Just Shoot Me! Nihilism Crashes Lumet and Coen Bros.
'Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead' and 'No Country for Old Men' are well suited to our depressing times. But still!
MORE At the Movies
BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD
Running time 117 minutes
Directed by Sidney Lumet
Written by Kelly Masterson
Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Albert Finney, Marisa Tomei
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Running time 122 minutes
Written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin
Two of the darkest death-driven films of the 45th New York Film Festival are both American works directed by filmmakers who, though no strangers to noirish projects in the past, have attained new heights, or is it depths, of malignancy and morbidity, which, I suppose, is fitting for the increasingly dismal and depressing times in which we live. And I am not saying this simply because I am too rapidly approaching my 79th year on this reportedly endangered planet.
Anyway, the two films in question are Sidney Lumet’s Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, from a screenplay by Kelly Masterson, and Joel Coen and Ethan Coen’s No Country for Old Men, based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy. If I prefer the former to the latter, it is because it is ultimately less nihilistic in tone and spirit, and nihilism has never been my strong suit in the cinema, though I imagine younger cultists of a certain type can never get enough of it.
By contrast, Mr. Lumet and Ms. Masterson, with their intricate narrative structure, have fashioned a veritable Greek tragedy with overpoweringly Oedipal overtones. This they have accomplished with an unusually early staging of a terribly botched robbery of a small Westchester jewelry store, which in an ordinary caper movie would constitute the narrative’s suspenseful climax, and then flashing back to the genesis of this crime. So, obviously, Mr. Lumet and company are after bigger game, and after almost two hours of time-juggling, they bag it.
The story centers on two brothers, the elder and more manipulative one played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the younger and more vulnerable one played by Ethan Hawke. The elder brother is married to an attractive woman played by Marisa Tomei, but after a steamy session in the sack, followed by a deflatingly postcoital wifely remark, and a dispiriting session at the office, it becomes apparent that Mr. Hoffman’s character is living well beyond his means, and since his firm is facing an imminent audit by the Internal Revenue Service, he begins desperately looking for some quick cash to forestall his arrest for embezzlement. In the venture he has devised, he enlists the help of his down-and-out younger brother. Needy as he is, the younger sibling is shocked to discover that the older brother is planning to rob the family’s small jewelry store, owned and operated by their parents, played by Albert Finney and Rosemary Harris. The older brother is all breezy reassurance as he insists that it should be a cinch for the younger brother to execute the robbery with a fake gun and a hooded mask to conceal his identity. And why is the elder brother choosing not to become involved in the action? As he patiently explains to his would-be patsy, he is too well known in the neighborhood to be seen there. It becomes apparent from the elder’s practiced manner that he has been conning his brother all their lives.
In his turn, the younger brother cannot bear to brandish even a fake gun at his own mother, and so he solicits a hardened felon of his acquaintance to perform the heist for some of the advance money his older brother has given him to clinch the deal. Unfortunately, the felon doesn’t believe in fake guns, with the result that he and the unexpectedly feisty mother of the two brothers succeed only in killing each other as the younger brother flees in panic from the bloody scene.
The widowed father is bereft at first, but eventually becomes determined to find the killer’s accomplice in the getaway car that was seen speeding away from the jewelry store. To cover his and his brother’s tracks, the Hoffman character has to kill again and again. Inexorably, father and son are drawn into a final, fatal confrontation. The 83-year-old Mr. Lumet, who has handled such immortals as Brando and Magnani in his career, expertly extracts individually charismatic performances from Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Hawke, Mr. Finney, Ms. Harris and Ms. Tomei. Even so, I preferred his 2006 Find Me Guilty, which made my 10-best list that year. It was even less nihilistic.
