Eric D. Snider
No Country for Old Men
Movie Review
"No Country for Old Men"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: A
Rating: R
Released: Friday, November 9, 2007
Directed by:
Cast:
Cormac McCarthy is considered by many to be America's greatest living author, and Joel and Ethan Coen certainly comprise one of the finest voices in modern filmmaking. Despite that, I don't know if I'd have guessed that the McCarthy/Coen combo would be such a perfect fit. They're all brilliant, but they're brilliant in different ways.
Or so I thought. "No Country for Old Men," which the Coens have adapted from McCarthy's novel, is a quintessential Coen movie, both visually and verbally -- and yet most of the dialogue is taken word-for-word from the book.
I discovered this after the fact, not having read the book before seeing the movie. Watching it, I noted scenes that were in the classic Coen style, featuring Southwestern-accented men having quirky conversations a la "Raising Arizona" or "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" In one scene, two rural cops come across a drug deal gone bad, the ground littered with bodies. One of the cops observes that a couple of the victims are dressed differently from the others.
"These boys appear to be managerial," he says. "I think we're lookin' at more than one fracas."
That kind of cadence and vocabulary is common in Coenland, and it's just as likely to come from a tertiary character (as it does here) as from the protagonist. And yet in this case, it's not the Coens' work. It's straight from McCarthy.
So it would appear we have a match made in heaven, a novel that's written cinematically being transferred to the screen by brothers who are highly proficient in the cinematic language, and who have the good sense not to make unnecessary changes.
The film hearkens back to the Coens' darker films like "Blood Simple" and "Miller's Crossing," with a worldview that is decidedly bleak. Set in West Texas in 1980, it has three central characters on different sides of the law. Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is an aging, weary sheriff saddened by the increasingly violent nature of the world. At the other end of the spectrum is Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a terrifying psychopath who murders with a pneumatic gun (used to kill cattle, I do believe) and is on the trail of a satchel containing $2 million that went missing after that drug deal went awry.
The third figure, Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), falls somewhere in the middle, law-and-order-wise. He's an ordinary guy, a trailer park denizen with an ordinary wife (Kelly Macdonald), out hunting antelope one day when he comes across the crime scene and the bag of money. He quickly ascertains that the loot will be missed and sends the missus off to her mother's while he deals with the repercussions.
That is the crux of the film: Chigurh has been sent to retrieve the $2 million; Llewelyn is on the run from him; Sheriff Bell is trying to keep everyone safe. Also in the mix is an unnamed man (Stephen Root) in a well-appointed office who hires the cocky Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) to go after Chigurh and the money.
Wells seems to be familiar with Chigurh, to the point that he no longer fears him. This is a mistake. Despite his hilariously feminine haircut and calm demeanor -- or maybe because of it -- Chigurh is one of the creepier psychopaths in recent memory. He has no compunction about killing, no glimmer of humanity to make him reasonable. He's perfectly content to let a coin toss decide whether he kills you or not. He embodies the film's general view of life: It's random, it's often unfair, and everyone is subject to its whims.
The film has a potent mix of suspense and laughter. The Coens find a lot of dark, accidental humor in all of this, and also devote quiet attention to the details of Moss and Chigurh's cat-and-mouse game. Moss proves to be a resourceful and intelligent man, maybe even capable of outsmarting the seemingly unstoppable Chigurh. Consequently, every scene is riveting because you never know which way it's going to go.
That includes the ending, which at first glance may feel disappointing. Something about it stuck in my craw -- yet I could tell that the problem was with me, not with McCarthy or the Coens. I was missing something. Seeing the film a second time, I caught subtleties I had missed at first, and everything fell into place. It's a mistake to take the film for a simple crime thriller. You look at it that way and you'll surely be let down by the conclusion. Look at it instead as a story about the capriciousness of fate, about how lives can be changed in the blink of an eye in ways that are unpredictable and unfair. One character even vocalizes the film's theme outright: "You can't stop what's comin'. It ain't all waitin' on you. That's vanity."
Through the combined genius of McCarthy and the Coens, the film is constantly riveting. Even when the scenes are wordless, we are compelled to watch because, now that the dice have been thrown, we want to see where they land. It's as close to a perfect film as I've seen all year: ingeniously crafted, thematically consistent, and haunting in its implications. It's the kind of movie that sticks with you.
Sheriff Bell is the outsider in the equation, and the soul of the film. He's outmatched by this new kind of evil represented by Chigurh and the web of people who traffic with him. You can see it in Tommy Lee Jones' sorrowful eyes, and hear it in his Texas drawl, which he has exaggerated and ruralized. Bell has seen too much sadness in his life, and he can barely find the words to describe the awful things he's begun to see. It doesn't make sense. He's getting too old for this -- too old for law enforcement, too old for life, too old for everything.
[NOTE: There has been much discussion in the comments below about the fate of Moss, about the final whereabouts of the money, and about an ambiguous scene involving Bell and Chigurh and a motel room. I have blog entries discussing and explaining these subjects here (Moss' fate), here (Bell & Chigurh, and the money), and here (other questions).]
Grade: A
Rated R, a little profanity, a lot of strong violence
2 hrs., 2 min.
This item has 228 comments
November 17, 2007 at 9:18 am
In line with your comment about the "capriciousness of fate," I agree that Chigurh represents something more than a psychopathic murderer. Dressed always in black, he seems to represent death: an inevitable fate that doesn't pick or choose people based on any moral principles that we can understand. Note one conversation describing Chigurh as having his own kind of morality that doesn't obey our own notions. Death comes to us all, suddenly, randomly, and blind to "fairness," no matter if we protest or try to escape it.
November 18, 2007 at 6:54 pm
[MAJOR SPOILERS]
Did anyone find the scene of Sheriff Bell returning to the motel room where Moss was killed a little troubling. Sheriff sits down on the bed looks around and sees the register return taken off the wall. All the while, Chigurh is standing behind the door and armed. It just seems to me that there should have been some sort interaction between the two.
November 19, 2007 at 8:51 am
SPOILERS
I agree. Who gets the money at the end? I think the Mexicans leave the motel without the money. Does the Sheriff get the money? Did Chigursh?
November 19, 2007 at 10:49 am
I think more credit should be heaped upon the Coens for their ability to separate the dialogue in the book from the narration, since McCarthy prefers to use a typewriter or word processor in which the punctuation keys only work part of the time and the quotation mark functions work not at all.
I think I'd like to see the movie after I read the book as it will be a good way for me to see if I too can successfully separate dialogue from narration in a McCarthy book. I struggled with this whilst reading "The Road".
November 21, 2007 at 6:24 pm
SPOILERS. I agree with the main reviewer's commentary about the film's theme - the capriciousness of fate. I would add another theme: the profound emptiness of the pursuit of money.
On that note, in response to George, I thought the three raiders who were tipped off ended up with the money, but I thought that wasn't of much significance since the film tells you drug money brings pain, not happiness.
Questions: (1) Why was Chigurh in handcuffs at the beginning of the film? Is it of any significance that the deputy, not the sheriff, caught him? (2) Was it the other car that ran the red light in the end? I thought Chigurh had the green light.
November 21, 2007 at 11:42 pm
#2 above, Chigurh clearly had the GREEN light and the other car ran the red light. I just saw the movie an hour or so ago. Following the scenario on "capriciousness of fate" this would fit Amy's observation that "death is an inevitable fate that doesn't pick or choose people based on any moral principles that we can understand." And no one is exempt from death including Chigurh who might be perceived as the devil himself (albeit only a hideously fractured arm).
November 22, 2007 at 3:32 am
Loved the movie, probably my second favorite of 2007 behind "Alpha Dog" this year. "Alpha Dog" gets the slight edge for being exactly what happened in real life. That being said, Chigurh was amazing- totally one of the sickest characters in the history of movies. Like Eric said, it was probably because of his haircut and how calm he was that made him so different and scary. The Coens did a great job at taking things slow and really giving us powerful scenes, even in the scenes where there is little action or dialogue.
November 22, 2007 at 12:49 pm
SPOILER. Response to George and Amelie. Chigurh definitely ended up with the money. Reasons are:
1. Chigurh was the only one who knew that Moss was hiding the money in the air ducts from the previous motel room.
2. When Sherriff Bell looks down to see the register return screws on the floor, you see the dime that Chigurh used to also open the other return in the previous motel room.
3. When Chigurh gets in the car accident he gives the young boy a bloodied $100 bill for the shirt, much like the one Moss gave the mariachi in Mexico to take him to a hospital.
I am still having a problem with Chigurh and Bell in the motel room at the same time and nothing happening, Bell definitely knew Chigurh was in there by his actions before he walked into the room. I wonder if the milk and the reflection on the tv from earlier in the movie had anything to do with that scene?
November 22, 2007 at 9:39 pm
No gentlemen, you have it all wrong. When Lu left the hospital he at that time retrieved the money (you did not see this happen). That is how he had the money to return to store for clothing where he made boot purchase earlier. In regard to Anton in the room it's simple, he was behind the door but booked while the sheriff was looking around. He had no reason to waste his time in killing Mr. Bell.
By the way, all the women including myself have a crush of Chigurh. Just not so certain any of us would really want to have a run in with him.
Happy Thanksgiving!!
November 22, 2007 at 9:52 pm
To understand the scene with Bell and Chigurh at the end, and the lack of confrontation, you have to understand what Chigurh is meant to represent. Bell expresses at one point that he considers Chigurh a ghost. Chirgurh, as stated by others here, is more than a pyschotic murderer. He represents death, the harshness of life, some sort of twisted fate that we can't escape or stop. That motel room scene is symbolic, in my opinion. Bell is unable to confront and end that evil in the world, something he is endlessly tormented by. It continually eludes him. If I'm right on this, I think it's a brilliantly written scene (whether it was in the book or not I'm not sure). If this isn't the case, then I'm at a loss...
