No Country for Old Men

[Reni]

You forgot The Big Lebowski, which in my opinion is likely one of the greatest comedies of all time.......and O Brother? I think I saw that one three times in the theatre.

 

I was lukewarm on Miller's Crossing and Hudsucker. I liked Barton Fink and Blood Simple alot. Raising Arizona is great, but it feels dated and worn out to me now.

 

Fargo is still likely my favorite.

 

(I have not seen Intolerable Cruelty, The Man Who Wasn't There or Ladykillers)

[Beltmann]

You forgot The Big Lebowski, which in my opinion is likely one of the greatest comedies of all time.......and O Brother? I think I saw that one three times in the theatre.

Lebowski obviously has legions of defenders, but I don't like it very much. It's okay, I guess. Truth be told, when the Coens aim for broad comedy, it usually leaves me cold--which probably explains my distaste for Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. I much prefer them when they are working on ironic or deadpan wavelengths, but for me their best work is their most sincere work. (That said, I do really like O Brother, which is one of the loopiest movies in recent memory.)

[Sir Stewart]

The fan following behind Lebowski is kind of a head-scratcher. I liked it, but it seems like a commission got together and voted it a mandatory cult movie.

[Analogman]

Along with the festival, there is now a book about the whole thing.

[Reni]

I love love love The Big Lebowski. I saw it twice in the theatre, but that was because I don't remember much from the first time since my friends and i had been doing bong hits in the car for an hour leading up to it.

[bjorn_skurj]

Saw No Country last night at our local Death Star Cinemas; saw Before The Devil Knows You're Dead at the Upstate on Friday night. Liked both a great deal, but thought the latter kind of got overwrought at the end, while the former saved the best for last. You can ink in Bardem for a best actor Oscar, in my opinion. He brought a sincere and palpable menace to his psycho-killer, which has become one of the tritest elements in filmmaking ever.

[Big Perm]

Friend-O

[dannygutters]

I have some friends who were a little non-plussed by the ending. The film just ends while the final part of the book really ties up the themes explored in it's pages.

 

I got this reaction from some friends too, the only explanation I can think of is pretensious and is a theory on story telling in general.

 

Basically a film serves the same social purpose as that of a storyteller. Historically people used stories to explain their context in the world and to reinforce the idea of god, that in the context of the story the story teller is god, someone who knows how it's going to turn out and while the world at large seems chaoitic and random that we hope, like we hope the story, has a point. When a story or film ends ambigiously without handholding or that payoff or a glimpse that the story teller doesn't have all the answers, we tend fo feel unfufilled and dislike the story.

 

Which I think is doubly interesting because I think you can make a case that old country was about this very idea.

[bjorn_skurj]

I got this reaction from some friends too, the only explanation I can think of is pretensious and is a theory on story telling in general.

 

Basically a film serves the same social purpose as that of a storyteller. Historically people used stories to explain their context in the world and to reinforce the idea of god, that in the context of the story the story teller is god, someone who knows how it's going to turn out and while the world at large seems chaoitic and random that we hope, like we hope the story, has a point. When a story or film ends ambigiously without handholding or that payoff or a glimpse that the story teller doesn't have all the answers, we tend fo feel unfufilled and dislike the story.

Speak for yourself.

[MattZ]

I saw this movie last night and came to this thread (which I had stayed away from on purpose) hoping to find a discussion of what happened at the end, what happened in the motel room, etc.

 

Crap!!

 

(I loved the movie)

[stooka]

I saw this movie last night and came to this thread (which I had stayed away from on purpose) hoping to find a discussion of what happened at the end, what happened in the motel room, etc.

 

Crap!!

 

(I loved the movie)

 

 

I think the movie has been out long enough, what do you want to discuss?

[MattZ]

I think the movie has been out long enough, what do you want to discuss?

 

Oh sure. That's why I figured all the various twists and turns in the movie would be hashed out here already. I was bummed to see that they werent.

 

I guess I was wondering who people thought ended up with the money, what the sheriff's dream at the end meant, whether Chiguhr was in the motel room hiding behind the door when the sheriff went in (or if he was in another room ), etc.

 

I've seen some pretty crazy theories online that I found after I didnt see anyone's thoughts here. Theories from Moss not being dead to Chiguhr representing death, etc.