As for the nihilism on display in No Country for Old Men, the collaboration between the Coen brothers and Cormac McCarthy was a marriage made in heaven or, more likely, hell. Mr. McCarthy has reportedly praised the movie for remaining faithful to the book, and well he might, if only for all the casting coups, starting off with Javier Bardem’s uncannily apt incarnation of evil as Anton Chigurn, a subhuman killing machine with a touch of whimsy in his expression and in his soothing funeral director’s voice. When the Coen Brothers appeared on the stage of Frederic P. Rose Hall in the Time Warner Center with the members of their cast, they introduced Mr. Bardem as their own Lee Van Cleef, a generally villainous character actor in the Sergio Leone Western cycle. But whereas Mr. Van Cleef’s bad guys always came to a bad end in the final draws of the Leone movies, Mr. Bardem’s Chigurn chugs through Texas like an unchecked force of nature. That is one of the reasons I prefer Leone’s oeuvre to that of the Coen brothers and Mr. McCarthy, despite their aforementioned casting coups with Mr. Bardem, and almost as impressively with Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Bell; Josh Brolin as Moss, Chigurn’s ill-fated main adversary; Woody Harrelson as the unflappable mob troubleshooter, Carson Wells, who also runs afoul of Chigurn; and Kelly Macdonald as Moss’ tormented wife, the only significant female presence in an overwhelmingly masculine epic with its lavishly detailed explorations of male survival skills.
Mr. McCarthy has won just about every literary honor while being likened to Ernest Hemingway for his minimalist style, and to Samuel Beckett for his volcanic bleakness of outlook on matters of life and death. I happened to find No Country for Old Men an absorbing read, but it left me all empty inside. I must confess that I couldn’t get very far into Blood Meridian, another of his books that was recommended to me. So, I suppose, I have chosen to live out my life without getting involved with Mr. McCarthy’s literary outlook.
Still, I suspect that his clouded vision of existence is somewhat too grim and dark for even the most noirish movie genre. He makes Elmore Leonard look like a barrel of laughs, and Faulkner a beacon of hope. Nonetheless, some of the pithiest exchanges in the movie were taken almost verbatim from the book. I may be clearly in the minority on this movie. It will almost certainly be number one on my list of movies that other people liked and I didn’t. I will not describe the narrative in any great detail both because I would be perceived as spoiling the “fun” of discovering the many surprises for yourself, and because I cannot look at it and write about it in any other way than as an exercise in cosmic futility. Yet, I’m not sorry I saw it over a running time of 122 minutes, just about the length of time I’d like to spend on a quick in-and-out visit to hell.
On Painting
Gerhard Richter's Claudius is one of the largest and most overwhelming of his colourful Abstract Paintings. Dating from 1986, this picture towers over the viewer at a height of over ten feet, absorbing us, swallowing us into a vast and turbulent universe of colour.
Read More »Marilyn Revisited
By the end of the 1970s, Andy Warhol was everywhere.He was endemic, up there with Elvis, Jesus and Coca-Cola. His silkscreen aesthetic was instantly recognisable - the Warhol look had been used on album covers, in ads and on the cover of Time magazine. Read More »
Bacon By Freud
Lucian Freud first met Francis Bacon in 1945. He had heard about this mysterious and distinctive artist from Graham Sutherland.Within a short time, Sutherland had arranged for both artists to join him for a weekend at his home in the country, and they met at the station on the way there.
Read More »
I can appreciate your perspective, Mr. Sarris. I'm sensitive to disturbing films and frequently consider films with twisted and sadistic themes senseless and a waste of my time.
On the other hand, I don't think it's right to say that only a group of "young cultists", that is, disaffected teenagers, will be able to get something out of a film where the bad guys don't quite get what's coming to them.
I haven't seen 'No Country', so I'm not really in a position of any authority on this, but I suspect that I will get a lot out of the film, even though I don't condone nihilism in any way. I care greatly about life, and about art especially, and when a piece of art is made well enough (2004's 'House of Sand and Fog' comes to mind), I can love it even if it has a tragic, morbid or unsettling narrative.
I think the majority of people, not just the nihilists, will consider this one of the best films of the year.
There is no need to call McCarthy a nihilist. That discredited school of philosophy has produced nothing of value, whereas McCarthy will last as long as there are American readers.
