I still can't get this film out of my head. There was complete silence as the credits rolled when I saw it. At first I was thinking "oh shit," but I like to think that it's exactly as you said it should be. Go out, walk around and talk about it, and let it sink in.

It is "chilling" because it is so dark. Fargo was probably just as dark but the dark humor allowed most people to try to chuckle it away, in this case, even with pulling punches, the Coens showed the audience that the safe rug the audience assumed would be there at the end, wasn't there at all- not that they pulled it at the end. In this way, part of the surprise of the ending was the stark reality to unsuspecting viewers that the darkness was really there al along. Essentially, the end was merely the delayed reaction to a particular unshown killing at the end, one the directors should have shown, but would have probably led to people burning down the theater. "Chilling" is the right word for most people's view of the film. I saw it opening night in Boston and the line was all the way out the door and the ending was a gut punch to the sold-out audience. I expected it, being a loyal reader of spoilers at HE.

I love it how when audiences don't love one of Jeff's darlings, their intelligence is automatically questioned.

I love the ending, but it's not the kind of ending that makes you leap up an applaud. It's the kind of ending that creeps up on you as you leave the theater -- or maybe even days later. I'm not ready to take these reports I've been hearing as proof of anything, except that exit polls aren't always accurate.

"you know how this is going to end, don't you?"

YES! We all do. Just like when every other character Chigurh comes across is presumed to be killed, it's no surprise when "our main man" finally gets his. Off-screen is surprising and disorienting, but that's actually the point. It hit me harder than just showing his brains flying all over the wall. It's actually not that kind of film.

I've seen great films at industry screenings and they all get rousing ovations at the end. No Country was the first where I didn't hear a peep from the audience.

And let's stop this shit about having to digest it for a few days. Every single conversation I overheard in the men's room and on the way out said exactly what I was thinking: the abrupt ending RUINED the film.

A big fucking letdown, and it'll probably cost No Country come Awards season.

Just because you can find people to agree with you doesn't mean you're right. And just because Jeff Wells thinks people are idiots doesn't mean he's right either.

"I love it how when audiences don't love one of Jeff's darlings, their intelligence is automatically questioned."

Why not question the dipshit who wrote Kris in the first place to tell him that inane story? What a fucking transparent move to knock out a film that is obviously doing well and will do well come awards time. I would question the person's motives or more appropriately, what studio he or she worked for.

The studios were saying similar things in reverse earlier in the year when they called into question the relevance of critics after several films that got horrible reviews made a lot of money. Boxoffice returns are often more a comment on marketing skill than public taste. Ghost Rider made over $100 million (and got bad bad bad reviews) but I have only met people who loathed it. But I do agree that is seems that what we define as "entertainment" has grown to increasingly mean brainless and without any disturbing elements.

I find it hilarious that this extraordinary film is being knocked (in some circles) because it doesn't end like every cliched crime film of the past 50 years.

The audience is rooting for Moss to have his showdown with Chigurh, and to triumph. And that hard-wired moviegoing expectation is flipped on its head. Yes, it hurts. But it is in no way a flaw of the film. It's a huge part of the film's genius.

This ending stunned me when it happened and it has haunted me since. Best movie of the year by far.

"What a fucking transparent move to knock out a film that is obviously doing well and will do well come awards time. I would question the person's motives or more appropriately, what studio he or she worked for."

Maybe, or maybe that person was just trying to get another POV out there. Everyone's been raving about this movie for the past few months, but I've seen it twice now, once at a WGA screening, and today with a paying audience, and I totally agree that audiences HATE the ending.

This is a film where one of the central characters opens the film by killing someone with an air gun to the forehead, another shoots a dog in the belly, countless others get offed in the most gratuitous, unsubtle ways imaginable and all of a sudden the Coens want to end it on this abrupt, pretentious note and all you kiss asses are whining because people are calling them on it??

Gimme a fucking break.

Every year the gulf between between those who judge films for what they actually are (or seem to be) and those who like or dislike films based on what the films do for them seems to get wider and wider.

You mean, like people who go on and on about anti-Iraq War movies which validate their political views but actually are obvious and dreary as cinema?

Fortunately, I can't think of any case where that's happened...

Gee, Mike Ock, I saw it last night and my audience didn't HATE the ending. I know this because I had questionnaires and ran a statistical analysis afterwards.

And I don't think "calling them on it" is really how film criticism works.

Maybe Mike Ock is the one who told Kris that story.

I've posted before about this and I'll say it again...

I think its wrong to say that the audience is rooting for a showdown between TLJ and Anton because there's nothing to root FOR. TLJ's character wasn't developed enough to warrent the ending this film had OR a showdown.

His speech at the end about the dream he had could have been GREAT if they just cut away to something else and made it a VO over Anton driving away or some shit like that-- bookending the film with TLJ's thoughts.

I liken this film's ending to: you're about to orgasim and then your partner screams out, "Think of your Aunt Hilda!".

It was pure cinema porn for me... beyond solid suspense, amazingly shot, great acting, engaging dialogue, funny, yet dark as hell, etc.

Its a haunting film... have not stopped thinking about it since I saw it last week. But the only thing that's keeping me from seeing it again is the let-down that ending served me.

Excelent point Craptastic. This is a film, that for the first 90% of it's running time, the tension is just building... and building...then it just ends in the most uninteresting worst way possible.

And no, I actually liked that Moss was killed off screen, and I didn't really care that there wasn't a showdown between Tommy Lee Jones and Chigor. The ending as is was just in my opinion a poor artistic choice.

Actually Mike Ock, before all of that blood soaked shit you described happens (even though a lot of people die off screen and it's not as explicit as say, a Cronenberg film) the film begins with....oh, I don't know, a poignant narration that is a perfect bookend to the film.

Calling them on it? Are you serious? If you want someone to blame, blame Cormac McCarthy who wrote the ending.

I can argue with you forever about whether it is a good movie or a bad movie but when people start pretending to interpret how Academy members "felt" about a movie, then a blogger writes up a report as if that means anything at all, one screening, one guy's interpretation--it gets me fairly pissed off.

I think Pinko Punko is referring to "one offscreen killing at the end" and Geoff is referring to another. SPOILER There's nothing really that unsettling about the "main man" getting it, is there? But when a relative innocent gets it, or is presumed to get it, and that's effectively the climax of the movie, we are talking "specialty film," at least once word gets around.

Understanding that the ending(s) of the movie ahere(s) to the book, which I haven't read, I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. Maybe the Coens' only fault is taking a novel that wasn't meant as a genre piece and doing such a good job of setting up the action setpieces that it's easy for much of its length to be fooled into thinking it's a genre piece. If they had messed up some of those crackerjack scenes, audiences wouldn't be quite as pumped for a conventional finale.

But this is the season of extremely tense, incredibly well-made crime or murder films--this, Eastern Promises, There Will Be Blood, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead--that end more ambivalently or uncathartically than audiences want them to. Part of me wants the socko ending as much as anybody, but a bigger part wants the truest wrapup.

But with any of these, I know which of my friends to recommend to and which not to, and I don't necessarily look down on the ones I know are going to feel frustrated and thwarted. It's been a while since the 1970s... No one is used to these!

Good point, Zimmergirl. One screen and a bunch of fuddy-duddies does not shit-can it for sure. Wells is prone of absolutes and its irritating. (ex-- "This high profile director is DONE because of past two films").

