1243 No Country for Old Men

[kaujot]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up or not (I've been following the thread since it was made, and can't remember seeing it before), but I just finished watching the DVD, and I was reminded of something that hit me every time I saw the film in theaters, but forgot about later.

In almost every scene, it looks as though Chigurh is on the verge of tears. His eyes are slightly red and where his eyeball meets his bottom eyelid seems about to spill over with water.

[Narshty]

A depressingly blah film. The Coens seemed to be attempting a Texan Chainsaw Massacre-style carve-up via an assumed aesthetic of a down-South Jean-Pierre Melville. The Coens' weakness as storytellers is also painfully evident. Maybe it's the self-consciousness of each shot and edit that refuses to allow any scene to feel genuinely connected, but there's just no engine behind the film. It's more like a stationary object positioned at the top of a slight gradient - the accumulation of incident and characters will at some point create a story, by sheer logic if nothing else.

[mfunk9786]

How in the world did this not have a storyline? It's the most standard guy gets money, guy hunted down, cat and mouse game plotline in cinema.

[Awesome Welles]

The Coens' weakness as storytellers is also painfully evident.

[Michael]

The Coens' weakness as storytellers is also painfully evident.

Narshty is right about the Coens' weakness. Personally I never get the Coens all the way from Blood Simple to today. The popularity of some of their films - The Big Lebowitz and O Brother Where Art Thou? is something I will never understand.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Narshty is right about the Coens' weakness. Personally I never get the Coens all the way from Blood Simple to today. The popularity of some of their films - The Big Lebowitz and O Brother Where Art Thou? is something I will never understand.

I have to disagree. Miller's Crossing, for example, certainly demonstrates the Coens skill at storytelling -- densely plotted, lots of twists, double crosses, multiple love triangles... Great stuff.

[mfunk9786]

The Big Lebowski manages to squeeze a huge story into a little comedic character piece without feeling overwhelming. I don't know how anyone can consider it their weakness, I'd consider it their strength.

[Antoine Doinel]

I have to disagree. Miller's Crossing, for example, certainly demonstrates the Coens skill at storytelling -- densely plotted, lots of twists, double crosses, multiple love triangles... Great stuff.

I agree. One can pick out their "zanier" films as evidence of their lack of storytelling ability, but then you would have to ignore that they are big fans of screwball comedies. It's like asking for a credible story out of Bringing Up Baby -- that's not really the point. But their dramas are as finely plotted as a Swiss watch. You don't have to like them, but plotting is not one of their weak points.

[Awesome Welles]

The Coens' weakness as storytellers is also painfully evident.

Why ?

Because I've always seen the Coens as having made finely crafted films, everything from plot to dialogue.

To each his own I guess.

[Michael]

There has never been a Coen film that manages to hook me in. Except for Fargo but that was mainly for Frances McDormand and William Macy. The Coens' storytelling through visuals has always felt forced and fake...I almost said "pretentious" but I have grown to despite that word so forget about it. There is a sense of "cockiness" on the Coens' part. The Coens always seem to be trying too hard to be "different" instead of being themselves while David Lynch, on the other hand, is more genuine with his work, his work so different but very "organic" at the same time. I brought up Lynch merely as an example. I thought the way No Country for Old men ended was horrible, it felt like the Coens couldn't come up with a cinematic way to end it so they pooped out the monolugue quoted directly from Mc Carthy's book - why didnt' they just give McCarthy the best screenplay Oscar instead of the Coens? A very lame ending.

[Titus]

Maybe it's the self-consciousness of each shot and edit that refuses to allow any scene to feel genuinely connected

Really? I thought this was shot a lot less self-consciously than much of their work. It's always seemed to me that whenever they make a movie with a more modern setting, they tend to feel obligated to try and restrain their stylistically show-offy instincts.

The Coens always seem to be trying too hard to be "different" instead of being themselves while David Lynch, on the other hand, is more genuine with his work, his work so different but very "organic" at the same time. I brought up Lynch merely as an example.

I think it was HerrSchreck that made a similar accusation, suggesting that the Coens slavishly try and live up to a reputation as "quirky" or "offbeat", and I just don't get it (Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty excepted). And I wouldn't argue with you about Lynch's work feeling more organic, but they're different filmmakers with little in common aside from a tendency to create a heavily stylized universe for their movies to take place in. I don't think the puppet-strings are any more visible with the Coens work than they are with someone like Stanley Kubrick's. But, then, I'm a bit of a Coen apologist.

