Jump to content

No Country for Old Men (2007)


Overstreet
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've heard from some who think Chigurh wanders off

to die

.

I love this, it makes me think that the whole scene is like an inverse version of Shane. Instead of having a little blond haired boy hollering, "Come back Shane," you have a blond haired, shirtless boy on a bicycle arguing over money.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kyle Smith asks if the original novel echoes Pope John Paul II's concerns about the "culture of death":

Walking away from the Coen Brothers film of
No Country for Old Men
, you may have a couple of questions. For instance, why is the film set in 1980? And what does it all mean? In Cormac McCarthy's novel, it's obvious why the story takes place in 1980. The reason is Vietnam. Most of the characters served there; it's where they learned about the value of human life, or lack thereof. . . .

John Podhoretz has castigated the film as nihilist. But if you measure McCarthy's ironic tone in the book, you might come to another conclusion. Possibly McCarthy is taking the extreme, Catholic stance that all killing is wrong, from capital punishment to war to abortion. The book takes place seven years after Roe v. Wade, five years after the fall of Saigon, four years after the restoration of the death penalty by the Supreme Court. It's a year when the idea that state could sanction killing has begun to take root. The sheriff, in the book as in the film the voice of wisdom and restraint, expresses a sad resignation toward the death penalty from page one on, and a portion of the book that isn't referred to in the movie might be the key to understanding McCarthy's moral. . . .

McCarthy has a vision of an America that fosters what Pope John Paul II called a "culture of death;" these men come back from Vietnam, where they learned to kill, then apply their killing skills on a country that is killing fetuses and condemned prisoners and will soon give the okay to killing old people and the weak. The remorseless assassin Anton Chigurh is the natural consequence of a culture of death: A harbinger of unchecked killing.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You go, Kyle.

This resonates with me and my memory of the book. While some have been surprised by the monologue at the end of the film, it is the running tone of the novel from the beginning. The whole novel feels like a lament for a culture that is "breaking down the distance between right and wrong." Come to think of it, you could draw a compelling alternative soundtrack for this film from Dylan's Oh Mercy and Time Out of Mind.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A note of minor significance: With $43.5 million in the domestic till as of yesterday (Friday), No Country for Old Men is very close to surpassing the $45.5 million earned by O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000) and becoming the top film ever directed by the Coen brothers. If it surpasses the $60.1 million earned by Bad Santa (2003), which the Coens produced but did not direct, then, I believe, it will be the top-grossing film on their resumes, period.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:spoilers:

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 something I don't understand.

The darkness shines in the light, and the light has not understood it.

You can connect the dots to Vietnam and the culture of death if you want to, and maybe in the novel that's a helpful approach. In the film, though, I don't think there's ultimately any distance from, perspective on or critique of Chigurh's nihilism. It's been said that the winning lawyer is not the one who has the best legal arguments or the most facts, but the one who tells the best story. Chigurh's worldview dominates the film, and no counter-narrative emerges as a credible contender. Perhaps the diminution of Bell as a character is part of the problem.

I can deal with Chigurh being unstoppable. What really leaves me cold is not that he can't be defeated physically, but that he always has the upper hand in every verbal confrontation. He understands everyone else and no one understands him. "They always say the same thing. 'You don't have to do this.'" No one can tell against him, confute him. Even Hannibal Lecter got shut up every once in a while by Clarice Starling.

I appreciate, very much, that the Coens afford

Carla Jean

the tiny shred of dignity, that she

doesn't call the coin toss

. Yet Chigurh still has the last word:

"I got here the same way the coin did."

Instead of being cross-examined, it is Chigurh who cross-examines others: "If your rule brought you to this, what good is your rule?" It's a fair question, especially since

Chigurh's "rule" ultimately works better for him than anyone else's

. And nothing in No Country gestures in the direction of any possible answer to his question.

The Coens excel, I think, at portraying the ordinary decency that much of the world takes for granted, largely ignorant as it is of the Chigurhs among us. That ignorance is no mark against decency in a film like Fargo, where evil is banal and decency is the fixed point of reference. In No Country, the point of reference is an evil so absolute that it leaves decency looking banal in its shadow.

It seems to me that a film like this potentially stands or falls by how it ends. If there is any perspective on the events of the film, any commentary, any critique, that's where it has to be found. AFAICT, the two most relevant points have already been noted by others: First, Chigurh is

broadsided by the universe -- and walks away

. Second, the opening monologue by Bell is bookended by another at the end, yet this closing monologue

seems to be random, disconnected from the film's events and its real world -- though I'm open to proposed interpretations of the dreams that do relate to the film's events

.

