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: firstname.lastname@example.org)
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.