No Country for Old Men, written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, has garnered a multitude of honors since its release last fall, and has been nominated for the Motion Picture Academy Award for Best Picture. It is a highly deserving film, although difficult for many audience members to watch because of its powerful violence and overall downbeat tone.
In this regard No Country for Old Men certainly fits the current mood of Hollywood, and of modern liberals in general today.
Oscar watchers say this year’s best film nominees reflect the mood of the 5,800 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The two front running movies for the best film honor are violent, a third nominee tells of corporate and legal greed, a fourth of family betrayal and the fifth teen pregnancy—that’s the funny one.
The story noted that contemporary Hollywood’s mindset is greatly at odds with that of its audience, the American people:
Optimistic “Juno” has been the biggest box office hit among the best picture nominees with more than $125 million in U.S. and Canadian ticket sales. “No Country” has topped $60 million” and “There will be Blood” more than $30 million. “Atonement” and “Michael Clayton” took in about $46 million each.
The unamimous opinion on No Country for Old Men has been that it fits perfectly with the current Hollywood mindset—and as regards the surface impressions of the film, that is an entirely accurate assessment.
But the meaning of the film actually entirely contradicts the basic philosophy behind not only contemporary Hollywood but in fact modern liberalism as a whole.
The central events of No Country for Old Men all involve characters making the choice to move outside of society and indeed out of civilization altogether.
The initial scene that sets off all the action takes place in a remote desert in Texas, as a solitary hunter, Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), comes across a violent scene that emblemizes the lawlessness that drives the film: a drug deal evidently gone very bad, with the place littered with corpses recently killed—and one still dying.
Moss finds a case full of money, and he takes it—and as soon becomes clear, he intends to keep it for himself.
In doing so, he sets himself outside of society, for of course society cannot protect him from the consequences of his bad act, but in fact is set up to do precisely the opposite.
Moss has thus put himself in an environment that exists outside the boundaries of society, and indeed of civilization itself. Normal rules do not apply, and different characters make up differing moral codes on their own. Most of these codes, as is to be expected, are entirely self-serving and center on the assertion of raw power. It is the world of Friedrich Nietzche’s philosophy made manifest.
Continual disasters and horrors ensue as Moss is swept up into events he cannot hope to control, when a hitman is put on his trail.
Formerly fully attached to civilization, as his name suggests, Moss is now bereft of the rock and the security it once afforded him. The rock—which in the Bible is Petra, the profession of faith in Christ—is now rolling, and it will not gather Moss.
The central dramatic motif of the film is the absence, in this particular world, of the ordering and pacifying forces of civilization, represented by the aged, disillusioned, and ultimately ineffectual Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones).
The hitman’s habitual way of deciding whether those who inadvertently get in his way shall live or die—the flip of a coin—encapsulates the way characters outside of civilization are at the mercy of fate, of events they cannot hope to control. It is only within society, within civilization, and specifically in this case a Christian civilization, that people can hope to thrive and make the world a better place.
Where this differs from the prevailing attitude in Hollywood is this: one of the main foundations of modern liberalism is a notion based on the thinking of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau: the idea that human beings are born basically good and are corrupted only by society. In addition, the idea of self-love as being an entirely good thing is a strong part of this philosophy. (The modern passion for self-esteem is but one contemporary manifestation of this idea.)
All of this, of course, is the opposite of the Christian claim that human beings are born sinful and require redemption.
What the Coen brothers’ film shows so vividly is that outside of civilization is chaos, destruction, and horror.
It is civilization, the film makes abundantly clear, that allows human beings to survive with at least a small slice of dignity, peace, and comfort, and with their humanity at least somewhat intact.
This is the exact opposite of Rousseau’s claim, and it brilliantly validates the Christian view of humanity.
It’s a good thing that Hollywood and America’s film critics have failed to realize this about No Country for Old Men. Its message can reach people intact, thanks in great part to the honors heaped upon the film by its unsuspecting enemies.
