite movie of all time.
-
Peach Monster – Anton says “If the rule that you followed brought you to this,of what use was the rule?”
That is a great scene. I take Anton’s words to mean something about fate. The film’s motto
‘You can’t stop what’s coming’ sums it up. People may think you can devise a way to get what you want,protect yourself,keep your bases covered,etc but in reality it just doesn’t work like that. Anton is goading Carson for his foolishness in thinking that he can predict all outcomes and take care of himself. ‘The best laid plans…. -
Norm,
I commend you on a great site and excellent film discourse. I’m so glad I found this today after finally seeing ‘No Country’.
No one seems to have mentioned the extremely white complexion on Anton. This was a clue as I watched it that he was Death/ A Ghost. So Dave I’m with you on most points, particularly how Carla seemed to be a conscious decision to not let Death presume to randomly or by chance control her demise.
I’ve got to admit that Matty’s greed thing has me thinking.
I was pretty certain that all of the answers are shown/stated clearly by the Coens and it will take multiple viewings to get it all.
Without a doubt, no film has left me thinking so much since Mulhulland Drive. I’m grateful that this country can still turn out artists of the caliber of Cormac McCarthy and the Coens. Tommy Lee has been unsung due to the attention Javier has rightfully gotten, but tommy is the heart and soul of the film and does his usual wonderful job.
Thanks to those who read the book and enlightened many of us to what McCarthy may have been going for. I will seek out The Road and other works now for sure.
Of course the real answer is, there is no answer. A good work of literature (and film) leaves it to us to bring our own experience. I left the theater feeling Anton left Bell alive because he was a good man, as someone else said. By Anton’s own principles Tommy Lee was of no consequence. But it’s fun to ruminate and discuss.
-
i saw this film last night and was left wanting more but after reading different thoerys its all making sense thanks guys for making a great film historic
-
There’s a worthwhile (and rare) interview by David Kushner with No Country’s author, Cormac McCarthy, in the late Dec 2007 Rolling Stone (“Cormac McCarthy’s Apocalypse”), with McCarthy casually discussing his work and where he thinks the human race is heading (an eventual blip on the Earth’s timeline) while hanging out with some young scientists and researchers at a MENSA-level San Antonio think tank.
Kushner notes that the author has been criticized for the often horrific subject matter in his novels, but McCarthy says he’s merely trying to send a wake-up call to those instigating their own demise, as “his money is on humans destroying each other before an environmental catastrophe sets in.”
The 74-year old McCarthy is also reported as working simultaneously on five novels with themes related to the quote above (No Country happened to be completed first); his 2006 novel, The Road, more explicitly concerns a father and son who wander an unexplained post-apocalypse America.
Though McCormac seems disinterested in being viewed as a “guy’s writer” (in the macho Hemingway/Mailer sense), as a novel, No Country features zero sex, romance, or strong-minded female characters and its dialogue has been drained of virtually all spirituality or sentiment, much resembling its central figure, Anton Chigurh (ant-on-sugar).
In adapting book to screen, the Coens have remained remarkably faithful to McCarthy’s vision and tone, trimming a few of the book’s scenes they likely felt were extraneous, such as Moss’ late-story ride and dialogue with a hitchhiking girl (reduced to the girl seen shot in the pool near film’s end). And details like Bell lifting the coroner’s sheet at the final hotel to observe Moss’ shotgunned face. Some other trims (spoiler alert!), re: the end of Carla Jean: “Then he (Anton) shot her.” Re: what happens to the money – Anton returns it to an unnamed source, with the expectation for future business.
Curiously, one of the most discussed scenes in this blog, where Sherriff Bell returns at night to the hotel where Moss was killed and the ambiguous presence of Chigurh is seen in one of the dark rooms (I won’t even argue which room), does not exist in the book, where Anton silently watches Bell’s arrival and departure from his truck in the hotel parking lot.
Given that the majority of these blog comments are split between “why wreck a perfectly good thriller with that talky ending” and clarifying the Symbolic Significance of It All (surely Anton = Death, Moss = Mankind, Carla Jean = Innocence, The Gas Station Guy = Good Luck? And how about the fellow with the truck full of chickens?), McCarthy and the Coens have at least succeeded in getting folks thinking – or at least blogging – about What It All Means, even if there’s no conclusive right or wrong answers available from the source(s). (Though the Coens are well-known to be established pawns of the Kabbalah, with triangles in all their films..)
Faced with an ever-reducing number of people who read novels, McCarthy was probably wise to structure No Country as a ready-for-screenplay story, just to get some discussion going, even though he increases the risk of having folks misinterpret (or just plain miss) his supposed “wake-up call” by leaving the ending so ambiguous, open-ended and/or unresolved.
I’d be curious how many people (alright, guys – this is hardly a date flick) went to see No Country based on the premise of a psychopath-with-cattle-stun-gun-on-the-loose vs. how many just like the Coens’ twisted movies. While it’s hardly in the Saw/Hostel category of gratuitous violence (surprisingly restrained/brief in visual gore, with the stun gun used more as a door opener than weapon), it’s likely to have drawn in the Tarantino crowd who enjoy wit-mixed-with-unusual-ways-of-killing-people school of film – Anton’s deadpan intelligence, style-free haircut and self-structred “principles” make him a deliberately intriguing anti-hero for our times. (You can eventually skip that talky ending on DVD.)
Kudos also due for the uncanny casting, quietly removing issues such as race or education from the conventional serial killer motivation (consider how impossibly different the film would have been with, say, Wesley Snipes as Anton, Bruce Willis as Moss, and Sean Connery as Bell…). Bardem’s unblinking intelligence and unplaceable accent (Western Europe? Latin America? Hades?) grounds the picture throughout, Jones and Brolin bookend him superbly.
Whether the Coens’ decision to maintain their usual emotionally detached distance from characters (dispatching Moss in that blink-and-you’d-miss it mid-distance shot, no decisive wrap-ups on Carla and Anton, Bell’s dry “and-so-it-goes” commentary throughout) and frame the images of violence in their signature look-at-this style ultimately supports McCarthy’s “wake
up people” theme or perversely reinforces the nothing’s-shocking, coin-toss value of human life view he’s challenging is left up to the viewer.Either way, the Coens’ smarter-than-their-characters (and/or audiences) critical reputation emerges intact – as the awards keep coming in.
All generating good discussion.
-
Scotty:
Who the hell are you? Do you blog on other sites? Whoever you are, God bless you and go to hell.
-
I am English and 69 years old. Two things that I think are relevant to my comments. I have seen No Country for Old Men this evening.
As I am getting older, although my life is still enjoyable, I am aware that I am getting closer to the finishing line. I wanted to see a movie that understands this concept and deals intelligently with it.
Anton is Death. He usually arrives unannounced. The man who won the toss of the coin was lucky. He met death and escaped. The irony is that he didn’t realise it. The woman who refused to take the bet represents extreme bravery in the face of death. Llewellyn Moss thought he could face death and win. Then is gunned down by the mexicans. How is that for irony? Like surviving cancer and getting killed in a road accident.
