“No Country For Old Men” might very well be a masterpiece. But, if so, it’s certainly the most divisive modern classic in memory, with audiences bitterly conflicted over an ending which leaves much to the imagination.
Good, says “No Country” star Josh Brolin. That not only speaks to the movie’s enduring quality, he said, but, if you were looking for a bloodbath, frankly serves you right.
“I love that people are talking about this movie. I love that people leave the movie saying, ‘I hate the ending. I was so pissed.’ Good, it was supposed to piss you off,” the 39-year-old star told MTV News. “You completely lend yourself to [my] character and then you’re completely raped of this character. I don’t find it manipulative at all. I find it to be a great homage to that kind of violence.”
Beware. Thar be spoilers in these waters.
After being chased by Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh the entire movie, Brolin meets his violent end off-screen. Soon after, his wife is brutally murdered off-screen as well. After all that build-up, all that destruction, the film ends, not with an orgasmic culmination of violence, but with a quiet monologue from Sheriff Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones).
If you were expecting something different, Brolin argues, that “says more about you than the movie.”
“You wanted to see his death, why? Because you’re used to it. Aren’t you so pleased to see a different take on the same cat and mouse game?” he asked. “I would think that you are happy and it seems that you are happy because you’re pissed off and you have something to talk about all day.”
What do you make of the ending to “No Country For Old Men”? Agree or disagree with Brolin, sound off below.
The title is from the first line of Sailing to Byzantium by William Butler Yeats, a poet classically trained and considered by many to be the greatest 20th Century poet.
Death is Anton Chigurh. His hair style (hood-ish, shroud-ish) and black clothing suggest Death. Death kills the innocent as well as the guilty and has his own set of rules. When the witness to the high-rise killing asks, “Are you going to kill me?” Death answers, “It depends. Do you see me?” When the kids on the bicycles help him after the car accident he tells them, “You didn’t see me.” If you see Death, you die; if not, you may live. Chigurh seems to come and go at will and seems to know where Moss is without trying very hard. His rules are his rules and they seem arbitrary and random. He is referred to by the sheriff as a “ghost” and he seems to be able to go wherever he pleases.
Death kills with a cattle stun gun, almost like a member of the clergy administering a cross to the forehead of a parishoner. Death is often portrayed as a hooded figure with a scythe; in this case he’s a “hooded” figure with a cattle stun gun.
Man is Llewellen Moss, part sinner, part saint. He is offered a deal with Death when Death offers to ignore his wife but take him. Instead, Llewellen challenges Death and chooses declines the offer. This is straight Faustian bargaining. By declining Death’s “This is the best deal you’re gonna get” Moss signs not only his own death warrant but his wife’s, too.
Llewellen challenges Death to a showdown and when his wife tells the sheriff, “He won’t quit, neither. Never has.” the audience expects a later showdown because we’ve been trained to see the protagonist take on the antagonist at the climax of a story --- but before that can happen life’s randomness gets in the way and the Mexicans kill him. This is the major turn in the movie and the one that takes the sail out of the audience, which has been cheering for Man in his struggle against Death without realizing it.
Free Will is Carla Jean. She chooses at the end of the film not to allow Death to be random. She has a 50% chance of saving herself but chooses not to avail herself of the opportunity. She is the bravest of the lot, choosing to die by her own decision and not the randomness of Death.
The sheriff is the philosopher trying to understand the universe. He cannot and is defeated by Death in his attempt. At the movie’s end the Sheriff bemoans the fact that God never entered his life. One of God’s creatures, Death, was in the Sheriff’s life but he didn’t realize it (see “Scene with Sheriff” below). The story is the Sheriff’s, his quest to understand Life, and the dream he tells at the end of the movie explains that his own father, long dead, has gone before him into the darkness of death and awaits him.
Interesting parallel --- Moss pays money for a coat as he crosses into Mexico; Chigurh pays the kids money for a shirt after his accident. What is meant by that? Cannot be a coincidence.
Chigurh walking away from the accident at the end shows that Death cannot be stopped. It will always walk the streets. It is a part of our existence forever.
Scene with the Sheriff and Death at the same hotel room at the same time but the Sheriff does not see Death. This scene is vital --- it solidifies the allegory. The Sheriff enters the room but does not see Death and so he does not die. Death sees the sheriff but chooses not to kill him because he’s not seen in return. This scene is the “supernatural” scene which signals that we’ve watching an allegory, that what we’ve been watching is more than it appears.