One thing I can say for No Country: It's made me eager to see Fargo again. :)

P.S. "the extreme, Catholic stance that all killing is wrong, from capital punishment to war to abortion"... sigh. Well, one out of three, he could have done worse....

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Chigurh

Seeing the head of the serpent being bruised rather than crushed leaves me always unsettled as well.

And more like Oh Justice wherefore art Thou--- i think u nailed it SDG with "Perhaps the diminution of Bell as a character is part of the problem." It is the problem... or that itch-- that wont go away...

This trimming down of this character is rather unfortunate, as it could of illuminated the adaption to perhaps a whole 'nother level.

Perhaps out of this need to find resolution against the nihilism evoked by my friends who came with me to see the film . I returned to McCarthys book one more time.. and was surprised by the amount of imagery and one eschatological mention of Revelations lurking there amidst the pages. The sections of Bell have shards of light sprinkled throughout his narrations... his meeting with Moss's father, the time with his wife especially...and the last chapter, leading to the imagery of the final monologue. While some might concede they are dimly there, they shimmer all the same and therin lies the "substance" of hope as the

"fire" in his fathers horn as portrayed in the final monologue

and perhaps the proof of things not seen ( thanks Papa Benedict by way of St Paul) .

Such facts perhaps viewing the fact of

Chigurh being broadsided by the universe -and walks away to be seen in a different light (not to be clever with puns at anyones expense... forI feel its appropriate) and instead more like being broadsided by Gods inscrutable ways,,,not one on our terms but there just the same. Opening the space for Hope... waiting there to abide much like Bells father and the horn carrying remnants for the welcome fire and what seems to me a reconciliation ...

I think thats Cormac McCarthys answer so kept by the Coen's adaptation.

or better.... to quote the Shawshank Redemption ..... I Hope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the last three words of Bell's closing monologue are as important as the rest of the speech. He seems to be losing any faith he ever might have had.

He has this dream that is dark, apocalyptic, and yet hopeful, in which his father who has passed on is waiting for him with light in the darkness.

"And then I woke up."

What a devastating line to close on.

But I don't think the film is entirely nihilistic. It points to causes of decline. It reminds us of a breakdown of human decency. And if Chigurh is the inevitable product of human evil, he is still a product. He came from somewhere. He's the world of karma, and the film does the film does not consider the possibility of grace except to suggest that grace as offered by humans is too little and too late. That's the failure of mankind.

I believe in the failure of mankind. I just happen to also believe that the eagles are coming, that there is another will at work.

No Country for Old Men is framed by Bell's perspective; it's the point of view of someone looking at the ugly truth on the ground, not the hope we can find in the skies. I find that to be a necessary part of revelation. It's the apprehension of darkness... and that can be an important prompt that turns us toward the light. I'm reminded that such light exists in the way I respond to Carla Jean's sense of right and wrong, and to the boy's kind offer of a shirt to a wounded man who doesn't deserve it. That may not be what the filmmakers intended, but I think it's there to be found all the same.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: I can deal with Chigurh being unstoppable. What really leaves me cold is not that he can't be defeated physically, but that he always has the upper hand in every verbal confrontation. He understands everyone else and no one understands him. "They always say the same thing. 'You don't have to do this.'" No one can tell against him, confute him. Even Hannibal Lecter got shut up every once in a while by Clarice Starling.

Hmmm. Just last night I was listening to the hour-long podcast on the ending of the film posted at the movie's official website, and somebody there remarked that

the car accident may have been the result, in some way, of Chigurh being a tad unsettled by Carla Jean's defiance when he offers her the coin toss

.

: P.S. "the extreme, Catholic stance that all killing is wrong, from capital punishment to war to abortion"... sigh. Well, one out of three, he could have done worse....

Would it help if the comma were removed?

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:

: I'm reminded that such light exists in the way I respond to Carla Jean's sense of right and wrong, and to the boy's kind offer of a shirt to a wounded man who doesn't deserve it.

Isn't that later example immediately undermined, though, by the argument that the boy gets into with his friend?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the last three words of Bell's closing monologue are as important as the rest of the speech. He seems to be losing any faith he ever might have had.

He has this dream that is dark, apocalyptic, and yet hopeful, in which his father who has passed on is waiting for him with light in the darkness.

"And then I woke up."

... What a devastating line to close on.