We are all going to die, the interesting thing is that most of us choose to block this thought.
Sheriff Bell retires from his former life and chooses to enjoy the end of his life. Like he says, after the dream he woke up.
The theme of death and what it would be like if we knew when we were going to die is fully explored in Bladerunner.
Not knowing is best. Look up at the blue sky and enjoy the day. It may be the last one.
-
Is this gratuitous violence masquerading as art in order to profit from the voyeurs of the cinema world or is it a masterpiece dealing definitively with the theme of death and mortality? The “theme” of the film is not unique or recently discovered. The timing of death, and man’s ability to manipulate that date, is a theme of literature and philosophy that has been discussed in exceedingly less exploitive manners and forums throughout time. The use of violence to discuss this theme is simply a vehicle for shallow and weak-minded exploiters to make money and further corrupt society through an imaginary epiphany.
-
- RAS –
Thank you kindly for the compliments. Glad you’re enjoying the site and the conversation. I think your comment “the right answer is there is no answer” is the beauty of this film. Life — and its inevitable end — is all what we make it.– Bob Stradling –
Your comment is my new favorite. I’d venture a guess that you’re our most senior participant (?) No matter, I admire what you’ve taken from the film (“the blue sky”) and think more of us should think like that…Thanks again everyone. I’m pulling for this film huge come Oscar time in a couple of weeks. Talk to you later.
-Norm S. (Meet In the Lobby)
-
Nothing matter in the film…the protagonist is the dirty money, and the carrier will always die, like the first mexican guy lying in a tree shadow in the middle of a desert and then came the next carrier..lwillie moss…the end is clean…now is time to Anton to run…and die…
-
Saw NCFOM last evening for the second time along with my wife (first). Every piece of the film (characters, voice, wardrobe, cinematography) was razor sharp! I’m here to post about the story.
I think the film challenges the choices, motivationa, intentions you make/ have in life and the residue of evil (poor choices) left behind and the affect it has on ALL. Obviously it’s also about fate and faith in terms of understanding that we have little power over circumstance or cards dealt but the ability to be responsible for our happiness. Was greed not one of the central themes? Most of us seem to lose our way inch by inch in life and to reach adulthood is to leave behind all recognition of what was pure and good…not the least of which was calling people “ma’am” or “sir”. The boys on the bicycles at end were still young and innocent enough to offer help to a victim without judgement or profit considered. Innocent people are harmed relentlessly everyday whether they’re young and dad leaves home or they’re old and bilked out of life savings…and every imagineable way in between. So whether you live in a trailor or hi rise, you work at a filling station or on wall street, you give thanks for your life, ask for the strength to do what is right and reject fear knowing that at the end of your life a warm fire and a blanket is waiting for you. -
so exactly who got the money and the drugs???
or can it be anyone’s guess!!! -
Okay, in all due respect, Jean, (and to the guy in the theater who stood up and said “I feel cheated! Where’s the money and why’s the bad guy still alive?”); forget the money and the drugs! They’re like secondary characters in a Shakespeare play: they serve a purpose, but they’re not germane to the (riveting) central theme of this movie.
-
Though I thought the performances were good (esp. Josh Brolin’s) and the cinematography was breathtaking, I did think the story was a cop-out. I’m a huge fan of serious cinema, and I think There Will Be Blood was the movie of the year for me. But this one was fatally flawed. Most of the film felt entirely pointless after seeing the ending. I didn’t need the two hour film school project before it to impart such an obvious “lesson”. Please. I can get that by reading the newspaper on any given day. Hell, that’s just life. I ask a little more of cinema. I like a lot of the Coens’ work, but this one, like Fargo, fell entirely flat. Sometimes they just try to be too clever, and the intention is too obvious on screen. In this movie, they’re far too caught up in style, at the expense of substance. I’m glad so many liked it. It just felt like two hours wasted for me.
Another film from 2007 that followed a killer who never got caught, and told the story and imparted the lesson far more effectively, was Zodiac.
-
Anton was in the room, and more, he asked the sheriff:
- Call it, friedo. -
How about the story Sheriff Bell told his deputy about the old California couple and the robbers that take their Social Security checks, after torturing them and then the male robber is next day seen running naked with a dog collar on……Shades of Abu Gahrib? Is this movie a comment on violence, $, torture, veterans, war?
-
Can someone address how everyone was able to find everyone else sans the radio signal in the duffel bag.
Didn’t get Woody Harrelson role. How did he know Anton and live to tell about it later?
Did anyone notice Moss’ wife while driving up to the motel in the cab, had a passenger with her(besides the driver) who would it have been –if it were her mother, how did that fit in the time lines of deaths?
-
Coffeesnb:
Her mother was with her in the car. They arrived at the hotel not too long after the deaths. Moss had asked them to go there and the mother had told the Mexican who helped her with the suitcases, thus sealing his fate.
“Woody Harrelson” was an Ex- Colonel in some military organization (of questionable and probably mercenary character)…I got that he had some previous business association with Anton but not sure about that part.
-
I recently watched the fantastic Ingmar Bergman masterpiece The Seventh Seal and noticed a few things that may be relevant to this board. The film’s main character is named ANTONius and is constantly pursued by Death. The film is set at the time of the bubonic plague and as Dave Hopkirk noticed Carson Wells compares Anton Chigurh to the bubonic plague,as well as his surname being very similar to the flea-like parasite ‘chigger’. I also enjoyed the scene where after being asked to wait a moment Death says “You all ask that but I give no reprieve” just like Anton says “People always say the say thing”. Seems the Coen brothers are fans of Bergman’s classic.
One thing that has been puzzling me is why did Anton allow the deputy to arrest him and take him in? Anton wasn’t to know he’d be allowed such an easy opportunity to escape the law. Being such a ruthless killer wouldn’t he have killed him on the highway?
-
Nick,
I think part of Anton not killing the deputy on the highway is that it wouldn’t have been as safe as doing it later. Anton is patient and watches for his best opportunity. Also, it’s a way for the Coens to remind us that he’s human, like the car accident near the end of the movie. Yes, he’s the symbol for Death, but in reality, he’s a person like the rest of us.
-
Okay help me out here (out of coffee, not the shapest tool in the shed right now). So how did Moss’ Mother in Law die? Was it at the hand of Anton? Did I miss a part in the movie?
-
It doesn’t say specifically, but it could have been the cancer she talked about earlier in the movie.
Remember when Moss’s wife comes home dressed in black to find Shugurh waiting in her bedroom? She says “I just buried my Mama.” We don’t know how she died except that it wasn’t violently.
-
Moss’s mother in-law says “I got the cancer now” in the back of the cab…
-
One possible reading is as a political/social/economic allegory about both recent and older US history.