November 23, 2007 at 6:17 am
Chigurh got the money in the end. In the hotel scene you see the vent opened with a dime. Earlier in the movie he opens a vent in the first hotel room with a dime also. Chigurh never pays for anything during the entire movie except at the end when he pays of the kids (with a 100 dollar bill mind you which the suitcase was filled of) to say he had already vacated the premisis. This leads me to believe he got the money/
November 23, 2007 at 11:18 am
Javier Bardem is an incredibly attractive man. I always have loved a Spaniard. From what I have read he has been type casted as a bad guy, but if you see "the sea inside"
or the film "before night falls"(Johnny Depp plays dual roles and Sean Penn is in this film) the ladies will be much fonder of him and you will get to enjoy two films with him that tell incredible, believable stories. He deserves all of the recognition he gets from these 2 new films that are coming out. He is a genius at his craft
November 23, 2007 at 11:54 am
I am a little suprised that no one has raised the question of Woody Harlson's character and his significance. Chigurh is obviously, in my opinion, meant to represent fate. You cannot reason with him, yet he indulges his targets in conversation. Once in his sights the only thing that can intervene is the flip of a coin. I believe Harlson's character to be representative of the pitfalls of hubris.
Also, I think that the cattle gun is an interesting item. Is it just an eccentric prop or does it mean more than that. I surmise that it could be suggesting, in the same way Chigurh does regarding fate, that we are all cattle with the potential of being slaughtered for someone else's gain. I think this is one of those movies that would reveal more of itself after a repeat viewing.
November 23, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Amazing movie. The first coin toss scene is utterly brilliant. In regards to the hotel scene, it's kinda in the book, only Chigurh is sitting in his car while Bell pulls up. Bell goes in, sees the register return on the floor, so he leaves, goes around the corner to where he'd be able to see people driving away, and calls in other cops. They arrive, but Chigurh's already gone. The movie's scene is much more tense, but it is somewhat problematic in a realistic sense, but, like Noah says, not as problematic thematically.
Amelie - I don't remember the details from the book, but I know Chigurh was caught commiting a crime, and I think it was killing somebody, but I'm not positive. It's only mentioned in a brief comment in the book.
November 23, 2007 at 1:34 pm
This movie left a mark.
I loved the ambiguous ending. Especially the scene near the end where Bell enters the hotel room. Contrary to what Ruby writes, it's not obvious to me that Chigurh "booked" when Bell was looking around other parts of the room. To believe that requires you to think that Bell, nobody's fool, for sure, let a psychopathic madman slip through his fingers due to sheer ineptitude. Maybe. It's more interesting, though, to think that Bell, at the moment of truth, could not work himself up to confront the evil lurking, literally, behind that door.
November 23, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Who killed Moss?
November 23, 2007 at 3:21 pm
[SPOILER] Who killed Moss, AND who got the money? The Mexicans driving off as Bell arrives? (Bell didn't think so.)
As to why Bell and Chigurh don't interact, previous explanations (referring to the film, not the novel, which non vidi) are unsatisfactory. Bell pulls his pistol and turns on lights; "being unready for death" isn't the issue. Chiguhr is situated behind a door--but not the door Bell enters. What's going on? He's "a ghost"? But he's a ghost with a broken arm at the end of the movie.
Possibility: earlier in the film Moss hides the money in an airshaft that he accesses from ANOTHER MOTEL ROOM. Did (a) Moss try the same thing a second time; (b) the Mexicans shot up the place but didn't have a chance to get the money . . . (c) Chiguhr returned for the money but waited in a different room? (But if he got the money . . . and had killed Moss . . . WHAT WAS HE WAITING FOR?)
November 23, 2007 at 4:21 pm
17 - Moss is killed by the Mexicans during the shootout, however, they were unable to find the money. Chigurh came later, and took off the register return with the dime, like he had done earlier. This is one of the issues I had with the movie, in that there were details that would have been easy to show in the movie that were left out, even though they are inferred and explained in the book. However, still my favorite serious movie of the year.
November 23, 2007 at 8:26 pm
My favorite part was when he left Moss's wife's house, and you don't know what happened until he checks his shoes for blood...that made me laugh.
November 23, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Ending is STUPID!
November 23, 2007 at 8:37 pm
[SPOILER] My take is the same as Eric P's (15). It looks like Bell wimps out at the crime scene and doesn't take on Chigurh though he knows he's there. Then in the next scene, Bell's dad's old deputy tells him a story about how his grandfather died confronting some bad guys. And in the next scene, Carla Jean is killed by the evil Bell didn't deal with and that evil then lives on at the end. Pretty bleak.
November 23, 2007 at 9:01 pm
My thoughts:
Chigurh went to the motel (after Moss had been killed by the Mexicans) and found the $ in the air shaft. Bell had gone to the hotel based on the conversation with the other sherriff about Chigurh being so bold that he went back to a crime scene. I believe that Bell knew Chigurh was probably still in the room. His inability or desire to confront Chigurh means something. Bell represents society and its inability to deal with the unrelenting wave of senseless violence (Chigurh) which has overtaken us. The most important message I gleamed from the movie is....don't ever stop on the highway for a man with a pageboy haircut holding a high-powered air gun!
November 24, 2007 at 1:32 am
I'm not sure if Chigurh was in the same room or adjacent room, as both seemed to have the deadbolts popped out. Yes, I did notice the play of the reflection in the empty tumbler, but still it isn't clear it was the same room.
To me the central theme was expressed in the line that you can't stop what is coming. McCarthy is not writing an examination of a serial killer here, he's writing about American culture. Other lines like "where are all these people coming from", and "it's like a war", "kids with green hair and bones in their noses..." etc., all point to the question, where is this country/culture going, for these geezers. I think McCarthy is pointing to the question that many of the older generations are asking, (and not so older generations). You here the question in our discourse everyday, there are news programs about whether "Democracy can survive", and it is a good question. For these reasons "No Country for Old Men," is a multiple entendre, and as close as McCarthy has gotten to a mad max like futuristic prediction so far. We are not there yet, but we have progressed from the time setting of the film in a natural flow. We may not know what is coming, but whether we can stop it or not seems academic, we are already reaping what we have sown. Happy Black Friday.
November 24, 2007 at 9:17 am
anyone else find the exclusion of moss' showdown with the mexicans a bit strange? Clearly he had let his guard down and was having a beer but why didn't we see what happened? So much was made from his efforts at survival but we got nothing of his death...
November 24, 2007 at 10:28 am
But in response to Steve (#23 above), recall that the deputy tells Bell that his grandfather died in a violent attack, the point being that the sort of violence Chiguhr represents is nothing new. I take Bell's (and the other sheriff's) talk about "where these people are coming from" to be the sort of denial/evasion/bargaining that others present to Chiguhr ("you don't have to do this," etc.). The evil is perennial, constant.
November 24, 2007 at 10:53 am
23 - "The Road" has taken the place of "a mad max like futuristic prediction". In "The Road", America has been destroyed by an apocalyptic nuclear attack. The story centers on a man and his son trying to survive a bleak, gray landscape where almost everything edible has been destroyed or eaten. It's not light reading, and even more depressing than "No Country for Old Men."
24 - It's because Moss is really not the main character in the movie, and it's a tragic greek drama thing used by McCarthy in the book. In the old greek tragedies, all of the violence happened off stage. Ponder it further, and you'll figure some of it out.
21 - If charging into a room where you think the bad guy is is wimping out, I don't even know how to respond to that. However, I would suggest reading the book, and there is a story that Bell tells the old deputy - who is Bell's uncle if I remember correctly - about a past experience he had, which has some bearing on what your talking about.
November 24, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Twice the sheriff is called "Anton". Once by the cop in El Paso who tells him that the killer is crazy (and the Tommy Lee Jones character disputes that). When the TL Jones is in the car, the El Paso cop says "...goodbye, Anton..." to him.
In the last scene, his wife (/) calls him (the TL Jones character) Anton!
The credits list TL Jones as Sheriff Tom Ed Bell.
November 24, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Thanks for the posts about Bell in the motel room. That helps me understand a bit better. Still, on a common sense level....it is ridiculous that he didn't turn on the light
in the room. If he had, he would have seen the bad guy. Why would you not turn on the light if you thought a threat resided there in.
November 24, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Do hotel managers in south Texas not bother calling the police when multiple gunshots are fired? Or should we assume the police arrive after the culprits have cleared out?
What the heck kind of dogs *were* those--mastiff/rotweiller/pit bull mix? How do you film a scene like the river chase?
I've got to revisit the book, but does anyone think the final scene where Chigurh walks off down the street was a Coen Brothers evocation of the scene in Silence of the Lambs where Lecter is seen walking down a street in Port au Prince (or some such Caribbean)? Or does that scene happen in the book, too?
November 24, 2007 at 2:32 pm
#27 Mike G: No one calls the sheriff "Anton." They call him "Ed Tom," which is what the credits name him: Ed Tom Bell (not Tom Ed).
#5 Amelie: It's not significant that it was a deputy and not the sheriff who captured Chigurrh, because it was a different county. It wouldn't have been Sheriff Bell anyway. When Bell is talking to his own deputy at the scene of the car fire, he summarizes everything: This guy killed that deputy in that other county, then killed the guy on the highway, stole his car, etc.
November 24, 2007 at 4:58 pm
29 - For the dog scene, they had Josh Brolin put a dog toy under his shirt that made the dog go ballistic, so that it relentlessly go after and charge at him. I read about it in Time magazine. I don't remember what type of dogs they were.
The book ends with Ed Tom telling his dream. I remember thinking about Silence while watching that scene, and I think the Coens have brought to life a killer just about as diabolical as that movie, so it makes sense.
November 24, 2007 at 8:53 pm
SPOILERS...SPOILERS...SPOILERS...SPOILERS..SPOILERS...SPOILERS...
"DID YOU REALLY SEE MOSS DEAD?" I don't think so. After the killing scene with the mexicans there was slow but rapid glance of someone who resembled
Moss dead on the floor in the motel..."OR WAS IT HIM?" I say no since we are then shown a body in the morgue who did not look like Moss at all. Then we go to the burial of the mother. If Moss got killed why didn't we see that burial? My take is that there will be a sequel to this film with the maniac killer and Moss going at it.
