The MoFo Movie Club Discussion - No Country For Old Men

Here we are again, campers, here we are again.

The usual form applies - This thread is a spoiler-tag free zone so only read on if you've seen the film or don't care about knowing the finer points of the plot...

No Country For Old Men (2007, Mr & Mr Coen)



What is it with cowboy boots exactly? This question goes out to the Good Old Boy MoFos who might be acquainted with such things.

I bought a pair once - they cut the feet off me and made me look like like I was struggling to walk downhill on an icy pavement when I tried to break them in. Maybe I don't have American-shaped feet or something...

There are many pairs of these Cuban-heeled jobbies in No Country For Old Men but I still loved the film, no matter how many painful memories were evoked.

I'm sure a fair few people here will have seen the film before, and not just for the Movie Club so I'll be reasonably brief.

I'd been falling out of love with The Coens for quite a few years, ever since The Big Lebowski to be honest. The first movie of theirs I'd seen was Raising Arizona, which I'd liked (but not loved, still don't), but it was Barton Fink and Miller's Crossing which really made me sit up and take notice. I can remember coming out of the cinema after watching the latter and a friend revealing that he had Blood Simple at home on VHS.

I kept that video for about two years...

Anyway, after Fargo I felt that they had lost their way. I can take or leave The Big Lebowski, O Brother... and Intolerable Cruelty, didn't mind The Man Who Wasn't There and loathed with a passion The Ladykillers.

I thought that the brothers had shot their bolt, become middle-aged and self-satisfied. I hoped that they'd make a great film again but wasn't banking on it.

No Country For Old Men is a quiet film. The absence of a score didn't really register with me until about half way through, by which time I was already hooked by the resigned softly spoken dialogue. I loved the stillness.

Javier Bardem's Anton isn't exactly the most outwardly animated indestructable predator in Movie history either. His use of the compressed air livestock-killer totally suits his character's mood - quiet, deliberate and unconventionally deadly. Is this an Oscar winning performance though? Question number one...



Superficially, Tommy Lee Jones seems to be reprising his role in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada - a grizzled but thoughtful relic of the Old West, a sheriff this time rather than a cow poke. To say that would be to do the actor a disservice, though, because I think that TLJ has matured from a grumpy git into a sympathetic grumpy git. He's perfect as Ed Bell, a man who gradually realises that there's not a lot he can do to affect the changing world around him. Top marks for Cantankerous Tom!

I hadn't paid a great deal off attention to Josh Brolin's work before this, I must admit. He does what he has to do (namely check into motels, wear cowboy boots and get shot occasionally) with a certain quiet charisma, fitting snugly into the film. His demise is sudden, rather unexpected and perfectly timed.



Kelly MacDonald is surprisingly believable as Brolin's wife. I'm not an expert on Texan accents, though.

I also have to mention (and, again, this is no great surprise) the cinematagrophy of Roger Deakins. It's as sumptuously muted as anything he's done, particularly his work in the desert, and compliments the understated performances perfectly.

I don't quite know yet where I'd place No Country For Old Men in the Coen's filmic cannon. I'd need to see it more than the twice I have already (and give it a few years to settle) but the initial signs are quite high - Dunno if it quite touches Miller's Crossing but it's certainly up there with Barton Fink and Fargo, for me.



That rating might change over the years because I know that my thoughts are still slightly coloured by the euphoria that Joel and Ethan are back making great movies again. Hopefully this is only the beginning to a wonderful second half of their careers.



Some questions for the panel to mull over before I go -

Why do you think Anton took off his socks in the motel after killing the Mexicans? All that I can put it down to is that he wasn't as calm as he outwardly appeared and was sweating profusely. Socks that smelly are no good to man nor beast, especially for a fashion concious hitman-about-town.

I may, of course, be wrong...

The ending. As satisfying as the rest of the film?

Cheerio MoFo. I'm as happy as a pig in muck right now - The Coens aren't dead!

Over to you.

__________________
"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'll never stop loving the Coens, but I have soured on this movie in a big way. No Country For Old Men is such brutal piece of literature to translate to the big screen. It's definitely got its share of cinematic moments, but the bread and butter of the novel is Ed Tom Bell's musings on a world-gone-wrong that precede every chapter of the book. I can totally understand why the brothers dropped that in the film, it would seem to make the flick a much more palatable cinematic experience. But in losing Bell's inner-narrative, you pretty much lose the whole story. He's the clear-cut central character of the novel and when Moss dies, it doesn't feel as weird as in the film because we still have Bell going on about how much violence has erupted in the past few years and how everything is changing a little too fast for his liking. No Country For Old Men is very much Bell's story; he's a relic of a world that is passing him by. Everything is changing and different kinds of people and violence are emerging and while the movie tries its durndest to bring this to the forefront, the book just does it that much better.