Why 1980 for the book/film when it was written in 2005? Could it be it was begun then and the author simply chose not to update it? What is the reason? Must be one. Might be nothing more than the author started this 25 years ago and didn’t feel like updating it to present times.
This is a wonderful movie!
Loved the film.
GREAT MOVIE. One of the best I've ever seen.
I usually don't get very analytical about these things. I basically see the story as portraying fate (or coincidence if you don't believe in fate) and chance/risk as we deal with it in everyday life.
One of the best movies I've seen in a while.
it was the wiping of the shoes. Anton Chigurh wipes his shoes on the front porch as he's leaving the house to get whatever he might be tracking out of the house cleaned off. That's when we know he killed her.
Having had more time to ponder this fabulous film a few more things have become evident:
Carson Wells, when asked by the businessman in the tall building, compares Anton Chigurh to the Bubonic plague. The plague, one recalls, was vectored by rats, upon which contaminated fleas resided. Where I grew up, one small flea-like parasite was called a “chigger”. Yes, like “Chigurh”.
Sheriff Bell at the story’s end bemoaned that God hadn’t come into his life. The irony was that God had. God had visited a plague upon Sheriff Bell’s land in 1980 and it, like the Great Death of 1348, chose its victims pretty randomly.
There’s no question both Chigurh and Bell were in the same motel room. Bell did not see Chigurh and therefore lived.
The story is narrated by Bell. It’s his story, not Llewellen Moss’s, though we certainly misinterpret the protagonist until later, that’s for sure. Excellent misdirection by the filmmakers. The High Noon showdown never occurs. That which does is off-screen, to boot! Some have criticized that after Moss’s death the story is anti-climactic. Viewed with Moss as the protagonist it certainly would be. But Moss never was the protagonist. Bell is. Though a case for Chigger might be made, too, but would fail to the near-soliloquy by Bell at the end.
No filmmakers chose a time 30 years ago to film a story unless it’s relevant to the story --- it costs extra money to rent those old cars and to be sure the backgrounds are authentic and the prices of items are retro’d and the clothing is non-anachronistic. 1980 was chosen deliberately for a very good reason. I’m still working on it. It may be obvious to others but I don’t see it yet. Perhaps the Barry Corbin (Ellis) scene near the end is a clue --- he says “it’s coming”. By now it’s here. Maybe that’s the message. Stay tuned.
I’m also pondering what it was Carson Wells represented. Was he perhaps a symbol for the attempt to reconcile Man (Llewellen) to God’s creature Death? No, I don’t see him as a Christ-figure but am open to suggestions.
Both Death and Carson Wells were sent forth by the man in the high glass tower to do specific things. I don’t want to stretch the allegory too far here but “man in the high glass tower” has obvious symbolic religious connotations. And Death obviously rebels against that man later so let’s not jump to conclusions about Death rebelling against God, etc.
There were significant differences between the book and the film --- specifically, Carla Jean refused to call the coin in the film; the hitchhiker was eliminated in the film, probably because of time limitations and the fear some might misinterpret Moss’s intentions toward her. I think the changes in the movie increased the effectiveness of the allegory. Free will and self-determinism are more evident in Carla Jean’s film portrayal than in the book. It is also possible the book’s author, McCarthy meant something different than the screenwriters did. The film also omitted Bell’s “confession” and one great cause of his regret. Again, to the betterment of the film.
Carla Jean’s mother probably just died of the cancer from which she suffered. There’s no thought that the Mexicans killed her, too, as well as Llewellen. Presumably, Carla Jean had already buried her husband then later her mother died and Carla Jean then buried her. A period of weeks or even months might have taken place here. It was then that Death showed up to claim her, after she’d settled her affairs, so to speak. He advised her not to worry about the unpaid bills. Her refusal to call the coin was the self-deterministic free will mentioned earlier. And there’s no question Death took her then --- checking his shoes eliminated any possibility of any other result.
Another thing --- please do not consider Death to be evil. Death is as much a part of life as its other facets and remember Orson (not Carson) Welles’s quote, “Without death, life would have no meaning.” It does make one wonder whether the screenwriters recalled this quote when assigning the name “Carson Wells” to the Harrelson character.
I’m fascinated by Moss’s purchase of the coat at the bridge and Death’s purchase of the shirt from the bicycle boys. This was intentional and has meaning but I’ve not nailed it down.
The scene where Chigurh shoots at the bird as he drives across the bridge puzzles me --- was the bird a black bird (also symbolic of death) or another colored bird? Why shoot at it? I could use some help on this one as well as others, obviously.
