The MoFo Movie Club Discussion - No Country For Old Men

True and its also part of what makes them so fascinating to talk about and study. So many of them are just "wired" differently than most.

Maybe, I don't think so. I think she was dead the minute she got home. The guy was what he was. He told Moss what was going to happen and that is what he was going to do. You can't get off a train like that until it runs its course. People like that don't have a conscious, they really don't. He was just a seriously twisted dude.


Also true, but you may just need to view it from a different angle. You have to have some darkness inside you. Most people don't. I won't go into detail but I have more than a little and it can be difficult to live with at times. To me his method of operation made perfect sense. Of course he's putting himself at risk but he doesn't care. You have to understand that people that are capable of these types of things don't think like the majority of people. She was just next, the fact that he offered her a coin toss just lent to his own lunacy. I don't believe he would have let her go no matter what.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Originally Posted by mack

I see a certain dignity in the order and restraint that the coin toss provides - once we get beyond the clear insanity of it all. If he truly were as simplistic as a man who butchers purely for the joy of killing, he would have had a weighted coin, and would have always called the appropriate side so that the victim lost.

I agree with Mack that the coin toss is a self-imposed restraint, although I still can't see the dignity in it. I think the coin toss is simply the killer's last connection to the normal world. If he lets some live, then he isn't completely a monster or a killing machine. To his mind, a psycho would kill everyone, but he lets some go, so he must not be a psycho. Plus the coin toss relieves him of responsibility and makes the dead person a victim of his own fate or luck. "I would have let him go but he lost the coin toss."

I think that, in a strange way, the coin toss is his cry for love, affection, or at least appreciation and a means of leaving a legacy. If the potential victim wins the toss, then he doesn't die, so it's almost like the killer has just saved him from death. And who wouldn't be grateful and feel affection for someone who just saved them from death? It's also his legacy--a person who, in his warped view, should remember him kindly. He gives the coin to the old man at the station and tells him not to put it in his pocket "because then it would be just another coin." The killer means for that coin to be special, something the old man will keep forever and show to friends and family and tell everyone how he was saved from death with a toss of that coin. And each time he tells the story he will remember the killer who "saved" his life. There's a whole lot of symbolism there.

I agree, Powdered Water, that the killer was compelled to find the widow. He had made the threat, and he had to follow through. But I disagree that he would have killed her even if she had chosen the coin toss and won. The toss is a sacred matter to him and he has to honor the outcome.

By not taking the toss, the woman is telling him that the gesture is just a lie; that he's the one who decides whether to kill or not kill, not the coin. She's not going to make it easy for him. He has to take responsibility for her death, not excuse it as thee of a coin toss.

But now let's talk about the one potential victim that no one has mentioned so far--the young man who is sitting there talking to the guy in the office when the killer breaks in and kills the older man. The young man then asks, "Are you going to kill me?" And the killer replies, "Do you see me?" If I had been that young man, I'd say, "I don't see a thing. In fact, I've never been here." and start heading for the door. But what do you think? Did he kill that young man or let him go without a coin toss? And if he lets him go, do we need to rethink all of our suppositions about the coin toss?

One theory I have for Anton removing his socks, is that he has a form of ritualistic OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).

The scene where he asks the gas station attendant to toss a coin also hints at a ritualistic behavior, indeed we see him go through the same routine on more than one occasion.

Although it might seem absurd for a hit man to have such an anxiety related condition, it actually makes perfect sense to me. There are are many different forms of OCD, you could say people who body build to extremes have an obsessive compulsion to do so. Just as many serial killers are compelled to murder.

Anton is also a meticulous perfectionist (consider Jack Nicholson's portrayal of OCD in 'As Good As It Gets') , his use of bizarre weapons like the air bolt, and silenced shotgun once again hint at ritual, his own perfect method of killing.

Of course this is purely speculation, I think the scene was very ambiguous, and was more likely Bardem improvising. It really works because it just serves to reinforce Anton as a strange otherworldly character whose behavior is beyond comprehension.

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

Sorry ruffy, I didn't see this until now. I think he did let the guy go and that is in turn why I have been saying all along that the coin toss just adds to his lunacy and doesn't really define him. Again though, I think its all a part of what makes a character like his so fascinating doesn't it? What makes a complete lunatic like Chigurh tick? How does one get so twisted? Dropped on his head as a baby perhaps? Or, and probably more likely he was born that way and he simply is what he is.

I’ve said it before and ill say it again… am I alone in finding this film massively over rated... it was such a let down. Why why why did Tomy Lee Jones sit around drinking tea when there was a serial killer to catch. I know it’s the whole "I’m too old thing" but come on... RIP Cohen brothers you use to make some good films....

Ps i think the fact he swipes his shoes on the way out of the house implies he killed the Kelly McDonald character

[quote=bettyblue;447211]
Why why why did Tomy Lee Jones sit around drinking tea when there was a serial killer to catch.

That's what all police officers do, though some prefer doughnuts

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this because its so poorly written and yet I feel compelled to try anyway. That's just how I roll.

