1243 No Country for Old Men

[Antoine Doinel]

But Moss isn't equipped to deal with the world of violence he's entered into. He is killed. That's the difference between the age-old circle of life story and a story of apocalypse. Moss is the young, contemporary man, and yet he dies.

Moss is hardly a "contemporary" man, living in a trailer and driving around a beatup pickup truck. If he was on Wall Street, or even living in the suburbs and stumbled acrosst the money, then maybe I could see your point. Moss is killed because he enters into a chain of events with the full knowledge he was probably going to die in the process: "I’m fixing to do something dumber than hell, but I’m doing it anyway." Chigurgh is a monster, but is terrifyingly at ease and in control and that is what scares Bell. This is a whole incarnation of evil and violence that seemingly stems from nowhere that he cannot understand or is physically capable to deal with him.

[M]

Moss is hardly a "contemporary" man, living in a trailer and driving around a beatup pickup truck. If he was on Wall Street, or even living in the suburbs and stumbled acrosst the money, then maybe I could see your point. Moss is killed because he enters into a chain of events with the full knowledge he was probably going to die in the process: "I’m fixing to do something dumber than hell, but I’m doing it anyway." Chigurgh is a monster, but is terrifyingly at ease and in control and that is what scares Bell. This is a whole incarnation of evil and violence that seemingly stems from nowhere that he cannot understand or is physically capable to deal with him.

He is for the world of the film, of West Texas in 1980. His function in the story is to represent the younger generation, so he doesn't necessarily have to look like or live like the middle- and upper-class viewers viewing the film. The reason I say so is to dispel the idea that the film is about the cycle of life. Moss is the representation of the younger generation, and he does not end up creating new life out of the death of the old. He himself dies, which reinforces the idea that the film is a story about last days, because the one person who would dramatically function as the young blood carrying on the flame is killed.

[Antoine Doinel]

Moss is hardly a "contemporary" man, living in a trailer and driving around a beatup pickup truck. If he was on Wall Street, or even living in the suburbs and stumbled acrosst the money, then maybe I could see your point. Moss is killed because he enters into a chain of events with the full knowledge he was probably going to die in the process: "I’m fixing to do something dumber than hell, but I’m doing it anyway." Chigurgh is a monster, but is terrifyingly at ease and in control and that is what scares Bell. This is a whole incarnation of evil and violence that seemingly stems from nowhere that he cannot understand or is physically capable to deal with him.

He is for the world of the film, of West Texas in 1980. His function in the story is to represent the younger generation, so he doesn't necessarily have to look like or live like the middle- and upper-class viewers viewing the film.

But according to your theory, he does: ie. shifting mores, cell phones or whatever. But Bell and Moss, pretty much live the same way, and if anything Bell might have the more modern lifestyle. If McCarthy is commenting on the decline of Western civilization (as you seem to suggest - and perhaps he does in the book, which I have not read), it is not present in the film. Moss, if anything, is younger yes, but lives a fairly non-modern lifestyle. I just can't agree his death is larger symbol of apocalypse or society so much as it is a choice he goes full throttle into with the hope of beating his predestined fate.

[HerrSchreck]

The novel is set in the 80s because the author seems to perceive some sort of breaking point separating the past and the present. Drugs are a part of it, the proliferation of extreme violent crime too, loss of the natural environment is a part of it, so is the rise of corporate multinationalism, the death of urban infrastructure and the decline of the American middle class, greed, materialism and acquisitiveness, etc.

What in the film makes you think that? What breaking point was there-- this is what my question boils down to. Is this a Texas Breaking Point? Is this a USA Breaking Point? Can this Breaking Point be located in 1980 Texas (or USA) microfiche of newspapers and magazines? If so, what? Has anybody talked about this before? Since when did "acquisitiveness", "materialism", "Greed", "death of urban infrastructure", "Violent crime" or "drugs" have their Big Bang in 1980? Who believes this? Do Texans generally believe this, and did they before the film came out? Do they believe it now? Any scholars? Did Macarthy say he believes this? Never heard it before in my life, which is why I'm asking where you guys get this stuff from.