Moss and his wife are dirt poor and they both get wiped out by forces beyond them (as noted by the Woody role) once they got too close to the money. Anton and Woody are hired mercenaries of the “big boss”. They both bring non-human attributes such as ruthless, “principles based”, decision making (allusion to corporatism and market logic with all the coin flipping?) and capacity to store detailed information (surveillance and loss of privacy?). It is interesting that Anton kills both his competition and his boss and gets to keep the money (irrespective of whether he wants it/needs it or not).
The sheriff is the lawman, i.e., the US body politic. He’s both seen such economic carnage before and on the surface he is resigned to it or scared by it.
But this fantastic scene at the motel suggests that there is more to this relationship. He is the mirror image of Anton (through the doorknob – like camera obscura) We’ve been told this also in the identical TV reflections, which is an allusion to the common control of media by big money and the state. Anton is scared of him and only him, because the sheriff’s principles are superior as they are (nominally) morally grounded and emanating from the people instead of arbitrary and self-serving. But Anton need not worry because the sheriff has been fundamentally corrupted by association. He has drank the same milk.The father figure in the dream must be an allusion to the founding fathers of the US and trying to find a path to moral clarity on how to run economic affairs by looking back.
Scene by scene a scathing exposition of the mess called modern USA. The car scene where an average innocent american gets executed using meat-industry equipment is debilitating.
BTW, the old lady dies in 1980, the start of the Reagan era.
-
pp: Thanks for that. You are truly a hell of a girl or guy.
-
I apologize if this has been asked and answered already.
Can someone remind me how Shugurh winds up in the back of a cab at the beginning of the movie? He clearly had his gun with him, why didn’t he shoot the cop?And what about the first dream (not the fire one) he tells at the end of the movie. I can’t remember it well, can someone recap?
Yes, there are lots of parrellels in the movie, the one most often mentioned above is the jacket Moss buys for $500 and the shirt Shugurh buys for $100. My guess is that this represents the similarities in these very different characters. The world is not black and white. Even the “good” and the “bad” have some overlap. While I do think Shugarh represents something like “evil” I think Jones is the one who is representing “good”. The parrellels between the two of them are most clear in the milk drinking scenes where they are both in ths same spot on the couch and we see the (similar looking) outline of each in the TV.
To the person above who asked about why Jones told the california motel story: His commentary on the story was that he can’t believe the state of the world and what people are doing these days. He couldn’t believe that no one reacts to a family holding barrials in their back yard. This is the same theme he talks about in the opening monologue and later with the other sheriff.
-
My wife and I watched the movie tonight … a waste of our time on meaningless violence without resolution … if we wanted cthis sort of thing we could watch the news of the past month … think about it – WATCH THE NEWS OF THE PAST MONTH – there is enough angst and unresolved sensless mayhem there – Nothing was entertaing or instructive .. pointless – as are all the latest violent events. The film has nothing offers nothing and will be forgotten quickly … art my &#^%&!
-
I just saw the film and thought it was brilliant (though a little blood-laden for my tastes). Having not read the book, I’m not constrained in my interpretation by how the author ended the story or communicated its meaning. My view of the abrupt ending (cut to black) was that Bell died suddenly and unexpectedly. He never saw it coming. After years of evading death as a lawman (including most recently in the notel with Anton), he dies on the first day of his retirement. How ironic. He was leaving this chaotic world to join his father, who had built a fire in the dark desert to greet him. To me, such an ending fits well into the themes of chance, fate, and “you never see it coming.”
-
I would like to know how did woody harrelson’s character find him at the mexican hospital? what’s the whole relationship between carson wells, chigurh and the guy with the swingline stapler from office space?
-
Thx Geezer for making me laugh,the irony of your comment is priceless. Considering this film will get Oscar exposure and that Bardem’s performance will be talked about for years I’d bet my left nut that you are wrong.
-
- Nick –
I agree with you. I don’t think this one’s gonna be forgotten anytime soon. To compare it to another Coen Brothers work, Fargo is still talked about and applauded, and No Country for Old Men is considered a finer, more thought-provoking film.
-Norm (Meet In the Lobby)
-
Regarding the milk scenes, I believe that Sheriff Bell drinks the milk because he believes that it might allow him to understand Evil. Anton drank straight from the container and Bell knows this, yet despite the disgustingness, drinks the milk anyway.
Regarding the scene with the kids after the accident, Anton corrupts them. They start out innocent but are touched by Evil when they accept the bloody $100 bill.
i am a little unclear as to the meaning of the accident towards the end of the film. It may be that Anton’s evilness is beyond any choice he could make. The driver of the other car is dead notwithstanding anything Anton decides. To this point, Anton realizes this and tries to use a coin toss to save the gas station owner and later Moss’s wife because of their general innocence.
-
Before Chigurh kills Wells, he asks him, ‘If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?’
After the accident, we all would like to know how Chigurh would answer that question, himself. After all, the rule he followed brought him to kill Carla Jean, and that rule almost killed him. -
I read most of the posts here and just thought I’d throw my thoughts on the film out there.
I saw the film and was completely confused by the end, but after thinking long and hard about it, I had what I think is quite a good explanation of the story.
I see it that Chigurh is a spirit(?) that represents greed. And that greed will catch up with you eventually and cannot be stopped (gun shot wounds, car accident).
Throughout the film, there are references to greed. The one mexican who took the money and ran (before dying under the tree) near the start of the movie. Moss taking the money. The kids arguing over the $100 at the end of the movie (There are more but I can’t think right now!) Also, notice that the gas station attendant that he lets live, doesn’t charge him for the gas, thus, showing no greed.
Also, when he goes to the office building and speaks to the account, the conversation goes something like this:
“Are you going to kill me?”
“That depends. Can you see me?”
I think what he is saying is that if the accountant (who deals with money everyday) can realise that greed is bad, he will let him live.
I think Woody Harrelsons character represents reason. A ‘good’ to Chigurh’s ‘evil’. I get this from their conversation in the hotel where he tries to reason and stop him killing Moss. Also, notices the colors they wear. Bardem’s character always wears black. Whereas Harrelson’s character wears light blue.
But throughtout the film, I think Chigurh is mainly representing the greed of Tommy Lee’s character. There are a couple of things that make me think that. One is the milk thing someone else talked about. If you watch those two scenes again. They sit on the sofa in the exact same position watching their reflection in the TV, mirroring each other. And the reflection of the other character in the door lock in the hotel scene.
Finally, the ending. In the scene with his uncle (the one with the cats) he is told something along the lines of, “you have to wake up and realise that not everything can be solved/have a happy ending”. I think they are referencing this by the last line “and then I woke up”. And then the look of realisation on his face before the credits.Sorry this was so long and probably quite hard to follow, but I had to get my thoughts down before I forgot them!