Geoff, the MONOLOGUE TLJ has at the end of the film is what kills it for me. In a film filled with amazing visuals, they decided to make the ending an extremely boring semi-closeup of Jones as he blathers on for over 5 mintues. After two minutes of him talking, I zoned out.

We were coming off a drawn out scene between him and Barry Corbin... so to have an out and out 5 page long dream description after, what I saw as, an AMAZING 2 hours just left much to be desired.

"The ending as is was just in my opinion a poor artistic choice."

Right, you mean as opposed to altering Cormac McCarthy's ending and thus selling out the story. from what I gather, reading the book results in the same thing - so it's either, make a mainstream ending so that Craptastic can shoot his wad and sell out Cormac McCarthy or stick with the ending as written and give Craptastic blue balls. Nothing worse than a half-finished orgasm, I'll give you that, but I prefer to think of this movie as engaging my other organ, you know, the one up top.

'If you want someone to blame, blame Cormac McCarthy who wrote the ending. '

if memory serves, mc carthy's ending was somewhat less ambiguous....he didn't write this ending, the coen boys did...

Weird how you thought it was blathering Craptastic. To each his own. It felt very powerful to me...like when Marge is "blathering" on about how it's a beautiful day in Fargo.

And like Wells said a while back, that last line is something that I just can't get out of my head.

"if memory serves, mc carthy's ending was somewhat less ambiguous"

Memory doesn't serve.

Hey Zimmergirl,

Where did I say I wanted a mainstream ending?

And how is that ending "alternative"?

Where did I say I didn't "get" the ending as something to think about?

Use this holier than thou brain to find out.

You said it was like an orgasm that didn't come off - I take this to mean you weren't fully satisfied and were looking for a better way to get off, or do I misunderstand you? If you notice, I was writing off of the other guy's quote, not yours. I used your rather vivid and lurid example to further explain my own frustration with you all's frustration. I know what you're saying and I agree mostly but I don't think it should have altered.

"You can try and shame them into responding a little less impulsively, but most of the comfort-blanketers are fairly dug into their way of seeing and processing."

This is exactly how I've felt about Hollywood Elsewhere for years!

I also thought the last 20 minutes of No Country were the film's best, and yes, the ending is not that much different from the book. Chigurh gets into the crash; there's a little bit more with Bell, and that's it. What I liked about it is how the film decides to keep digging after the story proper has more or less wrapped up, when Bell misses Chigurh at the motel. I really don't know what all the whiners expect to happen... a shoot-out, Bell catching Chigurh, what? If that's really what you want, go rent U.S. Marshals and leave your amateurish chin music out of the discussion.

I am surprised that so many people use words like "tension" and "thrilling" to describe the film... tempo-wise it's clear from the start that the Coens aren't looking for anything like your conventional descriptions of such. The film regards suspense like a curiosity meant to be toyed with (or maybe like Chigurh regards his victims), but maybe that's just because the film is really all about the inevitable and any kind of "suspense" over what the outcome is going to be is absolutely useless on the viewer's part.

I dunno, I guess you can't make a movie like this without someone mistaking it for a "ride" these days.

thejeff -- yeah, it serves just fine (well, at least in this case)... i've now dutifully gone and checked... yep...questions left unanswered in the film...answered in the book.... oh, yeah...i also had the benefit of a thirty minute sit-down with the coens to talk about the changes from book to film....that probably helped a smidge... jus' sayin'...

Now, the Sopranos, THERE's an ending everyone could get behind.

scooterz, what did they say about the ending, if anything?

Zim,

Possibly I misread it. However, I still think it is unfair to say that anyone's frustration with the ending how has to do with it being non-mainstream. Loads can be shot on cold endings as well... just not this one.

Zim,

Possibly I misread it. For that I am sorry. However, I still think it is unfair to say that anyone's frustration with the ending how has to do with it being non-mainstream. Loads can be shot on cold endings as well... just not this one.

z --- from ethan on the changed ending: 'the things that we felt had to be, sort of, modified from the book...y'know...in the service of the drama..y'know...being a movie instead of a novel...it's a crime story that doesn't resolve itself like a crime story.....'

Industry lowbrows tend to favor comfort-blanket movies

Wait...there's such a thing as a low-brow blue-stater? You just blew my mind.

"from ethan on the changed ending: 'the things that we felt had to be, sort of, modified from the book...y'know...in the service of the drama..y'know...being a movie instead of a novel...it's a crime story that doesn't resolve itself like a crime story.....'"

That's not exactly illuminating. Perhaps it's my memory that doesn't serve. What specific issues regarding the ending did you feel the book addressed more concretely than the film?

have you ever spoken with the coen brothers?...illumination is not their strong suit...

the uncertain death of a person at the end of the film is clearly spelled out in the novel.....and it's that uncertainty that seems to bother a lot of people (at least at the screening i attended...and at the junket)...

Maybe it's time to recognize the problems with "No Country" have nothing to do with comfort or the ending and everything to do with the fact that it's way pretentious for what it is. I despise movies that try to placate or comfort me, yet this film was only intermittently interesting to me. I applaud the Coens for managing to make a mostly serious movie, but everyone who thinks the film is important or -- God forbid -- has SOMETHING TO SAY is a little too desperate to read something into it. To run around screaming that it deserves Oscars is absurd.

I guess it didn't strike me as different from the book because I didn't find the death of that person to be "uncertain" in the film either. The Coens just know to "show not tell" when it comes to cinema and don't beat the viewer over the head either. Chigurh checking his boots was all the confirmation I needed.

well, buckle-up, ernie....it's gonna get nominated and it might well win....

How is the death at the end of the film "uncertain". Does anyone with a fucking brain think that (SPOILERS!!!) Carla Jean survived that encounter? Come on.

I have to agree with Craptastic in that the Coens should have done something else visually for at least SOME of TLJ's final monologue. Perhaps not a shot of Chigurh, but maybe a slow pan across the scene of the original drug deal or something, I don't know.

But since I left the theater yesterday afternoon, the film is growing in stature in my mind, and I have more and more respect for what the Coens chose (and chose not) to do.

Also, Mike Ock-- you're a fucking philistine.

I think the problem, as seems intended by the script, is placing a literal, literary ending onto an otherwise visually powerful film.

"I am surprised that so many people use words like "tension" and "thrilling" to describe the film... "

You're right I was totally off base thinking that a movie with a sociopath who decides some of his victims fate with a toin coss has any tension.

"I dunno, I guess you can't make a movie like this without someone mistaking it for a "ride" these days."

No Country's not a think piece, it's a fucking thriller.

"Also, Mike Ock-- you're a fucking philistine."

And you're a clown Lazarus.

How is the death at the end of the film "uncertain". Does anyone with a fucking brain think that (SPOILERS!!!) Carla Jean survived that encounter? Come on.

well, yeah...actually lots of folk that didn't read the book...as evidenced by the audience at the screening i went to and the junket...and, while i'm sure you are the smartest person in the world, do you really think that the phrase, 'anyone with a fucking brain...' is going to encourage any kind of.....oh, fuck it....you really are a tool....

It's not a think piece, huh?

Just because you're too obtuse to get anything out of it, please don't speak for the rest of us.

It's both a think piece and a fucking thriller, which is why I love it so. I can't remember the last time a movie that was such an intense and arresting viewing experience in the theater also haunted me so much and for so long afterwards. It's a floor wax and a dessert topping, my man.

"Just because you're too obtuse to get anything out of it, please don't speak for the rest of us."

You're such a dick. It's a think piece about a drug deal gone wrong.

You know what, I apologize Lazarus. The coin toss is a metaphor for capitalism.