They both lived at the end. Moss still has the money and the Sheriff is somehow related to the maniac killer. The Coens luved that Halloween movie specifically the ending.
November 24, 2007 at 10:48 pm
saw this movie this afternoon. don't know about all the metaphisical, philosophical stuff yall are sayin' although WHAT you are surmising makes sense.
just seems to me to be about how " the growing tide" that none of us can stop is coming. my frends laugh at me but, as a christian who does believe in the end times and the apocolypse - i have been in the actual valley of megiddo and actually had goose bumps on my flesh knowing about it's past and it's future - i was mesmerized watching this movie about the seeming capriciouness of evil.
I believe God only allows sick, mindless evil as shown in the movie, to exist until He is ready to put the REST of His plan into action. Might be in my lifetime or not.
If this movie doesn't earn several Oscars for acting and directing . . . . . then the world surely is going to HEll in a handbasket.
November 25, 2007 at 3:46 am
THE ENDING IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK
When Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) returns to the Motel Crime Scene the entire film comes together.
Consider the extent to which the Cohen Bros. emphasized the lack of conclusive visuals. For example, the confrontation between Carla Jean and Chigurh can be deduced out of obscurity but nevertheless we’re deprived any concrete knowledge. After all, he may have looked at his boots after leaving (indicating he killed her), but on the other hand, he wasn’t carrying any weapons. In fact, he wasn’t carrying any inside the house either.
BACK TO THE MOTEL - Without question, the film’s most crucial confrontation occurs between Chigurh and Bell inside that room. Do you remember this? Probably not, since we're not invited to watch it, The confrontation happens sometime after Bell realizes the vent had been dismantled, but before he drives to visit his uncle Ellis. (Chigurh shares an on-screen conversation with every major characters except Bell)
My hypothesis:
1. Bell sells his soul to Chigurh.
2. Chigurh was never interested in money.
3. Bell keeps the money (and retires in the following scene)
4. Chigurh is set free by Bell
Prior to making my case -
consider Bell’s opening monologue -
Bell:
You can say it's my job to fight it but I don't know what it is anymore. More than that, I don't want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, okay, I'll be part of this world.
Also - Remember in the following scene that Bell visits his uncle Ellis? During their conversation he admits that he’s retiring. He admits to feeling abandoned by God. And he admits to knowing that God doesn’t think highly of him -
Bell:
...I always thought when I got older God would sort of come into my life in some way. He didn't. I don't blame him. If I was him I'd have the same opinion about me that he does.
Ellis
You don't know what he thinks.
Bell
Yes I do.
- His response to Ellis is revealing in the context of this unseen confrontation with Chigurh. How else would he know what God thought? Would Lucifer have such information? Was Chigurh God? Was Bell?
As far as Bell’s retirement; He was old, and cynical of the times. However, he had not intended to retire. Something happened between the time we left him at the motel room and when we picked up with him at Uncle Ellis’. It’s also worth mentioning how Moss refered to himself as retired when Wells inquiried. Moss playfully called Carla Jean retired during their bus trip. And when Bell gets the money, Bell does the same. Or so I presume. His wife Loretta isn’t retired, and she reminds him of this over breakfast that morning.
See- Bell hasn’t told her yet. He will never tell her. He will never tell anyone. And this is the suffering that really materializes in that last shot. Bell is not a man devastated by his own physical or intellectual limitation, but by that of his morality.
Remember when Chigurh wastes the Steven Root character? The accountant asks Chigurh if he plans to kill him as well. Chigurh replies with; “That depends. Do you see me?” On one level, this dialogue plays on the practice of “killing the witnesses”. On a subtexual level, there a lot of religious and ghostly implications in that question.
Again, Back to the Motel Room.
There have been a number of disagreements about the facts of the scene. Here is what you must understand.
Chigurh was in the room. It was not imagination on the part of Bell. Chigurh was not renting the room next door. End of story. The Editing was clear. In fact, it was traditional. The original screenplays supports this position.
Chigurh did not escape out the window. I picked up on this immediately. Do folks not recall an awkwardly long take of the small bathroom window? You may remember that the window was locked from the inside (supported in the screenplay). And, not to mention, the window was too small for Chigurh to climb out of with his weaponry, satchel, and busted leg.
Chigurh DID NOT have the money at the end of the movie. In fact, no one even sees the satchel again after the poolside prostitute conversation. Chigurh wasn’t interested in the loot. He refused to even entertain Wells’ claim of its whereabouts. In a fantastic line of dialogue, Chigurh explains how he doesn’t know where the money is but he knows where it will be; “It will be brought to me and placed at my feet”.
In a nutshell -
Bell busts in just as Chigurh is about to grab the loot and leave. Bell sits on the bed. Sees the vent. Decides to check it out. Chigurh confronts him. Coin gets flipped. Chigurh buys his freedom and moves on to another soul. He is evil personified.
best,
Henderson.nj@gmail.com
November 25, 2007 at 8:17 am
32- I hate to break it to you, but everything you said is ridiculous. It was clearly Moss' body in the motel and in the morgue. It is very clear in the book that Moss is dead. And if you think that the Coens are the kind of filmmakers that are going to butcher the source material in order to cash in on a sequel, you haven't been paying attention. No Country for Old Men 2 has as good of a chance as being made as Fargo 2 (starring the remainder of Steve Buschemi's left leg).
November 25, 2007 at 9:05 am
SPOILERS...
Why *did* Moss go back to the scene? At the time, I figured it was because there was the one guy still alive (who might give information about him). Or was there another reason?
Also, were there *two* transponders? If so, how incredibly stupid of Moss not to search through the money (and why not transfer it to another container?). If there was only the one transponder, how did the El Paso killers find him?
November 25, 2007 at 11:00 am
I saw this right after "Before The Devil Knows You're Dead" (my own bloody double feature) and was stricken by the similarity of themes. Both involve "victimless" thefts (drug dealers, insurance company, drug dealer), a character representing raw evil, a younger character who seems driven by fate, and an older character who's lost hope in human nature.
Both really great films, but the dialog, setting, and periferal characters here make this the winner, I think. I'd love to hear what other people who see both think.
If you liked Javier Bardem here, really do see "The Sea Inside"-- I fell in love with him there.
This is a great discussion-- best I've found about this film.
November 25, 2007 at 11:02 am
I agree that its unlikely Moss is dead; not only did we not see his burial, but his wife tells Chigurh that she just came back from burying her mother - no mention of burying her husband. Also, in her dialog with Chigurh she continually refers to Moss in the present tense. The ending is a prelude to the sequel - Moss fakes own death, ambushes Chigurh for revenge and spends the $2MM on hookers and blue label booze...
November 25, 2007 at 11:43 am
#36 WillieW: There was one transponder, which Moss found, but there were two receivers -- one for Chigurh, one for the Mexicans. The Mexicans couldn't track him anymore after he found the transponder. That's why they followed Carla Jean and her mother to the bus station, whereupon a "Mexican in a suit" cordially asked the old lady where they were headed and what hotel they were staying at....
People who think Moss isn't dead: You are mistaken. The film is all about the cruelty and randomness of life, and that's why we don't get to see his death or his body -- because it's what we want. We want closure, and the movie's point is that life doesn't often give it to us. We want Bell to capture and kill Chigurh, too, and that doesn't happen either. Life is frustrating and unfair.
Bell saw Moss' dead body at the motel and came outside to inform Carla Jean of the sad fact. He later sees the body in the morgue. It doesn't matter that WE don't see the body; Bell does.
The reason Carla Jean doesn't mention having just buried her husband is that she hasn't "just buried" her husband. It happened weeks earlier. But she had just come from burying her mother that very day.
November 25, 2007 at 1:01 pm
#39 Eric: Oh yeah, I forgot about that polite Mexican in a suit at the bus station.
But what about my other question--Why did Moss go back to the scene at the beginning? Was it because he worried the one survivor (the "agua" guy in the pickup) might describe him? Does the book give more information about his reasoning for this?
November 25, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Chig gets the money, you do see him paying off the kid at the end with a crisp 100.
November 25, 2007 at 6:24 pm
40: He can't sleep and goes to bring water to the guy in the truck. He was being soft and stupid. He even told his wife he was being stupid. The guy in the truck might have been able to describe him, but so what? He didn't know Moss got the money and what do you think they would have been able to do with a description of Moss? Some gringo with a moustache, cowboy hat and gun came poking around. Great. Moss had no concern about that. He was bringing water to a dying man who asked him for water. Everyone in this movie kept returning to the scene, practically asking for trouble each time around. That was the event that started it all off.
November 25, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I think the motel scene is the most troubling of all.
My reaction at the time was that Sheriff Bell was killed by Chigurh. Subsequent scenes with Bell are him as a ghost, if you will.
Also, I don't think the mother-in-law's funeral was right on the heels of the El Paso hotel killing. I assume she died of cancer, perhaps a year or two later. And, if Bell was alive and did, in fact, retire, those scenes took place significantly later on. Again, also years later. If Chigurh didn't already have the money, his encounter with Moss' wife at the end wouldn't have been so evil, would it? Think of how sinister Chigurh would be if he got the money and still did what Moss made him promise to do.
November 25, 2007 at 7:30 pm
SPOILERS
33. There weren't two transponders, there were two recievers, one was Chigurh's and the other unseen one was given to the Mexicans
November 25, 2007 at 9:45 pm
The mother-in-law died in 1980. There are several other references in the movie that state the current year is 1980.
Remember, there's throw away dialogue in this (or other Coen Bros movies). All that seemingly insignificant rambling has a purpose. I'd like to read the script. Does anyone has a URL to a site with it?
November 25, 2007 at 10:39 pm
One of the finest films I have ever seen. The ending left me a bit sick. I wanted more, but understood that it had to end that way. I think Chigurh represented death incarnate. He along with the devil would play with your life on a coin flip. The acting was excellent across the board.