The project of every McCarthy novel can be summed up as a question: Every declining generation thinks the ascendant one is laying ruin to the previous' legacy, and in their vain desire to live forever, concludes that the new kids are leading the world to hell in a handbasket -- but what if sooner or later, one declining generation is right?
If you feel discomfort, annoyance, or active resistance to McCarthy's narrative outlines, this is not because his artistic thematics are irrelevant (which would produce in you only boredom), it is because you are afraid of their veracity. That is the most important use of art, and you should praise it, rather than turn, daintily, away from it.
I've seen the film and, nihilism aside, it is just plain boring. There is a reason 'moral fables' are eternal (well, several, actually) but a primary one is they are darn good yarns - with completion and resolution (not always happy) for the protagonist(s). "House of Sand and Fog" is a fine example of such a morality play.
Novels do not need such a structure to succeed - commercially or artistically. Feature length films do.
As far as "No Country", the film does have some exciting scenes, but ultimately it is a bore. The Cohens seem obsessed with blood and blood letting. Sadly scenes of such a nature are dealt with in an unnecessary (yet ultimately crafty) cinematic style.
Hopefully the poor performance of this film (not much about an 'art house film, I strongly suspect) will stop them for a while.
Well, I saw "No Country for Old Men" 10 days ago and it's still haunting me. As a woman of some consciousness, this movie left me deeply disturbed and unnecessarily agitated. To quote you "the increasingly dismal and depressing times in which we live" will not improve by making nihilist films with pitch dark messages. I'm not saying we should all wear pink glasses but making a movie that pulls you into the negative to that extend is pointless.
i found this a somewhat confusing review of the "no country" film. i've never read mr. sarris before today, but he strikes me as a thoughtful and clear writer; at the same time, the review seemed off-color relative to what might make a review pertinent and interesting to a public audience.
it's one thing to say "i don't like this film because it just didn't jive with me." that's the sort of self-validating move most of us will make. but what makes a solid review stand out from more pedestrian opinions and "water cooler chatter" - or at least one thing - is a clear articulation of what exactly does or doesn't work in the film.
i don't presume to suggest that mr. harris doesn't know how to do his job, especially not based on one article. but this "review" reads to me something like: "I find nihilism displeasing, and so I found this film displeasing."
apart from failing to distinguish the film's form from it's content (the review tells us almost nothing about the movie itself) and thus rejecting it wholesale on account of the latter, mr. sarris' review does not even adequately present the content. there's a significant difference between a work of art that endorses or indicates a nihilistic position, and a work of art that details a nihilistic position either for the sake of investigating it or otherwise for the purpose of putting in relief against a moral position of some sort. *life has no meaning!* *it's an interesting claim that life has no meaning.* *it's a worthless claim that life has no meaning.* these are some possible theses that might drive a piece like "no country." so mr. sarris believes mccarthy is a nihilist?
i guess that's something we can talk about at the water cooler if you want to say "yes huh" and i want to say "nuh uh" without either of us providing an argument.
i found this a somewhat confusing review of the "no country" film. i've never read mr. sarris before today, but he strikes me as a thoughtful and clear writer; at the same time, the review seemed off-color relative to what might make a review pertinent and interesting to a public audience.
it's one thing to say "i don't like this film because it just didn't jive with me." that's the sort of self-validating move most of us will make. but what makes a solid review stand out from more pedestrian opinions and "water cooler chatter" - or at least one thing - is a clear articulation of what exactly does or doesn't work in the film.
i don't presume to suggest that mr. harris doesn't know how to do his job, especially not based on one article. but this "review" reads to me something like: "I find nihilism displeasing, and so I found this film displeasing."
apart from failing to distinguish the film's form from it's content (the review tells us almost nothing about the movie itself) and thus rejecting it wholesale on account of the latter, mr. sarris' review does not even adequately present the content. there's a significant difference between a work of art that endorses or indicates a nihilistic position, and a work of art that details a nihilistic position either for the sake of investigating it or otherwise for the purpose of putting in relief against a moral position of some sort. *life has no meaning!* *it's an interesting claim that life has no meaning.* *it's a worthless claim that life has no meaning.* these are some possible theses that might drive a piece like "no country." so mr. sarris believes mccarthy is a nihilist?
i guess that's something we can talk about at the water cooler if you want to say "yes huh" and i want to say "nuh uh" without either of us providing an argument.