Take, for example, "Clockers" by Richard Price. Everyone knows that's about the species of commonplace inner-city crack dealer what sprung up in the late-80's / 90's. The French Connection about the huge heroin boom in the 60's. The Untouchables about 20's/30's prohibition gangsters-- obvious to those unfamiliar with Eliot Ness. Even Carlito's Way-- it's a film about a city in transition away from the junk boom of the NYC 60's towards the Cocaine-disco era of the late 70's. These are signal times, touchstone films about "classic eras" about which there is no question or supposition, no need for speculation.

There's no meditation of the times on display in NCFOM, beyond the laments of an old, sad, enfeebled man whose job is badly getting to him. No one else in the film-- least of all an authorial voice-- remarks on any seismic shifts going on in Texas, in small towns, big cities, talks about the way infrastructure was/is, or lofty topics like the decline of the American Middle Class.

Watch The First 48 on A&E. It's a devastating show, and filled to bursting with homicide detectives (with whom you tag along with when they get real 911 calls thru to case closing) in their prime, today, talking about the vacancy of the current generation, the cheapness of life in today's youth culture, and how the job can get to you and the need to fight its effects. One sad old sheriff in any time is unexceptional in terms of "commentary". You'll find them in the old west straight thru to today. If you use them as your social barometer you'll find yourself in a perpetual junkheap of a world, because their lives are as bleak as they come. Bell would say the same shit if it were 1880-- one hell of a crazy time for Texas no doubt.

And infrastructure is always decaying. No structure is permanent. It's need for renovation is forever cyclical, and not a sign of sociological collapse. When your car goes kaput you don't blow your brains out because the world is ending-- you repair it or get another one. Same with cities infrastructure.

[M]

But according to your theory, he does: ie. shifting mores, cell phones or whatever. But Bell and Moss, pretty much live the same way, and if anything Bell might have the more modern lifestyle. If McCarthy is commenting on the decline of Western civilization (as you seem to suggest - and perhaps he does in the book, which I have not read), it is not present in the film. Moss, if anything, is younger yes, but lives a fairly non-modern lifestyle. I just can't agree his death is larger symbol of apocalypse or society so much as it is a choice he goes full throttle into with the hope of beating his predestined fate.

Bell and Moss are different in one important way: Moss is willing to take part in the morally degenerate world of crime. And he does so because he lacks the scruples to avoid it. That he lacks the scruples points to the world he lives in. It's almost off-handed how he decides to take the drug money he stumbles on. It's almost natural. Remember how he casually admits his theft to his wife when he gets home at night? Sheriff Bell investigates the crime, but he does not take part in that world, even to combat it. He always stands at a distance. Were Moss to escape, the cycle of life theory of the film would make sense. But he doesn't escape, because in the story there is no escape from the modern world.

What in the film makes you think that?

Nearly everything that occurs in the film.

Do Texans generally believe this, and did they before the film came out?

I'm sure I don't know.

[Antoine Doinel]

But according to your theory, he does: ie. shifting mores, cell phones or whatever. But Bell and Moss, pretty much live the same way, and if anything Bell might have the more modern lifestyle. If McCarthy is commenting on the decline of Western civilization (as you seem to suggest - and perhaps he does in the book, which I have not read), it is not present in the film. Moss, if anything, is younger yes, but lives a fairly non-modern lifestyle. I just can't agree his death is larger symbol of apocalypse or society so much as it is a choice he goes full throttle into with the hope of beating his predestined fate.

Bell and Moss are different in one important way: Moss is willing to take part in the morally degenerate world of crime. And he does so because he lacks the scruples to avoid it. That he lacks the scruples points to the world he lives in. It's almost off-handed how he decides to take the drug money he stumbles on. It's almost natural. Remember how he casually admits his theft to his wife when he gets home at night? Sheriff Bell investigates the crime, but he does not take part in that world, even to combat it. He always stands at a distance. Were Moss to escape, the cycle of life theory of the film would make sense. But he doesn't escape, because in the story there is no escape from the modern world.

So you see Moss as a moral degenerate? I guess that's where we differ. If the back of Brinks truck opened or if I found a suitcase full of drug money, I wouldn't bat an eye in taking it. Only in a weirdly rigid world of right and wrong does stealing drug money constitute moral degeneracy. If anything, Moss could be viewed as a hero in taking money that would otherwise be used to procure more drugs and weapons.