I’ve probably forgot quite a bit, but I’ll probably post again when I’ve thought of something else to say. -
Well, yall are going to think I am off of the planet, but I believe Moss’ wife actually cleared with the cash. The last time we actually see the money is during a phone conversation between Moss and her while Moss is at a pay phone in an air terminal. Remember, She, calls Ed for help. Unfortuneately, Ed gets to the motel just short of facing the hired Mexicans and finds Moss down and lifeless. Moss’ wife appears with mom later that night. Chigurh is not yet on the scene. After Ed meets with the local sheriff, I think he contemplates facing his own inner darkenss, Chigurh. This process is spurred by a statement made in that exchange, something to the effect of, “returning to the scene of the crime” statemement. Ed returns and finds himself standing at the threshold knowing that Chigurh has come and probably already left when he quitely opens the door. When both Ed and Chigurh are in the Motel,( and yes Chigurh was in that same room), the money is already long gone. When we later see Chigurh confront the wife, she tells him she has no money, can’ t pay the bills etc….But, mom had a brand new head-stone for her grave worth $$$. I believe she won the toss while sitting on the cash. There is a lot more to be said about the abstract concepts of greed and what ill-gotten money brings to our behaviors. Evidenced by the two boys arguing over the shirt money.
What do you think? -
Bubba:
Here’s what I think…people need to stop obsessing over the money. Who has it? Who cares? I think what the Coens are doing is making the money symbolically neutral, the way money really is. Without the money we have no story, but in the end, we have a magnificent movie with no money…because the money doesn’t matter.
-
I read the book and just saw the movie. Unsatisfied by both. I have to say it seems that there’s a serious case of the emperor’s new clothes here.
I don’t need the bad guy to lose or a hollywood hero to be the victor. I do need a logical plot – without that, there’s just a theme. As evidenced by all the comments here, there isn’t enough information in the movie to figure out a lot of key points. I’m not missing anything, it just isn’t there. Read the book and you’ll see the holes in the movie plot.
Some argue that the details of the plot don’t matter and it’s about the theme and it’s an allegory and etc. This is fine, and I remember my lit courses where they taught me to analyze stories like that. But when we don’t know so many fundamental details of the plot, I would argue it’s difficult to make a very powerful case for meaning.
For example, what was Chigur’s motivation? Hard to say if we’re trying to figure out things like:
* Who was he working for?
* Does he end up with the money and what does he do with it? Maybe return it to one of the parties involved in the drug deal we haven’t seen – like in the book? Hmmmm, that would certainly change things. Or does he keep if for himself?
* The ambiguity of hiding in the room. Would he have shot if he was there. This kind of deliberate obfuscation ( the Lady or the Tiger?) never interested me.Anyway, the movie certainly created a lot of debate. Another thing I’m not looking for in a movie. I know that sounds like I’m a philistine. See ‘emperor’s new clothes’ above.
On a lighter note, you should all read Nora Ephron’s funny piece in the New Yorker if you haven’t. She has the right attitude, I’m much too serious:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2007/11/26/071126sh_shouts_ephron
-
I read the above at The New Yorker. Funny.
Terrible ending. I feel like I wasted money going to see this film. Earlier, someone couldnt figure out how long before the wife was possibly killed or not. However, when Chigurh was in the gas station, and made the first guy “choose”, he said that the coin was from 1958, and had traveled 20 years to this point. So it must have taken approx. 2 years for Chigurh to come after the wife. Because it was 1978 at the beginning of the movie, if the coin had traveled 20 years from 1958, and 1980 at the end… also, they stopped on the unlatched lock on the bathroom window when Tommy and Chigurh were in the same scene….showing that Chigurh had went out the window…..I also feel that knowing who has the money is important, because the money has the bigget part in the movie, and should win BEST ACTOR.
Who was in the truck that pulled out going sideways when TLJ pulled into the motel where everyone was dead? The Mexicans? I think they have the money.By the way, I thought Fargo was terrible also.
-
Eric Iversen:
I had a totally different take on the milk scene. I think we can agree that Sheriff Bell’s monolog(sp) at the beginning of the movie regarding the kid who declares that if he had a chance, he would kill again; no if, ands, or buts. Anton is of the same cloth.
Anton goes through the motion of being a “normal” guy several times through out the movie to achieve what he needs to achieve(getting the motorist out of his car, getting the desk clerk to give him Moss’ room number, even asking the lady at the in a tailor park for info, etc.
When no one was watching and there is nothing to gain, Anton takes the milk out of the fridge, and sits down in front of the TV as though he just came home from a long day. Sitting their looking at his own reflection reinforced that–no he is not a not a normal guy coming him after a long day. That’s why he didn’t drink the milk. He went though the motions and knew they were false.
Then you have Sheriff Bell , who is pretty much a normal guy, and after checking out the tailor, he goes to the fridge(like most folks coming home from a long day) Sees the milk, makes the statement of wasting a good glass and sits back and enjoys. His refection was that a normalcy, because that’s what normal people do–normal stuff.
Also, I think this is were Sheriff Bell –sitting in the same spot as relizes he is dealing with a different type of criminal
-
Tommy Lee Jones knew from the vent on the floor that Anton had been there. He knew from the dime on the floor that Anton was still in the room. TLJ made a decision to not pursue Anton and that saved his life. Anton killed people he needed things from, people who pissed him off, people who stole from him. Anton knew TLJ was walking away from all of it and it was equal to calling the coin heads. But TLJ will have nightmares his whole life of someone coming to the door an killing him on the porch like his relative.
-
Personally, I’m of the opinion that a man so careful as Anton would not have driven so carelessly through an intersection. The refusal to call the cointoss really shook him up. Whether or not he killed her is up for debate I suppose, but I am of the opinion that he did not. He checks his shoes out of habit, because he always checks his shoes. He leaves, shaken, at the very concept that someone refused to play into his world, in fact rejected it entirely, so he goes through the motions. The man is too careful and methodical to not look both ways at an intersection unless he is completely distracted. WHAM! And the look on his face is pure shock. Not fear, but flabbergasted.
As for Anton not killing Bell in the hotel room, assuming they were IN the same room, Bell did not see Anton in a criminal environment/act. He mentions earlier to the accountant who asks “Are you gonna kill me?” (after shooting the man who hired him) Anton replies, “That depends. Did you see me?”
While the man occasionally kills for the sheer fun of it, (making a game out of it even) (Shop clerk, crow.) While he is working, he prefers anonymity and invisibility. If you see him, you die.