Huh, those sound like good moivies. Thanks for the movie tips, S.T. But, what I really want to know is why you didn’t answer my question or e-mail me from the Jack Black wrestles for God Page. Busted…
I recommend an underappreciated form, the swashbuckler. Pirates of the Caribbean is of course a recent entry in the form, but there are countless examples from the entire history of film. Start with Adventures of Robin Hood,, directed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley, and then move on to the rest of the 1930s and ’40s Warner Bros. swashbucklers starring Errol Flynn, then on to the 1950s MGM ones starring Robert Taylor (such as Ivanhoe, Knights of the Round Table, and Quentin Durward, and those starring Stewart Granger (such as The Prisoner of Zenda and Scaramouche). Also, the 1930s version of The Prisoner of Zenda, starring Ronald Colman, is one of the best. Plus, Burt Lancaster starred in a couple very good ones in the 1950s, and then you should see the great films Douglas Fairbanks made in the 1920s. That should give you a good start on a both entertaining and meaningful type of film.
Huh, maybe I should go rent it, because (you’ll be shocked), I have never seen that movie before. So, thanks for not spoiling the movie for me. I’ll see if I can go rent it. Anyways, thanks for the suggestion,and surprise surprise, I have another question, what other kind of movie genres do you recommend instead of horror and violence?
A film that has one of the most famous instances of what you’re describing is Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. And what makes it more interesting, and made it even more shocking, is that it doesn’t happen at the end but fairly early in the film.
I really understand what you are talking about. In most movies, the main characters always survive, or always win. I wasn’t surprised that the story had a new plot, but that the directors turned around a corner and did the opposite of what most directors do. Do you know of any movies that end kind of the same way No Country for Old Men did? Give me a good answer, and I’ll still come back to your blog. Don’t forget to check my answers on the “Jack Black Wrestles for God” page, okay?
I think we are definitely supposed to expect that things will work out all right for him somehow, and it is indeed quite a shock when they don’t. However, it definitely made sense that things turned out that way. The fact is, when you go outside of society’s protection, you had better be an extraordinary person, or you won’t survive long. And even then, the odds are against it.
Wow. I think you picked a good choice. I remember when I watched it, I was shocked and thoughtful. I mean come on, I hope no one else reads this because I am going to spoil the movie, that was a very twisted scene when Lwelyn died(I hope I spelled it right, but if not, sorry). Though I may not have developed the parts of my brain that analyzes things because I am only 24, but that surprised me, I wish he hadn’t died. Anyway, give me your thoughts, okay S.T. Karnick?
Thanks, Nola. I wouldn’t describe any of the three films as likeable, exactly, certainly not what most people think of as enjoyable. However, of the three I think I found No Country for Old Men the most satisfying to watch. For my review of Michael Clayton, go here.
Thank you so much S.T. Karnick! I just told my friends and they were very perplexed by your answer, but at least they’ll shut up about it and give me some peace. You explained that really well, and yes, please review There Will Be Blood, I haven’t seen it, but if you give it a good review, I will be the first in line to get it on DVD. Now, I have another question for you, which one did you like the best: No Country for Old Men, There will Be Blood, or Michael Clayton (which I have not seen, so would you be so kind as to give me a bit of the plot when you respond). I want to know so if it’s one of the other two movies besides No Country for Old Men, I can watch them and see what I think about them. Thanks again, and I can’t wait to read your response.
Nola, I’ll try to include more on movies, just as you suggest, as time allows. I suppose one film some of our readers would be interested in hearing about is There Will Be Blood. I’ll try to work something up for when the DVD is released, as I did with Michael Clayton.
As to your question about NCFOM, I see the film as being told in real time, with Sheriff Bell’s comments coming in the course of events and providing a sort of ironic authorial commentary on the action. I say ironic in the sense that the sheriff’s opinions are not necessarily to be taken as those of the filmmakers, given his ineffectuality, although I suspect that his thoughts do in large part coincide with theirs.