[M]

So you see Moss as a moral degenerate? I guess that's where we differ. If the back of Brinks truck opened or if I found a suitcase full of drug money, I wouldn't bat an eye in taking it. Only in a weirdly rigid world of right and wrong does stealing drug money constitute moral degeneracy. If anything, Moss could be viewed as a hero in taking money that would otherwise be used to procure more drugs and weapons.

Okay, degenerate is much too hard-and-fast a term. He is I think morally compromised or a moral equivocator. But only because he lives in a world in which morals are compromised. It's wrong to steal, but it's drug money, but a lot of drug smugglers are just poor people trying to earn a living, but they kill others, but they do it in self-defense and so on and so on. Moss is emblematic of the man who lives in that world, or, the world we all live in now.

[Antoine Doinel]

Ok, but in the world of the film, the drug baron is rich, and they kill their own smugglers out of nothing more than greed and convenience. Moss' taking the money harms no one. And dude, everybody is morally compromised to some degree. There isn't some start point when America somehow slipped into dubious ethics.

[M]

Ok, but in the world of the film, the drug baron is rich, and they kill their own smugglers out of nothing more than greed and convenience. Moss' taking the money harms no one. And dude, everybody is morally compromised to some degree. There isn't some start point when America somehow slipped into dubious ethics.

I think there's a rich connection between this film and Fargo in this regard, don't you think? Between Chigurh in No Country for Old Men and the Marlboro Man in Fargo. Both come in from outside the setting in the film, both are ruthless killers, and both seem to be the vortex drawing everyone else in around them to their doom. There is the connection too between Marge Gunderson and Sheriff Bell. Both stand at a distance from the center of the action. But, in No Country for Old Men, there is no collar at the end. Perhaps in ten years the Coens aren't as sure about the potential for the innate goodness in people to win out against the forces in today's world fighting against it. It would seem that the Coens do believe there was once a better time, and that people today are too greedy and selfish and stupid to see the consequences of the games they play. Employing Cormac McCarthy in No Country for Old Men, they imagine the consequences as possibly apocalyptic.

[Antoine Doinel]

I don't think the Coens mindset has changed so much as with Fargo and No Country For Old Men they are showing two sides of the same coin. And yeah, that metaphor is fully intentional.

[HerrSchreck]

What in the film makes you think that the author seems to perceive some sort of breaking point separating the past and the present. Drugs are a part of it, the proliferation of extreme violent crime too, loss of the natural environment is a part of it, so is the rise of corporate multinationalism, the death of urban infrastructure and the decline of the American middle class, greed, materialism and acquisitiveness, etc. ?

Nearly everything that occurs in the film.

Do Texans generally believe this, and did they before the film came out?

I'm sure I don't know.

****EXTREE****EXTREEE*****LATE EDITION***

1980 Seismic Shift In World Reflected In Film!
(Reuters) Asked for confirmation of the
world seismic shift reported in the film, one witness said--
"The whole film is a 1980 World Seismic Shift."

Asked for confirmation of the existence of the actual historical
1980 World Seismic Shift outside the film, one witness said
"I'm sure I don't know."

"But wasn't this seismic shift reported in the film alleged to be a factual
representation of an actual 1980 World Seismic Shift Event?" this
reporter asked.

"Absolutely."

"So outside of it's portrayal in the film, what evidence do you have that
there was an actual 1980 World Seismic Shift?"

"I'm sure I don't know. I just know it was seismic."

"It definitely was Seismic?"

"Oh absolutely."
Fwoomp

[Antoine Doinel]

HerrSchreck, that is your best post ever.

[M]

Corrections:

The reporter who wrote the '1980 seismic shift' story published in yesterday's late edition mistakenly read the allegorical film literally,
and took one viewer's interpretation of said allegorical film as said viewer's literal personal opinion.
The reporter has been moved back to obits where we don't foresee allegory or symbolism affecting the quality of his work.
We regret the error.

[HerrSchreck]

Seismic Breaking Point Events shouldn't be this difficult to discuss after you bring them up.