It's an art movie dressed up as a thriller and it's the movie of the fucking year. I don't care about the temperature of the room as taken by Mike Ock or Kris Tapley. This is not evidence of anything. Take your awards potential and stuff it in a wood chipper.

yeah....what cj said....yeah, that's what i meant to say....

and, just for the record.....here's what i loved most about 'no country for old men': it wasn't until the end of the scene with the old guy in the gas station that i realized i hadn't drawn a breath during that entire scene... y'know, i have to see a whole lot of movies and that hasn't happened in a long time...just my opinion...

Happy to see someone throwing around the "pretentious" argument in analyzing the merits of this film. It's done a great deal of service in settling past differences of opinion, and it's never too soon to have somebody slam down the javel and put the record straight for everyone on the opposing side: bottom line, we're always smarter than the film we're watching wants us to believe, so if we don't understand the purpose of a scene or the film as a whole, we should just leave it at that and move on to the next product on the conveyor belt. No use trying to look any deeper than that. Finding a change of heart in any further evaluation is always proven to be impossible anyway...

Of course, it would be much easier for me to simply claim that this film is ballsiest and most mature film the Coens have ever made, but it's two sides of the same coin. Calling something a "masterpiece" is nearly as damning as calling it "pretentious" or "meaningless." Same pointless argument. Who the hell am I going to sway with a declaration like that?

I can only reflect that I felt riveted by the film because of the questions I was forced to ask myself outside of the straight-forward "cat and mouse" hunt, along with the conventions that were very intentionally broken for an altogether lasting impact. I was shaken to the core by the depiction of a world very similar to the one I feel around me, where it's not defined by theoretical answers for why "bad things happen to good people," or if there's even a veneer of protection that will allow such things from happening. Here, the comfort of civilization is a thin layer of ice floating in an ocean of anarchy and desolation. Everything is at stake, even when it feels like nothing is at stake. It triggered a deep rooted fear I experienced every time I heard another story of a hapless stranger murdered on the highway, in the middle of nowhere, with no relationship to their killer whatsoever.

THAT'S the primal fear this film triggers inside of me. That may SOUND intellectual, removed from any pure emotional stimulus, but this isn't as simple as watching your leg kick up after your reflexes are tested. Like great films should do, it shows the complexity and difficult-to-summarize nature of the world we inhabit, forcing me to engage in an active evaluation of all the things we may feel but don't always see in front of us.

scooterzz, you make it sound like you had sex with him in that scene.

-- sigh -- i give up......

Also, (BIG TIME SPOILER, but I think we're at that point now)....

... if you haven't devoted any thought towards examining why, from a storytelling perspective, we had any reason to see more from Chigurh after he makes a visit to Carol Anne... rather than merely cutting away after he says "then I hear only what the coin tells me"... please withhold throwing around the "pretentious" card.

The fact that Cormac and the Coens refrain from applying any conventional deus ex machina or sense of genre justice, while conversely putting a substantial dent into Chigurh's whole system of logic... it's both a victory and a defeat. Neither cancel the other out, and it's not nihilism for the sake of nihilism.

God, I could easily mull over this film for an additional thirty pages...

Hey, Mike Ock, whoever you are, keep it up. You have a good shot at becoming the Dan Collins of movie blog commenters.

Also: You're such a dick. Fuck you. Gimme a fucking break.

Wow, this level of discourse is fun!!!

Fuck these movable type comments, goddamn it.

Anyhow, I just wrote what I felt was a nice summation of the film. I think it is not shallow, perhaps it was pretentious, to the same extent any film that wants to deal with nebulous concepts in completely oblique ways always will be viewed.

Of course Carla Jean was killed, and this is where the directors pulled their punch. Chigurh checks his boots for blood on the porch. I think they chose this to put the audience in the position of characters facing Chigurh playing God- hoping against hope for some intervention, perhaps a coin toss, perhaps fate. We want to think that fate exists and when we watch an inevitable series of events we think it does somehow, but it doesn't- and there we have the mystery of free will. The heart of the film was Carla Jean playing on her terms, regardless of the fact that a robot, but not a human, would have taken the 50/50 chance. Humans take much worse odds everyday, and maybe dont want to face them. TLJ starts to see the rules of the game and doesn't feel up to facing them. Many others facing Chigurh try get around his rules, and he only uses his rules to absolve himself of responsibility for his actions, the same way many people don't want to face the consequences of their own. Carla Jean sees the rules and just takes pass. I think her denial of Chigurh is the hear of the film and it is up to us to blame who we want for the circumstances leading to her murder. I think they got the scene just right.

Jack,

Nice comment-

Extremely well put Pinko

wow, I'm an open target right now.

Carla's the least important person in the story, she's like the rabbit at the race track that keeps the dogs hunting. But yeah it's a great scene, you all described it well.

In the version of the script I read, TLJ's monologue becomes a voiceover about halfway through, and we are shown shots of his snow-covered dream landscape. Anyone remember this? Clearly they made the active decision somewhere along the line to nix it. Makes me wonder whether they filmed it or not.

t -- do you actually have any connection with the film industry?... you really do come off as a tool sometimes...just wondering...

T. Holly, I do see your point, but I think it is the real end of the movie for me, after that scene the rest feels like an epilogue.

Also, I just noticed that Jeff's post at the top of this thread is kind of like a Bell like monologue, a veritable "nobody says sir or ma'am anymore across the giant gulf between thinkers and watchers"

I'm OK not with people not liking the film because of the way it made them feel. Dark is hard to snuggle with at night, especially after being pulled tight for two hours by tension like a snare drum. I'm sure a lot of people felt emotionally blue balled (that is such a Jeff Wellsian phrase). The literary stuff and TLJ's character as a device fell away for me, allowing the key scenes to just crystallize. I think I will savor the film while shuddering all the more on second viewing.

Here's a tell-tale sign that the TLJ character didn't mean much to the story other than "the wrter's message" (which is my point about the inconsist dead/cold ending)...

None of us can remember his character's NAME.

I was struggling to remember it without going to IMDB before I originally posted. And I don't see many other mentions other than TLJ in here. As for the other characters... we've all mentioned them by name.

Maybe that's just me but I think that says a lot about the handling of that "TLJ" character.

We don't remember his name because I bet it is only mentioned extensively in the script and in reviews, not in the film. I think most people call him "Sheriff".

Did all you mooks walk in 20 minutes into the movie? The whole fucking thing is mythic, and the whole fucking thing is the Sherrif. Do you not even remember the voice over at the beginning? And his name is Bell. Ed Tom Bell.

My favorite anecdote about film endings is from back when Frank Darabont was screening The Shawshank Redemption. At the time, the film ended (as did the book it was based on) with Red (Morgan Freeman) getting on a bus and heading south.

The preview audience didn’t get it. They wanted to see Red and Andy meet up in Mexico.

Darabont explained that the theme of the movie was hope, and that if they thought he made it, then he made it.

They still didn’t get it.

He elaborated that the film was a parable about faith. You don’t actually get to know how it all turns out in the end. You just have to live your life and believe that you’ll make it to the promised land.

They still didn’t get it.

They wanted a happy ending. And they didn't want to have to think about it.

Two weeks later Darabont had a small crew back together for a helicopter shot of Red and Andy meeting up on the beach, and Shawshank had a new ending.

The film bombed at the BO, but at least the people who saw it got it.

Personally, I don't understand people who demand happy endings (or "likeable" characters). If you try to engage them in a debate, they cop out by saying that they go to movies to "escape" (I, myself go to be entertained).