Now, this is a movie that really kept me on the edge of my seat. I have never seen anything like this ever before in my life. Though the murders were horrednous, I have to say nicely done to Joel and Ethan Coen. And I have to say that even with little dialouge, they were still able to give the movie the right stuff. If only other filmakers could follow in the footsteps of the Coen brothers, then there would be many great movies instead of the usual 90 minute crap Hollywood gives us. Also, in no offense to the great blog makers of stkarnick, could you talk about other great movies too, I can’t name some off the top of my head, but it would be great if you could post other opinons of movies too. And, I have a question for you, S.T. Karnick, I have been debating with friends over if Sheriff Bell is telling the story as a flashback, or if the story is just moving along. If you could settle a much heated debate, I would be truly thankful! Don’t keep me in the dark, and I’ll come back to make sure you answered my question!
No Country for Old Men is a film that really made me think. Though it was very graphic at some times, and made me groan in disgust at some of the horrible murders, it was one of the best movies I have seen, and is very unlike the Hollywood mainstream movies we usually see. Though I wouldn’t recommend it for the faint-hearted, it should be on your list of movies to see.
I think that’s a very likely factor, C C. Thanks for sending it along.–STK
I was thinking about the question of what is different since Fargo and what the newer and worse evil of NCFOM could represent, and then it clicked for me as I re-read your discussions. “Dread…resignation…tired…formidable villains…little real help…rotting society…allow it to happen.” Could this be about the post-9/11 world? Whether or not that’s the message they intend, it seems to fit.
Excellent observations, Steve. As I mentioned in the original article and my response to C C, Sheriff Bell is indeed ineffectual. But I do not see that as constituting a message that the Coens wish to send, as somehow suggesting that civilization is at an end.
On the contrary, while, as you correctly observe, “Chirguh’s world of chaos” is “constantly spilling over these boundaries into ” ‘civilization’, ” it’s essential to recognize that it is Bell and his colleagues, and the citizenry in general, who allow it to happen. Just as you say: “These murders, including the lawman’s, fail to arise any passion among Bell and his colleagues. Instead, they conjure a dread sense of resignation: ‘Something worse is coming.’ ” Exactly, and there is absolutely nothing in the film to suggest that the Coens think that this is the correct response. In fact it’s quite clear that the Coens are making the very opposite point, given the bloody disasters brought on by the criminality the fear and complacency of the lawmen and citizens allow.
In a Howard Hawks film (such as Rio Bravo), Chirguh’s murders would conjure up a hail of bullets in the villains’ bodies, and a happy ending for all. But both Hawks’s films and NCFOM say the same thing: that the line between civilization and chaos is bright and distinct, and those who cross over will experience not Rousseauian happiness but gross disaster. Each type of film, in its own way, confirms the value of civilization and the persistent presence of sin in the human heart.
C C, I fully agree with your assessment of the characters in Fargo. Well done.
Your question about NCFOM is very interesting indeed. Certainly the villains in NCFOM are a good deal more competent and formidable than those in Fargo. The ones in Fargo are every bit as immoral as those in NCOFM, but there not as good at what they do. Hence their power is quite diminished in comparison with those in NCFOM.
As I suggested earlier, Chirguh is a true force of nature, with power far beyond anything the bumbling bad guys in Fargo could muster. In addition, Sheriff Bell is old and tired and has little real help.
The difference between the two films is the difference between a basically functioning though flawed society (Fargo) and a dying, rotting one (NCFOM). It is what makes the former ultimately comic and the latter basically tragic.
Lars–I think that’s an amusing description, and does accurately convey the surface impression of the film, though as I say, there is more to it than that. Actually, however, your phrase is even more accurate when applied to There Will Be Blood, about which I’ve been meaning to write for some time. I will do so this week.
Just as you suggest, the Coen brothers indulge in more than a little cuteness in NCFOM, and it does suffer for it. Plus, it runs a good deal longer than it should. Telling the story more concisely would probably have been a better choice. Isn’t it fascinating how those great old film noirs could often come in at around 70 minutes, and still seem full of meaning?