[Antoine Doinel]

While I don't agree with Michael, it is a common argument made against the Coens and I think one with some merit. As much as I'm a Coens fan, much of their work relies on previously established tropes (film noir, screwball comedy in particular) that at their worst, they are slavish imitators (which I think lends to the "quirky"/"offbeat" charges). However, at their best (this film, Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink) I think they move beyond their influences into a realm of their own that is less showy, more organic and transcends the genre conventions that the story is bound by.

[Titus]

While I don't agree with Michael, it is a common argument made against the Coens and I think one with some merit. As much as I'm a Coens fan, much of their work relies on previously established tropes (film noir, screwball comedy in particular) that at their worst, they are slavish imitators (which I think lends to the "quirky"/"offbeat" charges). However, at their best (this film, Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink) I think they move beyond their influences into a realm of their own that is less showy, more organic and transcends the genre conventions that the story is bound by.

A lot of their movies are filtered through movies and genres they love, but the only time it's ever failed to go beyond an imitation/affectionate parody, for me, was Hudsucker Proxy (which had some interesting elements to it, such as the large, symbolic clock, but is, along with Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, the only time their sense of humor felt forced and unfunny to me). They're generally able to marry that love of genre with an individuality that distinguishes them from other noir knockoffs, and the self-consciousness that Narshty alluded to actually aids this, I think, because it keeps them from just recycling the formula in a modern setting and a sarcastic manner and allows them to really submerge themselves in the world of those classic movies, making a strange synthesis of classic hollywood with a distanced and contemporary viewpoint, causing a kind of celebration of genre mixed with personal expression.

But their sense of humor itself, and their tendency to lace even their more serious pictures with that humor, seems to be in the cross-hairs of their detractors as much as their tendency to lean on genre tropes and Hollywood artifice, and I don't really get this. But, that's most likely because I find them funny while their detractors don't.

[Narshty]

To clarify some confusion, I didn't mean there wasn't a plot to the film. What I'm talking about is never really feeling the craft of story-telling. They can get information across, often with some invention, but they're unable to leave you wondering what might happen in the next scene. It's altogether too dry to have the consistent intrigue of a good yarn. Plus, even at this stage in their careers, the Coens only seem to be able to make one point at a time, so if they've got a lot of ground to cover, they call on the George Lucas style of filmmaking of speeding up the story by stringing together lots of short scenes, which scarcely helps in creating a confident flowing narrative.

I did enjoy seeing Doris Hargrave as a waitress though (a regular from Eagle Pennell's movies).

[Michael]

Are you folks really satisfied with how No Country for Old Men ends? It ends with the sheriff sprouting out the monologue (quoted directly from McCarthy's book) to his wife. Those very literary words are brilliant if read on paper but sound awfully ridiculous and phony coming out of the sheriff's mouth. He spoonfeeds us with the words, supposedly the meaning of the "story" according to him, directly from pages, the way they sound and I'm surprised with all the awards and the attention the film gained, the Coens got away with that ending. There Will Be Blood should have won.

[domino harvey]

The ending of the film was as mature and realized as the rest of the film-- a first for the normally smug Coens. So yes, I found it to be completely appropriate and thought-provoking. The adverse reaction from most viewers to the final scene baffles me. But if we're playing what should have won the Oscar: Michael Clayton

[Banana #3]

Michael, what exactly do you mean by spoonfed? Do you mean to say it was unabashed exposition?

I think when one claims that certain dialogue is indeed exposition, one must look at the situation in which it was said. Meaning, given the situation and the character within the situation, is the dialogue out of place?

And honestly, I would say no. He is very frank with his wife, only for a moment concealing what he means to say. It has been established already that he and his wife have a close and loving relationship, so this frankness is not out of place. And given the question she asks - to explain or talk about his dream - his words make sense.

And of course, what he is saying is the tail end of the film's thematic arc. So even if you don't like it, he had to say it or else the film would be incomplete.

And speaking of unabashed exposition, Michael Clayton bathes in it.