Ya its hard boiled, and leaving one barren as the dark night of the soul...but in the process of losing faith-- i didnt see it that way..the tenderness in Tommy Lee Jones eyes despite this is, for me at least, still telling. That and what to me seemed to be

tears, he clinging to hope in the telling and to the only one that he can be vulnerable with and express it so just as old married couples do.. and sometimes that abrupt... Despite all this Bell's wife in a sense is his star in his stormy sea to bring him home.....he is wounded yes....but still not broken. Telling her in effect i beleive but honey i.e. Bell's wife, help my unbeleif

... perhaps reading the last chapters tee this interpretation up so to speak..unfair perhaps rather than in examining the film by itself.

But even still for that reason the nihilism is lessened so, as the film seems forced in comparison ,,,for i think McCarthy had a different intent...and for this reason it seemed in the last 40 minutes it was like watching a cover version of another artists great song. A sure thing, great effort, but in some small way missing that something causing this viewer to feel

short changed as the coins that make their way into Chigurh's victems...

Jeffrey u mention Failure of mankind,,, ah really ? i believe mankind is corrupted but failed .... i beg u to take a mulligan sir to use the parlance of golf., and yet smile more so with your astute clarification of my muddled articulation of Bell. How true,,, looking at the consequences of the fall on the ground not in the sky ....how that resonates=)!!

Peter- first a howdo =) yes the boys arguement does seem to undermine this light -- cynicly so but only due to the fact that this boys complaint is the last we see of the pair, perhaps this light Jeff notes of and as exhibited by the works of this "good samaritan" boy, is analogous to the event of seeing a mote of light against the darkness i.e. the arguing friend gnashing his teeth and even accentauted all the more by the boys differing reactions to witnessing the event.

All the while or so it seems to be riffing off the very parable itself unintentionally perhaps, on the part of the Coens but true to the book ... Indeed a presumption that i am making of the parable .. but as awhole i think the light arguement persists. And i might even say too for McCarthy as well, he being a non-practicing Catholic and judging from his other books, is well versed , not only in echoing the work of William Faulkner of Absalom, Absalom fame, (not surprisingly another Coen Favorite as W.P. Mayhew in their Barton Fink (1991), but McCarthy is also familiar with the words, syntax and stylistic rythms of the King James and Douay Rheims Bibles. an example of this is

Bells recalling a visit to Corpus Christi and having a rather ironic discussion, while there of all places, and syill another is his visit with Moss's dad who asks the former about mammon...a nod however brief to Matt. 6

small parts but again sparkling shards that for some reason didn't make it into the theatrical cut of the Coen's adaptation.

And perhaps here is another rub that chews at me during this bout of late night insomnia: Bell is a man out of his own time ... his name itself is like a sign tolling in the Darkness

perhaps akin to that Dark Night of the Soul to borrow yet again the phrase of the Catholic mystic St John of the Cross ... and in our age bells are now some what out of place...and only used in a few churches over speakers on the occasional Sunday,,save for marriages, Christmas and Easter. Perhaps im stretching this but i think McCarthy puts everything in for a reason even amidst all the sound and fury signifying nothing to drive the cynicism, nihilism and the ratios of light and dark that serves as the tinder for the flame of his art...a form so employed by Shakespeare in Macbeth carried on by Faulkner and reaquired by McCarthy, that now even the Coen Brothers translate so before our eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bell is a man out of his own time ... his name itself is like a sign tolling in the Darkness

Of course!! Why didn't I think of that?!

I laughed when I realized that the villain's name sounds kinda like "Chigger"... and "Sugar."

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally saw it, after driving 110 miles round-trip in a torrential downpour.

5.0/5

Really. I waited two years for the movie, eventually bought into some of the anti-buzz going around before making the decision to finally drag myself to the theater to see it. I think some of the negative comments I'd read helped me enjoy it more.

I won't unnecessarily restate stuff that's been mentioned already, but -- much like the novel -- I didn't see the film as bleak as others have. Ellis' comments about

Chigurh's rampage being nothing 'new,'

and Ed Tom's

final recounting of his dreams -- which I always compared to the "carrying the torch" aspect at the end of McCarthy's

the Road --

are two things I liked a lot. Also,

Chigurh is quite shaken and unnerved by what happened during his encounter with Carla Jean and the subsequent auto accident.

The fact that he

gets away, so to speak, is a reality -- sometimes the relentless (

ha!) amoral people get away with the mayhem and murder they sow. By the end, though, I felt like the Coens did a good job of showing while the Chigurhs of the world have always been here, the Bells are the ones carrying the fire into the future.