It's clear that you find "No Country" a disturbing dark film but is it an accomplished film? I would have benefited from a review that discussed whether it was successful in achieving its goals, rather than feeling that it was being shunned exclusively for it's ability to create a hollow feeling. Then again perhaps that is an indication that it is a powerful film after all.
What a strange review.
"But whereas Mr. Van Cleef’s bad guys always came to a bad end in the final draws of the Leone movies, Mr. Bardem’s Chigurn chugs through Texas like an unchecked force of nature. That is one of the reasons I prefer Leone’s oeuvre to that of the Coen brothers and Mr. McCarthy,..." Is he trying to say that he prefers movies where the bad guys get there dues? This makes me question his status as a critic. Is there something wrong with reading a novel and "feeling all empty inside?" Yes it's no fun, yes it might not seem fair, but having read the book, isn't there something entirely unnihilistic about the love between Sheriff Bell and his wife? Isn't there something courageous in the conviction of duty?
Mr. Sarris seems to say he doesn't like this movie or Mr. McCarthy's work because they're too bleak, or not neat and tidy enough? That's a copout. That might be enough for the general viewer, but being a critic, his responsibility is to look at the work as a whole, whether it's distasteful or disagreeable and provide some heightened notion of it's value as art. Instead he offers up the excuse that "I cannot look at it and write about it in any other way than as an exercise in cosmic futility." Huh? You're getting paid for this?
As I read Mr. Sarris’ review, it seems he’s repelled by the right thing, the question that Cormac McCarthy has been wrestling with since Blood Meridian. In a human environment governed by Reason rather than Faith, the God that punishes bad guys and rights wrongs is gone. To paraphrase Ivan Karamazov, as McCarthy does in his earlier masterpiece, Blood Meridian, “The truth about the world . . . is that anything is possible.” Including horrors inflicted on the innocent or undeserving.
No Country For Old Men poses the problem of unconstrained evil in intimate microcosm. The sands of Darfur splatter it daily in real human blood. How do we come to grips with the death squads of the world and their hellish harvests? Hold still for Chigurh’s bolt gun, retire, turn away and think sunny thoughts, appoint a commission?
McCarthy’s question may be the greatest moral dilemma facing contemporary Western society. Absent God, if there are to be answers, they can only come from us. The Coens and their production deserve great credit for the nerve and skill it took to so deftly peel away our illusions of safety and confront us head on with Reason's monster.
everybody enjoys a good story. the book was good.
was the movie? if it quotes the book it is.
Mr. Sarris has assured his opinion will be a
popular counter-point during the Oscar run-up.
First, I'd like to praise the above response of Michael Hopping. Excellently said and summed up.
To Prof. Sarris' review, I also find it lacking to approach the film solely on the basis of its unsettling tone and subject matter. You could at least indicate that the film is technically perfect in almost every way, or in some measure make mention to the Coens' unique gift of fashioning entire, animated filmic worlds.
Indeed, this is a wonderfully made movie, one made with the utmost care and craft. As to the film's core, what makes it tick, I would not disagree that this is a largely nihilistic film. And it seems more and more to me that among educated, intelligent people, one need only drop the title "nihilism" to undermine and ignore any manner of artistic/philosophic work. The above review and others critical of this film seem to resent any film that lacks a positive moral framework, that refuses to affirm life or kill the bad guy or whatever other commonplace you like. Indeed it is the role of art (movies? art?!) to raise uncomfortable questions, to present unpopular viewpoints.
Does "No Country For Old Men" function as a depiction of all human life? Certainly not. And it is in this regard that I think Prof. Sarris overstates the point, indicating that because the film employs a certain bleak tone, this unnecessarily and disagreeably grim meditation on life should be rejected. Personally I was greatly pleased watching the film, utterly impressed and delighted to witness such conscientious and meticulous storytelling and filmmaking.