[Titus]

Are you folks really satisfied with how No Country for Old Men ends? It ends with the sheriff sprouting out the monologue (quoted directly from McCarthy's book) to his wife. Those very literary words are brilliant if read on paper but sound awfully ridiculous and phony coming out of the sheriff's mouth. He spoonfeeds us with the words, supposedly the meaning of the "story" according to him, directly from pages, the way they sound and I'm surprised with all the awards and the attention the film gained, the Coens got away with that ending. There Will Be Blood should have won.

I haven't read the novel so I can't comment on your thoughts regarding how it fails to register in the same way it does in the book, but I thought the entire ending, and in particular Bell's monologue, was great. I'm not sure I buy that it spoonfeeds the films "meaning" of the story to the audience, especially given the extent of the complaints regarding it, as well as the varying opinions on what it means.

I'm not really sure what your complaint is though, Michael. Why do you think the ending works in the book but not in the film? I thought it was quite powerful, with this evocation of a time of innocence in Bell's life, a warm reminiscence of when he was a child and the comfort in feeling that his father was out ahead of him in the woods warding off the darkness -- and then he woke up, cut to credits. It perfectly captures his loss of hope and idealism by the end of the picture. And they handle it with restraint, not cutting to any silly visualization of the dream or anything but just fixating on Bell's face and allowing the poetry of the words to create their own imagery (I haven't seen it since it was in the theatre, I can't remember if they cut to his wife or if there is a slow zoom to give it an extra sense of gravitas or something like that, but the result, for me, was moving without being schmaltzy). I thought the entire ending worked really well.

[Michael]

Michael, what exactly do you mean by spoonfed? Do you mean to say it was unabashed exposition?

You pretty much answered your question:

And of course, what he is saying is the tail end of the film's thematic arc. So even if you don't like it, he had to say it or else the film would be incomplete

That's spoonfeeding to me. It works great in the book but in the film, it sounds so comical, closing the film in a very uninspiring, uncinematic, boring boring blah manner. I love to imagine how Kubrick would translate that ending and the whole book as well. Look at how he translated pure literature into pure cinema - Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, etc. But again, I should not be comparing the Coens to my favorite directors. Unfair.

No Country for Old Men is a "paint by numbers" of the great book.

[domino harvey]

The ending is not uninspiring, uncinematic, or boring though. I mean, two of those three are value judgments so I can't object too strongly to opinions, but calling it "uncinematic" is pretty insulting to film history. Just because the monolog's not edited to shit and filled with cut-aways to the cup of coffee and Super-8 footage of a little kid running through sprinklers doesn't make it somehow "uncinematic." I don't think this is a great film but it is a very good one and apparently good enough for me to be defending it.

[Michael]

Why do you think the ending works in the book but not in the film?

Because the monologue - the last chapter - is so luminously written and in consistent with all the rest of the book - McCarthy's unique writing style carries on from the first word to the end. It's one amazing spell. That piece "pasted" on the film didn't punch me in the same way as the book. It was like the sheriff reading off the last pages of the book and that bothered me.

The ending is not uninspiring, uncinematic, or boring though. I mean, two of those three are value judgments so I can't object too strongly to opinions, but calling it "uncinematic" is pretty insulting to film history. Just because the monolog's not edited to shit and filled with cut-aways to the cup of coffee and Super-8 footage of a little kid running through sprinklers doesn't make it somehow "uncinematic." I don't think this is a great film but it is a very good one and apparently good enough for me to be defending it.

Excuse me for bitching "uncinematic". I have nothing against monologues in films, Ingmar Bergmans, with his incredible background in theater, has plenty of great ones, all original and inspiring.

[Tom Hagen]

I saw No Country twice in theatres, once right after it opened at an Art House theatre in SLC, and once with my father at a cineplex in Montana over Thanksgiving. The second time that I saw the film, there was a lot of audience grumbling over the ending. Some smart ass high school kid sitting in front of us even yelled out "worst ending EVER!" in the comic book guy voice. I know that this is not Michael's objection to the ending, but as nearly as I could tell, the masses seemed pretty pissed off that there wasn't a big OK Corral shoot-em up finale between Chigurh and Bell to neatly wrap up the plot. My point in bringing this up is to merely point out that many casual cinemagoers did not view the ending as "spoon feeding" a theme to them; rather, it unsettled their conventional expectations and forced them to think deeper or to dismiss the picture. If anything, the ending of the film (coupled with the last two scenes involving Chigurh) forces its audience to grapple with thematic points that they may have otherwise overlooked in enjoying all of the masterful suspense sequences and plot turns in the film, or it leaves them disappointed when it does not give easy answers those broader questions of theme.

