UrbanRats said:
What comes out of the GAF's OT doesn't really tells us anything, since we're talking about 10 lines news, most of the times.
But in reality, the human behaviour has usually no poetic, rythmic, fascinating pattern, like the coin flip or the cool attitude, or any quotable remark.
And more importantly, there's no such thing as the "evil gene" (AFAIK) so where there's some form of psycho killer, there is a human character to explore.
Nobody is completely flat, let alone a dude who goes around killing other human beings like flies.
If you are a detective who is trying to catch a killer like Chigurh or fight someone of his ilk, exactly where do you get to see him as a human complete with emotions and characteristics, fully fleshed out? You don't. You only get to deal with the carnage left in his wake.
You have to remember the movie is narrated by Bell. Bell never has the opportunity to see Chigurh, all he sees are the bodies left behind. So by making Chigurh an opaque figure to the audience, we are more firmly planted in Bell's shoes. This is why Bell is constantly talking about evil as some sort of force of nature, because he keeps seeing the result of it rather than the 3 dimensional humans who perpetrate it. Remember the story he tells in the beginning about the teenage boy who killed his 14 year old girlfriend? The papers described it as a crime of passion, "but he tolt me there weren't nothin' passionate about it. Said he'd been fixin' to kill someone for as long as he could remember. Said if I let him out of there, he'd kill somebody again. Said he was goin' to hell. Reckoned he'd be there in about 15 minutes."
The papers, and you guys, are trying to tell me that every killer *must* have some humanistic qualities, some depth that can be explored which might explain their actions. But I maintain that this is just not the case. Some people are as cold and detached as zombies, they are basically non-humans disguised in a human body. And furthermore, in a film which is not concerned with examining the motives of the sociopath, this is all moot. The film is about how we deal with abject evil, not what brings one to commit evil acts.
Snowman Prohopet of Doom said:
"The quiet, the solitude, the tension, the photography, and the wit are all up against what I view as the story's uncertain intent; largely stereotyped caricatures; lack of a central character; muddled themes; melodramatic, pulp-fiction action; and disappointing finish
.Let's start with film's intent, since that is the basis for most of my criticism. If this had been a straight-ahead thriller or even a gentle send-up of the action genre, I would gladly have accepted the exaggerated shenanigans that go on in the story. I love movies like "Pulp Fiction," "Kill Bill," "Sin City," and "Grindhouse." But the Coens' movie purports to be more than that. The tone of "No Country" has "high moral content" written all over it. That's where the trouble lies for me; the filmmakers clearly mean their bloody crime tale to represent some profound comment on American society and its declining moral values, a sort of thriller for the intellectual set. Yet I found the movie's somber attempts at enlightenment at odds with its corny theatrics. It's like trying to find some deep, inner meaning in "Die Hard."
.Which leaves the bad guy, the psychotic, automaton killer, Chigurh, as the only other candidate for main character
.Chigurh simply degenerates into another Jason, Freddy, Michael Myers, or Schwarzzengger evil Terminator. He is one of those villains who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He's all-knowing, all powerful, and everywhere at once, sporting a Prince Valiant hairdo and dragging a slaughtering gun behind him
.As I see it, the movie is sending out conflicting messages, which would be fine if the movie had developed any of them, which it doesn't. For the viewer, it becomes an exercise in frustration."
This review is all over the place and frankly, terrible. First of all the intent is clear. I, and most people, had zero problem discerning the point of the story and the themes it wished to explore. I have to seriously wonder about the intelligence of a person who views NCfOM and then says "I'm just not sure what the film's intentions were."
"Muddled themes." Exactly what is not made clear enough for this guy? The themes are about declining morality/morals for sale, and the angst and difficulty of confronting an unrelenting evil.
"Disappointing finish." I say "Awesome finish". I guess I am not surprised that the same guy who tries to call NCfOM a wannabe philosophical "Die Hard" had trouble with the ending and felt frustrated by the film or couldn't see the themes it presented. He doesn't seem too astute.
Roger Ebert said:
"No Country for Old Men" is as good a film as the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, have ever made, and they made "Fargo." It involves elements of the thriller and the chase but is essentially a character study, an examination of how its people meet and deal with a man so bad, cruel and unfeeling that there is simply no comprehending him. Chigurh is so evil, he is almost funny sometimes. "He has his principles," says the bounty hunter, who has knowledge of him.