November 26, 2007 at 8:35 am
for those of you left unsatisfied by the ending i would say to remember many issues of life remained unresolved--the genius of the movie is in its ironic ambiguities . that one left a mark.
November 26, 2007 at 10:15 am
I would like to add my two cents to this great discussion
After seeing a second viewing of this movie, there was one small scene that I noticed that I believe has a lot of meaning. When Bell goes back to the motel and is standing in the doorway, his shadow is being thrown against the motel room wall and the silhouette created could be that of any "old west" sheriff preparing to draw (think Gary Cooper in High Noon)
He is an old time sheriff coming to that motel room to face down evil except now times have changed - evil is everywhere - and ridding the world of it is no longer that simple. Was Chigurh (evil) in the room? Of course he was, he is everywhere. The realization hits him as he sits on the bed and that is the point he knows he has to retire. This move is, at its roots, a Western.
November 26, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Lots of people say it defies a genre. It could be a modern day Western...but all the emphasis on Chigurh and Moss make it more of an amalgam of genres. However, if I was forced to call it -- and Anton Chigurh was asking -- I'd say it was most like a monster flick.
November 26, 2007 at 6:42 pm
#39 Eric...Your main review of this movie was GREAT! But your speculation on what happened is off. Maybe you should see the movie again. The movie was not exactly as the book read. Even though the Coen boys are not known for sequels of their movies, this one may happen. It would be a "CASH COW."
NOTE...Moss lives and still has the money.
November 26, 2007 at 7:46 pm
A couple of things:
If Moss wasn't dead, why was Carla so upset when she arrived?
If Chigurh doesn't have the money, then how did he pay the boys at the end? Yes the satchel is missing, but he obviously had contact with the money to even get one of the bills.
November 26, 2007 at 8:59 pm
#51 James. If you remember in the beginning Sheriff Bell said to his deputy..."I KNOW THAT TRUCK, BUT I HAVE NEVER MET THE BOY WHO DRIVES IT." Hence Sheriff Bell did not know what Moss looked like. So when the wife arrived, Sheriff Bell thought it was Moss but it really wasn't. That's why the next scene in the morgue, the body did look like Moss at all (look real close at the clean shaven face). Why no burial for Moss as the mother? As far as the money he gave the boy, Chigurh could have got that anywhere. There's just not enough clues for this movie puzzel that Moss is indeed dead.
"MOSS LIVES."
November 26, 2007 at 9:06 pm
ERROR CORRECTION...Scene in the morgue..."The body did NOT look like Moss at all!"
November 26, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Everyone ignore Jackk. He's having a laugh. Sheriff Bell doesn't say, "I know that truck but I have never met the boy who drives it." He says nothing of the kind. He says he knows the truck, and that it belongs to Moss. The deputy says, "Llewellyn Moss?" Bell says, "That's the boy." Bell's chats with Carla Jean indicate he already knows her; why wouldn't he know her husband, too? Besides, how would he know who the truck belongs to unless he knows the guy who owns it?
As for the body in the morgue not looking like Moss, that's a stretch, considering the body is under a sheet and we don't even see its face.
I'm guessing Jackk is playing a joke on the "Moss is alive" people by pretending to agree with their mistaken theory. It is probably his way of mocking it.
November 27, 2007 at 10:44 am
I watched this movie last weekend and I loved it. Has all you can expect from a good movie. I would call it a modern western movie. Especially it reminded me of the Leone’s movie “The Good, The Bad, The Ugly”… you know, Moss comes across some dead bodies, someone is still alive and asks for water and he finds money there…in that western movie also everything started after such a scene.
About the hotel room scene, which is the most controversial, I think Bell did not know that Chigurh is still in the room at that time and that’s why he looked around a little when he entered. However, Chigurh who was in there, behind the door, didn’t kill him maybe because there was no joy for him in killing and old, almost retired police officer, or maybe he admired him.
November 27, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I agree with 'nick henderson's' (34) interpretation: Bell 'wins' a coin flip.
I did, however, think of an alternative explanation.
Chigurh kills Bell in the motel room. Notice that Bell (and the tone of the movie) is completely different after the motel scene. Something happens in the motel room that 'takes the life out' of Bell and I think his life has actually been taken.
Bell talks to three people about his "retirement": uncle Ellis, the other 'oldtimer' cop, and his wife. I don't believe that any of them appear in the movie prior to the motel scene. Like Bell, these three are spirits and they could only be introduced to the audience after Bell's death.
Flame away!
November 27, 2007 at 3:51 pm
55 - Chigurh doesn't kill for joy. I don't remember who says it, but somebody in the movie says that he would kill you for the "inconvinience." I also don't think that Chigurh is behind the door when Bell opens it. The movie clearely shows the door bouncing off the wall when it's opened. Unless Chigurh is a lot thinner than he appears to be, the door would have made an audible sound hitting him. Also, Moss asks Wells if Chigurh is supposed to be "the ultimate bad ass". Wells doesn't answer, but the rest of the movie argues pretty convincingly that Chigurh is. Is this guy who has no trouble strangling a cop in the police station seriously going to either just let Bell go, or hide behind the door and slip out quietly while Bell goes into the bathroom? I don't think so.
November 27, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Was at an industry screening last night and Javier Bardem did a short Q&A after the film. To make a long story short: a lot of it is intentionally left open to interpretation. Chigurh is not so much a man as a "force of nature, an icon, evil in the flesh", at least according to the man who played him.
And no, he is not behind the door when Bell opens it, just the thought of him is there.
November 27, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Why do we all love this movie if there are so many loose ends? I walked out of the theater and had a long conversation with an older couple, total strangers, walking out of the theater trying to solve all this. And to think I went to the bathroom for two minutes!
SPOILERS
My gut told me two things that didn't get resolved in convesation with the couple and then I stumbled on this site and I'm glad, because now I know I'm not the only one head-scratching . . . .
two things: I didn't think that guy laying in the doorway of the hotel was Moss, but I know a lot of people did. I thought it was a mexican, the one who helped the mother with her suitcase.
the other: I thought that Chigurrth escaped through the duct in the hotel room because he knew it led to the room on the other side. Was it too small for him to slide through? I didn't get the sense that it was.
I thought Moss still had the money at the end, and if he was dead, I thought that Bell had it. I love this movie and the way it so starkly laid out these impressive, scary, dismal, hopeless themes, but I think it could have been just as powerful and work just as well if we knew the answers to these questions . . .
November 27, 2007 at 10:48 pm
#59...John. Your right that Moss is alive. I spoke to several of my friends who seen the movie also and they also said the body laying in the doorway did look like a Mexican. That scene in the Morgue really did it for me. The sheet covered the body up to the shoulders but the face was revealed and it was clean shaven. That suitcase that the Mexican helped the mother with is I figure the Mexican thought it was possibly the money. That funeral of the mother also added to that Moss was still alive. This movie was fun to watch with moviegoers trying to figure out what really happened. It's only a movie though. Maybe some take it a little too serious.
I really would like to see a sequel. Maybe the Coens will do it.
November 28, 2007 at 8:54 am
Loved this movie. Anyone else notice there was no music? Other than one part where there was sort of a low rumble, and in the credits, I didn't hear any score. Thoughts on that? Reflecting McCarthy's spare writing, bare storytelling?
November 28, 2007 at 11:33 am
59 & 60 - The body on the floor is clearly in the same clothes that Moss was in when he was talking to the lady by the pool.
We also love the movie because it's extraordinarily well done.
61 - I'm remembering the same thing, about the music. The silence added to the suspense in several scenes, particularly the scene in the hotel where Chigurh is coming up to the door, but you only hear the footsteps and the reciever.
November 28, 2007 at 2:27 pm
62 - You're right, the body on the floor in the hotel room was definitely Moss' because he was dressed in the clothes he bought after coming back across the border. It wasn't clean shaven either as some have suggested.
Someone also mentioned that they didn't think Chigurh killed Moss' wife because there was no reason to if he already had the money. They mention earlier in the film that Chigurh has his own principles that he operates by, and he felt that he needed to follow through on his promise to Moss that he would go after her if he returned the money to him.
That's my two cents.
November 28, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I saw the movie yesterday. I needed something to take my mind off the senseless killing of Sean Taylor in his bedroom. Talk about art imitating life ...
November 28, 2007 at 10:10 pm
SPOILERS
My take on the Bell/Chigurh hotel scene: Chigurh is not in the room. The previous scene has Sheriff Bell describing Chigurh as a ghost, which establishes Bell's mindset. He then arrives at the hotel room and sees the lock punched out and knows that Chigurh has been there... or worse yet, is still there. Bell sees (or in my opinion thinks he sees) something flickering the lock and imagines Chigurh, the epitome of all that is going wrong in the world, in the unknown darkness beyond the door (which is what we the audience see: Bell imagining Chigurh lying in wait). The whole scene is symbolic: Despite his fear, he still manages to pull his gun and go into the dark unknown... It's a symbolic test for Bell to see if he can confront the changing times, and how things are just going to hell (themes also reinforced in the previous scene with the El Paso Sheriff) . And while he succeeds in entering the room, and discovers that Chigurh had been there (because of the opened vent), he laments in the following scenes that what he learned is that he cannot face the changing times, that he is too old and tired.
That shot of the bathroom window shows that it remained locked. It serves to dispel any thought that Chigurh was actually there but escaped "out the back". I believe it is meant to reinforce in the audience's mind that he was never there in the room with Bell.
November 29, 2007 at 9:32 am
The sheriff was killed by Anton, in the motel room. The rest is elegy.
Or, the sheriff realized Anton was in the room, and let him go, knowing he was overmatched.
November 30, 2007 at 7:19 am
More insight from those who have read the book please...was Chigurh in the same hotel room as Bell? And what does the book say about who has the money?
By the way, I'm not buying all these literal ghost theories...I believe if Chigurh had been in the same room at the same time, Bell would have been killed.
Does the book have Bell's character as a ghost at the end???