[Guest David Puddy]

Oh sure. That's why I figured all the various twists and turns in the movie would be hashed out here already. I was bummed to see that they werent.

 

I guess I was wondering who people thought ended up with the money, what the sheriff's dream at the end meant, whether Chiguhr was in the motel room hiding behind the door when the sheriff went in (or if he was in another room ), etc.

 

I've seen some pretty crazy theories online that I found after I didnt see anyone's thoughts here. Theories from Moss not being dead to Chiguhr representing death, etc.

 

this might sound strange and perhaps make me seem like a mindless-moviegoer, which i'm not, but i honestly never even thought about who made out with the money. i was just so mesmerized by everything in this amazing movie, that i forgot about a major plot point. part of me would say the mexicans made it away with the money since it appeared to me that they killed Moss, but since chiguhr was such a machine, maybe he found/killed them. who knows. i loved the ambiguity in this movie. it doesn't always work in other movies, especially when they attempt to be ambiguious just to be ambiguious.

 

as for the sheriff's dream, i can't for the life of me remember it exactly. there were a couple of talkers in my theater that often interupted the more lengthy dialogue. douches.

 

i think chiguhr was behind the door but felt he had no reason to kill the sheriff. this is something my friends and i have discussed at length, but it seemed like, as horrible as chiguhr was, he had his own set of morals, and didn't just kill anyone for the sake of killing someone. but i could be wildly wrong.

 

i think the crazy theories you've found online are exactly that - crazy. moss was dead, chiguhr's just some dude. i didn't read any greater meaning into this. it's just another story to me. and a great one at that.

 

 

and i agree that blood simple to man who wasn't there was an impressive run of, at least, good to amazing movies. although the hudsucker proxy bows to the rest of the bunch.

 

and the big lebowski is the funniest movie i've ever seen. hands down.

[MattZ]

this might sound strange and perhaps make me seem like a mindless-moviegoer...

 

No, it doesn't sound strange at all. In fact, when the movie ended last night, it wasn't until i got home that I realized I had no idea who ended up with the money... It hit me that the movie was so powerful that I didnt even focus on the central plot by the end! As for who ended up with the money, it could have been the sheriff or Chiguhr or the Mexicans. There were hints pointing to all three. The sheriff retires, Chiguhr gives a $100 to the kid for his shirt (like Moss did), and we dont see enough with the Mexicans to know (although it appeared that the grate in the hotel room was removed by Chiguhr)...

 

And as for the Chiguhr theories I read online, people seemed to think that he represented death or the devil in the sense that he was supposed to represent the randomness and inherent cruelty of death. That he/it comes whenever it does without being fair or discriminating. When your time is up, it is up and there is nothing you can do about it. You escape death by luck -- the flip of a coin. These thoughts seeemd plausible to me. Also the sheriff made a weird reference in the end to the fact that God doesn't like him very much. This seemed odd given that he was a stand-up guy for much of the movie. Makes me wonder if he didnt get his own coin flip in the hotel room with Chiguhr, and whether he sold his soul to the devil (so to speak).

[Guest David Puddy]

And as for the Chiguhr theories I read online, people seemed to think that he represented death or the devil in the sense that he was supposed to represent the randomness and inherent cruelty of death. That he/it comes whenever it does without being fair or discriminating. When your time is up, it is up and there is nothing you can do about it. You escape death by luck -- the flip of a coin. These thoughts seeemd plausible to me. Also the sheriff made a weird reference in the end to the fact that God doesn't like him very much. This seemed odd given that he was a stand-up guy for much of the movie. Makes me wonder if he didnt get his own coin flip in the hotel room with Chiguhr, and whether he sold his soul to the devil (so to speak).

 

that theory seems pretty good. although, if there truly is a link between chiguhr and death, than death is apparently hilarious too!

[Sir Stewart]

My brother-in-law firmly believes the whole movie was the dream spoken of at the end.

[bjorn_skurj]

I think Chigurh got the money - the dime (the same way he opened the grate in the other hotel room) and the benji that he gave the kid at the end seem to confirm that. I still wonder why Ed Tom didn't find him in the hotel room. It could be that the sheriff just effed up (it happens), and his expression of emptiness toward the end might be caused by the sense of failure he feels over the case.