There was no point at which I found Chigurh to be funny, either. In the book, his conversations with the various people (clerks, gas station attendents) always came across as surreal and menacing. Awkward too, but to echo Wells -- he doesn't have a sense of humor.

And I must say, Carter Burwell again proves to be my favorite composer in the film industry. The way he subtly uses found-sound and slight percussive underscores to couple with the images on the screen...brilliant.

I have a really horrible story about my viewing experience, too; I dealt with the worst crowd I have EVER encountered in a theater (no hyperbole). I'm still shaking.

Edited by Jason Panella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason Panella wrote:

: I have a really horrible story about my viewing experience, too; I dealt with the worst crowd I have EVER encountered in a theater (no hyperbole). I'm still shaking.

Shaking ... with rage? ... with fear? Did the crowd threaten to assault you? Did they annoy you to distraction with their endless yakking on the cell phones?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaking ... with rage? ... with fear? Did the crowd threaten to assault you? Did they annoy you to distraction with their endless yakking on the cell phones?

A little of both, Peter. I was vague with that comment, and I apologize. I'd rather not dwell on it, but the audience was A) very "interactive" with the film (a fairly common occurrence in the Pittsburgh area, but this was an extreme) and B ) some of the most vocal members in the audience made very loud, loud statements about the worthlessness of the film etc. etc. etc. as the credits started rolling. There was even violent kicking of seats and thrown cups. And this was an elderly couple.

I was trying to reflect during the credits -- as the other eight people in the theater that bailed immediately, including the 20-somethings that were shouting the f-word at the screen as they left. Sort of hard to reflect when the above was happening.

Edited by Jason Panella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yowzah -- how did my blog end up on this list? (And why did they get the name wrong?) (Brett McCracken's blog is linked there, too.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought:

- I've been thinking more about the scene near the end,

in which Chigurh gets broadsided and the gets the shirt off of the boys.

Look at Chigurh. Look at his face, his demeanor.

He is

not in control of the situation, a first in the movie -- if you don't include the brief exchange of gunfire between he and Moss that resulted in his leg getting peppered with buckshot. Yes, he walks away, but he looks rattled and incredibly vulnerable, and is shaking as he rams the cash into the boy's hand. I think his interaction with Carla Jean was the result, not the car crash (or, at least, not entirely). Yes, he gets away, and yes, he seems unstoppable, but in some ways he's as rattled and shaken up as Ed Tom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This hasn't turned up anywhere else yet, as far as I can tell, but David Poland reports that the Coens won the Director's Guild Award tonight -- only the second two-person team to win the award, following Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins for 1961's West Side Story -- and as y'all know, the DGA winner virtually ALWAYS wins the Oscar for Best Director, too. And the film that wins Best Director USUALLY wins the Oscar for Best Picture, too -- although lately we've seen a pattern where Director and Picture go to different films every 2nd or 3rd year. (Possibly the most bizarre year in recent memory was 2002, when Rob Marshall won the DGA for directing Chicago, and the film itself won the Oscar for Best Picture ... but the Oscar for Best Director went to Roman Polanski for The Pianist.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

You can number me among the fans. This is probably the Coen brothers' best movie. It's certainly their finest since "Miller's Crossing". I say "probably" because there's so much to take in and ruminate over that one viewing alone can't do it justice. There's also the nagging suspicion that, despite the gravitas of the dialogue, there's a lot less here than meets the eye. All the performances are terrific, but Bardem's is obviously the one that lingers in the memory. He is just so damn creepy! His character, Anton Chigurh, is referred to as being like a ghost at one point, and this is apt because he reminded me of Michael Myers from "Halloween", seemingly unkillable and likely to pop up anywhere at any moment. The film itself reminded me of Bresson. I can't wait to see it again.

Edited by The Invisible Man

We are part of the generation in which the image has triumphed over the word, when the visual is dominant over the verbal and where entertainment drowns out exposition. We may go so far as to claim that we live in an age of the image which is also the age of anti-word and potentially is the age of the lie. ~ Os Guiness

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably the Coen brothers' best movie.

A part of me still prefers O Brother, Where Art Thou?, but I'm not certain yet. I've only seen No Country once; maybe subsequent viewings will spur my admiration to greater heights.

-"I... drink... your... milkshake! I drink it up!"

Daniel Plainview, There Will Be Blood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This past week has been very good for me in regards to movies; unable to go to the theater since the birth of our twins, we've mostly had to develop the new habit of waiting-until-the-video; and my wife is not prone to watch overly violent fare. But she was away last weekend, giving me the free reigns to check out the critically lauded "Into the Wild", "There Will Be Blood", and "No Country for Old Men."

