Joel and Ethan Coen: NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, well, you either get it or you don't and you don't. I'm sorry you respond to my "feeling" statement and not to any of my other arguments. I hope maybe Oscar will give my comments about the content of the story and film some thought and consider that maybe it is not as "cliché" as he had thought. Sometimes the "cliché" is in the eye of the beholder rather than the film.

Just saw GONE BABY GONE. Now there is a story that definitely has clearcut "ethical/moral dilemmas" in it. I will write something about this interesting and quite creditable little film, which unfortunately didn't spend much time in theaters.

Gone Baby Gone is powerful stuff - a movie that derives its plot twists from moral conundrums rather than from narrative sleight of hand.

--James Berardinelli, ReelViews.

There is a compelling ethical question raised skillfully [in Gone Baby Gone] that will haunt viewers. The poignant conclusion probably will incite debate.

--Claudia Puig, USA Today.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
what it implies is essentially that you have stopped thinking about the film and now are simply focusing on reactions to it. Your mind is made up.
My mind was made up upon leaving the theater. The film gave me little to think about. It presents a relentlessly bleak view of humanity but no issues to ponder.


I wonder if you would react the same way to the content of Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, an acknowledged masterrpiece which is probably unfilmable. Blood Meridian, with its epic scale, is, like his more recent The Road, a much greater work than the relatively minor--but still fine-- No Country for Old Men. In the latter, McCarthy is working closer to Elmore Leonard. But seen in the context of his whole body of work, as it should be, No Country has an apocalyptic edge to it that one may not quite discern in the Coens' version without that context.
The context provided by a reading of the book is likely to add to the experience of the film. But I bet many of the critics and filmgoers who love the film haven't read the book. The film itself is inspiring high praise. I'm willing to acknowledge this and it befuddles and intrigues me. I had difficulty sustaining interest in the plot or the characters, but I gave it my undivided attention for the duration of the film. I enjoyed it but only on a formal level.
I want to clarify that even if this is a faithful adaptation of the book, I cannot judge the book by watching the film, much less the writer's merits in general.


I certainly do not think "no ethical/moral dilemmas" is quite right. In fact, not right at all. Fundamentally, the "ethical/moral dilemma" is that moral values are in a pervasive state of decay.
That's not a moral dilemma or some kind of ethical conflict. That's simply a rather pessimistic observation. "World gone mad" ? "Utter moral decline"? Absolutely. Still, what we have here is a single and simply bleak observation, a plot propelled by two risibly stupid actions (see my previous post) and no character that experiences any growth or development. The characters are what they are from beginning to end. Thus I found the film rather deterministic and uninvolving. Obviously you and many others had a different experience with it and I don't attempt to change that. I just wanted to make my position as clear as I can make it.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, you have made your position clear. You made up your mind as you walked out of the theater. Maybe we all do; but some of us sometimes change our minds.

The context provided by a reading of the book is likely to add to the experience of the film. But I bet many of the critics and filmgoers who love the film haven't read the book.

Instead of "likely" I would say when any movie is made from a good book by a good writer, it's essential to know the book, and the completele experience requires a knowledge of both. It would be absurd and pointless to write criticism of a film of a Jane Austen novel without knowing the novel. You can, but your criticism carries little weight. The context of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN the film is richer than you understand it to be, because of the book from which it was adapted. "Likely" is too weak a word. If the book is any good, it's SURE to add, not just LIKELY. I've tried to get this point across repeatedly on this site, largely it seems in vain.

[Chris Knipp]

I certainly do not think "no ethical/moral dilemmas" is quite right. In fact, not right at all. Fundamentally, the "ethical/moral dilemma" is that moral values are in a pervasive state of decay.
That's not a moral dilemma or some kind of ethical conflict. That's simply a rather pessimistic observation. "World gone mad" ? "Utter moral decline"? Absolutely. Still, what we have here is a single and simply bleak observation, a plot propelled by two risibly stupid actions (see my previous post) and no character that experiences any growth or development. The characters are what they are from beginning to end.

I can't see how a society being in a state of pervasive moral decay is not a "moral dilemma." You're defining "moral dilemma" in a very rigid, limited way. You are seeing it strictly in terms of specific moral choices. But in fact the characters in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN do also have to make specific moral choices every step of the way. Your failure to see that explains why you can say this:

The characters are what they are from beginning to end. Thus I found the film rather deterministic and uninvolving.

If you say the choices being made, you'd see the characters aren't rigid as you think and the film isn't "deterministic and uninvolving" either. If it were, people wouldn't find it as involving as they do.

I don't think you've tuned in to what's going on in Cormac McCarthy's story. I suggest you read the book, and maybe the movie will make more sense to you. It obviously makes very little sense to you now. You're missing something, Oscar, and your mind is made up so you can be sure to go on missing it--or so it would seem from your remarks posted here.

[Johann]

My experience watching this film was intellectual, not emotional.

It is indeed quite uninvolving, even with stunning camerawork and perfect acting. I admire the craft employed but I felt I was being strung along.

I will always worship The Big Lebowski, though...