I really liked the movie the first time I saw it and I loved the Coens for not resting on their laurels and going with such a difficult book to adapt. But I've found it simply doesn't hold up to multiple viewings like a Coen flick should. Technically speaking, it's a perfect film. Those early desert scenes really are breathtaking. And kick-ass performances all around. Especially outta Tommy Lee Jones doing his best Tommy Lee Jones. I've mentioned somewhere else on the site how much I thought of Jones when first reading the book and he doesn't disappoint here in the least. He's the balls. But, unfortunately, No Country for Old Men isn't the balls.

It's okay, though





And, yeah. Anybody know why Chigurgh did take off his socks?

No love for Lebowski or O' Brother? Blasphemer! Nobodies perfect.

I'm with you on the cowboy boot thing, I don't know what it is about them either. I had a pair when I was a wee tot. I lived in a relatively large city and they don't really "work" on pavement. They do look cool though. They sure worked in this film.



One of the earliest scenes in the movie and the most brutal happens so early in the movie it almost is forgotten by the time we get to the end. I watched the making of feature after I watched this a second time and it was a pretty damn fine piece of work to put this together and not have the guy on top get hurt.

If Chigurh wasn't seen actually killing anyone else for the rest of the movie I think we still would have known just how dedicated this guy was to his "mission" or whatever it was he dedicated himself to. I do believe he deserved the Oscar, the scene in the gas station is quite remarkable on a few levels for me. First and foremost I think we not only learn that this man is completely insane but also completely dedicated. A scary combination when dealing with a killer. His last line he utters to the bewildered clerk is haunting and hilarious at the same time, he virtually has the guy "making" in his pants and yet then he drops in a bit of humor or at least as much humor as this man is capable of. It's a great line.

" Anywhere not in your pocket. Where it'll get mixed in with the others and become just a coin. Which it is."



To me the reason why so many overall are going to say this is a great film is because of Sheriff Bell's character and his monologue. He really sets the tone and if you pay attention at the beginning he explains pretty much everything you need to know about what we are about to see. I agree with his character and his monologue completely. Much the same way that I agree with Morgan Freeman's Detective Somerset when he says: "I Don't understand this place anymore." Both are right on many levels, there is something disturbing in society today and the world in general, many of us feel it. And many of us feel helpless to do anything about it.

Sheriff Bell may even have the answer to when it stated: "It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight. "

I agree, although I also don't think its quite that simple but it rings true for me. And as Ellis states towards the end of the film:

"Whatcha got ain't nothin new. This country's hard on people, you can't stop what's coming, it ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity."

Also true but it doesn't help fix the underlying problem does it? And it sure as hell didn't make Sheriff Bell fell any better and me either.



In the end I think what is so fascinating to me is that I think this movie is all about a social commentary of our world today and yet it is set in the 80's and again that to me just shows us once again how truly brilliant the Coen's really are. Maybe they feel it too. I think they do, obviously the man that wrote the book did and they must have, otherwise why make the movie? The story itself isn't groundbreaking, the character's are somewhat unique but the movie is a lot more than the character's isn't it?

And now to finally take a stab at your questions Tatty, I have no idea why he took his socks off. It made perfect sense at the time. I was watching a Coen film after all. And I thought the ending was perfect. Because in the end even if you're in the boat with me and you do feel like the world has moved on, there isn't a damn thing I can do about it except sit there. So why not end the film that way?

More to follow...

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

hey guys I'm new if you haven't already noticed and this is my first mofo discussion so I hope I'm not biting off more than I can chew with you guys...


first and foremost without a doubt this movie is brilliant. script/dialogue, cuts, cinematography, score, performances...and obviously the direction are so spot on in every way. it's a perfectly executed vision of the novel which I also read shortly after seeing the film.

I personally am a huge Coen bros. fan and believe this is their crowning achievement (so far). for whatever reason this film touched me on a level that films rarely can do anymore. the suspense and raw grittiness is almost comparible at times with scenes such as Michael Corleone exiting the bathroom with that gun in his pocket, all you can hear are the trains, and the tension is unbearable until the gun explodes.