Of the three films, only "No Country..." I keep regurgitating in my mind; over and again; trying to plumb its depths. (Which surprised me; I was rooting for TWBB).

I didn't have time to read every single post here, but I ran a quick search, to see if anybody here referred to Forrest Gump. Nobody did. So hopefully I have something to bring to the table, that hasn't been regurgitated before, or perhaps in my subconscious from another article that was referred to here.

But if ever there was a more awkward, more appropriate double feature, it's "Forrest Gump" and "No Country for Old Men." That is because both films are fixated on the themes of chance vs fate; on randomness vs pre-ordained destiny.

"Forrest Gump" fixated its entire story from the 50s up to 1981. Being made in 1994, its journey through the major boomer-turning points (and accompanying soundtrack), only occassionally asked this very question as to whether an event is pure chance, or destiny, only to have Forrest Gump declare "Both." Visually, the image of a floating (digital) feather, in all its randomness and beauty best described this.

But this was made before 9/11. After 9/11, the same questions rang a whole lot more pertinent. What if the described events was something so horrific, so heinous... would you dare ask the same question, knowing what we know now?

Anton Chigurrh [sp?] represents this nihilistic, nightmarish fate, this chance. Whether a person lives or dies is dependent upon a flip of a coin.

In a Coen-style ironic twist, Chigurrh himself becomes a victim of a hit-and-run at the end, a chance encounter that comes out of nowhere

. On the other end of the spectrum, Tommy Lee Jones' sherriff is the one who represents goodness, of faith, BUT... and here's the key, as he had been rendered

powerless to prevent all the atrocities from occurring

, he struggles mightily with his faith. The very final scene, in which he shares a dream from the night before, in which the dream represented all the hope that he once understood and knew, stands either as a prophecy of what heaven is like, or a stark reminder that what he longs for is not reality... the film is smart to play this card with such ambiguity.

The interesting thing about NCFOM is that it is deliberately made so that it forces you to read the film on a second, more introspective level. The three leads,

never sharing the screen together,

is a clue that all three are archetypes, in which we must decipher (the third character, played by Josh Brolin, represents us... caught inbetween good and bad).

This interesting factoid is also the problem with NCFOM... it works fantastically on the level of metaphor. But by forcibly driving the audience to look upon the film on this level, the film is a major letdown for those looking upon the film purely on its surface level. The last half-hour, where it rewrites the rules as to how the film is to be interpreted, is as perplexing as it is disappointing;

We never get to see the final showdown between Brolin and Bardem; Bardem's character gets away; and we don't even know Kelly MacDonald (Brolin's wife) made it thru okay, even if we can assume that it is obvious...

Some of my favorite films are based on stories that work exceedingly well BOTH as metaphor and as a story. Network. Searching For Bobby Fischer. Magnolia. The Searchers. Even many of the parables in the Gospels work on these levels. So it's not entirely impossible, even if rare, to have such a story have such resonance.

But that leaves me in a quandry; had the story not shifted storytelling gears in its final act, there is a good chance I would not have been jarred to thinking that there was a deeper there there. I might have been tempted to treat this film as simply a chase movie with no deeper resonance, like a Hitchcock film. I know for myself that I don't think of _Blood Simple_ or _Fargo_ on these terms.

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I remembering wrong? I thought it clearly turned out differently for both of them, with only

Chiggurgh [sp?] continuing on

.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to... which characters, which scene, and which came out "differently"...

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to wait to see it again. It was pretty clear to me at the time that

only Chiggurgh was left

.

Ditto.

"You guys don't really know who you're dealing with."

"Oh yeah, and who exactly are we dealing with?"

"I'm the mother flippin' rhymenoceros."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it helps at all...

Brolin dies. We don't see him killed (there's a Bressonesque jump in the narrative), but we do see his bloody corpse in the scene following the shoot-out.

Kelly MacDonald dies. Again, we don't see her killed, but we see Bardem checking his shoes when he leaves her house (this seemingly trivial detail is significant. Earlier in the film he is shown moving his shoes out of the way of Woody Harrelson's blood).

Bardem lives.

Edited by The Invisible Man

We are part of the generation in which the image has triumphed over the word, when the visual is dominant over the verbal and where entertainment drowns out exposition. We may go so far as to claim that we live in an age of the image which is also the age of anti-word and potentially is the age of the lie. ~ Os Guiness

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...