Why not just take a Prozac and stare at a pinwheel for a few hours?

I don't like what Darabont's done with his last couple films, but I have to say, the final shot of Shawshank was great. If he was placating the test audience, he did it in as dignified a way as possible. No close-up on the two friends and some big hug, just that very wide shot where you can just barely see them come together as it fades out.

I remember walking out of Shawshank in 1994 and thinking, "That was great, except it should have ended with Red on the bus."

Thank god for the philistines, I say.

Something tells me that I am going to love the ending to NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

Shawshank Redemption is a great example of how to do an adaptation, and how to IMPROVE UPON an ending.

As Anthony Lane said, "There's something basically wrong with any prison picture that ends on a beach."

Ok now it's time for ME to get pretentious.

Shawshank is not a prison picture, it's a piece about hope. And I'm being totally serious here. Yes, Shawshank may be SET in a prison, but there's not a single scene in that movie doesn't hit upon the theme of hope.

1) The opening: Andy's jailed for a murder he didn't commit. A judge sentences to him spend the rest of his days in jail.

2) Andy's picked on in jail. His will to live is being tested.

3) Andy meets Brooks, a lifer. This is who Andy will become if he doesn't do something.

4) Andy's got a new sense of hope with the news that one of his fellow inmates not only can, but WILL testify on his behalf and can possibly set him free.

5) The inmate is shot and killed.

6) Brooks is a free man.

7) Brooks commits suicide because he was inside way too long.

I can go on and on, but that's how you weave a theme into every scene of a story, and that's how you an end a movie.

The Coen Bros. made a good thriller with a bad ending.

I prefer Escape From Alcatraz.

Oh and fuck Glen Kenny.

"I prefer Escape From Alcatraz."

Good one. I prefer Stir Crazy.

Yeah, when Dufresne is being raped, they really hammer that hope home. Big time. That's not prison movie material, at all. No way.

"Yeah, when Dufresne is being raped, they really hammer that hope home. Big time. That's not prison movie material, at all. No way."

It would've been a typical prison movie if the rape was depicted as graphically, and scenes like this and as often as the murders in No Country.

Since Shawshank IS about hope, Darabont CHOSE not to focus on that and dealt with that via voiceover.

The Coen Bros. on the other hand, made a film that devotes most of its running time to a psychopath going on a gratuitously violent killing spree.

There's a big difference here.

"In the version of the script I read, TLJ's monologue becomes a voiceover about halfway through, and we are shown shots of his snow-covered dream landscape. Anyone remember this?"

That's the version I read too. And I think the Coens are being a bit over the top and cruelly deliberate in underwhelming the ending so. They certainly knew that it would bother some folk but I think they aspire to be literary filmmakers.

But that's no reason for all this fuck-youin'...

And I adore the novella ending of RITA HAYWORTH & THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (the actual title!), one of King's finest stories. As written, you know Red's going to make it to that beach with Andy.

I hope.

"Yeah, when Dufresne is being raped, they really hammer that hope home. Big time. That's not prison movie material, at all. No way."

It would've been a typical prison movie if the rape was depicted as graphically, and as often as the murders in No Country.

Since Shawshank IS about hope, Darabont CHOSE not to focus on that and dealt with that via voiceover.

The Coen Bros. on the other hand, made a film that devotes most of its running time to a psychopath going on a gratuitously violent killing spree.

There's a big difference here.

Regarding Carla Jean: "I think her denial of Chigurh is the heart of the film"
Right the fuck on, Pinko. She's saying "I'm not going to play your stupid game. My life means more than a coin flip." She knows it's going to end badly, but it's going to end on her terms. Whether or not she is actually killed (she was) doesn't really matter...it's her defiance, her ultimate humanity that counts.

As for Ed Tom Bell, he's the outer layer of the film. He's the audience surrogate. He's the narrator. He's the commentator. He might not play a part in the action of the film, but he's absolutely necessary. The whole movie is an illustration of the state of mind he sets out with the voice over.

It's fine with me that people who didn't get their thriller rocks off don't like the movie, but to call it pretentious, or any Coen movie pretentious, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what they and their movies are all about. It's a shorthand dismissal of something you didn't especially care for. Nothing wrong with the opinion, but the reasoning is bullshit.

Also, everything Jack Price said was dead on and speaks for itself.

Finally, forget about nihilism or existentialism or fatalism or whatever intellectual tag you want to put on the movie to help you sleep at night...this fucking movie has stayed with me for a week. I've seen it twice and will be seeing it again soon. I'm still mulling it over, pondering its ins and outs. I'm still haunted by Anton Chigurh and still knocked out by Bardem's performance. The movie kicks ass and outside of any meaning you want to attach to it, that's all that really matters.

"but to call it pretentious, or any Coen movie pretentious, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what they and their movies are all about."

Gee CJ, why don't you and NO COUNRY FOR OLD MEN just get a room;]

But I do think BARTON FINK is pretentious along with MAN WHO WASN'T THERE and it's the pretensions of trying to elevate thin material based on rather obvious ideas -- I mean, Barton Fink himself is depicted as a cliched New York WPA pretentious writer.

But NO COUNRY is certainly the best script I've read in years.

And so is NO COUNTRY.

I know Shawshank has many ardent followers who have gone on to lead productive lives, so I'm not going to bash it, other than to say, yeah, you sure can diagram how it beats its point home.

Everyone who loves Shawshank needs to go see Bresson's A Man Escaped, now there's a prison picture with an amazing amount to say about the human condition, which does not lend itself to easy reduction to one point (though something about hope and grace is surely in there).

But I do think BARTON FINK is pretentious along with MAN WHO WASN'T THERE and it's the pretensions of trying to elevate thin material based on rather obvious ideas

Well said, Christian. The Coens always bring the full weight of their style to every job they tackle, and at least a third of the time, maybe half, the subject buckles under it.

Christian, I'm currently in a room with No Country right now. It's spooning me as I type.

Barton Fink displayed a revulsion towards pretension. A fear of it. It was also the most perfect expression of writers block I've ever seen. Are you sure you're not calling it pretentious because of all the hubbub it caused at Cannes?

Literary? Yes, though I'd argue they're not just aspiring, they have achieved. And they've done it without ever seeming stuffy or any of the negative connotations ascribed to the term. Pretentious? No.

I haven't read the novel on which it was based, so can't say if it was structured this way, but why is it so hard for people to comprehend that TLJ's opening dialogue serves as the prologue and the final scene of his serves as an epilogue, thus making the compound-fracture scene the "last chapter" and the end of the action.

You want an ending?? It's Chigurh retreating and on the run (for the first time), completely rattled and literally broken after having his code of ethics challenged and dismantled by Carla Jean.

Mgmax. Ahhh, the old Style over Substance argument. A favorite of anyone who just didn't pick up on the substance. Not surprising coming from someone who missed the boat even on The Big Lebowski.

"Are you sure you're not calling it pretentious because of all the hubbub it caused at Cannes?"

I saw it opening day back in the day and I had no idea what it was or wasn't at Cannes. And the Cannes jury has never swayed me from a film. We also had no HE!

I just disliked BARTON FINK a lot. I thought it a one note character and overplayed by Tuturro. Okay, faux-marxist WPA writer with delusions about the common man. And that was about it. I prefered Mahoney's more layered writer type. But it's just as prentious to mock pretensions if the subject matter is pretentious to begin with...wait a minute...