First off, no, you're not the only one who feels the film is overrated and a few opinions such as that have been discussed earlier in this thread (if you'd bothered to read any of it you'd already know that) and dissected at great length. Now to your point, you think the movie is overrated because Tommy Lee Jones character sits and drinks tea? Dude, that's awesome! You are so right. Why didn't someone explain that to me before?

As for you last sentence, maybe you could try to string a sentence or two more together and explain what you are talking about. When does Chigurh swipe her/his shoes? Or do you even mean swipe? I'm confused.

I think bettyblue actually meant to say wipe his feet and not swipe and yes a lot of other people found the film to be overrated. I am most certainly not one of them as I believe this to a very good film indeed.

I think bb means wipes his shoes on a mat as he leaves her house, but I think all he did was check their soles for blood.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Originally Posted by Powdered Water

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this because it’s so poorly written and yet I feel compelled to try anyway. That's just how I roll

I didn’t think it was poorly written, bar a few typos…. I have read through most of the other posts, apologies if this didn’t come across. It is still evident that those who share my view are in a minority.

Originally Posted by Powdered Water

you think the movie is overrated because Tommy Lee Jones character sits and drinks tea? Dude, that's awesome! You are so right. Why didn't someone explain that to me before?

Quit simply yes, the Tommy Lee Jones character really flawed the film for me. He was such an overtly fictitious policeman. If he did anything else other than drink tea and chat philosophy then please remind me. Oh I told a lie, he reads the newspaper

Granted this could have worked but most of what he said just fell flat. I get the point the Coen brothers were trying to make, that the character was old, at the end of his career ect… but I couldn’t relate to him at all. Given the scale of the offences committed in the film (people were slain all over the place) I would have expected a more robust reaction. But then again I’m not from Texas so I don’t know how things work down there. I wasn’t a big fan of the Woody Harrelson character either but I’m not going there.

Maybe I am being a bit of a twat, because this wasn’t a bad film. It was mediocre. I think I hate on it with a little too much esteem because of its bizarrely overrated reception. Maybe people were just desperate to cling onto a return to form from the two brothers…

Positives: the cat and mouse pursuit of Chigurh and Llewelyn Moss had tension and suspense. (Brolin was very well cast) and obviously Javier delivered a knock out. The Ms Moss and Chigurh scene was strong (as I’m sure you are all perfectly aware) but I did think Kelly’s accent was a bit dodgy…

Originally Posted by Powdered Water

When does Chigurh swipe her/his shoes? Or do you even mean swipe? I'm confused.

After the encounter with Ms Moss, Chigurh is seen coming out of the house and does something with his feet, whether than is wipe, swipe or check them I cant recall… The point being it implies he was clean/checking for blood.

For me, Fargo and Raising Arizona (with O Brother Were Art Tho a mid distant second) are prime examples of why I’m a Coen brothers fan.

This has kinda been lost in the subsequent banter but I think you make a few extremely interesting points.

If you take it that Anton was a serial killer then I would say that a manifestation of OCD would fit his 'profile' perfectly.

Of course, was Anton a serial killer or a hitman? Or both? Or neither?

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

I agree--he probably let him go. Otherwise, if he kills him, he's got to kill the receptionist and everyone else he encounters leaving the building. He's already pushed the envelope beyond belief by being a Hispanic-looking male carrying a shotgun in the broad daylight in Texas during weekday business hours on city streets, into an office building, and up in an elevator without being challeged or at least reported by someone. Even in a small city with a few hundred thousand population like Odessa, Tex., something like that is bound to be noticed.

As for what makes and motivates a nutcase like that, it can be an injury or weird wiring from birth. The Texas gunman Clay Allison became ultra-violent after being kicked in the head by a horse as a young man. Apparently before the mishap, he was a normal person, but afterward he had a hair-trigger temper, especially when drinking, which he did often, and such a propensity for violence that even the Confederate army discharged him as being too violent. On the other hand, the most deadly gunfighter of them all began life as the pampered youngest son of a Methodist preacher who named him (first and middle names) for an early leader of that church, John Wesley Hardin. The rest of his family were good solid citizens; I think one of his brothers became a lawyer. I know at least one brother and I think maybe his father were lynched by a mob who couldn't get their hands on John Wesley after he killed a popular deputy sheriff, but that was much later in his career. Racial prejudice was one factor in Hardin's becoming a killer. He was too young to serve in the Civil War like his brothers, but he was in his teens with Reconstruction started in Texas. It's said that the first person Hardin gunned down was an unarmed black man shot for whistling "Yankee Doodle." Other of his early victims were black soldiers sent to bring him in. Despite spending many years in prison during his prime, Hardin was reputed to have killed more than 40 men. One was a stranger walking down the street who Hardin shot to "prove" he wasn't drunk; another was a man who was snoring in the adjoining hotel room. Hardin shot through the connecting wall to kill him.

I've had occasion to see cold-blooded killers in jails and courtrooms, including one real hitman for the Dixie Mafia, and the common characteristic I observed is that they were totally incapable of empathy with another human being. Their worlds were totally self-centered.