Bell did not see him. At least, not face to face. -
Finally saw NCFOM last night, loved the performances, was confused at the end because I am so used to movies wrapping up neatly, and the Coen brothers definitely don’t wrap this up neatly, but that is why it is so good. I haven’t stopped thinking about it since it ended, and obviously neither have all the commentators on this site, as we have everything from Kabbalah theories, to anti-capitalistic theories. I like some of the theories about Anton representing greed, but nothing I have read seems to completely make sense of this film, but that seems somewhat to be the point. TLJ’s character seems to be trying to make sense of things that don’t always make sense, perhaps that is the point. There is a lot of random stuff that happens in life, some of it makes sense, some of it seems totally unfair, and nothing totally fits together. You can’t stop what’s coming seems to be the major point of the movie, but I’m glad the Coen’s didn’t answer everything, it leaves it open to be interpreted by the individual. I can see how people would hate this movie if they weren’t willing to put time into understanding and contemplating it’s meanings and coming to their own understanding of what it meant or didn’t mean to them. I am amused how almost everyone who didn’t like or didn’t want to take the time and effort necessary to attempt to understand this movie has tended to dismiss this movie with an excrement themed expletive. The performances were so good that I am willing to ponder it and it’s okay if I don’t have all the answers, because chances are neither do you. Why do we crave resolution so?
-
I have a concept that I’d like to shoot by you all,
7 deadly sins.
Wrath = Anton
Pride = Lewellen
Greed = Woody Harrilson’s character
Sloth = Shopkeep?
Lust =
Envy = Mexicans
Gluttony =
Thoughts? Fill in the blanks? Anything? -
OK. It wasn’t Brolin shot in the motel. It was the guy they kept thinking was Brolin ( hospital etc). Bell had set up a Charley Varrick style fake death for him, and Brolin escaped with the money, later to meet his wife ( not killed !!). They went to live in Rio de Janeiro and had three children called Tansin, Jessica and Bryony. Antoin was rehabilitated and became governor of a west coast state.
-
I’m going to have the coutage of saying “The King is wearing no clothes”,
and express my view that this is just another very mediocre film, that has to resort to high doses af gore and sadism in an attempt to conceal the ineptitude of the makers. When violence, ot any other gimmick, is used in a repetitive and predictable manner it loses its effect. No I’m not shocked by the overdose of glorified cruelty…I’m just bored to death.
Sad to realize that the sadism fotmula seems to be the only way to attain recognition , while real art like Ed Harris’ potrayal of Beethoven is supiciously silenced by the press…
Mr. Fellini, how badly do I miss you.
Antonio Esteban -
I just saw just the film. It´s great and so is your site. The film reminded me in a way Bob Dylan´s album Time Out of Mind. The plot is different, but the stern feelings and style is similar. Anyway, some commentators have found similarities between Moss and Anton. Yes indeed – Moss missed the deer and Anton missed the crow!
The ending is great. I had the same suden feeling as in the sudden ending of Robert Bresson´ s Pickpocket and Jean-Marie Straub´s Bach-film. -
mleafer-
I’m not sure if someone wrote this already, but Anton didn’t mix his blood with the saline before washing the wound… it was iodine, an antiseptic. Looks brownish/reddish, similar to blood.
-
I saw this movie during Christmas, 2 months ago. I didn’t have a clue as to what the ending meant, and I’m usually pretty good at stuff like that. (Engilsh major in college and all that.) But now that I’ve had time to digest it, here’s what I think: The point of the movie is contained in the title. Our modern existence, this life, is no country for old men, no place for those with the idealism and selflessness of the Greatest Generation, of which Sheriff Bell belongs. Life doesn’t give a shit who is the bad guy and the good guy. Our traditional protagonist, Llewellyn, gets gracelessly snuffed out with a good 20 – 30 minutes left in the show. So Llewellyn dies and Chigurr lives and the world keeps turning. But life wears us all down, including Chigurr, who gets hammered as he ties up loose ends. He lives, but he’s more broken down and busted up than before. The crows will catch up with him soon enough. So what’s left? An old man and his dreams, dreams of his father with a torch, lighting the way to his world – the world of the dead where judgement awaits, where good and evil do matter. The old man is strengthened by his relationships. He visits his Uncle Ellis, he retires and spends time with his wife. That’s really all that matters in this life. Money leads to destruction, violence just keeps going and going. So stay close to the ones you love, pay attention to your dreams, and one day you will follow the light to the long home of your fathers.
Gee, that’s pretty good, even if I do say so myself.
SB -
I am happy to read that I am not the only one struggling to agree with someone about the ending but I see I am still the only one thinking this:
My friends I am afraid that Mr Tommy Lee Jones is dead and the last scene is cronologically the first one.
I mean. When he enters the room and notices the window etc… Mr Chigurgh whacks him but we don’t see it and the only person remaining to come full circle is Brolin’s wife.
I know it is tricky but I feel this is what happens. But as in other films what we see and the cronology of events not always coincide,
Regards from Spain
-
I saw this wonderful movie soon after it came out, and then again this last weekend. I liked it even more the second time, but I was amazed, and disappointed, that one scene had been cut. It came after the motel scene, and it proved that Chigurh did have the money. He returned it to an unidentified man in an office setting. I don’t want to give it all away, but Chigurh, at one point, asked the man if the painting on the wall behind him was an original, and the man said no. He had the original in a vault.
After seeing the movie this last weekend, I even wondered if somehow I had imagined the scene. I went home and checked the novel… and there it was, coming before Chigurh kills Carla Jean (and he does kill her).
Hasn’t anyone else seen this scene?
-
You’ve gotta cut down on the glue and paint thinner, Bruce – yes, it’s in the book but no, the Coens left it out of the film (just like they elected not to explicitly show Carla Jean get shot, even though it’s in there in the book). Hence the popular screenplay term “adapted from” novel XYZ.
And congrats to all involved for the Oscar wins – well deserved.
-
Thanks, Bubbe, but you didn’t understand what I wrote. The Coens did not leave it out of the movie at first. The scene WAS there the first time I saw it.
I have talked to several other people where I work, and they also remember that scene and were surprised when I told them it’s no longer there..
I called the manager of the theater complex where I saw the movie the second time and learned that the first showing (at a different theater complex)was more of a director’s cut. He said the omitted scene reportedly will be on the DVD when that comes out. -
I saw this movie a couple days ago. Its one of those movies that you must see multiple times to catch everything. I’ve read many of the comments above and there are so many things to consider and so many things to question about this movie. This movie was very symbolic and one thing can represent many different things. Anton, to me, represented unpredictability. This man was totally unpredictable and i’m thinking back to the scene in the gas station with the innocent cashier. Anton has something against predictability (obviously, if he carries around a quarter and lets the quarter decides the mans fate.) The cashier tellls anton that he married into the business, so its inevitable that he would run the store. Anton also asks him questions about what time the store closes and what time he goes to bed to see if this mans life is completely predictable by having certain times set. Anton whips out the quarter and tells the man to call it to show the man that everything cannot be so predictable.
-
I take it all back – it sounds like you lucked out in seeing a pre-release working cut…I’m curious what other deleted snippets may be included on the DVD (out 3/11) – could help answer some of the unresolved debates in this blog
-
I hope they finish the movie and give it a good ending and if they don’t please make a sequal to finish the story!
I’m begging you! -
Hi again to everybody.
Could anyone please tell me if there is an interpretation in the end of the movie with the sheriff’s dream? Or on the other hand is it possible that Anton kills the sheriff and the movie plays with the cronology.