The ending of the film was pitch perfect for me. What I found most impressive was the way that the Coens managed to work McCarthy's unique literary voice (what Eli Cash hilariously calls "an obsolete vernacular" in The Royal Tenenbaums) into the ending of the film. Maybe it says something about my personal background, but there's something so beautiful about that piercing old-west existentialism that McCarthy captures time and again in his literature. I was really amazed that the Coens were able to translate that language so effectively into cinema, especially because of their aforementioned history of smart-assery. (Going into the film, I was worried that it would be filled with caricatures like Sam Elliot's in The Big Lebowski, cowboys and rubes whose staid Western personality tics would be played for easy laughs -- fortunately they only give us one: Moss's deputy.)

(By the way, my preference for TWBB notwithstanding, I was fine with the Academy Awards last year for simply NOT giving awards to easy-to-digest Oscar bait like Atonement).

[swo17]

Michael, what exactly do you mean by spoonfed? Do you mean to say it was unabashed exposition?

You pretty much answered your question

I don't think he was conceding that the ending was "unabashed exposition." There are plenty of things that could have been wrapped up in that last monologue--

Spoiler

"So, those Mexicans got Llewelyn, killer came back and got the money, then he killed the wife too, I just don't feel I fit in with the world today, think I'm gonna retire."

but instead the Coens went with a poetic headscratcher that went over many viewer's heads. You can say it works better in the book, or that it's boring to you (to each his own), but what about this last scene is expository?

[HerrSchreck]

I think it was HerrSchreck that made a similar accusation, suggesting that the Coens slavishly try and live up to a reputation as "quirky" or "offbeat", and I just don't get it (Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty excepted).

I never said such a thing. I said the Coens are fascinated with themselves and their own perception of their "greatness" and seem to have a sloppy sense of self editorialism, and produce some of the smuggest, smarmiest films I've seen.

I absolutely adored early Coens up to and including Miller's Crossing & Fargo, but I see a sad qualitative decline afterwards. I thought No Country was okay, but sloppy as shit. I agree with an awful lot that Narshty says.. and I thought the ending was fumbling and cantankerous as a gorilla on those old clip on rollerskates. In a pink dress. Patting his head and rubbing his tummy. And blowing bubbles with Bazooka.... CRASH!

Seriously, I thought the film filled with a lot of amateurish stabs at Melvillean Quietude. Which read for me as a lot of blank, compositional unbalance. In narrative and in mise en scene.

I did my time in this thread, however, so that's about all I hafta say-- just wanted to correct Signore Andronicus.

[Titus]

I never said such a thing. I said the Coens are fascinated with themselves and their own perception of their "greatness" and seem to have a sloppy sense of self editorialism, and produce some of the smuggest, smarmiest films I've seen.

This is the comment I was alluding to:

Problem with the Coens is they are their own biggest fans, and every setpiece of every one of their films since FARGO is written with the self-conscious intention of having what they believe people think is the thing called The Coen Touch... like an irritating comedian laughing after every single one of his own jokes.

I don't think "the Coens slavishly try and live up to a reputation as "quirky" or "offbeat" is a total misrepresentation of "written with the self-conscious intention of having what they believe people think is the thing called The Coen Touch", apart from your more colorful verbiage, but your setting the record straight is nonetheless appreciated.

Seriously, though, and apologies if this is branching too far off track, but setting aside the accusations of smugness and megalomania (or whatever) on the part of the directors that I'm too dense to recognize to the degree that many do, I don't see the clear divide in their work that you do (early = great/ recent = truly, mind-numbingly awful), though I do think that Miller's Crossing is easily the apex of their career. Do others feel the same way (that is, have a violently more favorable opinion of their early work compared to their later work)?

edit to add: again, my more balanced view of their career is excepting the recent one-two punch of Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, which I frequently forget about in these types of discussions quite purposefully.