Also, I thought it was pretty entertaining.
Oh, come on. This was a crummy movie. No memorable characters, for starters, other than Bardem's oddball turn which, I guess the book created the guy, but if you didn't read the book, the character is just lame. So what, he goes around with a cattle gun killing people? (not giving anything away with that, its in the trailer) That plays like they're trying to do a new twist on the Texas Chain Saw Massacre -- "oh, cool, they found a new gadget to kill people with"). And then he asks his victims to call heads or tails (again, in the trailer) -- like another lame-o horror device.
Tommy Lee Jones is far less developed and memorable as a character than in other much better movies like Melquiades Estrada (or even Natural Born Killers!). The movie was, of course, decently executed (for plotting) up to about 2/3 of the way through, where it seemed like the clash between good and evil was reasonably well set up (though nothing memorably great), but then the wheels just come off the cart and it unravels into basic incompetence in storytelling, culminating in a grand finale of, "WTF?????"
Throughout the movie they go into tedious detail to make sure you understand exactly how the guy rigs up a device with tent poles and coat hangers and rope to hide his bag o'money in the vent system in the hotel (who cares about this sort of detail?), and then ... presto change-o the bad guy magically tracks down a character through who-knows-how. You just sit there and wonder, why did we get all that useless detail and no clues on the bigger story elements? That's called poor storytelling.
And there was absolutely NO memorable humor in this movie. How in the world could anyone mention "Fargo" in the same breath with it. Fargo tapped into an entire culture in a way that came from a very, very deep place for a very, very good reason ... the two filmmakers grew up there. Duh. What a surprise (write only what you know about).
This movie had nothing new for the melieu in which it was set. Same old Texas landscape, same old earnest sheriff, same old young, inexperienced side kick (straight out of Judge Rheinhold's character in Beverly Hills Cop), everything same and old.
Yes, it was pretty nihilistic, which is something I like (for example when Dennis Hopper opens a movie by plowing a school bus full of kids into a train in "Into the Blue," --splendidly grim things like that, done with style). But this movie was just pointless and forgettable.
Folks, it isn't great filmmaking. The Coen Brothers know what great filmmaking is -- they did it with Fargo (and a couple other times). This thing is just unfullfilling filler.
Thanks to Mr. Sarris to be apparently the only critic capable of standing up to the Coen Brothers lovefest that allows critics to stroke themselves to a mediocre, pointless movie. This is the very sort of movie that needs a lousy review just to make sure that the praise of "Fargo" retains it's impact.
Aside from the technical and artistic merits of the film,
which are many, and have been reviewed in depth, one senses a problem. Why is it necessary to portray so much graphical violence? What are the other elements of the film lacking, which need to be compensated for in order to create a powerful film? A film that seeks to appeal to the masses
through sadistic voyeristic images may be entertaining, but cannot simultaneously function as a sincere social criticism. It is another well made product of a self righteous culture, which claims to overthrow what it percieves as chaos with it's freedom to inflict the most violence.
I must also agree with Michael Hopping's comments. Anton Chigurn functions not so much as the personification of evil as of irrational death and destruction. Some fall to it without cause or warning. Others, like Moss, come face to face with the evidence of it's power, and yet refuse to accept that good things don't always happen to good people, putting themselves and others in harms way. Then there are those like Sheriff Bell, who see it, acknowledge it and find themselves so overwhelmed that they can't even begin to understand how to deal with it.
It seems to me that Prof. Sarris wishes too strongly that Llewelyn Moss were right; that if a good man strives hard enough, he can defeat evil. This may be true, but the brutal Chigurn is not evil. He just is.
I agree to some extent with Marion Jenkins and Aracu above. It seems , that the focus of the book is the reflections of the aging sheriff on social degeneration, whereas this is strongly overshadowed in the film by sensational "thriller" material such as detailed violence. The two hit-men are unreal (omniscient) cartoons, with no humanity on display. Even those, who kill for a living, are human. I find Tommy Lee Jones plays the same character in almost every film he's in, like many other "actors", and I don't find depth in his characterizations. I also found the movie promising until about half way, but it drifted into pointlessness and went out with a whimper. I'm a little disillusioned by all the positive reviews, and although I think Mr. Sarris' review was superficial, I am thankful, at least that someone didn't fawn over this dismally pointless production.
