As No Country for Old Men, the Coen brothers’ latest film, rolled out in North America this week, there would surely be some head scratching by the time the film was over. I’d argue that everything you needed to know about the film was right there in the film, specifically in Ed Tom Bell’s (Tommy Lee Jones) speeches. Here, I’ll summarize the film with three quotes taken directly from the film. SPOILERS ALERT.
First, the beginning monologue that laid the foundation for the emotional and philosophical tone of the film:
I was sheriff of this county when I was
twenty-five. Hard to believe. Grandfather
was a lawman. Father too. Me and him was
sheriff at the same time, him in Plano
and me here. I think he was pretty proud
of that. I know I was.Some of the old-time sheriffs never even
wore a gun. A lot of folks find that hard
to believe. Jim Scarborough never carried
one. That the younger Jim. Gaston Boykins
wouldn’t wear one. Up in Commanche County.I always liked to hear about the old-
timers. Never missed a chance to do so.
Nigger Hoskins over in Batrop County knowed
everybody’s phone number off by heart. You
can’t help but compare yourself against the
old timers. Can’t help but wonder how they
would’ve operated these times. There was
this boy I sent to Huntsville here a while
back. My arrest and my testimony. He killed
a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it
was a crime of passion but he told me there
wasn’t any passion to it.Told me that he’d been planning to kill
somebody for about as long as he could
remember. Said that if they turned him
out he’d do it again.Said he knew he was going to hell. Be
there in about fifteen minutes. I don’t
know what to make of that. I surely don’t.The crime you see now, it’s hard to even
take its measure. It’s not that I’m afraid
of it.I always knew you had to be willing to
die to even do this job – not to be
glorious. But I don’t want to push my
chips forward and go out and meet some-
thing I don’t understand.You can say it’s my job to fight it but
I don’t know what it is anymore.…More than that, I don’t want to know. A
man would have to put his soul at hazard.… He would have to say, okay, I’ll be
part of this world.
Second, an explanation for what seemed to be the resignation that followed an anti-climatic end to the chase, as Bell realized he could no longer put his chips forward to face things unknown:
I don’t know. I feel overmatched.
…I always thought when I got older
God would sort of come into my life
in some way. He didn’t. I don’t blame
him. If I was him I’d have the same
opinion about me that he does.
Finally, the happy, comforting conclusion to the film that some might have missed:
Okay. Two of ‘em. Both had my father.
It’s peculiar. I’m older now’n he
ever was by twenty years. So in a sen-
se he’s the younger man. Anyway, first
one I don’t remember so well but it
was about money and I think I lost it.
The second one, it was like we was
both back in older times and I was on
horseback goin through the mountains
of a night.…Goin through this pass in the moun-
tains. It was cold and snowin, hard
ridin. Hard country. He rode past me
and kept on goin. Never said nothin
goin by. He just rode on past and he
had his blanket wrapped around him and
his head down……and when he rode past I seen he
was carryin fire in a horn the way
people used to do and I could see the
horn from the light inside of it.
About the color of the moon. And in
the dream I knew that he was goin on
ahead and that he was fixin to make a
fire somewhere out there in allthat
dark and all that cold, and I knew
that whenever I got there he would be
there. Out there up ahead.
This was not to say that there was nothing in between. The point was not to mull over the state of the world in so many words, but to feel the weight of the land, of the troubles people face, and of the random luck-of-the-draw. For that, you’d have to watch the film and not this 3-quote summary. Or read the book, whichever suits you well.
There’s a full analysis on my other blog, if you’d like to read a wordier essay.
23 responses so far ↓
Rob Campbell // November 12, 2007 at 12:29 pm |
There’s an interactive game on the Canadian website – http://www.nocountrymovie.com – that asks visitors ‘What’s the most you’ve ever wagered in a coin toss?’ In this version you can upload pictures of yourself which are ‘mutilated’ by the movie villain.
Aurelle // November 13, 2007 at 6:33 am |
Thanks for this link, Rob Campbell! It’s so much fun, I did a few!
philosopherouge // November 20, 2007 at 8:02 pm |
Great analysis! I’m happy you enjoyed the film so much, and that it has inspired this review. I’m going to read the full one a little later. Woot Aurelle!