In a lot of ways, BF is very over the top I'll admit. But I always think of it as a kind of exorcism. The story goes they were struggling mightily with Miller's Crossing and Barton Fink was spit out as a way of breaking through the writer's block. Has anyone else heard this? Can you confirm or deny?

The main character is both the hero and the baffoon. I think of him as being something the Coens wanted to cast off and rid themselves of.

I admit it makes for the Coen film that I'm least likely to sit down and watch on a casual Saturday night, but I don't find it pretentious.

You do have to bow down to the awesomeness of Tony Shalhoub and Jon Polito in it though...don't you? Just a little?

Also, sorry for being a jackass. The movie's got me all fired up.

What I had to do in my review was to be honest that I found NO COUNTRY anti-climatic -- as did the enthusiastic early-morning-at-the-Arclight audience I saw it with -- but also that my instincts suggested a second-viewing before I could honestly render a final judgement.

Sometimes you need to see a film a second time to fully get it and usually those end up being the best films -- though, not always.

Without a doubt the first two acts of NO COUNTRY make up one of the greatest monster movies ever. Is act three overreacing, pretentious, brilliant...? I honestly don't know yet.

I'll take the least Coen bros film over the most of what I'm offered, but that still don't alays beat the band. Or the dog. Or whatva.

I find I like every third film or so. I would consider HUDSUCKER PROXY pretentious folly also and much ado about nothing outside of mimicing 40's era cliches and incredible production design.

Sure, they always get major performances, as I abide Jeff Bridges in TBL but must endure Goodman and Buscemi, who are obvious, unfunny, one note characters.

But then RAISING ARIZONA is still my fave Coen film, so what do I know?

"Mgmax. Ahhh, the old Style over Substance argument. A favorite of anyone who just didn't pick up on the substance."

Which of the 10 films under discussion am I supposed to have missed the substance of? The syrupy feelgood prison movie? The wacky comedy about hula hoops with as many laughs as an Eisenstein epic?

I'm going to go back to watching Bresson now, since I'm too dense for The Big Lebowski. (Although since they're both Christ parables, it'd be interesting to do a double bill of Lebowski and Au Hasard, Balthasar.)

RA is mine too Christian. On that we can agree and probably raise a glass to.

We've had the argument before about the one note TBL characters and we'll just have to continue to disagree on that one.

And Dirty Harry, we might disagree on a lot of things, but I can't argue with your summing up of No Country. From a visceral/action standpoint it is definitely anti-climactic. Whether that is flawed flimmaking or genius is open to debate and I haven't fully made up my mind on that score...though obviously I lean heavily toward the latter.

I have a question for everyone that's been bothering me since my screening:

At the end of the second act when TLJ enters the motel room with Chigurh waiting for him behind the door, is it me or does Chigurh seem to vanish?

It made me wonder if Chigurh wasn't symbolic of that creeping fear that so spooked TLJ's character, and that the Sheriff's decision to retire didn't finally make go away.

Back to the overall topic: I'll probably always fault NO COUNTRY for not advertising its first act as a philisophical film better. After TLJ's VO we're immediatley thrust into visceral noir and it really isn't until the third act that we're reminded of what the movie was about.

I know TLJ makes a few speeches throughout the second act, but he's so great at making them sound conversational they got by me within that context.

Regardless, I'll know alot more on my second viewing and we'll see how it plays. But I do know the first two acts are flat-out brilliant. And maybe the end of the second act is Brolin crossing the border into MX -- the end of the third act his fate -- and everything after, epilogue?

Shit! SPOLIER IN ABOVE COMMENT. So, sorry.

One thing I'm going to focus on the next time I see it is the scene you're talking about Dirty Harry. Right now I don't have an answer. For viewing number two I was focused on the ending.

This isn't a justification for the betrayal so many people seemed to feel by the ending, but it's certainly a testament to how amazing of a thriller the first 2/3s was. Even the people who ultimately didn't like the movie seem to agree.

I finally saw No Country this weekend and was shocked by my reaction: I was disappointed, even though I LOVED the book. I think this may be one example where following the book too closely or literally actually hurt the film. Here's why...

Throughout McCarthy's novel, there are chapters in which the sheriff tells various stories and they serve to set the table for the story's ending. These narratives are not in the film, nor should they be, and for the same reason the film shouldn't have ended with one of them. Even though it was well filmed, on a theater screen the end comes off far too pretentious.

Man, I'm bummed... especially since the first 1:45 or so was excellent.

Bell returning to the hotel was very opaque. I read it as the author of the book continuing to play with the threads of fate, luck and probability. If Chigurh was there and wanted to kill Bell, he could have with no consequences, so was Bell lucky, or did Chigurh flip a coin? Or did they miss each other, with the scene conflating two events Chigurh being there and Bell finding him gone, which could go under either luck or fate. I thought this was the best scene featuring Bell and I still think about it.

"His speech at the end about the dream he had could have been GREAT if they just cut away to something else and made it a VO over Anton driving away or some shit like that-- bookending the film with TLJ's thoughts."

I absolutely agree. Sometimes movies need to take a step away from their source material to take advantage of the medium. Novels and films are different and should be treated as such.

I haven't weighed in on this thread yet but picking up specifically on DH's "behind the door" question, I went back to see it again and specifically focused on that moment, and it's clear to me when Bell opens the door that no human, let along Chigurh, could have been hiding behind the door. Plus, if he had, Bell probably would have been a dead duck. Plus, he would have had the satchel with him, too, which would have provided extra bulk.

I think showing Chigurh in that scene was more to show what Bell was fearing could be inside. But I agree, it's confusing. FYI, in the novel I believe Chigurh is at the hotel, but waiting in his car.

On the ending, I liked it much better the second time. I knew to concentrate more on what was being said in those last few scenes with Bell. I suppose a final cutaway to Chigurh "getting away" would have been OK, but I have absolutely no criticisms of this movie.

Not as lame as Atonement's ending. Basically any author can do what they want in the real world no matter the consequences as long as they write a story about it and give people happiness in fantasy land. McEwan is clinically insane. And needs serious meds.

No Country isn't half as glibly cynical and misanthropic as Atonement. A truly ridiculous movie. No Country is so much more intellectually sound...people who think it is sad are dumb.

Bell returning to the hotel was very opaque. I read it as the author of the book continuing to play with the threads of fate, luck and probability. If Chigurh was there and wanted to kill Bell

Is there any reason to believe Chigurh is aware of Bell's existence at all? Obviously he knows somebody must be after him, but I can't remember any way in which Chigurh has been made aware of Bell personally, and logically even someone like Chigurh knows to keep his head down until absolutely necessary and not kill everyone who MIGHT find him; that's a good way to get yourself surrounded by 50 cops and a SWAT team.

I don't think Chigurh was out to get Bell, but he certainly would have killed him if Bell had walked in on him, wouldn't you think?

The only reason to suspect that Chigurh might have left in a hurry is that he didn't screw the gate back onto the air vent, and he left the dime on the carpet....heads up.

Agree or disagree, it makes me happy to see an actual movie discussion pushed over 100 comments.

Besides agreeing with mostly everyone on this thread, that NO COUNTRY is 4/5 or 5/6 a great movie, if not a cinematic masterpiece but with an unsatisfying ending...I have to add something else.

First of all, when I say "unsatisfying ending", I'm saying that the Coens did too good a job having us go on a certain ride throughout, and identifying with Llewellyn so much as he first finds the money, then tries to escape this killer... and them ending with a monologue from the Sheriff that had me drift a little bit, fully expecting a more satisfying type of closure, so that when the first end credit popped up....i was WTF?!?