I don’t know guys…
-
Thanks for all the warnings-will avoid this one like the bubonic plague. But then, I despise the Cohens’ output anyway. Fargo was pure overrated hor$e$hit , and no one I know could even get by the accents, which detracted greatly from it.
-
In all of this discussion no one has mentioned that in the last 10 minutes of the movie 2 people call Tommy Lee Jones’ character Anton? Did this really happen, or did i imagine it?
The older cop that he talks with at/or after the crime scene calls him Anton. And then in the final scene his wife calls him Anton?
Really did i imagine it, or has this just been lost on every person using the internet because i can’t find any discussion of it.
-
His name is Ed Tom. It sounds rather like Anton when it’s slurred.
-
Question:
While Sheriff Ed Tom is in the motel bathroom, does the main room go dark, as if the outside door has swung shut? If so, does Ed Tom notice this darkening before or after he exits the bath? And before or after his gaze lingers on that bathroom window lock, shut tight?
-
Anton would have exited through the bathroom window, or at least have opened the window to see if such exit were viable, which means . . .
-
Is it just me, or was Tommy Lee Jone’s (in the end scene) wearing the same shirt that the kid on the bicycle was wearing – the same t-shirt that the boy took off to give Anton to put his broken arm in?
-
No, I checked on YouTube… the t-shirts aren’t the same. Sorry.
But, I did check the last scene and the wife of Tommy Lee Jones DOES call him Anton (as stated by someone above). Interesting……
-
For RB (on why Chigurh allowed himself to be arrested and taken in by the cop at the beginning of the film) -The book helps with some backstory: While talking with Wells before shooting him, Anton recounts how he was at a cafe on the border, being eyeballed by one member of a group of men drinking. The man says something “hard to ignore” as Anton passes in leaving. Anton does ignore him at first, but when the statement is repeated, he motions to the man to step outside and then kills him in the parking lot. An hour later, Anton is pulled over by a sherrif’s deputy outside Sonora, Texas, and allows himself to be taken into town in handcuffs. He reflects to Wells: “I’m not sure why I did this, but I think I wanted to extricate myself by an act of will. Because I think that one can. But it was a foolish thing to do. A vain thing to do.”
-
Notice something very subtle: As Chugarh hobbles away injured, his image dissolves directly into the tree of life. The tree of life appears at least twice more in the movie: It is the tree next to the tree of knowledge the dead man is leaning against, and Chugarh walks through the kabbalah tree of life when he goes to the trailer lady.
Bell’s dream about the money and him losing it means that our physical bodies will eventually be lost. It is also a reference to the tree of knowledge , which caused man to be mortal since money (materiality) is a symbol of “knowledge” and the dead man has the suitcase full of money under the tree of knowledge (which shatters lewellen and carla Jean’s life like Adam and Eve’s were ).
The fire the father is preparing is immortaility , and this is emphasized because Bell says this right in front of the tree of life, which is behind him through the window at the “end”..Chugarh dissloves into the tree of life because Chugarh is an agent of G-d, since all things happen according to G-d’s will. He also prominently walks through the tree of life, (the ten speheres linked by triangles on the gold window in the trailer park), for the same reason.
All of this subtlelty in the film editing entitled the Coen’s to an Oscar for film editing, but the movie was too advanced for most people to grasp its entire meaning and subtelties.
Also, Chugarh “cannot” (is not allowed) to kill resolute people: Moss, trailer park lady, Bell. And when Chugarh violates that by killing Carla Jean, he is punished. This is another of the many Mccarthy and Coens’ references to fighting and defeating the powerful, relentless evil of Islamic Terror.
These thing will change Cinema forever. Expect copycats.
-
It must be remembered that Sheriff Bell summoned up the courage to enter the motel room and confront Death. He was not taken by Death at that time because he did not see Death, but nevertheless it would have been easy not to take the chance Death was behind that door. This relates to the cowardice he confesses to in the book.
At the end of the film Bell laments that he’s failed but as his uncle Ellis reminds him, violence and death have always been a part of life and always will be. Don’t take it personally.
-
I guess I’m just confused at the scene at the end. I got to watch the movie early on DVD because I have friends that work for Hollywood video.
When Bell walks into the hotel room, he opens the door, and Chigur is not behind the door. Trust me, we slow-motioned the opening of the door, Chigur is not standing there. In an interview with the director he says that Chigur is in the room when Bell walks in. If the reflection is on Chigur’s face from the lock, he has to be standing adjacent to the door, but when we looked, hes standing on neither side. Is this a blooper?
-
- Jessica –
I would seriously doubt it’s a blooper. Editing is far too precise a science for a mistake to enter a scene as pivotal and careful as this.
I think No Country for Old Men contains a lot of thoughtful, symbolic moments that act as allegory, and that many viewers see the film as some sort of black-or-white mystery. To my thinking, the film is more about the bigger ideas, the grander character traits and flaws, the enormity of living and dying. I don’t think it matters whether Chigurh was in the room — it only matters what you think, if you know what I mean.
Norm S. (Meet In the Lobby)
-
Chigurh was in the room and more,
He asked Ed Tom: – call it, friendo. -
i saw the movie and i missed the dialog at the end. Im going to see the movie again tonight.
One thing i though prior to reading here, i thought that maybe the twist i missed at the end was that Bell & the Killer were actually the same person (ie split personalities) becuase what makes me think this is that Mary Jane (i think her name is) said when i first saw u i knew u were crazy – and i thought this might refer back to when she met bel at the diner. Is it possible that the killer is just another form to show bell other personality or is it really a different person. and what is amazing as mentioned, he not in the room & he never confronts / meets the killer. Futher more he was told by Mary Jean where her husband would be – how does the killer then find that out? -
This reminded me of Mystic River, a lot of Oscar-Worthy-Hype-From-Mind-Numbing-Movie-Goer-Hail-To-Great-Cinema-Rhetoric.
I thought the movie was at best average with superb performances and direction. Some great effects with the weaponry. I scratched my head at the end. It wasn’t that I don’t understand some of the metaphors used and discussed on this site. It wasn’t that I wanted an all out shoot ‘em up action scene, but, I do demand some clarity at the end of a movie. I don’t want to have to go to a message board and read 4983 opinions to validate my own or simply even enjoy it for that matter. I felt a little cheated, very anti-climactic. Too subtle. I think they tried to hard to do something different and it didn’t work for me.
-
He was in the closet, he didn’t kill because they’re sharing the same father.