Yes, our civilization in particular is in decline and the end is coming very soon.

Whenever you're ready to tell me what the hell you were talking about, I stand ready. Like I said before-- before this started Getting Silly-- I am genuinely intrigued by this 1980 sociological stuff because this sort of info interests me. Forget the End-of the world Bible stuff, forget the movie entirely and who interprets What, How.

Let's talk about what you say the movie is reflecting: WHAT HAPPENED IN 1980, and was it Texas, USA, or Global?

I'll check back 2morrow.

[M]

Seismic Breaking Point Events shouldn't be this difficult to discuss after you bring them up.

Yes, our civilization in particular is in decline and the end is coming very soon.

Whenever you're ready to tell me what the hell you were talking about, I stand ready.

As you like. You forgot to quote the immediately preceding sentence: "I think that is plainly the meaning we are to derive from the story." After which followed the sentence you did quote, meaning that that appears to be what the story's about based on all of the things that occur in the story, not what I personally believe is literally the case in real life. Or even what the author literally thinks is the case in real life. I'd be interested in social and economic life in Texas in the 80s too, and the drug trade across the border. I'm sure there's secondary literature on Cormac McCarthy's work on the subject. But I wasn't even arguing that the author believed there was something catastrophic that happened precisely in the year 1980, let alone that I myself believed it had.

Let's talk about what you say the movie is reflecting: WHAT HAPPENED IN 1980, and was it Texas, USA, or Global?

Yes, let's. None of the above.

[essrog]

Ok, but in the world of the film, the drug baron is rich, and they kill their own smugglers out of nothing more than greed and convenience. Moss' taking the money harms no one. And dude, everybody is morally compromised to some degree. There isn't some start point when America somehow slipped into dubious ethics.

I think there's a rich connection between this film and Fargo in this regard, don't you think? Between Chigurh in No Country for Old Men and the Marlboro Man in Fargo. Both come in from outside the setting in the film, both are ruthless killers, and both seem to be the vortex drawing everyone else in around them to their doom. There is the connection too between Marge Gunderson and Sheriff Bell. Both stand at a distance from the center of the action. But, in No Country for Old Men, there is no collar at the end. Perhaps in ten years the Coens aren't as sure about the potential for the innate goodness in people to win out against the forces in today's world fighting against it. It would seem that the Coens do believe there was once a better time, and that people today are too greedy and selfish and stupid to see the consequences of the games they play. Employing Cormac McCarthy in No Country for Old Men, they imagine the consequences as possibly apocalyptic.

In terms of the first set of characters you mentioned, you can go back to Leonard Smalls, The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse, in Raising Arizona as an antecedent. Looking at Arizona, Fargo, and No Country successively would certainly give you the idea that the Coens' world view has darkened over the years, but that wouldn't explain The Big Lebowski and O Brother coming on the heels of Fargo, or Burn After Reading, another comedy, coming next.

[starmanof51]

Let's talk about what you say the movie is reflecting: WHAT HAPPENED IN 1980, and was it Texas, USA, or Global?

I'll check back 2morrow.

Well, Reagan got elected in 1980. There's plenty of people walking around who trace The Decline And Fall to that. OK, I just now googled on Cormac McCarthy and Reagan, and the main hit I got was an Annie Proulx review of the book asking the same question - why 1980? The first possibility she throws out is the advent of Reagan, followed by a half-dozen other possibilities - violent outbreaks of the time. So she seems to think the year is significant too but doesn't seem to know why.

[Nothing]

The Coen Bros have even less to say for themselves now than they did in the 1980s. To call them the 'authors' of No Country... is stretching a point beyond credulity, quite frankly. Perhaps they deserve some credit for presenting McCarthy's vision relatively intact.

nb. McCarthy grew up in Knoxville in the 40s and 50s.

[Jack Phillips]

The Coen Bros have even less to say for themselves now than they did in the 1980s. To call them the 'authors' of No Country... is stretching a point beyond credulity, quite frankly. Perhaps they deserve some credit for presenting McCarthy's vision relatively intact.

Can we at least agree that the film can stand on its own, that it isn't necessary to bring in the novel in order to explicate it?

