Well, folks, our Oscar review extravaganza continues this week with a look at the Coen brothers' No Country for Old Men. Like There Will Be Blood, a lot has already been written about this violent little genre film, but I really think it's so good as to merit a little more discussion, and I'm especially interested to hear what anyone else thinks of the film.
To me, though, this is the easily the Coens' best film, and maybe my favorite movie this year.
To begin with, though, lets talk a bit about Joel and Ethan Coen. The famed and critically respected brothers have been making their own, often strange, films together since Blood Simple in 1984. Like Paul Thomas Anderson, they've been lucky enough to maintain independent financing for the most part, and so are free to do pretty much whatever they want (Intolerable Cruelty being, to my knowledge, the main exception), which is good because I can't imagine a studio letting them make their kind of films. They have a strange sense of humor, an unusual visual flare, and a penchant for shocking bits of violence.
And, because their films are so much in their own universe, they are also pretty divisive. I know more than a few die-hard Coen brothers fans who have seen The Man Who Wasn't There a dozen times, and I know more than a few Coen haters who refuse to see their films except as ammo with which to battle their defenders. Call me a casual Coens fan. I've never seen The Man Who Wasn't There, I was put off by the whimsy of The Hudsucker Proxy, but I liked Barton Fink, really liked Raising Arizona ("And when there was no crawdad to be found, we ate sand." "You ate what?" "We ate sand."), and I did, once, dress up as the Dude from The Big Lebowski for Halloween (although, in the interest of full disclosure, it was also just a good excuse to wear pajama pants to work).
They've made lots of other films, but the other big one is Fargo. It's a great movie. I can see exactly why, right down to the now-famous exchange between Francis McDormand (Joel's wife) and an old friend from high school on which the whole movie turns. I just don't like it that much. Can't point to what, exactly, turns me off about it, but it's not on my DVD shelf, and I haven't felt the need to revisit it. Commenters, feel free to let me have it for that one (no Boogie Nights defenders from last week's column?).
All this is just a way of letting you know what my baggage is going in. There are certainly friends of mine whose recommendations on Coen brothers films I take with a grain of salt, just because I know they're predisposed to liking them (and while I love Manhola Dargis at the New York Times and think she's a wonderful writer, heed her glowing reviews of David Lynch films at your own peril). So when I tell you that No Country for Old Men is the best Coen brothers movie I've ever seen, you've got some idea where I'm coming from.
But even that statement requires a little qualification, because, as the title of this review suggests, No Country isn't for everyone. In fact, with great regret, I told my father not long after I saw it that it was a great movie, that there was much about it that he would enjoy, but that it was too violent for him. That's a shame, because there's much in this film to be appreciated by older, more sophisticated audiences. The story follows Llewelyn Moss (a terrific Josh Brolin), a small town nobody who finds a bag full of money at a drug deal gone bad and attempts to keep it from the man hired to get it back, Anton Chigurh (Supporting Actor lock Javier Bardem). On their trail is an elderly sheriff, Ed Tom Bell, played by Tommy Lee Jones, who mostly bears witness to Anton's brutal tactics and Llewelyn's clever retaliations.
It is from Jones's Bell that the film takes it's title and theme, that the world has changed and the older generation being replaced finds the new one's greed and violence inexplicable. And it is for this reason that the film's violence is not just necessary but integral to its message. This, to me, is what separates No Country from other Coen brothers films, especially Fargo, where that final woodchipper scene feels intended to shock more the illuminate a grander theme.
Comments (8)
I saw Chigurh as a metaphor for the grim reaper to a certain extent. For me, that adds to the poignancy of Tommy Lee Jones' soliloquy at the end.
1 of 8 | Posted by suedisco | Posted on February 7, 2008 1:26 PM
This film was one of the best I've seen not just this year but in the last few. It was terrific. Josh Brolin was robbed, he really should have been nominated for Best Actor.
It was so tense in parts, I felt my heart was going to beat out of my chest. I don't care for excessive gore & violence, but it was appropriate to the story.