But my main problem with the film, is not that (SPOILER) Llewellyn is offed...and not that we don't see him get offed...but that we don't see any real proof, if I'm remembering correctly (haven't seen the film in a month and a half), that it's his body on the slab in the morgue when Bell goes to see for himself that he's dead.

Um...what's the artistic reason there? My sense at that point, was that it wasn't Llewellyn at all, but someone else...as I never recall Sheriff Bell knowing what Llewellyn looked like, so he could have been looking down at anybody found dead there. Would a medium shot of his face, or at least we see it SEEMS to be him, be that much of a sop to us "philistines"?

In retrospect, when Llewellyn talks to the girl at the motel, and the film fades to black...the Coens seem to be saying "Let's all say goodbye now to our protagonist." Fine and dandy. I'll go with that.

But to show someone go through this adventure and we're with him so strongly, thanks to the expert moviemaking of the Coens... and to not have a clue (a) what happens to him, and (b) that he's dead on that slab, when we've seen "day-player" characters get killed throughout...makes me shake my head.

Conversely, it's a little more clear that his wife gets killed in that house off-screen, and primarily its because we see Anton leave alone. Fine and dandy there as well...as much of a bummer that she's probably killed...it's clear in an artistic way what happened to her.

Sheriff Bell earlier just shaking his head to his wife at the crime scene simply doesn't do it for me. When you expend SO much energy in a protagonist's wiles at staying alive...and then basically "punk" the audience in knowing ever so slightly what happened to him....

...I have no sympathy to the Coens that filmgoers might start telling friends not to bother with this film...and that cineastes (those who are used to the Coens) seem to be overall unhappy with the film's ending. (I'm not even gonna guess how non-cineastes will think of the film.)

It's truly maddening how the Coens seem to want to play upon our desires story-wise...and then they seem to indeed pull the rug out from under us.

And I'm not saying I want the protagonist defeating the antagonist. I haved love films that have downbeat endings........BUT THEY HAVE TO END.

And before anyone tells me "its faithful to the book"....as much of a reader as I am, if I haven't read the book, big whoop. I'm seeing a movie, and a damn near masterpiece at that... and if you decide to end a great film with a basically unsatisfying ending, in more ways than one.... you blew it.

bob, I think Bell knew what Moss looked like. He and his deputy talked briefly about Moss when they found his truck parked at the top of the gorge. They both recognized it as Moss' truck.

And on your larger point, I think the reason it's not important to show Moss' death on screen is that the film never leaves the viewer with much if any doubt that the death will occur. To not make a big deal out of Moss' death is to underscore that it was a certainty at the outset.

Spoiler...although if someone is reading this far...oh whatever,...

Chigurh shows up to follow through on his promise to kill Llewelen's wife...how is that NOT a great ending??

Again, the scene with Jones is simply an epilogue...yeah, it's dry and philisophical, but if you can look past it being the final SCENE, not necessarily the ENDING, it works brilliantly.

I don't think Chigurh was out to get Bell, but he certainly would have killed him if Bell had walked in on him, wouldn't you think?

Sure, if he had to. (Had to, in his mind.) But he doesn't have a reason to kill him otherwise-- as he does Moss's wife, whom he certainly doesn't "have to." In fact, I don't think he knows he exists, but maybe I forget some way they crossed paths obliquely.

I'm good with 2 of the 3 endings. I think not showing Moss's death is smart-- it says, you're thinking this is a badass showdown movie? No, it's a pointless death movie. Moss gets it like the guy in Saving Private Ryan who's looking at the bullet dink in his helmet, thinking wow, I'm so lucky, and then gets another bullet that kills him instantly.

I think the ending with Moss's wife is brilliant. She calls bullshit on Chigurh's self-justification in a way Harrelson couldn't-- she says there isn't random chance, there's always moral agency. If you kill me, YOU killed me, not the flip of a coin. He leaves there shell-shocked and wounded, the car accident just ratifies the fact. (Someone basically said that above, thanks for letting me steal your point.)

My only problem is with the Tommy Lee ending. Yeah, so you're freaked out about getting old. You and 6 billion other people on the planet. Must all rural movies end with a heart to heart at the kitchen table? (See: Brokeback Mountain.) The western is about action; I don't mean TLJ had to kick somebody's ass but it should have ended with something visual, not a monologue. (Or at the very least, a monologue some PLACE visual.) Think about the great wordless ending in History of Violence, where Viggo comes home and they accept him right back at his place at the head of the table, because the history of our violent species is that we give pride of place to the man who kills on our behalf, and no form of feminist reconditioning to produce softer, nicer men is going to change that. Now THAT'S an ending.

I have a more esoteric reading of the motel room scene with Bell & Chigurh. At some point the killer is referred to as a ghost, and in a way I feel Bell is as well. Aside from his two brief convos with Carja Jean, he doesn't really affect the action in any meaningful way. His presence is simply to observe, react, contemplate. He's living in the shadows of a world he doesn't feel he belongs in anymore, so in a sense you have two ghosts in the same place at the same time that may sense each other, but do not "see" each other. You could argue Chigurh would have killed Bell, or that he would have tried to avoid it. I don't know that either one is more likely than the other.

I know someone who swears you can see both of their reflections in the brass where the lock has been blown out. I can't confirm that, though.

Also, just because Chigurh was behind the door doesn't mean he couldn't have moved to the other sider of the doorway, and then slipped out when Bell was in the bathroom. Again, unlikely, but it's possible.

I like my pretentious theory better. And speaking of the P-word, I don't know how anyone could call Hudsucker pretentious. Why couldn't it have been just a fun little period yarn? I don't think they were setting out to make anything heavier than that. I understand why many don't like it as it's not laugh-out-loud funny, but I find it to be one of their more enjoyable films to watch.

Mgmax,

Chigurh doesn't operate under any conventional rules of what would be a good idea or not. After seeing and having implied dozens of not very stealthy, or certainly unnecessary killings by Chigurh, I'm certain one more killing at an empty motel has essential no internal movie logic-related constraints on it whatsoever.

Also I really loved the abrupt focus shift about Moss' death. It didn't happen in anyway we expected. This was kind of one of the themes the moving was playing with. It wasn't highlighted, it wasn't Chigurh. The whole movie constantly plays with an unexpected rhythm.

Spoilers

Chigurh made it clear to Moss that 'the best deal you're going to get' was to die but have Carla Jean live. The fact that Chigurh showed up to take Carla Jean tells me all I need to know about Moss' fate. Carla Jean wasn't mission critical. She was a detail to be cleaned up afterwards to satisfy Chigurh's implacability. I don't believe he would've gone after her until after Moss had been taken care of. If nothing else, she was a useful bargaining chip in trying to sway Moss...as long as Moss was still bipedal.

Suddenly, I am run over by a truck.

Bob Giovaneli>> When the sheriff first walks into the crime scene, he clearly sees Llewellyn's bloody body lying near the door. There is absolutely no ambiguity about it. The corpse is wearing the same loud shirt that Llewellyn was wearing the last time that we saw him.

Christian, that's a horrible ending.

DarthCarleone. That's what I saw too but with all this hand wringing about the ending, I thought maybe I was wrong. I do know I left both viewings completely satisfied and never felt there were important things left unanswered.

Christian, how come you didn't like Hudsucker Proxy? It was just a fine Coen brothers lark. I also liked Intolerable Cruelty, so perhaps I have a thing for their less weighty endeavors.