November 30, 2007 at 7:21 am
Jeff G is exactly right on the hotel scene. The scene is immediately preceded by a discussion with the local sheriff about Chigurh returning to the crime scene at the Eagle Hotel earlier. Bell has a gut feeling and lawman's instinct and fear that Chigurh went back to the hotel where Moss was killed. He approaches the door, sees the lock cylinder blown out, knows Chigurh has been/is there, and imagines him behind the door. It doesn't matter that Bell does not know what Chigurh looks like, this image in Bell's mind could not be conveyed on screen without invoking the image of Chigurh behind the door. Bell stands in front of the door frozen with fear and anticipation of what might lurk behind it, and wondering if he has the courage to proceed with the confrontation. He sees only his own reflection in the lock, but may imagine others. The film makes it clear that Chigurh is NOT in the room, as Bell swings the door wide open and it is flush with the side wall (no room for hiding). Chigurh has clearly been there and left, but NOT through the locked bathroom window. He left out the front door with the money and vanished.
There is no elegy or selling of the sheriff's soul. There is no sequel. The story was completely told in this masterpiece, and nothing needs to be added. Chigurh lives on, but the Coens are not making a Halloween series with him as the serial killer.
The subsequent final scenes are to give us perspective on Bell and what could be described as the "message" of the film. His world has changed for what he perceives is worse. It has, but bad [stuff] has happened to people through all of time. Not all is fair. Good people are not necessarily rewarded, and bad people are not necessarily punished. In fact, the opposite often is true. There is no sense of just accounting in life. Bell feels unable to continue to fight a war he cannot win, and the truth is that he and no one else ever could. We take what life gives us and hope that we are lucky enough to avoid the random tragedies that befall others.
This is an existential drama that throws the usual Hollywood formulas in our faces. It is not made to uplift, but to provoke. I loved this film.
November 30, 2007 at 9:14 am
I read the book a couple of years ago, but Bell does not die and he is clearly not a ghost. He is a simple man of immense insight into the vagaries of life. Chigurh is not a ghost, but a representation of pure evil and random tragedy.
I have heard people describe Chigurh as an honorable and principled criminal among criminals. McCarthy makes it a point to blow that theory out of the water. Chigurh is a selfish, heartless assassin who destroys the guilty and the innocent with equal disdain.
The book and the film are deeply nontheistic, or at least compellingly agnostic. There is no God. At least not an omnipotent and kind one who doles out reward and punishment fairly. The book goes deeper into the randomness of good luck, bad luck, and worse luck. We all walk our own road while our road intersects with the near infinite roads of others, nature, disease, and fortune with unforseeable results. We have some control over the outcomes of our lives, but we are still all victims of chance.
I did have some problems with logic on first viewing of the film and my first read of the book. If the Mexicans and Chigurh both had receivers for the transponder, why were the Mexicans sitting in Moss' first hotel room? They must have known the money was somewhere in the room, yet they waited for Moss to return to the room. They should have been able to tear the room apart and find the parcel with the money, but they sat around waiting for him. On further thought, the logic was not that important to the film, as there were bigger ideas for the Coens and McCarthy to expound upon.
November 30, 2007 at 11:26 am
I must be the only Coen brothers' enthusiast in America left with a bad taste in her mouth after watching "No Country For Old Men." I admit--I'm a geeky fan. And after reading all those laudatory reviews ("Every bit as good as "Blood Simple," "A tour de force deserving shelf space next to "Fargo"), I went into the theater with high hopes.
And left with one thought: as a director who's bankable enough to turn story structure on its ear, is showing everyone that you can do it more important than telling a good story?
Story structure works like this. We see Hero in everyday world. Some event or person calls Hero to action. He meets with complication after complication (rising tension) until at the midpoint of the story, he learns something he will need in order to achieve his goal. He suffers reversals (turning points) until the blackest moment when all seems lost, followed by the climax and the denouement. 99.9% of stories are crafted along these lines.
So what do the Coens do? For starters, they dispense with any clearly delineated protagonist. If a story protagonist can be defined as someone who experiences the most pronounced character arc during the course of a tale, then I think we might claim the protagonist in "No Country" is Tommy Lee Jones's character.
But in this we are deceived. We spend most of our time with Josh Brolin and are disabused of any notion of his being the protagonist about 3/4 of the way through the film. Are we shocked? Perhaps. But does shocking an audience for the sake of shocking it make this any less of a mediocre movie? No.
If we are to assume Javier Bardem's character, Chiguhr, is Death or, as has been suggested, cruel and capricious fate, we learn nothing, are left with nothing, other than its implacable nature...and an entirely gratuitous scene where he debrides an open wound. Again, was this scene worth shooting? Was this movie worth making?
To my way of thinking, the Coen brothers are--or can be--better filmmakers than this. Depriving us of anyone likable to root for (with the exception of Kelly MacDonald's character, the only one by the way with enough pluck to refuse the coin-toss challenge posed to her by Chirguhr's personification of Death), an emotionally satisfying (or at least understandable) ending, any sense of causally-related cohesiveness (Woody Harrelson's character, while brilliantly acted, bore no relationship to the plot, not even allegorically) does NOT make this movie Oscar worthy. Instead, what we are fed in great abundance, is gore, directorial arrogance, and a whole lot of brilliant cinematography.
After reading all those rave reviews, I left the theater feeling as though I was the only one who realized the emperor wore no clothes.
Joel, Ethan--if by some remote chance you read this--please seal up your bag of cinematic tricks and write a movie with a little heart, okay? You have fans out here. Sure, some of us took a gut punch with this last movie, but we're still willing to give you our time, consideration, and money.
November 30, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Thanks to Eric for his review and to the many who have commented here.
My initial reaction to No Country for Old Men was puzzlement. As I walked out of the theater earlier today, I realized that I had no idea whether Moss was alive or dead nor whether Chigurh was really in the motel room when Sheriff Bell walked in. Upon reflection, and after having read the many insightful comments to Eric’s review, I have concluded that the ambiguity about Moss’s death and Chigurh’s presence in the motel room, as well as a bunch of other stuff, were intentionally left vague. For example, do we really know what became of the money or whether Chigurh finally killed Moss’s wife? The answer, alas, is “no.” I can live with that but I don’t have to like it.
No Country for Old men is, indeed, a masterpiece but it is a flawed masterpiece. Truly great films should be approachable enough to make an immediate impact, it seems to me. This film failed in that endeavor, at least to my mind. That’s too bad, too, because its tone, the language of its characters, and the performances of a great cast were brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. It was certainly worth my time and trouble but it’s no Fargo.
November 30, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Stacey, the Coen goal was not to follow film school rules, but to be true to the book. I guess that you could criticize Cormac McCarthy, not the Coens, as they were simply representing the book quite accurately (including much of the dialogue verbatim).
Bell is the protagonist of the book and the film. His insight on his observations of society and chance and wicked fortune are the heart of the novel and the film. He is a keen, albeit inarticulate, observer of humanity.
Harrelson's Wells is a McCarthy invention to give us perspective on Chigurh's past and his ruthlessness. This plot contrivance was quickly dispatched in the book and the film after he served his purpose.
The film is a punch in the gut. It was never meant to be Gladiator. It is simply, I believe, the greatest Coen film.
November 30, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Stacey - One of the messages of the film is that life is not like a story. There aren't cozy happy endings. The world revolves around capriciousness (if I spelled that right).
The gore in the movie was a reflection about the violence of our times. Also, the scene with the open wound, which parallels Moss', serves to prove how bad-ass Chigurh is (and the same could be said for Moss).
I loved all of the characters. (Even Chigurh, but only in a cool character sorta way. Wouldn't want to hang out with him.) Between Moss and Bell are two incredibly funny, softspoken men who can kick ass when needed to.
You're just wrong about Wells (played by Woody).
And yes, this movie was meant to give us a punch to the gut.
71 - John L
I didn't find Bell inarticulate, but plain-talking. I remember reading the book being amazed at how characters could say so much with so few words.
November 30, 2007 at 7:01 pm
to Betsey #67:
I read the book, the Coens where true to the book, UNTIL you get to this much debated motel scene. In the book, the sequence of events goes like this.
Moss is killed, Bell goes to the morque and id's the body, at night Chigurh goes to the motel and opens the air duct and retrieves the money, then goes outside and sits in his car, he watches as Bell returns to the crime scene opens the door, sits on the bed, looks down at the air duct, goes to the window and goes back out to his car, calls for two more squad cars to come out to the motel. Then they go car by car to see if anyone is around. Chigurh is able to slip away unseen. Next scene Chigurh goes to Root's office to return the bag full of money which is short $100k, Chigurh tells him he took out "expenses" then there is a dialoque about who one should trust in business dealings, Chigurh does NOT kill Root in the book. Next scene Chigurh goes to see Moss' wife, movie and book become true once again.
The Coens' took a huge risk straying from the book at this key point in the story, whether it was right or wrong, is debateable.
December 1, 2007 at 7:00 am
Cappy, I am pretty certain that Root was killed in the book, though I cannot be certain that I remember exactly. He was shot in the throat with birdshot so as not to break the window behind him. There was no accountant in the room in the book, but he was there in the film to tell us that there were two receivers- one for the Mexicans and one for Chigurh.
You are right on the motel scene. The movie really does not stray from the book much, though. The point was that Bell knows that Chigurh WAS in the room and took the money, and he was not certain before he entered the room if he was still there. He still had to summon the courage to enter the room not knowing what lurked behind the door. The film simply places the potential presence of Chigurh as a more immediate threat to Bell entering the room. The gist of the scene is the same.
The book goes much deeper into Bell's psyche. He harbored guilt from his past from being a decorated war hero, when he did not deserve a medal for his actions. The Uncle Ellis scene was also much more detailed with long discussions about random tragedy in their family's past. Bell's character is much better understood through reading of the book. There was a great dialogue that I remember where they talked about luck. It said something like people always talk about having bad luck, when they don't know where their bad luck has saved them from even worse luck.