This discussion made me think about another Coen brothers film, “Fargo”, which I saw as deeply moral. Many who wrote about it were sure it presented the police chief and her supportive husband as hopelessly naive hicks–based (among other things) on their down-to-earth, laconic speech patterns, and the fact that confronting murder doesn’t make them fall apart. This suggested, some felt, that these characters were to be seen as stupid or insensitive. Frances’ McDormand’s sheriff’s calm, clever pursuit of the crime’s instigator made it clear to me that there was no lack of passion, or at least determination, even if outward display was not her style. By the end, I took away the message that these were the most morally centered people in their world, able to recognize and deal with evil without being destroyed in the process.
I have not seen or read “No Country for Old Men,” but I wonder: what makes Sheriff Bell less able to stand up to evil? Or is it that a different kind of evil is being portrayed? Are the villains of this film so different from the desperate auto dealer and his hired henchmen in “Fargo”?
On my blog (I love to quote myself) I called it “an elegant, 3-hour shaggy dog story.” A cruel assessment, but it’s a cruel movie.
Thanks, Lars. I think this film is a good example of that interesting phenomenon of a movie that is interesting and intelligently put together but not very enjoyable.
No problem. I just said that, although all in all I don’t like the movie (and Steve generally speaks for me, though he’s thought it out better than I have), your piece has given me a new way to look at it, and I appreciate that.
Lars–while removing spam comments, I accidentally deleted your comment as well, and only realized it once the process started. Please accept my apology and repost your comment. Thanks.
SPOILER ALERT
Sam,
Let me start by saying I think “No Country For Old Men” is a superb piece of filmmaking and it will be a long time before I stop thinking about the film. I’ll qualify that statement only by noting I am a big fan of the Coen Brothers’ work. I should also confess that I’ve cheated a bit and, after seeing the movie Friday night, bought the book Saturday and I’m about halfway through it.
Still, it will deserve every award it gets tonight. And certainly Javier Bardem in his portrayal of Anton Chirguh has created one of the greatest cinematic monsters of all time.
With a nod to your thoughts, NCFOM does break with the “Hollywood” mainstream in that it remains true to its bleak vision. It does not seek to have it both ways, where a nihilistic message is reinforced but sugar-coated with a superficially satisfying ending that makes a hash of what has preceded it. Nor, like The Golden Compass, do the Coen’s try to sell us on the idea that evil is good and good is evil.
But this is probably the point where our opinions diverge.
From my perspective, “No Country For Old Men” presents a world where evil reigns and there appears to be no hope for human salvation. Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), the one “good” character, himself is tired, uncertain and more than willing to admit no longer has the strength to go up against evil he has spent his life fighting, and which, despite his efforts, he sees as getting stronger in the world. Your observation that Moss, in choosing to steal the drug money, chooses to leave civilizations’ protective boundaries would be more valid if Chirguh’s world of chaos were not constantly spilling over these boundaries into “civilization.” By my rough count, Chirguh kills at least four innocent people, plus the deputy at the beginning of the film, simply because they are in the way of his mission of finding Moss. These murders, including the lawman’s, fail to arise any passion among Bell and his colleagues. Instead, they conjure a dread sense of resignation: “Something worse is coming.”
Moreover, if NCFOM is a reinforcement of civilization, how do you explain the whole “coin flip” scene at the service station? There’s a drama of judgment about the whole scene. But here, the fate of the man’s soul, to which an explicit reference is made, lies not with God or Christ, but with a metaphorical demon with a sadistic sense of whimsy.
By the end of the film, it’s Chirguh literally getting up a walking away, and the moral perspective of the film has been made clear. It’s Chirguh on our neighborhood streets, while Bell has retired, living in and dreaming of the Texas back country, scene of the film’s pre-curtain violence that set the narrative in motion. Evil has come out of the desert and is outside our homes; good is exiled to the wilderness.
The one interesting note is that Moss’s wife refuses to call the coin toss, forcing Chigurh to acknowledge his own responsibility for his actions. But in the end, does it matter?
Enjoy the Oscars!