[HerrSchreck]

Seismic Breaking Point Events shouldn't be this difficult to discuss after you bring them up.

Yes, our civilization in particular is in decline and the end is coming very soon.

Whenever you're ready to tell me what the hell you were talking about, I stand ready.

As you like. You forgot to quote the immediately preceding sentence: "I think that is plainly the meaning we are to derive from the story." After which followed the sentence you did quote, meaning that that appears to be what the story's about based on all of the things that occur in the story, not what I personally believe is literally the case in real life. Or even what the author literally thinks is the case in real life. I'd be interested in social and economic life in Texas in the 80s too, and the drug trade across the border. I'm sure there's secondary literature on Cormac McCarthy's work on the subject. But I wasn't even arguing that the author believed there was something catastrophic that happened precisely in the year 1980, let alone that I myself believed it had.

Let's talk about what you say the movie is reflecting: WHAT HAPPENED IN 1980, and was it Texas, USA, or Global?

Yes, let's. None of the above.

Well this went nowhere. On the last page you said the 80's represented "the beginning of the end, when people stopped saying 'sir' or 'madam' to one another". You then said

The film is set in the 80s because the novel is set in the 80s. The novel is set in the 80s because the author seems to perceive some sort of breaking point separating the past and the present. Drugs are a part of it, the proliferation of extreme violent crime too, loss of the natural environment is a part of it, so is the rise of corporate multinationalism, the death of urban infrastructure and the decline of the American middle class, greed, materialism and acquisitiveness, etc.

It's impossible to get a conversation going with someone who won't Own Their Own Statements.

What I'd say in closing this unsuccessful conversation is that clearly, M, you brought an eschatlogical mindset to this film. Clearly you maintain some form of Christian belief that we are in the end times, and interpret the series of flat events in a crime melodrama as a message about Armegeddon.

Nothing wrong with this, in fact this proves the beauty of art. But it's also a compelling illustration regarding how one will pull out of an artwork those things one brings to the artwork. Art is of course a rorschach inkblot test for spectators, particularly those enthralled with signs and hidden meanings, not to mention works of metaphor and symbolism and how ripe they are for varied interpretation.

I'm not here to put down your religious beliefs or say your interpretation of the film is wrong-- far from it. But I think there's enough in your posts to indicate that a Christian mind concerned with eschatological issues is present, and this is what has been processing and interpreting this film to produce those posts. I've no interest in persuading you hither or yon concerning your interpretation via the meaning of the film... you have the right to have it mean whatever you'd like to it mean-- though I'd encourage to you for your own perspective to see yourself in the larger picture, when arguing for the "true meaning" of this film.

As far as what you think "happened" in 1980 (or began happening), I sense a "decline of the west" sort of thing which is a very personal (though strongly held) belief of yours, and quite outside the realm of news or statistics... and therefore beyond the reach of tangible conversation.

Signing off.

[M]

What I'd say in closing this unsuccessful conversation is that clearly, M, you brought an eschatlogical mindset to this film. Clearly you maintain some form of Christian belief that we are in the end times, and interpret the series of flat events in a crime melodrama as a message about Armegeddon.

Nothing wrong with this, in fact this proves the beauty of art. But it's also a compelling illustration regarding how one will pull out of an artwork those things one brings to the artwork. Art is of course a rorschach inkblot test for spectators, particularly those enthralled with signs and hidden meanings, not to mention works of metaphor and symbolism and how ripe they are for varied interpretation.

I'm not here to put down your religious beliefs or say your interpretation of the film is wrong-- far from it. But I think there's enough in your posts to indicate that a Christian mind concerned with eschatological issues is present, and this is what has been processing and interpreting this film to produce those posts. I've no interest in persuading you hither or yon concerning your interpretation via the meaning of the film... you have the right to have it mean whatever you'd like to it mean-- though I'd encourage to you for your own perspective to see yourself in the larger picture, when arguing for the "true meaning" of this film.

As far as what you think "happened" in 1980 (or began happening), I sense a "decline of the west" sort of thing which is a very personal (though strongly held) belief of yours, and quite outside the realm of news or statistics... and therefore beyond the reach of tangible conversation.