December 1, 2007 at 8:52 am
Good Discussion. Personally, most poignant scene Luellens wife and Chigurh.
1. Chigurh flips coin asks her to call it.
2. She refuses " No, the coin has no say. There is only you.
3. This frail girl stands up to evil where stronger men and their guns could or would not.
4. he lets her go..
5. Stunned that he did not kill her, he looks at his boots sans blood...
December 1, 2007 at 9:02 am
Doesn't the book portray the sheriff at the scene of Anton's car wreck, after Anton has paid the boys for the shirt and left? In the book, doesn't the sheriff decide only then to let Anton go? If so, why would the directors have varied on that point from the book?
In order to create an ambiguous set of inferences in the scene at the motel room. The sheriff is either killed by Anton while sitting on the bed, looking at the dime on the floor and realizing that Anton is nearby; or the sheriff decides at that point that he is out of his depth and won't pursue Anton further. Putting the Sheriff's decision in the motel room rather than at the scene of the wreck gives the directors the ability to create an ambiguity. Maybe the Sheriff does die in that room. ANd the scenes with his wife, and with the oldtimer in the desert ('19 and zero 9'), are spiritual reflections.
Otherwise, I think they'd have shown him leaving the motel room.
December 1, 2007 at 2:55 pm
The Book:
Just re-read parts of the book and in it:
(1) Chigurh does limp up 17 flights of stairs and kills a man by shooting him in the throat with a "load of number ten lead shot" so as not to rain glass on pedestrians below.) BUT it is to avenge that person hiring Wells to track him.
(2) Later, after Chigurh takes the money from the motel in Van Horn (not El Paso), he actually does return it to someone (he's not named, and I didn't go back to find out if he's named Root), telling him, as cappy says, that it is "short $100k" (part was stolen, part is his "expenses.") The man asks Chigurh, after getting the money, "Who the hell are you?" and then "What do you want. I guess that's my question," to which Chigurh responds, "Well, I'd say that the purpose of my visit is simply to establish my bonafides. As someone who is an expert in a difficult field. As someone who is completely reliable and completely honest." This might have been a good scene for the movie.
(3) In the book, too, Chigurh is at large at the end. Sequels?
(4) One BIG difference in the book is that every chapter opens with an often lengthy first-person italicized musing by Bell, and the final chapter is exclusively this format. This final "soliloquy" I think was actually done as a kind of voiceover by Tommy Lee at the end of the movie.
I confess that I tired of these "prefaces" as I read the book, and skipped through them mostly to get to the action. My son, who has also read most of McCarthy's books, said that I'd thereby missed an important part of the book. But it certainly was a thrilling read without the philosophy or whatever that was. There's enough philosophy in the Chigurh character (and Moss).
December 1, 2007 at 2:58 pm
This was a very gendered film and needed I think the redemptive presence of a Francis McDormand like character in ' Fargo' who while knowing that evil wins the day manages to affirm the beauty and significance of the 'little' things in life-her baby about to be born and the importance of husband Norm's winning the the 3 cent stamp design contest.
December 1, 2007 at 5:31 pm
In reference to those who shared their thoughts on my post (#70): right on, my brothers!
But here's the thing. I think what we're talking about here goes beyond just this movie, which as you know I didn't care for. Perhaps it goes to issues of what we consider art. And that brings up the point I've made before, which is this: just because they could, doesn't mean they should.
I've read the book, by the way. And I understand your argument about how the capriciousness of fate is thematic in both the book and the movie.
So here are my thoughts: 1) this is not a new theme and has been explored far more effectively in movies that didn't thumb their noses at drawing conclusions or making a salient point.
2) The story is cliched enough to required the kind of fancy footwork the Coens employed to make it mildly interesting. Drug deal gone bad? Hayseed sheriff vs. the Dark Unknown? Psychopathic killer with no clearly-defined motive on a killing rampage? Zzzzzz.
3) The movie didn't pass the gut-check and didn't stay with me past the lobby aside from a feeling of disappointment and irritation. Watch Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal." Do you really know what's going on? Hell, no. But you KNOW you are seeing something incredible, even if you only get half of it.
In "No Country" all I was seeing were two guys with great cinematography and editing skills.
If what you are saying, by the way, is true, and the do-it-yourself surgery scene is to underscore Chigurh's tough-ass ways, we already learned that in the first scene.
As for W. Harrelson's character (which was, I'll admit, brilliantly acted), if he was there for the same purpose, that is bonafide, card-carrying overkill.
As far as film school rules, it might be disingenuous to think the Coens aren't trying to tell a story. All movies, all books, are stories. And not all of them adhere to the rules, especially art house flicks and other "non-plot" contrivances. Yet many of those stories are still told quite well.
I continue my original premise. The Coens didn't tell a particularly good story.
December 2, 2007 at 1:34 am
Any thoughts on Bell's dreams about his father?
December 2, 2007 at 7:19 am
Well said, Stacey. We clearly have a difference of opinion, and I respect yours as well thought out and cogent. I love your reference to "Seventh Seal", another wonderfully obtuse film.
The other films that have presented similar themes end with some glimmer of hope. There is no such thing in "No Country", and I particularly enjoyed that, though I may be a bit darker soul than you (I'm an ER doc in a large city, so I see a lot of random violence and tragedy strike innocent people).
I don't believe the Coen's were trying to rewrite McCarthy's story, so the conjecture of sequels is dubious. Moss is dead, Carla Jean is dead, Bell is retired (not dead), Chigurh lives on. Sorry fans. This movie is not a goldmine, and a sequel would not result in a cash cow for the Coens. The story was told and it is over.
December 2, 2007 at 9:10 am
Am I the only one who thinks that Anton and the Sheriff are the same person? Bell's gone a little crazy over the years, and now has this split personality
One of the themes is that nobody sees the killer and lives.
The "Accounting" guy says, "Are you going to shoot me?" Anton: "Depends, did you see me?"
To the kids at the end, Anton says, "You never saw me."
Anyway, the above points are evidence that nobody is able to tell authorities that the sheriff is the killer, because nobody ever sees him and lives!
This is also how everyone found Moss at the end (negates the need for a 2nd receiver. Remember, Carla Jean calls the Sheriff and tells him where Moss and she will meet up.
Remember, Bell says that the killer always visits the crime scene after the fact. Well, Bell visited the scene after the fact. He doesn't see Anton because they're the same person.
Also, Bell has "dreams" in which he sees the exact way Anton kills people (for example with the cattle gun).
I really wish I'd paid more attention to the opening and final scenes, particularly the final scene where he talks to his wife.
Near the end where he speaks to Carla Jean, imagine that Carla has put it all together, and realized she told Bell of Moss's whereabouts--and so she realizes Bell is the killer. When she sees "Bell" (in his killer persona) in her home, she's not surprised. And so she has that chat. If my theory is untrue, wouldn't she be shocked at seeing some stranger in her home? It might not be her first thought that "hey this strange guy in my bedroom is the killer!"
December 2, 2007 at 1:56 pm
#81 - I too see that there was more meaning to the "dream" that Bell related to his wife about his father at the end of the movie. What that meaning is, I can't quite say without going to it again (I saw it on Thanksgiving).
And for the record...I agree with John L.'s (68 & 69) assessment of the motel room scene. And I believe that this was the telling of a "story", not a means to make a sequel (as my father-in-law thought in disgust when we left the theater). I love the Coens' work (MY favorite is O Brother), and I truly believe that they ended the movie the way they did to have people talking about it on the way out of the theater and on the whole trip home (which we did). Ironically, both my father-in-law and I are in law enforcement; he as an aging Sheriff with over 40 years experience, and I as a (almost) middle aged cop. The movie had great meaning to both of us, he being on his way out and I in the middle of it.
December 2, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I thought there were TWO side-by-side rooms at the motel with the locks blown out. Ed went in the room where the KILLER wasn't. The vent went between them. Ed, agaian, avoiding his upcoming eventual death. Beating fate again, beating the mythical coin toss.
December 2, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I haven't read all the comments, but did others find Lu returning to the clothing store in only his boots and a shirt hilarious? "How are the boots doing?" the clerk asks. What I thought of Chigurh is that, among other things, he is the speaker of unavoidable existential truth - a dark truth teller whose voice we prefer not to hear.
December 2, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I just saw this movie. Riveting, great acting, but I left this movie feeling like its creators were trying to create a work of "art" simply by breaking the rules for telling a good story, (like avoiding pointless red herrings, etc.), depicting a world of senseless violence that is devoid of heros and winners (not to mention minimally competent police investigators who aren't burnt out). Well, nice try, but I don't care to go to the movies to end up with the same feeling I get from watching the news and reading the newspapers.
#70, my thoughts, exactly.
December 3, 2007 at 8:40 am
Fascinating commenstary here! I was grasping at meaning after the film, besides being puzzled by the lose strings. If Chigurh represented death, then the meaning of the film, which ties in with the title, is America's inability to confront and manage old age and ultimately death, with dignity. As baby-boomers age, we are going to be dealing with hundreds of thousands of additional people in nursing homes, etc. who are inadequately cared for.
Also, there were direct innuendos in the film -- not even subtle, because of the constant appearance and remarks about Mexicans -- to be made about how we are treating immigrants. When the dog is killed at point-blank range in the film's beginning, you could see that the Mexicans' lives were no more important than that of dogs.
Yes, sure these were bad Mexicans because they were drug dealers; but notice how, when Moss went across to the Mexican border and was in such horrible shape, injured and bloody -- those American teenagers treated him like dirt, only wanting his money and not showing one iota of compassion.
December 3, 2007 at 11:29 am
I read most of this because I was not sure if Moss was dead or not either, and I don't have any really compelling evidence one way or the other but..
One thing I did think of was Moss and his relation to death. Death is all around him all movie and his backstory, rendered at the border check, is that he survived 2 tours of Vietnam, etc. The only thing that doesn't die around Moss in the beginning is the buck he tried to shoot, that lives, he misses.