[embiggen]

My brother-in-law firmly believe the whole movie was the dream spoken of at the end.

 

he didn't watch it the right way.

[stooka]

I think Chigurh got the money - the dime (the same way he opened the grate in the other hotel room) and the benji that he gave the kid at the end seem to confirm that. I still wonder why Ed Tom didn't find him in the hotel room. It could be that the sheriff just effed up (it happens), and his expression of emptiness toward the end might be caused by the sense of failure he feels over the case.

 

Cool that at the moment of his failure, he was the closest he would ever be to capturing his enemy and didn't know it. I think his despair goes beyond just the case and manifests itself in the idea that he has "lost his purpose". I thought the ending was terrific and complimented the film nicely.

[Beltmann]

this might sound strange and perhaps make me seem like a mindless-moviegoer, which i'm not, but i honestly never even thought about who made out with the money. i was just so mesmerized by everything in this amazing movie, that i forgot about a major plot point.

That doesn't sound strange at all. In fact, what I like about the final section is that it challenges our notions of how traditional narrative works. Movies have trained us to look for certain signposts and to devise certain expectations--in this case, the genre has taught us to expect [spoiler: Highlight to read] Moss to survive, the money to be followed, and Jones to solve the mystery--but the final section thoroughly subverts that structure. Essentially, we're reminded that the story we thought we were following is not the story at all. The real story exists on a more abstract or psychological level, and the final scene with Jones, retired and filled with musings, is a clear indication that the Coens are less interested in Moss and Chigurh's cat-and-mouse story than in the consequences (and metaphorical meanings) of that story. In the end, who "gets" the money is irrelevant to the real story; I don't really care who has the dough, and I don't think the Coens care, either.

[Guest David Puddy]

In the end, who "gets" the money is irrelevant to the real story; I don't really care who has the dough, and I don't think the Coens care, either.

 

my sentiments exactly

[MattZ]

In the end, who "gets" the money is irrelevant to the real story; I don't really care who has the dough, and I don't think the Coens care, either.

 

Great point.

I agree with you. The more I think about it, the more it seems that a major point of the movie is that you "can't stop what's coming." I think that line is uttered a couple of times. Fate is fate and looking for it or trying to avoid it is "vanity" as one of the characters said. It comes when you aren't looking anyway. So while we were focused on a whole slew of other things, the real story was something different. And we were guilty of vanity.

 

But at the same time, it's a bit unfair for the Coens not to care who ends up with the dough. Or to say the viewer is "vain" for caring. (Not that you did, but that's what the Coen bros seem to be saying). Our focus for almost the entire movie is the focus that the Coen Bros gave us. We empathize with Moss because of their direction. We focus on the dough and the chase because they make it the focus. If that's not the real story, and the Coens don't care who ends up with the dough, aren't they guilty of playing a trick on their audience for 5/6ths of the film? And then who are the ones being vain?

 

Either way, I totally dug the movie. Just interesting to hash this stuff out. Thanks for the post Eric.

[Good Old Neon]

For what it's worth, as McCarthy writes it - (spoiler alert)

Chigurh recovers and then delivers the loot to it's "rightful" owner - minus expenses.

[bjorn_skurj]

Cool that at the moment of his failure, he was the closest he would ever be to capturing his enemy and didn't know it. I think his despair goes beyond just the case and manifests itself in the idea that he has "lost his purpose". I thought the ending was terrific and complimented the film nicely.

I agree. A great ending.

[Good Old Neon]

That doesn't sound strange at all. In fact, what I like about the final section is that it challenges our notions of how traditional narrative works. Movies have trained us to look for certain signposts and to devise certain expectations--in this case, the genre has taught us to expect [spoiler: Highlight to read] Moss to survive, the money to be followed, and Jones to solve the mystery--but the final section thoroughly subverts that structure. Essentially, we're reminded that the story we thought we were following is not the story at all. The real story exists on a more abstract or psychological level, and the final scene with Jones, retired and filled with musings, is a clear indication that the Coens are less interested in Moss and Chigurh's cat-and-mouse story than in the consequences (and metaphorical meanings) of that story. In the end, who "gets" the money is irrelevant to the real story; I don't really care who has the dough, and I don't think the Coens care, either.

 

Though I completely agree with what you have written here, the ending is, for the most part, entirely McCarthy