Meet In The Lobby

[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]

“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/

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.

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.

www.therecshow.com

- 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.

[…] 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 […]

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 www.filmforemania.com. Thank you for your time.

[…] Oscar-friendly films — No Country for Old Men, Juno, There Will Be Blood — wind their way through theaters this holiday season, here […]

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.

[…] 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 […]

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)

[…] 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 […]

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 ?

WRONG LINK:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/movies/09coun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

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 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

[…] 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 […]

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