From then on it's like Moss has the touch of death also, like a survivor carrying a fatal contagion. And he is followed by the contagion also, which he can ward off but not destroy, and perhaps not be destroyed by????
December 3, 2007 at 5:05 pm
# 81(Any thoughts on Bell's dreams about his father?)
The Dream(s) [from the book, but I think it was the same]:
"I had two dreams about him after he died. I dont remember the first one all that well but it was about meetin him in town somewheres and he give me some money and I think I lost it. But the second one it was like we was both back in older times and I was on hosrseback goin through the mountains of a night. Goin through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and there was snow on the ground and he rode past me and kept on goin. Never said nothin. He just rode on past and he had this blanket wrapped around him and he had his head down and when he rode past I seen he was carryin fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. About the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin on ahead and that he was fixin to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold and I know that whenever I got there he would be there. And then I woke up."
In the book, this is probably more significant, since Bell is really the main character of the book, due to all those italicized preambles to the chapters. In the movie, the symbol of fire carried in a horn is a great, vague way of wrapping things up. I'm guessing the Coens left it in there, as someone said earlier, to get us thinking and talking as we left the theater and drove home. I assume the second dream is about Bell's eventual death.
December 3, 2007 at 8:52 pm
My favorite scene of a bunch of favorite scenes: the perspiration subtly building on Woody Harrelson's character as he suspects he's about to become another victim...
December 4, 2007 at 6:54 am
This is a wonderful, civil discussion.
The final dream scene is best interpreted by reading the book. I think it is a final punch in the gut (thanks, Stacey) by McCarthy and subsequently, the Coens. It is a melancholy dream of a son about his father (duh). Hopeful ideas of our parent making a path and providing warmth and light for the often murky, cold and confusing lives with which we all struggle. A glimmer of hope in a dark film. Then the hope abruptly evaporates. Bell wakes up. He is back with his own reality.
As to the comments about the motel scene that everyone wants to deconstruct to minutiae. It does not matter if Chigurh was in the room next door or left earlier. He was not in the room when Bell entered. The point of the scene is that Bell is cognizant that Chigurh had been there and might still be there (the lock blown out), and his struggle with his potential confrontation with this demon.
As to compelling evidence that Moss was dead, how much more compelling do you need than seeing the mustachioed body with Moss' clothes lying in the doorway, and the fact that he is killed in the book? The same goes for Carla Jean. She is dead in the book, and Chigurh looked at his boots for her blood in the film. In the book, she has an impassioned discussion with Chigurh, then eventually calls the coinflip. She was wrong, and she was shot. The Coens don't show her death because we like her, and they cut us a break.
Bell and Chigurh are not the same person, and neither of them is God. People always want to invoke supernatural symbolism in every obtuse film. The book and the film compellingly argue against a God that involves him/herself in the vicissitudes of our lives. The superstitious are up in arms about The Golden Compass, when it is trivial compared to the assault on faith that every sentient and introspective human being should appreciate by simply living their lives. This film begs us to question the existence of God in the form with which we have been accustomed.
Again, this film is a disturbing masterpiece...
December 4, 2007 at 10:50 am
In terms of Bell's dreams at the end, I think it's his realization/admission that, by opting for retirement instead of continuing to pursue Chigurh, he did not live up to his father's standards (or the standards of pride and honor of Western law men).
In the dream, his father rides past, head down (in shame?), without even looking at him. He's going into the cold and dark (evil) to light a fire (hope) and passes Bell without a glance. Bell then says he knows his father is 'making a place for him', but follws it with "And then I woke up" -- meaning literally he woke up from his dream, and perhaps figuratively that he woke up from the delusion that his father was doing this for him (as opposed to the common good?)
The 'last act' of the film (after Moss is killed -- and yes, he WAS killed) changes the tone from a hunter/hunted scenario to a rumination on how we confront death and evil/injustice. Carla Jean stood toe to toe with evil and refused to back down (by not calling the coin toss). Bell slunk away to early retirement.
December 4, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Something is definitely going on here . . . this film has generated by far more comments than any other currently being reviewed. Hmmmmm . . . .
December 5, 2007 at 10:14 am
I agree with #76 in a sense. Sugar (much more fun to call him this) is a cafteria Calvanist. He believes in predestination but allows himself the power to transform fate with a coin. His power is derived from his ability to undo fate, and when Moss's wife takes that away from him, he comes undone. As a "man of principle", the negation of his most powerful self-serving caveat relieves him of his "duty" to carry out the murder of Moss's wife.
In the next scene, Sugar (now a broken, defeated man) suffers a crippling, unpredictable fate. Brilliant and ironic.
December 6, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I just left the theater and immediately rushed home to see what people were saying about the ending. I'm glad I'm not the only one. I have to say that the Coen Brothers never let me down because they like to cross so many genres and work off such rich palettes of themes, characters and messages about the oddity of life. The motel room ending was puzzling to me too...from the tear in Chigurh's eye to the shadows, the window and the dime/screws on the floor.
The person who was on the floor looked nothing like Moss, nor did the body in the morgue. True, you can't see the body, but you can see the face and it was clean shaven. There would be no reason a coroner or other would shave his face.
That said, I don't believe Chigurh would either a) slip out without a sound or b) confront Bell as there would be nothing to gain. I think Moss did escape with the money but perhaps he escaped but died due to taking too much damage. I don't think Moss would have let his wife get killed as there was nothing to suggest he would do that. Chigurh didn't have the money, but his principles told him to kill Moss' wife since that was "his deal".
NOW...Moss' wife would not pick heads or tails on the coin and I think this asked a very simple question of Chigurh: If there is no answer to be had, what was really the question? In this case, Chigurh simply left. As for him having money to pay the kids, Chigurh wouldn't be so petty as to take a few dollars and stuff it in his pocket and the money didn't look all that crisp to me. Chirgurh seems like a man who takes what he wants and doesn't bargain or quibble over the little stuff. Thus, I think he had some cash on him, and in that case, decided to use it.
I loved reading all these comments about what they think happened, and funny thing is, just about every comment has viability as the vagueness of the film leaves a lot to interpretation. Chigurh could represent a lot more than just a sick individual as Bell could represent a lot more than just an aged sheriff. One thing is for sure, had the film been anything less than magnificient there would be hardly a word on this blog...instead, it's an incredible amount of insight from seemingly bright people who enjoy the Coen Brothers films as much as I do.
Now I'm planning on seeing the film again. One thing that might point to some possible answers is how much time the camera lingered on the mom's grave and the date. That might supply something in relation to timeline and a second viewing might just answer so more from this puzzle. To be honest, I wasn't really paying that much attention to the very last scene since I was trying to wrap my head around the four prior scenes. A master stroke.
By the way, I am Texan and have actually traveled much of the border towns they have in the film. The only difference is these towns actually have LESS going for them than what the film suggests. I've been through Del Rio and Hudspeth counties several times. In Hudspeth, as of last year, their high school graduating class was 3. And I know the sheriffs of both of those towns...it's pretty lawless with all the drug running, people smuggling and Mexican military incursions but in these little Texas towns, the top law man is the Sheriff. Just thought I'd add a little background. The sights are breathtaking and very rich with Western culture.
Clyde
December 6, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Well, my take appears to be a bit more positive than many offered here, particularly how I interpret the dream scene.
The dream is an epihany for Bell. The cold and dark up ahead are death, the fear of which has caused him (a force of Good) to retire, rather than confront Evil (in the form of Chigur). His dream of his father lets him know that he needn't fear death, that his father (hmmm, could by christian symbology) has prepared a place for him. He has decided (or is in the process of realizing as he tells his wife the dream) that he will return to the force and find Chigur, even if it means he'll lose his own life. He's not afraid of death anymore, he feels his callling to fulfill his duty as an agent of Good, he is prepared to fulfill his destiny as the Hero we've known him to be all along (even though he had been unable to see it himself).
I left the film feeling very uplifted and inspired, even though Chigur had really spooked me out. Good (as is often the case) looks overmatched by Evil, but ultimately doesn't back down from confronting it. Very positive film...
December 6, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Well, here goes my 2 cents:
While I agree with most of the comments concerning the hotel (ref: both Chigur and Bell in the room together), I do think it's a little absurd to render the audience blind by not including more detail. By this, I mean to say that by witnessing the murder of Moss, by examining the fate of Bell, etc... we can still come to our own conclusions of what this movie's point or lesson is.
December 7, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Started reading this review and the resulting conversation minutes after coming home from the cinema.. like many others it seems.
Don’t mean to demean anyone’s responses, but I do find some of the statements about being 'certain' what did or did not happen a bit surprising. This is a story; none of it happened in the literal sense. All we have are our interpretations of that which was not made explicitly clear. The interpretations that we choose are, in my mind, more telling of our own expectations of where the story (or life for that matter) 'should' go. Any disappointment felt by people is a result of the same.
Dissapointment = expectation - reality
(Stayce's feelings are a good example of this)
I dearly wanted Moss to live. I wanted him to ride off into the future -wife, kids, happily ever after- with the money. Maybe with some double team action between Moss and Bell taking out Chigur.
Alas, in my world, Moss is dead. His wife is dead. Bell is disillusioned and will never sleep properly again, retired or no.
I always try to hope for the best, but a part of me is always planning for the worst. Might be a bit bleak, but I can tell you that I am very thankful for all the things -large and small- which do go my way.
A pessimist is a realist, but optimists have more fun. The mind we have been given and the lives we live allow us to be both.
One specific piece of dialog relating to Moss’s fate that I haven’t read in the above conversation: {fat, shiny faced Sheriff from El Paso speaking to Bell} “I’m sorry we couldn’t help your boy” –in my mind your boy must be Moss, who else was needing of help in Bell’s perspective?
Good night and good luck all.
December 8, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Maybe in a way they were the same person because they each gave a person money for their shirts!!!!!!
December 8, 2007 at 6:33 pm
HOly cow genius you are a genius. You have wowed me.