By the way, are you aware that Harrelson's father was a convicted contract killer? Killed a tough federal judge, known as "Maximum John" in San Antonio for a Mexican drug lord who was scheduled for trial in that court. The father was convicted in an open-and-shut case with a mountain of evidence marking him as the killer, but Harrelson (father and son) always claimed he was innocent. The son was working to get him out, but the old man died in federal prison.

Well, for all his faults, TLJ's sheriff was the only one to figure out that the guy with the money bag and the killer chasing him were headed to El Paso where the wife was waiting. He was the only officer who continued to hunt the fugitives outside the county of his jurisdiction. He's also the only officer who figures out who is blowing out the door locks and how and why. He and the killer are the only ones who figure out that the other guy is hiding the money bag in the a/c ducts. And he imagines the killer waiting on the other side of the door in the dead man's hotel room, yet the sheriff goes in alone after him, only to find that the killer has been there and left. Still he got closer to him than any other lawman in the state. Pretty good for an "old" man who's getting awfully burned out in the weird world in which cops and robbers live.

Very well said rufnek, everybody mark this down, me and the rufnek are in complete agreement here.

I just realized you're relatively new to the site and may not have gotten the little note I left for you so I thought I would respond to your post and compliment you in turn for a pretty well thought out post.



Yeah, that is pretty true. I was expecting a little more of the "this movie is overrated crowd" to wend their way in here after seeing a good number of folks say that in other threads before this movie club thread got started. But to no avail. So when someone does in fact think its overrated I want to know the thought process behind it. Hence the reason I was pretty snippy with you. I appreciate that you took the time to come back here and elaborate further.




Is he though? How many southern law men have you met? It feels like to me you just didn't like him for whatever reason (you keep mentioning him drinking tea and I'm pretty sure he was drinking coffee) and I wonder if maybe you may have missed a good chunk of his narrative at the beginning of the film when he really explains a lot of his feelings and sets the tone for the whole film.



See, but that's just it. Like he said at the very beginning of the film:

I was sheriff of this county when I was twenty-five years old. Hard to believe. My grandfather was a lawman; father too. Me and him was sheriff's at the same time; him up in Plano and me out here. I think he's pretty proud of that. I know I was. Some of the old time sheriffs never even wore a gun. A lotta folks find that hard to believe. Jim Scarborough'd never carry one; that's the younger Jim. Gaston Borkins wouldn't wear one up in Camanche County. I always liked to hear about the oldtimers. Never missed a chance to do so. You can't help but compare yourself gainst the oldtimers. Can't help but wonder how theyd've operated these times.

There was this boy I sent to the 'lectric chair at Huntsville here a while back. My arrest and my testimony. He killt a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it was a crime of passion but he told me there wasn't any passion to it. Told me that he'd been planning to kill somebody for about as long as he could remember. Said that if they turned him out he'd do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell. "Be there in about fifteen minutes". I don't know what to make of that. I surely don't. The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He'd have to say, "O.K., I'll be part of this world."

He doesn't have a more robust reaction because he doesn't even understand what he's up against. To me that is intelligence. Sure he "plods" along through the film but as rufnek pointed out he is the only one that even remotely figures out what is going on.



Not at all, and I think your thoughts are interesting when you take the time to write them out a bit. And I think I can speak for a good portion of the members here when I say if you want to slam a movie then by all means slam it. Just please be willing to elaborate a bit because there is plenty of passion for films here on both sides of the fence, but a lot of folks here expect a certain amount of explanation to go with it. This movie really 'jumped the shark' or 'nuked the fridge' doesn't really cut it... well sometimes it does, but that's usually after some conversation first.

Oh, surely this isn't the first time we agreed about something! I've always thought of you as being bright, which has to mean I've agreed with you on some occasions!

After seeing The Dark Knight, I got to thinking about Chirugh and The Joker and how similar they are. They're really not people to me; they don't have motivations that we can understand. They're both chaos and randomness; they merely represent the senselessness of violence and mayhem.

Anyone else think this?

nope. too pat an answer, and frankly, I think its the answer we give to everything we dont understand.

they're barbarians
they're crazy
they're not like us

all 3 are probably true, but 3 is most definitely true. I agree that they're sick and amoralistic, but this doesnt mean that people like this do not have motivations - only that they are working from a wholly different set of motivations than what is socially accepted as normal.

they ARE human, after all (although Joker may not be).

__________________
something witty goes here......

Why do they have to be human? They're characters in a story; why can't they merely be symbols representing something else? And I don't believe they are designed for us to understand but rather to question those things in life that scare us. They make us feel helpless.

Chirugh is supposed to be an "alien" in the landscape. He's not a part of the world. He can't even wear the right kind of denim jacket.

And I find it interesting that Jack Nicholson's Joker had motivations and Heath Ledger's does not. Heath's Joker doesn't have a past. Neither does Chirugh. They seem to exist solely in the space of the narrative at hand.

yeah, but the "no backstory" is kind of a cheater's method, dont ya think? it works, in the same way that the barbaric cannibals worked as ethereal, otherwordly monsters in the The 13th Warrior - very mystical and....well, unreal. That is, until Antonio Banderas' character discovered that they were human. Scary, but human nonetheless.