To me this film works on many different levels... It's a portrayel of psychotics, the changing world, violence, honour, morality, love, greed, envy the list goes on...

sure it's relatively anti-plot at times with the deliberate decision to leave certain scenes out (deaths of Brolin/wife) but that's really the fun of it for the viewer. too many goofy hollywood films spoonfeed all the plot points to the viewer, even as far as explaining every last little detail by some hack voice over. part of the reason why the film Se7en works so well is the same formula the Coen's employed - leave some things up to the viewer's imagination! this is the sign of excellent direction for a film like this, there's more power in restraint.

the dialogue/scenes with Jones are introspective, genuine, and well crafted, and the film hints subtly how war vets handle their lives after returning, and how they hold on to their violent tendencies.

basically I came away from this film thinking this is a story that follows someone living in the past (Jones recounting a simpler time before crimes and people like Anton) someone living in the future (Brolin wanting to better his and his wife's lives even if it costs him his in the process) and someone living in the present (Bardem only concerned with retrieving the money, will stop at nothing to make it happen).

4/5 stars for me. btw I've shown this film to 3 groups of people and they all hated it and yes I've seen it like 4 times.

Oh yeah and Bardem defnitely deserved the Oscar. The gas station scene is proof enough how brilliant the performance is!

I find it interesting that the Coens chose to adapt a well-known novel which actually does pull the story out from under itself, just as the Coens did previously with their own original scripts of Barton Fink and The Man Who Wasn't There. Both of those films take some major left turns, especially "narratively", so No Country For Old Men actually seems a perfect fit for the Bros. I'm not 100% happy with the final results, but it's hard to fault the film on a technical or thematic level. I'll mention my favorite images from the film here: the scene where the dog swims down the river to attack Josh Brolin. In the theatre, that scene made me giddy with laughter. I truly could not believe I was seeing what I was seeing. I've mentioned earlier that I actually prefer this cinematography by Deakins to his showier work in The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford.



Another thing which is extremely impressive to me is the use of sound. The sound effects in this film are enough to recommend it all by itself. I will agree with others that there is no obvious musical score, but if you listen to the sound effects, you will hear how they are used, musically, throughout the film, to reinforce and highlight certain scenes. I give the film , although I would probably lean toward a higher rating than a lower one. I find it to be powerful and worthy of discussion and honors, but the most interesting thing I find about it (not having read it) is that the novel was met with a rather lukewarm reception, while the film mostly garnered raves. That seems to be par for the way the Coens do things though. We'll turn expectations on their heads, no matter what. They did turn them for me because I had totally bought into the Brolin character. He was my guide through the story and when he disappeared, it was more than just a hiccup to me. Even so, I can appreciate the film, even if I may have slightly lowered my rating's appreciation because of what transpired.



P.S. I don't really have a good reason why Anton took his socks off unless he didn't want to get blood on them.

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

When I saw that I, in between the giggles, thought "Thank God for the Coens."

Now, I'd had that thought soon after posting as well. I'll have to check it out again...

The earlier taking off of Bardem's boots before going to the Mexicans' motel room was deliberately shown, as deliberately as the sock removal after the massacre.

I'm coming down on the side of a Coen quirk.

Mr Do-be-dish-gi-bu (bet you didn't know I could converse in Swedish Chef-speak! ) - I'm not gonna argue with you about the differences between the novel and the film, not having read McCarthy's work. I will say this though (and you'll have to take my word when I say that I've read one or two books ), I don't think I've ever disliked a film because of how it deviates from a source novel. I've been a little disappointed, sure, at some things not being shown or told in what I consider a different way but never any more than that. When you've got filmmakers as assured as The Coens, even a well known novel is surely only gonna be a jumping-off point. I think.

It's an interesting discussion, though.

PW (and others) - I don't hate The Big Lebowski. I just don't think it's as good as the sum of its parts and doesn't speak to me in that way my favourite Coens films do.

drewmachine - Don't worry, bud. Your thoughts are just as valuable as those of the MoFos who're serving a longer sentence.

Thanks everyone for your participation so far. I'm still slightly giddy that The Coens are back, much more than when I saw No Country For Old Men for the first time. Nurse!

Here's a quick quiz question, the first to correctly answer will win some of my silver beard hair as a prize! Please don't resort to Google, you're classier than that...

Which up and coming character actor has appeared in the last two Movie Club discussion choices?

The only clue I'm giving is that I noticed him. It must be a pretty easy question.

Garrett Dillahunt.

Anyway, totally forgot about this thing plus I haven't really been able to make time for the movie anyway. Will come back in the next couple of days.

EDIT Figure I'd clarify, he was TLJ's deputy in NCFOM and a member of Jesse James's gang in "Ass of JJ"

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

You knew that without having watched the film?!?!?