I just noticed another thing --- Ellis, in the Blue version of the screenplay, is described as having “one clouded eye”. I also mentioned that Yeats’s classical Sailing to Byzantium offered the title of the book/movie. In the Coen brothers’ hillbilly tribute to Ulysses/Odysseus they utilized classical mythology --- remember John Goodman’s portrayal of the Cyclops and the blind Homer figure on the handcar at the beginning? Is Ellis the Greek Sophoclean chorus? There’s no question that the screenwriters have used allusions effectively before, so why not now, too?
Ellis says, “You can’t stop what’ comin’” and Llewellen, when asked by the girl at the motel, answers, “Lookin’ for what’s comin’”. Her answer to him is “Yeah, but no one ever sees that.” This is good thematic planting and I wish other moviemakers took the time and effort to produce quality work like this instead of offering us the drivel they do.
First, Death is neither good nor evil; it is neutral. Like Death, Anton kills indiscriminately unwaivered by your virtue or vice. One thing I would like to know is why he offers some the coin toss and others he just kills. Why wasn't the guy with the chicken trailer worthy of the coin toss?
Speaking of the coin toss as representing human free will, the film is peppered with allusions to choice. The Mexican, the 'ultimo hombre' at the beginning has 2 shades trees to chose from. Sheriff Bell also has 2 crime scene motel rooms to chose to enter at the end of the film.
As for the film being a modern western based on the good vs. evil aspect, I would disagree. The film can be viewed as a modern western because it man on the run dynamic.
The Mexican that Anton kills in the motel room shower, what did he say, I didn't catch it.
As for Carson Wells, he says he says a day trader. I think he represents the greed of men. No offense to any day traders out there, but they don't use their money for anything other than accumulating more money. I find it amusing that in the hospital that Carson tells Llewellen that Anton cannot be bought off with money, yet when confronted by Anton, that is exactly what Carson tries to do.
Lastly, I could have sworn that at the end, Sheriff Wells' wife calls him Anton. IMDb shows his name as Ed Tom, which sounds an awful lot like Anton. I wonder if there's any significance to that.
I wanted to thank Dave Hopkirk for his wonderful analysis of this film, I thought I "got" this picture until I read your post.
And the drugs are & have been an important substory in the years since 1980 in the wars in Viet Nam and Afghanistan. The sheriff works his whole life and doesn't have much. But there is $ quickly gained or lost for those who come into contact with the drug world as well as violence.
Yes I agree with Jane I think it was who was saying that the younger kids having their clothing bought is an important theme. This, our country is No Country for Old Men because these old men cannot keep up with tying to pass on values to the young and they cannot protect the innocent from its cruelty and I don't just mean DEATH. The frat boys were already so hard...."how much will you pay for the beer?" And the young boy willing to give Anton his shirt for no $ and then that deteriorating between him and his friend.
At the end of the film, he thinks he's failed but as his wiser uncle Ellis reminds him, there's always been violence and death in the world and always will be. Don't take it personally. Something else --- Ellis's message is one of acceptance of life's bad deals. You'll recall that he says he doesn't hold a grudge against the criminal who shot him and put him in a wheelchair. He says that revenge and hatred will eat one away. Best to get on without it. There's a lot in the dialogue of Ellis!
For me the most shocking part of the film is that Moss is finally killed by the Mexicans and not by Chigurh. This is such a random and unexpected act of violence that all that comes before it does not prepare you. The fact that you dont see Moss's execution makes it all the more powerfull and shocking!
The interesting thing is that most people who see the film think that Chigurh killed Moss - they dont even consier the Mexicans and the film leaves you trying to figure it out until you see the steaming lock and the tears in Chigurh's eyes.
When watching the film I was struck by how similar Chigurh and Moss are - two sides of the same coin? As with the parallel of the shirts, both are overtly concerned with their shoes. The scene where Moss removes his boots before plunging into the river is mirrored by scenes where Chigurh moves his shoes to avoid blood and where, later, he checks the soles of his boots for blood after killing Moss's wife.
Both men are unyielding and relentless (like Life & Death), both are ruthless and prepared to go to any lengths to prevail. Both are seeminly tempted by money - there is no doubt that Carson Wells represents greed and self interest - but in the end, the money is meaningless (we dont know what happens to it, nor do we care). Moss and Chigurh are caught in the dance between life and death which is irresistible to them. This is why Chigurh suffers when Moss's death is denied him.
What a great film - I need to see it again to try to reconcile the parts I missed. There are so many questions and the more you think about it the more thought prevoking it becomes.