For such grim subject matter, it is quite surprising just how purely entertaining No Country For Old Men is as simply a crime film or genre piece. Perhaps this is why it was the one of only two films that I managed to visit theatrically not two, but three times. On this third visit (which occurred yesterday) I went in specifically looking to view the film through the prism of luck and fate and to a lesser degree free will (the latter being something at the heart of nearly all ‘ innocent person finds a big bag of money’ films from Shallow Grave to A Simple Plan). Two things that stick out in the film as repeated motifs are the tossing of the coin by psycho killer (que’st que c’est?) Anton Chigurh as a sort of ‘second chance’ to a potential murder victim and the line of dialogue “You can’t stop what’s coming.”
Now the Coen Brothers famously have said that in Miller’s Crossing, a film memorable for the constant hat imagery amongst many other things, that hat stuff is in there just because, you know, they like hats. Despite the Coen’s famously deadpan sense of humour (Fargo bears the caption “Based on A True Story” even when it is not), there may be some truth to that. It is more likely that motifs gradually grow out developing of the material and the Coen’s have a natural ability to channel this into their stories. To put it in brief, the brothers have a way of throwing a lot of stuff at the wall, and making it all stick. To be fair, the material is so closely adapted from Cormac McCarthy’s novel of the same name, that he is also quite complicit in much of what is discussed below.
show
Perhaps the most jarring scene in No Country For Old Men (in a narrative sense, anyway) is the murder of Llewellyn Moss. Up until this point in the film much of the visuals have focused on mapping and charting the meticulous details of every act of the hunter (Chigurh) and prey (Moss). The time spent on assembling tent poles, renting multiple motel rooms, cleaning and dressing gun shot wounds, etc. is well beyond what most crime films tend to spend their runtime on, with the possible exception of heist films which usually only use that kind of laser-like observation in one or two segments of the film (the elaborate and intricate robbery being the climax of the film). Here however, the focus is on the mundane. Examples (and there are many) include Moss trying to talk a confused clerk into selling him just tent poles or Moss (and Chigurh) being chastised by a hotel owner for renting a room with too many beds for one occupant. Thus, when it comes time for the big show-down in El Paso between Moss and Chigurh (the film carries much of the aesthetic of a Western too), that not only do the filmmakers (and author of the novel) choose to completely leave this scene out of the film (and book), yet they also have the careful Moss executed by a band of Mexicans lucky enough to get his place of residence from a gullible old woman (Moss’s mother in law - hey there is Sparkle Motion’s Beth Farmer doing her thing again!) but also to for once, catch him off guard drinking with a fellow hotel resident.
Was it good fortune or simple a narrative crutch that the Sheriff of El Paso mentions to Ed Tom Bell that Chigurh has a habit of returning fearlessly to a crime scene that makes Bell return to the scene of the Mexicans murder of Moss to find some small form of closure to the missing money? Also, Moss may have completely gotten away with everything scott free had he not returned to the crime scene with a quart of water. (His conscience (after-all he can’t sleep that night)? To close loose ends (the Mexican, his fingerprints on the car)? Is it simply Fate that forces him to return? Why Moss goes a second time to the scene of the crime is not clearly articulated by the filmmakers.
Even tiny details stand out. Take for instance, Woody Harrelson’s character, Carson Wells, remarking to his hiring agent that the city office building they are in is missing a floor. This is certainly an allusion to the fact that many buildings do not label the 13th floor as such, because it is bad luck. For that matter, much of the competence of Carson Wells is unexplained. How does he find Moss in 3 hours? How does he intuit that Moss dumped the money along the walk near the Mexican border? Was Wells lucky? He was certainly not lucky enough to avoid Anton. Another trivial detail comes from a cabbie driving Llewellyn Moss back to his motel room, when sensing that things are not on the up and up, tells him to get out of the car, because the driver does not want to get in a ‘Jackpot.’ A word that is also slang for the winning sum of money in a luck-based lottery or draw game.
Anton Chigurh is represented as a relentless killing machine that doesn’t care about the greed and fears of the average fellow. He walks into public places, commits abrupt and violent acts, and walks out equally casually. One of the most tense scenes in the film is quite simply of Chigurh eating a package of nuts in a gas station. What starts out as the old clerk making simple small talk, ends up being one of the great character introductions (despite that this is the third scene featuring Anton at this point) of all time. Any filmmaker willing to spend so much time on events that are so tangential to the rest of the plot is probably trying to make some sort of point with the scene. Of course, the line that sticks out here is “What’s the most you’ve even lost on a coin toss?” If there is on character in the film that is likely to be above the whim of luck and fate (in fact he is a self-stylized harbinger of it) it would be Anton Chigurh. On more than one occasion, he is referred to as a ghost (allusions to the devil perhaps?). After killing Carla Jean Moss after she practically throws his coin-toss and unconventional moral code in his face (‘you do whatever you want anyway’), Chirgurh gets in his car to drive away, the film (like many scenes) is quite meticulous in observing him looking in his mirrors, showing that the light is very much green several times, etc. Before a totally random car accident nearly eliminates him. He has been essentially an unstoppable force until this point, and even he is brought down by the whims of blind chance.
There are certainly many things going on in No Country For Old Men. It is not surprising in the least that it has turned up at or near the top of almost every ones end of year “best of” lists. The film is in part a commentary on the nature of American crime and violence, a measure of the decline of values and decorum (“It’s all over when people stop using Sirs and Ma’ams”) in the twentieth century, but the most fascinating and carefully woven aspect on the film is on luck, fate and free will. After all, printed on all of those $100 dollar bills in the satchel everyone seeks, is “In God We Trust.”
How many people use the exclaimation point in Baz...
I’m doing well not reading it, but this is a rare display of me not reading something.
Comment by Another Mike — December 23, 2007
Anyway the film has been in release since November 9th, so I figured most folks have seen the thing by now, so it was time for an “EXTENDED THOUGHTS” type piece on it.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — December 23, 2007
Comment by TheSnowLeopard — December 23, 2007
Job well done!
Comment by Dave Becker — December 23, 2007
Comment by andrew dykstra — December 24, 2007
And like the novel isn’t the film about coming to the realization that we, mankind, are truly alone in the world. That there is no kind, benevolent God shielding us from irrational, uncontrollable evils; Chigurh, fate, plane-hijacking terrorists, etc. That you just can’t stop what’s coming.
There is a point in the film (as Brolin meets the girl at the pool) where they could have easily just gone with the incredible chase narrative which was heading to an explosive climax, but, faithful to McCarthy, they jettison it all and reveal what the piece is really about.
A remarkable achievement that I too had to see several times to get my fill. And I stillbelieve Walter Chaw said it best: No Country For Old Men is a fucking masterpiece.
Comment by roman — December 24, 2007
It’s certainly a film that gets richer on each subsequent viewing. Even moreso that the book for some reason. Credit the Coen’s with that one. And following on from what Roman said, its’ rare that a book can be adapted so literally and still be a smashing success as a film. The Coen’s almost prove the rule with this particular exception.
Comment by Kurt — December 24, 2007
Comment by Another Mike — December 27, 2007