Delbomber>> You want an ending?? It's Chigurh retreating and on the run (for the first time), completely rattled and literally broken after having his code of ethics challenged and dismantled by Carla Jean.

Wow. Could not disagree more with that. That would have absolutely ruined the film.

Chigurh is a force of nature who runs parallel to the fatalistic, world-weary themes that dominate the entire film. He's the Grim Reaper without the scythe. He wields that coin as he dispenses and pronounces Fate, and he is (virtually?) indestructible.

Along the same lines as your proposed ending, I feared that the auto collision at the end was going to kill Chigurh, thus dispensing some sort of "justice" over the proceedings and letting us know that the universe of this film isn't that bad. Thank goodness that wasn't the case.

Carla Jean's protests were a vitally human and necessary element to the conclusion, but if they actually had given Chigurh pause, I might have vomited.

Shotgun silencers are badass.

Pinko, I thought HUDSUCKER had boner-inducing imagery but it was so overwrought for such a tiny story. Hula hoops? And while I appreciated Leigh's Hepburn impersonation, it just came across as more of their tributing a style without substance. The film cost 25 million which is a lot for a trifle. I don't at all hate HP, but for me, the only memorable thing is Bruce Campbell.

I love love love love Hudsucker Proxy. I often (but not always) cite it as my favorite Coen Brothers film. I can see the reasoning for the "overwrought" remark, but I find all the bombast to be terribly charming. And - tribute or not - I fell in love with Jennifer Jason Leigh based on that performance.

I'm an Intolerable Cruelty fan as well.

Jesus christ, moveable type. Seriously, FUCK OFF!

My comment deleted was of the usual "DarthCorleone I think you are right on" and "respect to christian" and then an extended discussion about Coen Bros in their lark mode (HP, OBWAT, IC, RA, BF) and how they make films they want to make whether we want to watch them. It is like they give themselves an exercise and sometimes they stretch it, sometimes they subvert it, sometimes they merely give themselves some genre rules with which to conform, but the result is never something like American Beauty or a cheap conceit like Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I then said that this thread was really good, and I ripped on arguments about Transformers. But Moveable Type ate my comment because I didn't learn last time.

Pinko, I've learned to copy as you type. Seriously, I've saved many brilliant comments that way. Many.

Pink, my point is, sure, Chigurh would have killed Bell if he''d walked in, but he doesn't know of his existence until that moment, I'm pretty sure. So he has no intention to kill him prior to that moment. I think.

I'd have liked Hudsucker a lot more if it had STARRED Bruce Campbell. For my money it's up there with Bram Stoker's Dracula among movies that should have been coffee table books.

Yeah, because I need to realize that fucking Moveable Type is the Chigurh of blog commenting, and I've course I never see it coming, even though the rules are clearly explained. I DON'T PLAY YOUR GAME MOVEABLE TYPE!

Carla Pinko Punko Jean

Pinko Punko>> I was considering rambling about how much I respect the Coens for their diverse, genre-bending ways. Their films are hit or miss for me, but those guys almost always manage to make an interesting effort out of the proceedings.

DarthCorleone, he's not saying thats the ending he thinks it should have-- it's the ending it DOES have. Chigurh says that people always say the same thing when he's about to kill them. Then she says something no one's said before and it fucks with his head. A logic circuit melts down, he's never run into an earthling who didn't beg for their life. (Remember that the whole point of Harrelson's character is to show what normally happens, so Moss or Carla Jean can do something else.)

Mr. Implacable goes out of there in a dreamy mood, as if seeing the world for the first time. And for the first time, chance nails his ass instead of someone else's. The world is meaner than it used to be, but just as arbitrary. The end.

Mgmax>> You're right. I misread the intent of those question marks based on my different interpretation.

I only saw it the once, but I hadn't really thought about it in those terms. Chigurh didn't seem that shaken by Carla Jean's reaction to me. The simple, matter-of-fact checking of the boots seemed a beautiful and simple way to convey not only her death but also his composure. But I should rewatch the scene. I suppose that could explain why he is suddenly subject to the bad luck of the car collision, but even at that point the message seems to be that he (and his brand of Fate) will keep on ticking.

____SPOILER____

If someone's already said this, I apologize, but I came late and haven't read all the comments...

I think Chigurh did kill Carla Jean because if you watch him when he comes out of her house he checks the bottom of his boots. I think he was looking for blood to make sure he didn't track it. Bloody boot prints had been established earlier as a giveaway -- though I forget if it was Llelewyn's or Chigurh's bootprint.

OT: I loved Carla Jean's response to being asked to call the coin toss. Suddenly she blossomed into a real dimensional character. Kelly McDonald is wonderful regardless, but that was a crucial moment in transcending the stereotype she'd been.

The dialogue throughout NO COUNTRY worked on me much like Casablanca, where I admired it but am not taken out of the story by my admiration of it; a very thin line frequently achieved in the Golden Age, but rarely anymore. Even if the ending lets me down in viewing 2, it's a movie I'll watch many times just to hear the poetry of those characters speak. Credit Cormac McCarthy certainly, but it only ever comes down to the actors and the director fine-tuning them. Masterful job.

I think he did too, but part of the point is that as with Schrodinger's Cat, until we observe, it doesn't happen...

Mgmax>> Also, in a sense, Carla Jean does make an appeal for her life to be spared just like everyone else that Chigurh has encountered. She just refuses for her life to be governed by a 50/50 proposition, and she's relying on Chigurh to have some sense of conscience - something he does not possess. Yeah, I don't think I agree with your and Delbomber's interpretation, but - again - I'll certainly rewatch the film.

Director and writer are fucking with us- they want us to attribute the car crash to something- we've been toyed with the entire film yet at the end we're still trying to find rules. Bell's character figures out that their aren't rules, and he feels overwhelmed. Of course the way the narrative is constructed, especially with the fantastic nature of Chigurh, many interpretations are supported, but I think we'd been falling into some sort of trap to think Chigurh's "fate" is in anyway a karmic transaction. That being said the "unexpected" car crash has become so cliche, the scene suggested that everything about the car crash was inevitable, but I don't think this is a Coen brothers problem, I think this is a language of cinema problem. It has just been recently overused.

Pinko -- I agree. The car crash is the one piece of bad taste the film put and left in my mouth. Rather Haggis-ish.

However, the "Mister, you gotta bone sticking out of your arm," stuff quickly lifted the scene back to snuff.

>

That's what I believe I saw, as well. I don't know why anyone thinks Chigurh's appearance on the other side of the door is just some sort of phantom representation, since there aren't a lot of phantoms anywhere else in this movie. By the time the sheriff opens the door, he's hidden somewhere else in the room (maybe under the bed, or crawled inside that air duct, for all we know). The fact that he doesn't kill him is no indication that he's not really there. But it is a nice puzzle.

And it is luck that spares Bell, since Chirugh makes a decision, for whatever reason, not to kill him unless he has to. But unlike the gas station proprietor near the beginning, Bell has no idea fate has spared him. Well, okay, the gas station owner doesn't seem to register it, either. Anyway, with Carla succumbing shortly afterward, the two real innocents in the movie have a 50/50 survival ratio when they cross Chirugh's path in the last act. You'd have to think there's something intentional in that.

Why am I the first person to point out christian's error: Jennifer Jason Leigh wasn't doing a riff on Hepburn in Hudsucker, it was Rosalind Russell, specifically as Hildy Johnson in His Girl Friday. JJL nailed it, but also gave more than a flip impersonation: she turned in a well-rounded character who eventually loses her condescending perspective and is the first person to see Norville for more than a boob.

