Athiest or Survivalist in "No Country">

This is an article from a letter printed on RogerEbert.com, which was later responded to in a full article by Jim Emerson on his site, Scanners. It deals with the theory Anton Chigurh of No Country for Old Men was a survivalist and athiest instead of the mythical reaper figure most have implied. I advise against reading this if you have not seen No Country for Old Men. The movie is good the first two times for interpretation, the third time to look back from great readings and interpretations which do the movie justice. This is one of them, but goes too far in-depth (book and movie) and gives you the intention-of-the-creator type interpretation, which always limits the ways you can interpret a movie. http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/03/no_god_for_anton_chigurh.html#more

Something Worth Reading...

Critics need voice. I can honestly say I am guilty of what Emerson is saying here and he is convincing me to change some...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/03/movie_critics_pros_and_cons.html

Movies I'm Excited About: Iron Man

Let's talk about how to do a comicbook movie right...

I'm not saying we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of Spider-man 3, but since Daredevil the writers have learned there needs to be a balance between being accurate to the character and making a good movie. The true-to-the-book trait will give it a loyal fanbase, the word of mouth, and promises of people coming to sequels. The good movie makes the other half: box office sales, critic's praise, and a good budget. Before we go too far, go ahead and catch the trailer...

The movie is given a fair share of respect. Robert Downey Jr. is one of the few actors that can pull of the fun of the character, as well as making a millionaire like Tony Stark so hated yet fun. The human side, with its fun one-liners next to visuals that can only be expressed in comics or screen is part of why we go to these movies, and here they have it.

I'm not saying there's not a dozen ways for them to screw this up, but they are putting their best foot forward with one of the reasons we enjoy our superheroes in the first place: personality. Character development is one of the underappreciated elements that make movies. Such proof of this is in Batman Begins, where we see the Bruce Wayne and Batman characters, the level of darkness in him and a feeling of guilt, a trust towards Alfred and seperating from others. They can develope the same in Stark if they play their cards right.

Interpretation of No Country

Many people have been confused by No Country For Old Men. More amazingly is how many have been possibly (there is always room for others to argue) wrong on the interpretation. I admit some of the movie is left to be vague, but certain interpretations have been too far out there.

One of these is the argument Sheriff Ed Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) and killer Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) are the same person, hence drinking from the glass of milk in the same position, they not see each other when they're in the same room, they just missed running into each other, and Sheriff Bell talks about the cattle gun to Carla Jean Moss, but not to his Deputy.

Others argue a similiar line, stating Bell is suffering from Alzhiemers and imagined it all or has split personality disorder.

These interpretations are both rediculous. The Coen brothers kept the script impressively detailed to the book, espically during the shootout scenes and the dialouge. They cut plenty, but they did not necessarily add. Having read the book, this interpretation is not the intent of Cormac McCarthy, which the film is loyal to. Although the interpretation of them being the same person does reflect a symbol of sorts towards the nature of good and evil, it contradicts movie reasoning as well. The plotline of two people being the same person (Fight Club) is to reveal it and often have them fight amongst themselves. Any villian corrupted by their second half usually fights it (referance any movie by Sam Raimi). Here, no revealing of any such thing, no look into the mirror and seeing the other and any acknowledgement. If this was the intent of the Coen brothers, they would have given the slightest hint so for us to later realize.

The mystery behind Anton Chigurh and his actions... Chirugh is embodiment of evil, merciless, detached to the point of having no trouble killing. Opening with Bell describing the killer of the 14-year-old girl and having difficulty facing the evil sets up the point behind the story: Bell having to come to terms with such evil in his world. As Bell ends the monologue, Chigurh comes into the picture, a cinematic link to the two.

Most of you are thinking why is Chigurh involved since he wasn't in the opening shootout? The best I can recollect is Chigurh set up the deal beforehand and was on his way to collect when the officer arrested him. (In the book, it is revealed it was someone who talked bad about Chigurh at a diner, so the insulted Chigurh kills him in the parking lot. My guess is he made fun of the haircut.) I will go a step further... If Chigurh did intend on the deal going well, he would probably hunt down the side that wasn't with him and steal their half. My personal guess is Chigurh set up the deal, telling the two sides a different amount, knowing the two would argue and begin shooting. He did not intend, however, for a hunter to come across the money before he did. Indeed, as Chigurh knew who hired Carson Welles, it is implied Chigurh was in on the deal or the loan, or at least associated with whoever set it up that barrowed money from the man who hired Carson Welles.

Bottom line there is... Chigurh is involved with people who incite violence to take the money. How evil is that job?

