|
5 years ago ::
Mar 18, 2008 - 1:33PM
#1
|
|
|
In the Previews for March & Beyond, Bart Carroll editorializes about "No Country for Old Men", stating: My problem with the movie, ultimately, is with the narrative -- for roughly 4/5ths of the movie, the audience follows along with Llewelyn Moss. At a key moment, Llewelyn is suddenly yanked out of the picture by the (truly bizarre) assassin, Anton Chigurh. To this point, much of the movie followed the back and forth between these two characters, and that Chigurh ultimately prevails is fine by me. What I couldn't accept was the suddenness of their resolution -- and that it happened off-screen. It's been a week or so since I've seen the movie, but I recall that there is no resolution between Llewelyn and Chigurh, because Llewelyn is killed--not by Chigurh, but by the Mexican drug dealers. Although it happens off-screen, we do see the drug dealers discover where Moss is meeting his wife and horrible mother-in-law, and we later see a dead drug dealer at the motel with Moss's body, and Chigurh doesn't arrive on the scene until later.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 18, 2008 - 2:57PM
#2
|
|
|
It's a fairly easy mistake to make because of the confusing nature of the Cohen brother movies. Chigurh is the main antagonist, and he's also seen in the hotel room when T.L. Jone's character (name?) comes back to investigate. It's not a huge mental leap to assume that Chigurh was the actual killer. It's also not especially vital to the plot to know who did the killing. I completely agree with Bart's main point though. Considering how much the audience attaches to Llewelyn, it's shattering that the main protagonist is killed off-screen.
"Man is made God's plaything, and that is the best part of him. Therefore every man and woman should live life accordingly, and play the noblest games... Life must be lived as play, playing certain games, making sacrifices, singing and dancing..." Plato, The Laws.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 18, 2008 - 5:40PM
#3
|
|
|
It's also not especially vital to the plot to know who did the killing. I completely agree with Bart's main point though. Considering how much the audience attaches to Llewelyn, it's shattering that the main protagonist is killed off-screen. And it's an even bigger shaft that he was killed off-screen by characters who don't even have name tags.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 24, 2008 - 5:12PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2007
|
From what I've read of McCarthy's work (i.e. Blood Meridian), he loves to turn Hollywood expectations on their heads. In the real world a would-be hero all to often meets his or her end in an inglorious and uninteresting manner. Perhaps not allowing us to view Moss's death served to accentuate harsh reality: his death wasn't worth seeing. (Does anybody know if that scene was omitted from the book as well?)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 24, 2008 - 11:02PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2007
|
I am a firm believer in threads like these having "SPOLIER" noted obviously in them, but that aside...
And it's an even bigger shaft that he was killed off-screen by characters who don't even have name tags. I thought that was awesome in the novel (I have not seen the movie). It was straight forward thriller up to the point you discover Lewellyn and his teenage hitchhiker are dead, then the rules and expectations were upended. The author was plainly playing with expectations too, since Chigurh is the obvious culprit not because he is the "only" suspect in logical sense, but simply because the drug dealers seemed like minor characters and, by literary convention,only the important characters usually do anything important.
In that sense, it was Stoppardesque. Rosencrantz and Guilderstern slew Hamlet, so to speak.
Besides, it wasn't completely random, as it's not as if Chigurh was the only one after Llewellyn, so it wasn't exacty like he died in an freak bus accident. The reader is carefully led from one literary convention to another and then, bang, regular rules of real world logic intrude and you need to think out die the "conventional" box.
Random chance and fate intertwine in the book to decide the fates of the characters, and Moss's death is just another bit of that. From the standpoint of the book it doesn't matter who got the money or who killed Moss, really. It's more about how he got into the position he was in, what desires and thinking drove him there.
Also, in the book it was plainly a story not about Lewellyn, but about three different men Lewellyn, Chigurh and Sheriff Bell, and in some ways more about the Sheriff. The loss of Lewellyn was surprising, but didn't slow the narrative.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2008 - 7:07AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
In the Previews for March & Beyond, Bart Carroll editorializes about "No Country for Old Men", stating:
My problem with the movie, ultimately, is with the narrative -- for roughly 4/5ths of the movie, the audience follows along with Llewelyn Moss. At a key moment, Llewelyn is suddenly yanked out of the picture by the (truly bizarre) assassin, Anton Chigurh. To this point, much of the movie followed the back and forth between these two characters, and that Chigurh ultimately prevails is fine by me. What I couldn't accept was the suddenness of their resolution -- and that it happened off-screen.
It's been a week or so since I've seen the movie, but I recall that there is no resolution between Llewelyn and Chigurh, because Llewelyn is killed--not by Chigurh, but by the Mexican drug dealers. Although it happens off-screen, we do see the drug dealers discover where Moss is meeting his wife and horrible mother-in-law, and we later see a dead drug dealer at the motel with Moss's body, and Chigurh doesn't arrive on the scene until later. The trick to understanding it is that the narrative of the movie isn't following that of Llewelyn or Chigurh - it's a tale that's being recounted by the Old Police Sherrif. As he analogises to Llewellyn's wife about the random outcomes of shooting cattle with a gun, he's actually pre-empting the futile absurdity in the outcome of the Llewelyn and Chigurh conflict over the money. The over-riding theme of the movie is the Sherrif's feelings of being too old to hold back the tide of this type of futile violence, in the changing world he sees around him. In essence, like all good Coen brothers films, it's really just a black comedy of bizzare situations, brought about mainly by the greed of the protagonists.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2008 - 10:15AM
#7
|
|
|
A huge theme of the movie is about lack of control in regards to fate and dumb, random, chance. Moss' death proves that no matter how hard he fought to get away from Chigurh he was ultimately susceptible to a threat he never really saw coming.
At various points in the movie most of the characters had a point in which they thought they were in control of a situation, only to find out it wasn't true. Woody Harrelson thought he was slick and in control until he ran into Chigurh. Even then he thought money would buy his way out of it.
Even Chigurh himself spent most of the movie firmly believing he was in control of everyone around him (like the coin flip scene) only to be hit by a random car flying through an intersection as he is making his get away at the end of the movie. Lewellyn's off screen death was a prefect illustration of how the real world doesn't follow movie rules (even though this was fiction) and bad things just happen.
As I told a friend, this was the best movie I have ever seen that I didn't enjoy. It built dramatic tension and generated pathos for the main characters, but did not bleed them off with a victory or classically satisfying resolution.
|
|
|