Consider another scene in which the dialogue is as good as any you will hear this year. Chigurh enters a rundown gas station in the middle of wilderness and begins to play a word game with the old man (Gene Jones) behind the cash register, who becomes very nervous. It is clear they are talking about whether Chigurh will kill him. Chigurh has by no means made up his mind. Without explaining why, he asks the man to call the flip of a coin. Listen to what they say, how they say it, how they imply the stakes. Listen to their timing. You want to applaud the writing, which comes from the Coen brothers, out of McCarthy.
This movie is a masterful evocation of time, place, character, moral choices, immoral certainties, human nature and fate...As McCarthy does with the Judge, the hairless exterminator in his "Blood Meridian" (Ridley Scott's next film), and as in his "Suttree," especially in the scene where the riverbank caves in, the movie demonstrates how pitiful ordinary human feelings are in the face of implacable injustice. The movie also loves some of its characters, and pities them, and has an ear for dialog not as it is spoken but as it is dreamed.
Many of the scenes in "No Country for Old Men" are so flawlessly constructed that you want them to simply continue, and yet they create an emotional suction drawing you to the next scene. Another movie that made me feel that way was "Fargo." To make one such film is a miracle. Here is another.
Ebert nails it, as usual. You'll notice he had no problems discerning the themes of the film, or with the nature of Chigurh. If Chigurh were as cartoon-like as you suggest, this emotional suction would not be present. It was there for me, for Ebert, and for the majority of people who saw the film.
I have no problem at all being analytical about a film, but I think there is a point where you go beyond mere analysis and enter into something too ego-driven. You get to a point where you tell yourself you could do it better, and this or that should have been done, and this or that should have been cut, and now you are not analyzing but rather armchair quarterbacking.
Snowman Prohopet of Doom said:
It's not that it's a BAD film, for I think that it is, overall, a good film, if a bit shallow overall. But I think the attempts to raise it to the heights of artistic greatness based on the themes and characters that it tries to have, rather than those that are truly there. This was actually a pretty important movie for me, for it, along with There Will Be Blood, were what really launched my foray into a serious study of cinema, as opposed to being just a "go see whatever's out this week" sort of dude. But with time and reflection, I think that both have seriously degraded in my esteem, for I think that they both purport to have a grander meaning than they actually do. They have very well-written parts and memorable characters, but they're not woven into a well-organized fabric that take advantage of them.
I understand that you don't think the film is bad, and even if you did I would accept your opinion. I don't expect everyone to align with my views on anything. My only contention is that your suggested changes would make NCfOM into something vastly more cookie-cutter and invariably less interesting.
Without impugning your desire to be a "serious study of cinema" dude, I think that may be the disconnect we have. I think your desire to be a "serious cinema" guy is getting in the way of just seeing what is there. You seem to be over-analyzing and then wondering why the film is doing things contrary to what your analysis tells you would make for a superior work. I do my own analyzing of films, but I think I am more apt to just accept what is there rather than attempt to reconstruct it into something I think would make it better. I don't mean to imply that my approach is any better than yours, just to highlight the difference.
Interesting that you mention TWBB, because on my first viewing I immediately thought that it was a good film which just missed being great because of the last act. Subsequent viewings have cemented my initial impression, and slightly lowered my overall view of it. The characters remain good, the acting is almost perfect, the cinematography no less stunning. But the sum of its parts feels weaker each time I see it.
NCfOM I thought was excellent on first viewing, and has only become more so each time I see it, much like Fargo. What you call "shallow", I call "simple". The themes are anything but shallow, but they are very simple and somewhat basic and this is a credit to the film rather than a slight against it. NCfOM has a very sharp and deliberate tone, and this is amplified by the simplicity with which it is constructed. Attempting to delve further into the character of Chigurh could only serve to reduce its effectiveness at presenting that tone.
In the end, I respect your position even if I disagree wholeheartedly, and I have enjoyed the discussion because it has made me reevaluate what I already thought was a great film. I will now probably throw the Blu-Ray in sometime this week. And with this post I can confidently say that I've expounded as much as I can on the subject, and will now bow out and give you the final word. My apologies to those in the thread who had to keep scrolling past these long walls of text.