I LOVE watching the film. The shots and art direction are often over the top, but you can just see the Bros squealing in delight behind the camera--and not in a pretentious fashion. How many movies do you see like that these days? Or even in the 90's?

Referencing the book to clear up these points...

1. Carla Jean was killed, there's no debating this.

2. The hotel door scene between Bell and Anton is "imagined" by Bell. Anton was there earlier, but before Bell checked back. It's this scene that basically causes Bell to quit, because he didn't want his man to be in there. If that makes any sense...

Jay T., is it "imagined" by Bell as it's written in the book, or are you using that term for the way it was adapted by the Coens?

And I really like the last part you wrote about Bell's wishes. This makes an already great scene even better.

Darth...sorry for the confusion...I was responding to those who claim there is no ending...so I was trying to say "the ending is..."

Anyway...

...my recollection of the scene, post car crash, is that Chigurh literally runs aways from the approaching sirens. The bone sticking through his arm is symbolic of his broken resolve...just after Carla Jean shakes his idea that he is but a mere instrument of fate, he becomes so distracted that, boom, he runs a light and is confronted with the same idea AGAIN, this time in the form of two-tons of metal. He's wounded and shaken, and for the first time RETREATS in fear. He may have survived the crash, but I think that's the end of Chigurh the ghostly killer. That he TRUSTS--instead of kills--the boys to misdirect the cops further supports this idea. Until then, he had demonstrated no fear, no mercy, and no conscience...in that penultimate scene, we see all three.

delbomber>> I'd need to rewatch it again. In my mind his getting into the crash and surviving it act as a means of hammering home the fact that no one in this story can vanquish him - just in case there was any doubt. That he can shrug off a nasty compound fracture like that is a humorous means of reinforcing that as well.

I don't see it as a retreat as much as the only possible practical response. The cops are on their way, and killing the boys will delay him and will risk leaving further forensic evidence of himself. He needs the shirt to staunch the bleeding. He does have some serious wounds; killing the boy and taking it might be easier said than done in his condition.

That said, I do remember his jogging away as you say, and this is in stark contrast with his patient gait that he uses most of the film. Plus, he did establish earlier that he does not like to leave witnesses.

On the other hand, the fact that he still insists on bartering with the boy as opposed to simply accepting the offered goodwill is a clue in my mind that he still does things his way.

One question - was it he that ran the light? I thought it was the other driver and that Chigurh had the green. That's an important point if you're going to say that the accident was his fault because he was distracted.

Anyway, your interpretation is worth consideration, but I still do not like it. Chigurh's evolving a conscience really does not sit well with me at all. As I said, the idea ruins the film for me. But I'll ponder it when I see the film again.

Thanks! :- )

One last point: if Chigurh - he who encapsulates all this gruesome madness that arbitrarily overcomes the world - is redeemed, then thematically it doesn't make much sense for Bell to be so disillusioned. Or at least, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Darth...I think the other driver ran the light, you're correct, but I remember him looking back in the rear-view at the boys on the bike, distressed and distracted...I'm pretty sure you're right, but this makes the crash even more ironic.

I don't think this is the only intepretation of that scene, but it all fits for me, and I've been thinking about it now and then for over two weeks.

I don't think Chigurh is redeemed so much as broken...but I'm always open for others' interpretations...

Cheers

f Chigurh - he who encapsulates all this gruesome madness that arbitrarily overcomes the world - is redeemed, then thematically it doesn't make much sense for Bell to be so disillusioned

Quite right. I think Chigurh being broken by fate is just one more example of the guy who thinks he has the lead in the Western in his head finding out that fate can fuck with anybody it pleases. Wood Harrelson's character thought he was the hired gun and got killed instead; Moss thought he was John Wayne and died alone in a crappy motel; Chigurh thought he was invincible, and-- crash!

I'm glad he didn't die in the crash, though, because then it would be the same ending as The Pledge.

delbomber>> Redeemed...broken...either way I don't think Bell has nearly as much to fret over.

Mgmax>> But Chigurh is invincible as far as I can tell. In my mind that was the entire purpose of the crash: to illustrate that point. At no point in the film does Chigurh illustrate any sort of hybris. I don't even consider him a "thinking" character that has any sort of presumptions. If Bell is the "Greek chorus" of the tale, then Chigurh is the unflinching hand of divine will in those tales of old. Such is my interpretation, anyway.

Thanks for the discussion, guys. I must depart for the evening.

Kids,

The other driver did indeed run the light, but all Chigurh was doing after the crash was getting away. We'd already seen him having been arrested earlier, been shot up after that, so he was just doing what he needed to do, get away. He wasn't broken. What I might concede is that the scene suggests what a hypocrite Chigurh is in that after laughing at Woody for offering to buy his life, and clearly thinking about killing the kids on the bikes just for seeing him, he morphs like a chameleon and buys his life from the kids in the form of a shirt. We've love for him to be broken, but no way.

Great discussion, though- thanks

Mgmax, I think we're on the same page...not sure about you, but the symbolism of the "final chapter" scene with the crash really ends the film on a high note. Jones' epilogue is like 'Her Majesty' on 'Abbey Road'...no one would ever confuse that with the goodbye medley spanning "Golden Slumbers" to "The End".

Pinko, having been arrested is not a sign of weakness. Remember the line in Goodfellas "Everybody gets pinched..." In the final shot he's confused, rattled, literally "broken" and on the run. For the first time in the entire film, he is not in control...

(in Ron Burgundy voice) Agree to disagree.

Speaking of Woody...I can't recall why he didn't grab the money as soon as he spotted the briefcase after his visit with Moss...??

"Speaking of Woody...I can't recall why he didn't grab the money as soon as he spotted the briefcase after his visit with Moss...??"

The point of Moss throwing it there was that it was in a border no-man's-land where nobody would go, so it would rest there undisturbed. If he went down there in daylight the police from either side would take a definite interest in him. He had to wait for darkness, but didn't live that long.

del,

Nah- none of any of that is a sign of weakness. He has human flesh but he's really just the Terminator. He maybe pooped his pants a little bit, but I saw wounded, not broken. I kind of felt like a giant piano would have needed to crush him, or maybe Dorothy in house. Of course that will be a scene for the DVD just to really watch closely. Once again I think the film was masterfully opaque rather than shallowly so.

Pinko>> Only one point that we disagree on: I wouldn't love for Chigurh to be broken. As I said, for me that betrays the spirit of the character and the film. I suppose with respect to the fact that I like Moss and Carla Jean and would prefer to see them survive your statement makes sense, but this film's tragic integrity is the sort of tragedy that supersedes that.

del>> In my opinion it's at least debatable to call someone "rattled" if he has the wherewithal to self-treat a compound fracture like that in the wake of an auto accident as jarring as that one when he just committed a murder a block away with the cops breathing down his neck.

DC,

We're on the same page- I meant that as a human being under the self-deluding notion that I have a soul, I would prefer that evil be vanquished, everyone gets a pony and Carla Jean lives to crack open a beer with Llewellyn in some mexican town, with Chigurh's teeth rattling in a lucky tobacco tin for Llewellyn Jr.

Also, did anyone notice that Llewellyn played a little bit with his despised mother-in-law? The implication when he speaks with Carla Jean on the phone that he thinks she should just leave her mom at home, which will certainly mean the mom is in danger because Moss knows Chigurh is on the scent, YET Moss' fate is sealed because Carla Jea