-
This is what I took away from the move
(and I figured this out on the first viewing because I kept my mind open)In the beginning, you hear Tommy Lee Jones’ character talk about how someone he arrested and put on death row killed someone for fun, and he said that the killer talked to him before his death and said that if they would have let him out, he would have murdered again. THEN he is in the coffee shop with his partner and he reads a story of how a couple tortured people, killed them, and buried them after. I think that the story told in the movie, Josh Brolin’s character finding two million dollars, then gets followed by a psychopathic killer, who in turn kills almost everybody else ect. (I don’t want spoilers in my comment!) is another story such as the ones he talks about sometimes. He is always contemplating about the world we live in today, how dark and how violent it is. And I think that is where the title comes in, this country full of violence and murder is No Country For Old Men, people who still believe in a sense of decency and mourn for the old times. The monologue in the end sums up the movies perfectly. This entire situation has made him think about his own life, and the life of his father (obviously). They are both growing old, and for someone like Ed Tom, this was obviously a job he cannot continue in his old age. In the end, death finds us all, or as it’s put in the movie “You can’t stop what’s coming”
-
Llwelyn is dead. His body is found when Bell arrives in El Paso. His wife is dead as well. Wells tells Moss that Anton has his principles. He told Moss he would kill his wife if he didn’t comply and he did. Bell doesn’t die because as he said, he has his principles. He doesn’t need to kill Bell. Not unless Bell’s willing to fight him. The ending is all about how Bell should have died, but didn’t. He’s scared to die and his dream was how he’ll have to wait even longer to see his dad.
-
I just watched the movie and loved it! After reading up to this blog around December 23, i thought of a reasonable conclusion of Anton is behind the door, and the death of Llwelyn
When Bell visits Ellis, Ellis tells him a story of the old times when a man was shot in his doorway. In this story he says that when they showed up he rushed inside to grab his shotgun, but they beat him to it and he was killed.
Having said that, when the Mexicans showed up to kill Llwelyn, he tried to rush inside to grab his shotgun, and this is where Anton is waiting, and as he enters is shot by Anton (Llwelyn was beat to the punch so to speak), and this is why the Mexicans leave with gunfire and what seemed like a hurry.
just something i pondered up. I would appreciate some feedback
-
Hello everybody again.
I am really excited with ur comments as I see that there are many interpretations of what seems a simple bunch of images.I may be the only one but I think Ed Tom is dead.
We do not see it happen but the cronology of the movie plays with us.
-
I loved the movie but I am sorry. I want to know who gets the money. Actually, when all is said & done, It’s the Coen brothers who got all the money. The DVD release should have added 2 mintes at the end showing Joel & Ethan counting the cash!
-
It is a very nice review the one by you Tom.
Maybe you could be Ed Tom and not even u realizes of that. Oh men.
Anyway my question to u is whether u understand the end or better said. How u understand and interpret it.
Thanks in advance Ed Tom
-
Was the money left in the car
-
And now to add more to the MYSTERY….. Why on the DVD cover did they do the ol’ switch-a-rew with the names and pictures of Tommy Lee, and Josh Brolin ? Are they still playing with our minds………
-
Ancient Hindu Trinity of the endless cycle of birth maintenance and destruction. Brolin gets the money and seeks to create a new life. Jones is the maintainer who on his way out, early in the film his eager deputy looks at some point will replace him. In Hindu mythology these are represented by Brahma The Creator, Vishnu The Maintainer of Creation and Shiva who destroys all and the cycle goes on again. At the heart of this cycle is to fear not, for it truly is “what is to come” and to go. Sometimes it is better to see the mystery that is all around us and is us then to try and figure it out.
-
I’ve read carefully through most of the feedback posted but haven’t found any thoughts on what tripped me out the most … why in the ending scene does tommy lee’s wife refer to him as anton? In a previous scene where tommy lee enters the hotel room and anton is mysteriously hiding in the room or what not — right before that scene a cop explains to tommy lee while he’s in his car that anton had returned to previous hotel murder scenes after the fact– but he addresses tommy lee as “anton” in that scene right before tlj drives off(tommy lee makes a comparison between bark and anton in this scene) ?—– and i also noticed the mysterious correlation that ronnie referred to in his comment above in regards to the name switching below tommy lee and Brolins pictures on the movie cover.
Is there some ambiguity or perhaps even a singularity to these two characters?Are they somehow the same. Also, there is a scene where Moss’s wife calls tommy lee and she agrees to meet up with him after tlj assures her he wants no harm to her husband. So this implies tommy lee knows her location and how to find her. He should be the only one besides moss himself (how easy would it be to hide from people in this huge country if you didn’t want someone to find you!). But how was anton able to find her? He had no inside track, maybe the mexicans manipulated the mother to find her whereabouts but anton shouldn’t have know this, perhaps another correlation to his character and tommy lee’s
-
-jason-
i too do not understand why TLJ is referred to as anton, but i do have an answer to your other one.
when TLJ is talking to the wife she says he will tell him where they will meet. and for anton… earlier Woody Harelson’s character says it would not be too hard for anton to find him and his wife because he did it in less then 3 hours.
hope that helps
-
First, let me say after reading some of the comments that many don’t have any grasp at all on what nihilism actually is ( as a school of thought rather than an synonym of pointlessness ). Nihilism should be applauded, there isn’t enough of it in cinema which is why movies these days are so intellectually devoid. But I’m not here to sing praises. Second, No Country as a movie died in its own plot devices – and was indeed pointless. Regardless of the message( built conveniently into the title of the piece) the movie left me wanting my
money back. Why waste my time on meaningless story lines to relay a message of futility? If I wanted futility, I’d step away from the comforts of my couch and walk outside. I’m not saying every story needs to have a happy ending or that writers should follow some shallow plot devices or moralistic outcomes, but don’t hand me a ball of loose ends and proclaim “FIN”. -
Anton was def in the the room when tommy lee was at the door. they showed a reflection shot of the inner ring of the door nob from both POV’s and ou could see the other persons reflection. maybe anton didnt know how many cops were out there, so when he heard tommy cock his gun, he peaced out the window. thats why when tommy went into the room, he looked at the window and it was open, meaning he anton umped out, and once again tommy was one step behind anton. Also the sounds of the cars in the background flow through the cuts between tommy and anton.
-
First of all TLJ is NOT refered to as Anton, his wife says ED TOM his characters name. It might sound a little like Anton, but its not what she says. Second I believe Anton is behind the door when TLJ enters the room. My guess is he gave TLJ a way out by choosing heads or tails(I deduced it when Anton told Brolins wife “why do they always say that” when she told him he didn’t have to do this, considering Harrelsons character says it, then TLJ[I'm guessing] now the wife) and he guessed right and immediately retired knowing how close he was to death. As the story goes, it is not a country for old men. It was his time to move on because he knew he couldn’t hack it anymore as an “oldtimer” with his “oldtimer ways”.
-
What a horrible ending to an ok movie. For all of you saying that Tommy Lee Jones speech at the end is great, I thought it was crap. Symbolism my ass. How the hell did this movie win Best Picturer?
-
Hey Chris C,
Well, in a world where someone like you spells picture “picturer” I guess anything can happen.
And I’m glad Alex (as well as others before him) pointed out that “Ed Tom” sounds a helluva like “Anton.” I saw the movie twice…she says “Ed Tom.”