The signifigance of the coin flip? Chigurh sees himself as a machine, a means to an end. He merciless, non-stop means to find and kill. The coin is a means for Chigurh to make up his mind, as he knows death is in truth random itself. The first man is ambivilant to life, pointlessly asking travelers where they go and just "marrying into" his livelihood. Chigurh embraces his livelihood with a passion and arrogance. We see this arrogance just before he kills Welles, where he asks, "If your code has you killed, what good is it?" Welles pleaded for his life, and having lost, Chigurh spits the worth of nobility Welles tries to keep back at him.

In the scene where Chigurh flips the coin for Carla Jean, we see morality survive as stronger than this death. Carla Jean is perhaps the wisest of the characters, but never reveals it. When she sees the window open, she knows Chigurh is there. She accepts he is here to kill her and walks in to him sitting in the shadows (the final use of lighting in the movie). Notice, this is the only time Chigurh doesn't have to chase to kill someone, instead she goes to him. He informs her of his promise (he gives death a degree of certainty) and flips. Instead of taking a chance with her life, allowing everyone to blame the coin or her guess, she does not allow Chigurh an escape from the moral ramifications. She tells him it is all on him and the coin has no say. Chigurh rolls his eyes and says he got here the same as the coin. This means Chigurh admits he is a machine, a means to the end, flipped by something greater (people, society, evil) to do what he does. We can then pity Chigurh for not having a degree of self-control in his life, as he is helpless to his function, long gone past redemption.

The refelction of Sheriff Bell is the other half of the story. His character, eximplified by being the opposite of Chigurh (he tries to save people, has manners, cares, expresses the deepest of feelings), gives two dreams left for interpretation. The first is how him and his father had a dispute over money, but he forgot about it. This dream reflects money doesn't matter to him, something significant after all the chasings due to money. The second dream is about his father going on to the mountains, fire with him, and preparing for him there. In this one, Bell accepts that one day he will die, and the fire in the darkness reflects there is hope in the beyond.


Well, that's the most I can make of the movie. If anyone has any other questions about the interpretation of the movie, feel free to comment, I'll probably respond or update the article and respond with.

Valentine's Day Salute

Here's a list of 10 movies for Valentine's Day and 5 for Single's Awareness Day. Also at the bottom is a link for Cinematical's Seven Worst First Dates, which I actually agree with all seven. How scary...

1. 50 First Dates - blends guys with Adam Sandler humor and girls with an honest guy doing what it takes to love his girl.

2. Say Anything - shows there are good guys out there and that good guys can win great girls for just being a good guy.

3. The Notebook - because its the Notebook.

4. Love, Actually - an all-star cast with great love stories.

5. Mr. and Mrs. Smith - a love story for those that like action movies and are the aggresive type. Also a great comedy

6. Stranger Than Fiction - a story about love being meant to be. Literarially.

7. When Harry Met Sally - a love story about sex.

8. Jerry McGuire - on this list because of "you had me at hello."

For against Valentine's day, I suggest the following, in order of least to most suited for the anti-love mood...

5. Heat - Cops/robbers leave their attractive wives to go solve/commit crimes.

4. Hostel - hot girls sell lovers to sadistic torturers.

3. Rosemary's Baby - husband promises first-born to devil worshipers but doesn't tell his wife.

2. Kill Bill - breaking up leads to a series revenge killings so massive, it took two movies.

1. May - after being repeatedly cheated on, shy girl kills ex-boyfriend, ex-boyfriend's new girlfriend, ex-girlfriend, and ex-girlfriend's new girlfriend, using spare parts to "make friends." Will make you afraid of shy people.

And the Cinematical link... http://www.cinematical.com/2008/02/11/cinematical-seven-worst-first-dates-on-film/

Roger Ebert's explanation of the "No Country" plot

AGAIN, MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR SPOILERS! NONE OF THIS IS SAFE TO READ! STOP AND SEE THE MOVIE FIRST!


I mean that too. This is a great movie, already in imdb.com's top 25 with over 11,000 votes in less than a month of its release. While scanning the blogs, I realized I read Roger Ebert's review prior to watching No Country for Old Men, but not afterwards. There was a spoiler in it that ruined the movie (indeed some of the better parts) which I wisely skipped over (the Chirugh in me was very tempted to read). Reading the review again, I realized it explained such plot that much more of the movie makes sense. Please allow me quote Mr. Ebert before going into further detail... I quote...



If the men in the drug deal all killed one another, and the man who unknowingly carried the transponder died under the tree, how did Chigurh come into the picture? I think it's because he set up the deal, planned to buy the drugs with the "invested" $2 million, end up with the drugs and get the money back. That the actual dealers all killed one another in the desert and the money ended in the hands of a stranger was not his plan. That theory makes sense, or it would, if Chigurh were not so peculiar; it is hard to imagine him negotiating such a deal. "Do you have any idea," Carson Wells asks him, "how crazy you really are?"



End of quote...

I will say, briefly, I admire Mr. Ebert, and this explanation which gives greater detail to the plot without making it obvious or destracting from the scenes of characters revealing themselves. It makes sense as well.