Legion // November 22, 2007 at 3:12 pm |
I agree with your analysis, however, I think you should leave in the last sentence of the movie when quoting the final missive. It adds one last kick to the baby maker.
dinosaur fact // November 24, 2007 at 9:37 am |
You are so much like me, or i’m like you, well anyway, if we knew each other we’d make a good team, hehe, keep up the good work
dinosaur fact // November 24, 2007 at 9:21 pm |
Guess who just brightened up my day?
Thanks a lot!
Aurelle // November 25, 2007 at 7:34 am |
Rouge: I can only assume you’ve seen the film and loved it, yes? I’d be happy to discuss more with you, once you’ve read the full write up. :deal:
Legion: Which last sentence?
dinosaur fact: Thanks for reading.
Frank // November 25, 2007 at 9:50 am |
I believe the last like being referred to was:
-spoiler i suppose-
“and then i woke up”
-end spoiler-
i agree, should have been included. hit me hard. my girlfriend wasn’t paying her utmost attention to exactly what Jones’ character was saying during that scene and missed out on it. following the movie, i was so emotional i couldn’t even reiterate the final dream recollection and last phrase without getting choked up.
perfect movie. brilliant. i have rarely been as emotionally strawn as i was after this movie. anyone want to discuss it:
photo2@uconn.edu
excellent review, glad you enjoyed it as much as i did.
Frank // November 25, 2007 at 9:53 am |
ps:
A couple more things I left out.
1) I didn’t feel the ending was “happy”, per se, but that is completely a matter of opinion.
2) Do you have access to the script where you would have pulled quotes out from? If possible I would LOVE to read it. I personally enjoy writing and reading scripts, and ingesting such a gem would be a worthwhile experience.
Qman // November 26, 2007 at 10:17 pm |
Last line of the film:
“And then, I woke up.”
Interpret as you will…
aureliano // November 27, 2007 at 5:47 am |
The last sentence is “And then I woke up.” I believe it makes all the difference, because the comforting feeling Bell gets from the idea that someone is tending a fire up ahead for him is in so many ways destroyed. His dream has no basis in reality.
Aurelle // November 27, 2007 at 12:06 pm |
Ah. Thanks for the input, guys and gals. I did not remember to add it in, and you’re right, there’s a basis for this not being the happy ending. The act of waking up and coming back to ‘reality’ could conceivably be an indication of broken dreams. Nevertheless, his dreams offered an alternate reality to his ‘reality,’ and it gave him a point from which he could connect with those who had braved the country before him.
Frank: It’s on http://www.youknow-forkids.com/, the website dedicated to the Coen Brothers. It’s an early draft that they have there… I think that last sentence may have been added on later.
Jenny // December 4, 2007 at 11:06 pm |
There is something efficient and almost humane about Javier’s work. I think it’s interesting that he keeps calm, and often the worst thing his victims feel before they die is puzzlement, he doesn’t try to terrorize them. Interesting that he uses a pneumatic cattle gun, itself considered by some to be a humane innovation, instant, painless death, so why is is inhumane and sinister when used on humans? If you had to kill people to do your job, wouldn’t you want to do it with something that is quick and painless? I think you could make an argument that Javier is not sadistic or malicious he is just doing his job.
It could be argued that he is the ultimate man, the perfect man by the standards of American Masculinity. He always gets his man, he is fearless, skilled, principled, honest, humble, he can take care of himself, he is a killer of other men. He is the masculine ideal personified yet we are horrified by him. Maybe the filmmakers are suggesting that we should be horrified by what is expected of men in this society. Maybe we should be horrified by the kind of society that is created when we idealize violence and individual gain.
I think the last scene of the boys on bicycles, where they will willingly give an injured man (Javier) the shirt off their back hints that there is hope (although when they argue about the money after, it is a bit bleak). Compare that to when Lew meets the three you guys at the border, wants to buy the shirt. They expect him to pay, and two of them try to get him to buy the beer as well. They have been taught to be individualistic and ask “what’s in it for me?” Compare this with the Sheriff and the men he admires who are more concerned for group safety and welfare than his own. Two different ideologies. The man who will kill to get what he wants vs. the man who lives to serve and protect. Wherever there are weapons, the man who will kill to get what he wants will always defeat the man who lives to serve and protect. Is that the society we want?
It’s no accident that the Sheriff mentions that the older policemen he knew never carried guns.