-
This movie sucked my left nut. I want to slap everyone who produced this crap. Just because it was filled with a lot of “symbolism” bullshit everyone thinks its amazing.
-
I sure appreciate the blog space — what an interesting and thoughtful collection of ideas. I’ll add my piece briefly, as it agrees closely only with a fraction of what I’ve seen so far.
As many have said and most would agree, there are layers of interpretation and layers of intended meaning — from the big picture about living life in changing times, but also what exactly happens to the movie’s characters.
Obviously the directors left some room for thought provoking interpretation, and what a nice change from formula.
I think individuals will find their “big picture” meaning through their own filters, and those ideas will rightly depend on the indiviudual. But, I do believe some of the intended ambiguities are guided by the directors as to how they hoped we would draw our conclusions.
That’s where I’m in a minority in my conclusion, at least I think so. At the end of the movie, my first thought about the “meaning of the ending” was clear — Ed Tom is going to get whacked by Anton, maybe even on his ride that morning. The death dream dialog seems predictive right before the cut to black, and we were dealing with a mostly indiscriminant killer afer all. In Anton’s strange world of who deserves to be killed, we just don’t know that he wouldn’t want to whack Ed Tom — and I think the implication is there that Ed Tom dies.
For the one or two commentors who thought that the last scene was chronologically first, and the new order of scenes implied that Anton had whacked Ed Tom, I think that idea holds water, too. In my viewing of the film, you don’t even need to rearrange the scene order to get there though. Ed Tom very likely gets whacked based on the direction I went with my viewing.
To me, that’s the central question to be answered in the “unusual ending”: does Ed Tom get whacked or not — and I read it as “yep, I’m afraid he does.”
-
-robert-
The idea that the ending was indeed in the beginning is interesting but considering in that scene he is talking about what he is going to do on his first day of retirement (which was that day) so it could not have been
-
The Dime did’t have to be there. Anton left the dime on floor because it was what the sherrif had everthing riding on. Just like the Store clerk. If the dime would have fell the wrong way the sherrifs chips( a refrence he used in the movie) would have fell differently.
-
I think this was a fabulous movie. But, more than Llewelyn being chased by the dog in the water, I’m intrigued by the black dog that walked away from the opening scene, much the same way Anton walked away at the end (and he, too, always was in black).
The dreams of the sheriff at the end made me think for awhile – why the first dream? Because Anton believed that fate lay in his hand, and the sheriff didn’t believe in the type of fate that is determined by the flip of a coin (same with Llewelyn’s wife).
Both the sheriff and Anton made promises that they tell the wife: the sheriff will save her husband, and Anton will kill her because her husband chose the money over her. Both individuals have a type of principle that is reflected in black and white (you see the same shadows on the same window, and they drink from the same milk bottle).
The sheriff and Anton represent black and white and everyone else is dealt with in different colors of gray. Anton and the sheriff are doing what they are supposed to be doing – defining good and evil – and all other characters are in situations that demand that they choose sides. thus, their deaths.
Perhaps I’m overthinking this movie, but at least it is one movie out of so many bad ones that allows me the pleasure to think after I’ve seen it!
-
I just watched the movie the other day and was a little baffled about the ending. It’s so great to see a movie that leaves you thinking. My interpretation of the ending is that Antons’ whole existense and purpose is to kill. He knows no other way. Like a vampire looking for fresh blood. The scene at the hotel where TLJ views the blown out doorlock and where Antons hiding in the closet, is Antons way to keep his bloodlust alive. I believe that Anton left the air duct open for his next victim. The sheriff grabbed the money which allowed him to retire from the force. The explanation of his dream was him seeing his own death. He knew because he took the money that he was cursed and that he was going to be Antoons next victim.
Anyone see this too? curious……
-
I feel like one of those guys in a museum, looking at a piece of art and just not getting it. People around me are saying things like “It represents the perpetual struggle of man versus nature and the relationship between space and time” and I’m wondering if they’ve just spent too much time at Starbucks or are trying to impress their girlfriend’s mom. This is coming from someone whose favorite film makers are the Coen brothers and I’ve been looking forward to this movie for a long time. I’ve seen Raising Arizona at least 20 times and can recite it nearly word for word. I’m afraid I’ll have to watch this movie that many times just to get it. I feel like I hopped on a roller coaster, was thouroughly enjoying the ride, couldn’t wait to see if I survived til the end……….. then all of the sudden, I was in the line at the merry-go-round wondering how the hell I had gotten there. Did I fall asleep? Did I have a diabetic reaction to all that cotton candy? Or did my dvd player bite the dust? I don’t know….but I’ve never been perplexed by a Coens’ movie before and I think I’ll have to return to their amusement park another day and avoid the cotton candy.
-
I did not object to the bad guys winning, but I would have liked to have had the action who which the entire film was building take place on stage. Andy yes, I want to know what happened to the money. I was one of those who found the ending disappointing and pretentious as well as unnecessary. But this was still a very good and perhaps land mark movie
-
You know… these concepts aren’t really that deep… It kind of saddens me to say… but it sounds like you all just watch too much television.
-
My friend John, I respect that ur way of interpreting this movie is quick and straight but let me tell u pendejo that Cohens normally work deep and make movies to go deep .
Television has nothing to do with that. Furthermore i’d say that thanks to this kind of cinema we get to be farther and farther from typical TV.
Anyway. it is again only an opinion.
take care muchacho
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] The Mist and The Coen Brothers’ exceptional adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s No Country for Old Men (winner of the National Board of Review’s Best Picture). NY Times blogger The Carpetbagger [...]
[...] Oscar-friendly films — No Country for Old Men, Juno, There Will Be Blood — wind their way through theaters this holiday season, here [...]
[...] has been virtually ignored by the awards community (oh, who gives a crap?) #3 is the Coens’ No Country for Old Men, close behind Zodiac in the voting, and one of the most discussed films in [...]
[...] film sites, movie endings have been a recent hot topic. Great movies with disappointing endings. Vague, closure-lacking endings. Endings changed in the transition from book to [...]
[...] ambiguous with the cut, and the absence of a weapon, where as the book just says what happens). The ending has sparked some debate, among film buffs and others, but the point is still made: this is a fantastic and well-made film [...]
[...] No Country For Old Men The Coen Brothers drama already enjoyed a careful, gradual release from Miramax before maxing out on 1300 screens — undoubtedly aiding its extremely strong word-of-mouth. Now, it will expand from 818 to over 1100 theaters. [...]
[...] A great post about the ending can be found here. [...]
[...] Country for Old Men has been an incredible source of conversation here since its first weekend of expanded release. Now, the moviegoers singing its praises (like me) [...]
[...] that Joel and Ethan Coen’s No Country for Old Men has reached American Classic status, how about a comedy for an encore? This convoluted wacked-out, [...]
pingback from tickingnews.com