December 8, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I think Sheriff Ed Tom = Anton. (At least in movie version)
I wrote a post on IMDB (see above link)
December 11, 2007 at 12:48 am
Great review! Great thread! I think Nick Henderson (post #34) has the most viable hypothesis.
Sheriff Bell takes the money at the end after motel scene. Here are the reasons I found to support this:
1. The only time anyone in the film talks of "retirement" is when they are in posession of the money.
2. Chigur has not other motivation to see Carla except to retrieve the satchel. There's no need to track her down weeks/months later if he had the money.
3. At the end, Bell mentions he had TWO dreams about his father. He says, "first one I don't remember so well but it was about money."
IMO, the film doesn't lend any other solid clues as to who else could've walked away with the loot. The cash Chig gives the kid for his shirt is curious, but he doesn't walk out of Carla's house with the satchel. Does he? Guess, I'll have to see if a few more times to make sure.
December 12, 2007 at 2:02 am
Wow.
I have never been so moved by a motion picture. This doesn't mean that I was moved in a positive manner as I would normally expect, nonetheless I'm awstruck.
I think most of the controversial scenes described above all leave some interpretation up to the viewer. Here are my thoughts on some of the perplexing moments from the movie.
1. Chigurh vs. Carla
Chigurh is angered by her indecision to choose. What happens when you don't choose heads or tails when confronted? He has no weapon in the room, yet he checks his boots when he leaves for "something". *Note the detail in the scene with Woody's character where he avoids getting blood on his boots. Carla was brave and everyone hopes she lived, but I think most of the previous posts fail to realize that Moss did not fulfill Chigurh's demand. Therefore, he followed through on his word.
2. Who has the money?
To me this was the biggest let down of the movie...or so I thought at first. Take note that the entire situation was started by greed: The mexican smuggling transaction gone bad and Moss' aquisition of the money. The whole plot of the action-based part of the movie revolves around greed. The scene after the car crash with Chigurh and the boys tells the entire story in a subtle, yet humorous way. Chigurh gives the $100 bill (note symbology of blood on the bill) to the boy for his shirt and what appeared to be an agreement of silence. The other boy requests half of the money and is denied by his friend. I personally found the lack of information regarding the satchel frustrating...but following this trail makes me just as guilty as all those chasing it in the movie. *Note Bell's 1st dream recollection about the money his dad gave him and the fact that he thinks he lost it.
3. Bell's Dream
I felt the last monologue of the film to be some of the most beautifully spoken words, despite their dark setting. To me the historical reference to the horn lamps and his father symbolized something very close to him in his past. His father didn't offer any advice because he too struggled with the meaning of a cruel world. The awaiting camp fire ahead symbolizes the underlying structure of humanity; that somehow through all of the cruel (cold and dark) things in the world we try to look forward to something good.
With others here I agree that some scenes (Chigurh self help) could have been omitted. I'm not upset with the ending, as it instilled infinite mystery into my inquisitive brain. However, I will say the book/movie/overall story could have been wrapped up beautifully by TLJ before his final dream speech. Think about it...Bell knows what happened...how would letting the audience know take away from his darkened view of life. In fact, I think it could have made the ending even more dramatic. I think most of us will agree we have some closure issues.
There are two kinds of people in the world
1. Those that need closure
2.
December 12, 2007 at 2:16 am
Also, on a humorous side note, I watched this movie on a first date. The poor girl hardly knows me and is probably having nightmares.
December 12, 2007 at 9:46 pm
bell sits on the bed and decides he has to retire in the end...I think so because in the beginning of the book he talks about how you have to be willing to die to be a sheriff and how if your not they (evil) will know it in a heart beat. I don't think Bell was ready to die and Chigurh could see it. Maybe there was a confrontation in the room we did not see? I don't know, but before anyone says Chigurh would not have killed him...well I think we all know he would have and not thought twice about it. The only other option is he was not in the same hotel room.
See maybe Chigurh decided not to kill him plain and simple, like fate. I mean Chigurh let various people live through out the story with the whole coin toss thing. Maybe Chigurh saw that Bell was not ready to die and had the money already and just decided to let the old man live....I don't know.........
December 13, 2007 at 8:59 pm
The dreams that Bell had at the end of the movie are very important esp. the last one here's why. It helped tie the whole movie together in the fashion that this world is screwed up, bad things happen to good people, and can appear to be very random and just plain wrong, but his last dream emphasizes his father's love for him and how he knew he loved him and that he would be there for him. I think the Cohens did this to show a point ... the world is completely screwed up and completely random (as only some might view it) but that's not the point in life... you can't focus on the awfullness of this world and let the fate of others ruin your life but that there's more to it.
For intstance in the opening monolouge Bell is disgusted with the worlds cruelity and seemingly random fate... throughout the whole movie you see that this has crucially tainted his view on life
On the other spectrum is Chigurh who represented fate in a sense but could also be theorized that he too was very displeased with the world's hurt and pain and seemingly random fate ... he just channels it different than bell ... he doesn't mind killing who ever because of this depressing fact, he's screwed up to begin with but has the same perspective in a sense as Bell.
Also everyone that thinks Moss isn't dead is clearly clearly wrong. I saw this movie twice in the span of four and when you really pay attention when Bell approaches the hotel it is Moss's face that's on the ground dead. And in the morgue you can see a side glimpse of the face and it's totally the same one you see in the previous scene DEAD.
As far as the hotel scene at the end ... I think Chigurh was in a different hotel room because before bell opens the door you see Chigurh waiting in a corner ... so after Bell opens the door the door hits the wall absolutely no room for Chigurh to be behind and the other 3 corners of the wall well he's just not there. So Bell obviously went to retrieve the money at some point in the vent and has it at the end of the movie but I honestly think Chigurh was probably in the hotel room next to Bell... he booked the room with the coin on the floor before Bell got in their and waited in a corner probably the room next to the one Bell entered.
Also everyone who thinks Chigurh didn't kill moss's wife are also wrong. Throughout the entire movie I believe in 3 to four scenes we see Chigurh taking off his socks, shoes, and moving his shoes and avoiding blood touch his feet ... so he checks his feet on the door step after talking to moss's wife .... she's dead!
Another thought ... (this one's kinda deep ... but so is the movie) after Chigurh got in the car accident he seems alot more shooken up than you would have expected him it's almost like he felt the pain of moss's wife's, so called fate after experiencing something of that nature himself... plus you could tell he didn't want to kill her ... so in the end it's all in Chigurh's face ... he got a taste of his own medicine but the movie still ending off in a fantastic thought with Bell's dream
lemme know what you guys think
December 14, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Yes Moss may have been killed but no proof is given, just scenes making it seem so. Therefore, I have to agree with Jackk and Sy about Moss not being dead. Makes sense to setup a sequel with everyone thinking he's dead.
Although I have not read the book, I guess Moss gets killed in it, judging from others' comments. Of course, this means "nothing." There are many movies that have far different outcomes than the books they are based on.
The ending of this movie begs for a sequel. If there is one, I hope it's as cool as the original. If not, there shouldn't be one. In my opinion, poorly written sequels only take away from the originals.
- stay tuned...
December 14, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Interesting thoughts #83. I went to the movie with a group of people and immediately afterwards we began discussing the idea that Bell and Chigurh were, in fact the same person. That Chigurh was nothing more than a split personality of Bell's caused by his time in World War II.
After doing a little research on the book, I'm not sure I buy the theory anymore, but it is crazy interesting. There were two scenes that got me thinking this way and then a crazy amount of stuff to support it. The first scene was the hotel scene so many of you have been talking about. In the scene I think it's obvious we are supposed to believe both Bell and Chigurh were at the hotel at the same time when you see the smoke in the lock hole from both of their perspectives. Bell enters the room and normally that is exactly when Chigurh would have stepped out and killed him, but he doesn't. They specifically show the locked window and then what I believe to be an empty room to show that the only one there is Bell, who in fact was already there before.
The other scene is the milk scene in Moss's trailer. I believe this is significant because of the way they show both Bell and Chigurh sitting on the coach drinking milk from that strange camera angle. It's just an outline of their figure in the TV, and I don't think it was an accident that they were made to look very similar.
I agree with you that it was very coincidental that Moss' wife told Bell where Moss was and then all of a sudden Chigurh and the Mexicans were able to find him. Also no one would have recognized him because no one who knew what one of them looked like knew what the other one looked like, until the very end because "Chigurh" killed everyone who saw him alive.
At the end Moss' wife isn't shocked when she sees Chigurh sitting in the chair, its as if she is seeing a familiar face who has obviously changed into something different. I believe her exact line is "I knew you were crazy when I saw you sitting in that chair." Who says that to someone they have never met?
Other coincidences are that Bell tells a totally unrelated story to Moss' wife about killing cows and it just happens to include the cattle gun.
There is so much more but here is one theory I have, if this were true. The scene where Chigurh gets hit by the car... I think at that point Bell was trying to kill off that side of his personality (seen the movie identity?), but he doesn't die...meaning that somewhere deep inside that part of him is still alive even though he doesn't know it.
Thoughts anyone?
December 14, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Pretty good movie... enjoy reading all your opinions.... I thought it was clever how the scene at the end when Chiqurh pays off the boys for silence speaks to the nature of evil slipping between the cracks when money enters the picture.... In this case, evil's ability to carry on (ie. Chigurh is not caught or reported) is preserved by money, which Chigurh uses to buy their silence, even though the kids entered the scene as neutral (or "good") agents with the intent of helping. In that sense, it also works as microcosm of Moss' storyline, which was, at first, hunting and doing his own thing, but then, after finding the money, bringing himself into a world of trouble.
December 15, 2007 at 12:27 pm
This Bell is Chigurh theory is intriquing in an art school sense, but is absurd. There are too many holes for this to carry any credibilty. Remember, Chigurh was arrested in the beginning by a cop from a local county. You don't think local lawmen might not know one another? Woody Harellson knew Chigurgh from a violent past, and it could not have been Bell. The parallels between the two in the film are the parallels of alter egos, not the same person.
There is always a desire in interpetation of film and literature to belie