Why exactly should we buy his explanation. First off, Chirugh is- for lack of a better word- pretty damn ****ed up. He kills. He probably doesn't know why, but he does. I don't see it outside of his actions to set up a situation where he has to kill, I don't know... a bunch of mexican drug dealers? He did know off the bat who sent Carson Welles to recover the money, which gives me reason to believe he put the money before people so he could kill them all and steal everything, including what he "invested." But because Chirugh is Chirugh, he gets caught up in killing instead of recovering what he had lost. It also explains why he kills his "managerial" associates and everyone else without issue or thought... he's planned this for the bloodbath and is so far ahead of the game, only the unplanned Moss is putting up anything of a race.

What I appreciate about the Coen's (if this explanation is true) is they don't reveal this. In a time of twist endings, they don't show this mighty subplot of revealing how everything happened from the beginning, but leaves us in awe of the characters instead of distracted with the excessive details in the plot. They avoid this so well, in hindsight, I'm curious if the twist in Saw distracted me from more entertaining torture.

On a final note, I firmly believe a good book should not get in the way of a good movie, and a good movie should not get in the way of a good book. Let each be true to making their respective feild as good as it can be. Please don't tell me what the plot is in the book, because I'm not criticizing the book, I'm examining the movie. Until I walk up to Cormac McCarthy and tell him to make his book more like the movie, I ask the same of those who feel the movie ruins a book. To each feild their own.

Thanks,
Robert in the Red Tie

7 Interpretations of No Country for Old Men

There have been various interpretations for No Country for Old Men, which I have observed on imdb.com and Jim Emerson's scanners (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/). MAJOR SPOILERS ALERT! DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE YET TO SEE THE MOVIE! Here are some of the different interpretations, making this movie a must-see-again movie.

1. Anton Chirugh is the devil. Ed Bell is God. Close attention to the cowboy hats represents halos. Notice when they're on or off. Around Bell they are on (Bell's is always on), when fighting with Chirugh they tend to fall off. Bell is coming to terms with seeing the world around him fall apart, while Chirugh passes through it. The ending note of the movie is a peaceful relax. God sits back and talks of how he sees the end, a peaceful haven without Chirugh.

2. It is mythology references, similiar to the Coen brothers' O Brother, Where Art Thou? The three dogs killed are the three-headed hound guarding the afterlife in Hades, as the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico is the Styx, the river crossed for the way to Hell (U.S. is the Hell, hence "no country for old men").

3. The repetition of 114 (the room Moss dies in, among other references) is a possible connection to Revelations 1:14... When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last."

4. Chirugh is death personified. When people have done wrong or entered the workforce that may kill them, he takes them down with certainty. The officer at the start is naive to underestimate and misunderstand someone he picks up, Moss is a thief, and Welles is a bounty hunter with his guard down. The coin flips are less certain, left to fate. Bell is close to death in his pursuit, but retires to accept he is helpless against the fate of the people around him. Moss' wife is enlightened after the death of her husband and mother, and therefore leaves her fate to a higher power (instead of "chance" represented by the coin) and asks Chirugh to make his mind up on his own.

5. Chirugh and Bell are the same person. This is why Chirugh never worries about fingerprints and Bell never looks for them. Bell is the only person that comes close to Chirugh without engaging in gunfire. Bell follows Chirugh. Chirugh isn't in El Paso until Bell is there. Bell is always certain of what is happening and what is fruitless in persuing Chirugh. They sit in the same places and drink the same milk. When Chirugh comes to Moss' wife, she is not surprised to see him, but she never specifies who he is. (Although I find this a stretch from any literal interpretation, it does show clearly the perception that the two are opposite ends of the same coin. The slim possibility they could be the same person shows exactly how close they are in understanding each other.)

6. The stash of cash is proof "money is the root of all evil." The film just focuses on all evil caused because of it.

7. Literal meaning. See Faber's Law #3: "if it isn't what it isn't, it is what it is." All symbols aside, it's about real people. Bell is coming to terms with such evil as Chirugh in his town and him useless against it, while Moss fulfills the obligation of doing everything he desperately can do to save himself and his wife. It's also about people realizing their fates. Wells is stupid to be snuck up on by Chirugh, while Moss is naive to avoid him, and Bell retires to accept he won't die in gunfire. Only Moss' wife accepts her fate (to higher powers if Chirugh and the coin represents anything) enlightened by the death of her mother and husband.

I would like to end with a quote by Earnest Hemmingway, No good book has ever been written that has in it symbols arrived at beforehand and stuck in. ... I tried to make a real old man, a real boy, a real sea and a real fish and real sharks. But if I made them good and true enough they would mean many things."

Let this not be an area of dispute, but instead multiple interpretations.