You're gettin' no hair off me, pal. I cry foul!

Wrong!

I've already seen it. Twice. I haven't watched it recently, though.

What influence(if any) had woody Harrelson's character have on the plot? He was only present for about 30 mins and then gets killed??

I think Harrelson's Wells exists solely to further flesh out the Chigurgh character. It's kind of strange, but I think that scene in the hotel between the two of them serves to humanize Chigurgh a bit and, at the same time, dehumanizes him even further. If that makes sense...


Yeah, except the Coens' film is incredibly faithful to the novel, at least up until the part with the young girl Moss meets. It's not so much a question of deviating from the book (I wouldn't knock a film for that, either) as much as it is that I think the movie kinda loses it after Brolin dies. I think that Bell's little musings are essential to the flow of the story and I totally get why the brothers cut them, but I think it was a mistake. Some works of literature are just too dang tough to be movie-ized, anyway, even in the hands of folks as talented as the Coens. And I think this one loses more than a little in translation. Maybe my enjoyment of the film is hindered a bit by my appreciation of McCarthy's book, but there's really nothing I can do about that now.

I've been reading the novel off and on since the film came out, so I consulted it for an explanation. He never takes off his socks after the carnage, nor even his boots before the carnage. He does, however, remove his shirt afterwards, and wipes his chest, boots, and jeans with a towel before leaving. So, no help there.

As for the film, my guess is it's supposed to further illustrate his nutzo killer neatness, i.e. the "principles" Wells refers to later on.

Speaking of the book, Cormac McCarthy uses a very curious style of punctuationally deficient run-on sentences that is perhaps supposed to set the book apart, but only ends up irritating the reader. It's not quite as bad once you get used to it, but early on it's pretty jarring. Example:

"Chigurh cupped his hand and scooped his change from the counter into his palm and put the change in his pocket and turned and walked out the door."


"Then he shucked off his boots and pulled them inside his belt upside down at either side and tightened the belt as far as he could pull it and turned and dove into the river."

:shiver:

Ok, I did a huge post last night and lost it well huge for me

I love this movie I even had to put my hands over my eyes in a few places and i can watch most things.

I found it easy to relate to the characters, they were so lay back and natural. The thing that i liked about the actors, was, that nobody had that Hollywood Botox to hell, caught in the head lights look I hate that look

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Yeah, those run-on sentences were pretty kooky. Even more jarring, for me at least, was the complete absence of quotation marks around character speech. But I do dig it when authors adopt their own little habits and quirks. When Hunter S Thompson started losing it a twinge in his twilight years, he added a whole bunch of those author-specific devices to his repertoire. Sometimes they can get annoying and distracting, but I kinda like 'em.

Oh, and you don't like O Brother, Where Art Thou? either, Tacitus?

Really?

I think he took off socks because maybe he thought he got blood on them?

__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.

Point taken.

Unfortunately, without reading the book I don't know if I agree with you or not. It'll have to be tacked on to the end of a very long list that I need to catch up on.

I don't 'not like' Oh Brother..., by the way. It's nore a case of 'not like as much as everyone else seems to' or 'not love'. Like The Big Lebowski, I can take it or leave it - I own both on DVD but have not had the slightest urge to watch either for a good couple of years.

Forgive my ignorance but I've never owned a dog. What was so funny about that scene? Will dogs not chase a guy into the river or something?


I think that's probably safest for all parties don't ya think? Trying to delve too deeply inside The Coen Brothers heads may put us all into the hospital. Personally I wouldn't have it any other way, I just took it in stride when I saw it.

I wonder how many people that haven't spent a lot of time in the U.S. could really get into Lebowski in particular. I mean, in some ways he represents a lot of the slovenly behaviors that a good portion of the rest of the world claims they can't stand about America. Now to an American such as myself I find it a shiny and brilliant American satire and I relate on a lot of different levels. Anyway... back on topic people!

I would like to comment on this film, but I have just the one viewing under my belt, and I feel like I need to get at least one more in, and soon. That said, I loved it first time through. I thought the film was truly about the fact that this is no country for old men, just like the title says. One of my favorite scenes was the conversation between Bell and his crippled brother. I want to rewatch that scene like, I don't know, a hundred times. One of the better pieces of dialogue in recent film.

Originally hailing from Southern Arizona, I thought they NAILED the tone of the southwestern desert. Technically, this film is almost perfect, although narratively, I thought it had a couple of slight problems that some may nitpick about. They didn't bother me much, but I did notice them. Although I had no trouble picking up on the fact that this was Bell's story, others I watched the film with were confused.

__________________