Actually, I'm an atheist and so Christian eschatology is the furthest thing from my mind. This exchange would rather be the second example of your presumption of some personal emotional investment I have in my characterization of this film. Both times your interjections have proven unfounded.

And really, much of your contribution has been irrelevant to the discussion. You seem to carry on as though what I'm arguing the film is about, what its overriding meaning system is, is my own personal belief, when I've been at pains to distinguish that what I'm arguing is what I perceive the artists' beliefs to be. I didn't say that the 80s represented the beginning of the end because I believe it to be true myself. I said that the author of the story seems to believe so. I'm fairly sure you can make the distinction I'm drawing here. The reason I think the author of the story thinks the 80s represents 'the beginning of the end' is because the story is set in the 80s and because the plotline in that setting implies apocalypse. This is born out in the Annie Proulx review of the novel referenced above, and even more strongly in Walter Kirn's review of the novel in the NY Times Book Review ('No Country for Old Men: Texas Noir'). It wouldn't surprise me to see critical reviews of the film couched in such terms too.

If you're trying to pin down what causes I myself attribute to why the artists believe the 80s were 'a breaking point between past and present', I don't think there is one thing or another. Social change doesn't work that way. You can put two sentences I wrote side by side, but they're not mutually exclusive. It may be an intangible for McCarthy/the Coens too. I think of Goodfellas and Boogie Nights. In roughly the 1980s in those films, things break down for the protagonists in those movies. They break down in those films for dramatic reasons specific to those characters, not because of global politics or because the Rapture is coming soon.

[starmanof51]

I think of Goodfellas and Boogie Nights. In roughly the 1980s in those films, things break down for the protagonists in those movies. They break down in those films for dramatic reasons specific to those characters, not because of global politics or because the Rapture is coming soon.

Which is what I think Schreck was positing for this film as well, assuming he has indeed "signed off" and isn't coming by again to speak for himself.

[HerrSchreck]

Actually, I'm an atheist and so Christian eschatology is the furthest thing from my mind. .

Hmmm...

the Coens aren't as sure about the potential for the innate goodness in people to win out against the forces in today's world fighting against it. It would seem that the Coens do believe there was once a better time, and that people today are too greedy and selfish and stupid to see the consequences of the games they play. Employing Cormac McCarthy in No Country for Old Men, they imagine the consequences as possibly apocalyptic.

But only because he lives in a world in which morals are compromised. It's wrong to steal, but it's drug money, but a lot of drug smugglers are just poor people trying to earn a living, but they kill others, but they do it in self-defense and so on and so on. Moss is emblematic of the man who lives in that world, or, the world we all live in now.

the film is a story about last days

But Moss isn't equipped to deal with the world of violence he's entered into. He is killed. That's the difference between the age-old circle of life story and a story of apocalypse.

Again, it remains to be seen whether the effects of the decline of Western civilization will be felt in our lifetime

The use of the internet and cell phones and other techno-accoutrements I would say are several of the emblems of the apocalypse of the West themselves, which are not in the story in literal form but are subsumed allegorically

I think the latter issue is irrelevant, as a discussion of the truth or falsity of the claims of Christianity would be in a topic devoted to The Passion of the Christ.

In No Country for Old Men, we're all in the position of the old man. The sun is setting on us and darkness is ahead.

Yes, our civilization in particular is in decline and the end is coming very soon. Not like how every generation dies off and a new one is born. But that Western civilization is dying and an age of darkness is taking its place

I would gather that the early 80s reflect the beginning of the end, when people stopped saying 'sir' and 'maam'.

we as latter-day Americans are in the midst of losing this struggle right now at this moment because of the sort of world we have chosen to construct for ourselves.

think the story is telling us that these are the consequences of the moral choices we as a society are making today.

Yes, that our society is corrupt and that the end is just ahead.

I'm so Dizzy!

[M]

Repeating myself.

You seem to carry on as though what I'm arguing the film is about, what its overriding meaning system is, is my own personal belief, when I've been at pains to distinguish that what I'm arguing is what I perceive the artists' beliefs to be.

[cinemartin]

That Dizzy video seems to me to be the sign that 1970, not 80, was the beginning of the apocalypse.