And it wasn't until we were walking out of the theater that my spouse pointed out there was virtually no music. I hadn't even noticed.
2 of 8 | Posted by cajah | Posted on February 7, 2008 5:59 PM
BEST. FILM. THIS. YEAR.
Jones and Brolin were both terrific and yes, robbed of nomintions but it was Kelly MacDonald's character - and her final showdown with Javier Bardem - which was the best scene of the year in any film for me...HAUNTING stuff.
FARGO is my favorite film of all time by the way :)
3 of 8 | Posted by moasey | Posted on February 8, 2008 9:00 AM
That's a fascinating interpretation, suedisco. And I agree with you moasey about the scene between MacDonald and Chigurh. Glad to see someone come to Fargo's defense.
4 of 8 | Posted by sutterkane | Posted on February 8, 2008 10:32 AM
So, Sutter, further to our discussion on There Will Be Blood, here's my take.
I saw There Will Be Blood a second time and I liked it even more. The first time I was too close (and off to one side of) the screen, so I didn't get the full impact of the excellent cinematography.
Also, the music was easier to handle, but I still think it is an inadequate yet risky score.
DDL is magnificent, of course. The complexity of his character is just incredible.
The story held up -- it was like when you are walking to a restaurant and you don't know where it is and it takes ages to get there. But the return journey is so much shorter.
It's a bit like that watching PTA's movie again.
I've also seen No Country twice, and that one didn't bear up as well to the second viewing as it was less horrifying. I was squirming in my seat so many times the first time around. You never knew what was going to happen next. Obviously, much of that enjoyment was missing upon the second viewing.
So, if either got best picture, I'd be okay, but No Country is the finer, less flawed movie, without a doubt.
5 of 8 | Posted by Donna Martin Graduates! | Posted on February 8, 2008 2:29 PM
Sutter, you definitely need to see The Man Who Wasn't There. It is a masterpiece of noir, full of fantastic performances, surprising and ironic storyline and the usual weird Coen touches.
(you also need to learn the important distinction between 'flare' and 'flair', but that's just me bing pedantic...)
Anyway, to say you were "put off by the whimsy of The Hudsucker Proxy" is to ignore the many and deep references to Greek mythology within, as well as the reinvention of the Hollywood tradition of screwball comedy plus refs to "It's a Wonderful Life" etc etc
The richness of this storyline, and the comedic precision of this movie, is staggering.
Definitely well worth revisiting.
For the record, the only Coen Bros movie I didn't love and watch repeatedly is O Brother, Where Art Thou? One day I'll give it another chance.
I firmly believe quality movies are worth at least two viewings, even though there are so many movies out there you just have to see before you die!
6 of 8 | Posted by Donna Martin Graduates! | Posted on February 8, 2008 2:51 PM
I mean, that's just me *being* pedantic.
karma's a bitch!
7 of 8 | Posted by Donna Martin Graduates! | Posted on February 8, 2008 2:54 PM
DMG,
A bad seat can ruin a movie, can't it? I was front row, right for Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, and that about ruined it for me (I've since come around to how much fun that movie is). Otherwise, I see your points about Blood, and I agree that No Country is maybe more deserving of the best pic oscar.
I'll check out The Man Who Wasn't There on your recommendation. I do love the idea of Deakins working in black and white. But Hudsucker Proxy... I get what you're saying, but something about Jennifer Jason Leigh (who I generally don't like, except maybe Fast Times, Dolores Claiborn, and, of course, the end of The Hitcher) delivering that faux-screwball dialogue drives me nuts. In fact, I thought the Coens did a much better job with that style in Intolerable Cruelty, and even O, Brother, which has that same rapid-fire rhythm.
As for flair and flare, I'm still doing my own proofreading until the tvgasm gods get me an assistant, and if it doesn't have that little red squiggle under it, there's a pretty good chance I won't catch it.
8 of 8 | Posted by sutterkane | Posted on February 9, 2008 9:42 AM