Jenny // December 4, 2007 at 11:08 pm |
I agree. I prefer the ending they ended up with. It is more ambivalent. I see it as powerfully hopeful. I was left with the image of the firehorn without needing to see it and fade to black on it. I feel that ending would have been much less elegant. It would have been impossible to shoot that dream sequence anyhow (although I love the dream sequences they pulled of in Lebowski). As you point out, it would seem whimsical. It could never be “rich” enough because dreams are a symbolic language, metaphorical and that is the power of them. How you see the firehorn, you father, the horses, are different from how I see them. For that reason, imagining it is more powerful than seeing it — every viewer sees our own firehorn, our own father, our own snow. All our fathers could be young again, riding ahead and preparing a fire for us. A powerful image.
Some viewers find “and then I woke up” very bleak. I think for the sheriff character it is hopeful, it is like his image of heaven. I would hope it would comfort him in the way that god and religion has not. His father who has gone ahead of him is ready to meet him again. Whenever he gets there (dies), he knows his father will be young again, waiting, and the sheriff will be safe and warm.
For the viewer, I felt the “and then I woke up” was a call to action. There is such a contrast between the bleak world of the film where money is at the root of violence, (in my opinion, like our world), and the dream world where one man spends his energy to make a safe, nurturing camp for people he loves. We could wake up from the world of violence, is the alternative only a dream? Perhaps it could be different if more of us were willing to ride up ahead and get the fire started. It’s an image of manhood that is so beautiful, so primal and so different to the traditional American masculinity in the rest of the film.
Jenny // December 5, 2007 at 4:18 am |
Just a clarification: I am not arguing that “just doing my job” is a moral justification of murder. Also, Javier Bardem (actor) = Anton Chigurh (character). The names got confused in my mind.
Tom Ryan // December 23, 2007 at 2:55 am |
Aurelle Thank you. To me (a middle aged executive) this is simply a portrait of reality—which many execs and many people have a time facing—usually to their detriment.
I love the way McCarthy writes (God, what a movie The Road would make)—he defines reality for us in a Hemingwayian manner (sorry), and the Coen boys did a masterful conversion of it to the scree. thanks again I love your insights
Trish // February 6, 2008 at 4:19 am |
I feel everyone misses this movie. It seems to me that The Cohen brothers have left a scene out. Tommy Lee Jones meets Bardem in that hotel room. Bardem, as he has with others in the film, offers Lee the coin toss. Lee wins. Bardem, being a man of principal (he kills Moss’ wife because he promised he would do so) lets him go. Jones dreams of his father because he faced death and his father was waiting there to meet him. Lee escapes death and his father moves on to wait up ahead and then Lee “wakes up”. He wakes up because he is still alive.
Aurelle // February 8, 2008 at 10:42 am |
Well that’s certainly a different read on the film, Trish. Is there an explanation for why he would win the coin toss? What’s the meaning of that for the film?
chris // May 5, 2009 at 9:58 am |
Little late to be commenting on this film i guess but i just watched it and had one disagreement with your analysis from the other blog…
When it appears that chigurh is on the other side of the door, i believe it is only the sheriff’s imagination. When he walks into the apt you can see that the window is locked from the inside, indicating that no one escaped (unless im seeing the lock mechanism wrong).
I believe that the moment he is standing there at the door, he is, through his experience, knowing that he probably should not go in because there is a strong chance that chigurh is behind the door. However, he goes in anyway, and the killer is not there. It’s not luck, its just the way it is.
Only two characters in the film realize luck has no meaning. The sheriff and chigurh.
Aurelle // May 5, 2009 at 10:24 am |
Thanks for the comment.
Meaning is what you make of events. Luck is one meaning ascribed to one event/chain of events. The fact that he did not meet the killer and live to old age can be interpreted as luck, or fate, with the assumption that it was a good thing he didn’t. ‘It just is’ is what ‘chance’ is about; ‘luck’ has the added value/interpretation of ‘that’s a good thing’.
Jason McDermott // June 17, 2009 at 6:35 pm |
this movie was great!
Berkeley Mike // September 1, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
Luck has meaning in randomness.
I love the language in this movie. The way they speak and the little cliches they use in their southwest Texas culture to give meaning to the way things seem to go down; “the weight of the land, of the troubles people face, and of the random luck-of-the-draw. ” It says a lot about the function of religion to sustain certain human needs without talking about religion. Brilliant. I will read the book.
Aurelle // September 1, 2009 at 8:34 pm |
Thanks for commenting. Luck can indeed be an ascribed meaning to randomness.