If Mr. Sarris expects to have credibility with this review, I'd at least expect him to spell Anton Chigurh's name correctly. It makes his views look even more amateurish than they already are.
Lee Van Cleef was only the villain in The Good, the Bad, ad the Ugly. e was not in A Fistful of Dollars nd was acctually the most heroic character in a Few Dolars More. I'm sure you'll do some research and see a mvie before your next review.
Marion Jenkins summed up most of my thoughts on the movie as well. Unless you're a film or art student, this film is likely a waste of time.
I also agree with Mr. Sarris and Ms. Jenkins...while there are some great moments of cinematography and the sound design was perfect...I found the shock of violence was the only thing that kept me from nodding off. Although those laconic homilies about "My daddy's horse and Mr. So and So's cow from Sherif Bell, had me wishing someone would shut him up Anton style. I've read where some critics are hailing this as the Coen Brothers best work. For me, Raising Arizona is still my favorite.
Okay, I went into this film just brimming with anticipation. Guess what? It stinks. Oh, it does justice to the novel? Then the novel stinks. Mr. Jones is sleep-walking through his role, Mr. Bardem gets to play a unique psychopath with a new kill-toy and Mr. Brolin gets to play a dumbass Texan. Doesn't anyone fawning over this turgid piece of feces get the clue they're being laughed at under the guise of artistic nihilism? I don't even care if the good guy wins or not, this is just a cynical, f-you film at its core.
I'm just impressed that in this day and age where critics seem to walk in virtual lock-step, that one of them is willing to voice a contrary opinion.
The only McCarthy book I've read is the prize-winning "The Road" and I have to say I felt I had completely wasted my time reading it. To the previous poster who seemed to think that his books will last as long as there are American readers, I would submit that usually the art that lasts is art that seems to provide answers, not just get lost in the questions. I can't even claim to like the Coen brother's that much. Their fascination with violence and world view that seems to lack any real substance other than the kind of shallow pretend substance that critics like, is indeed a sad commentary on what passes for meaningful art in today's culture.
I'm just impressed that in this day and age where critics seem to walk in virtual lock-step, that one of them is willing to voice a contrary opinion.
The only McCarthy book I've read is the prize-winning "The Road" and I have to say I felt I had completely wasted my time reading it. To the previous poster who seemed to think that his books will last as long as there are American readers, I would submit that usually the art that lasts is art that seems to provide answers, not just get lost in the questions. I can't even claim to like the Coen brother's that much. Their fascination with violence and world view that seems to lack any real substance other than the kind of shallow pretend substance that critics like, is indeed a sad commentary on what passes for meaningful art in today's culture.
Ugh. I didn't even realize McCarthy wrote that dog turd book, "The Road." I seriously wanted a refund after reading a third of it then skimming the rest to verify it didn't get better than the Mickey Mouse Mad Max/28 Days Later rip-off it seemed to be. I didn't read his novel that "No Country" was based upon, but perhaps he's the source of the problems with the movie.
To call McCarthy a nihilist is silly. McCarthy writes very disturbing books. A poster above noted that McCarthy's novels somehow involve a critique of the "newer generation." All of these novels take place in the "newer generation." They are not set in some utopian land. McCarthy's books do not always glory in the nihilism of the "newer generation." They are usually about finding beauty in the midst of meaningless. The Road is a perfect example. In All the Pretty Horses, the main character leaves a land where his mother is an actress and heads to Mexico. I think he was looking for God. In the Crossing, the kid tries to make a hooker his girl. This is not nihilism.
(don't make fun of my spelling)
First off, this is the only time i've read a review from Mr. Sarris and I'm not sure if I'll read another one. The reason why I read it was because he was one of the few that did not like this movie and was part of the cream of the crop on rotten tomatoes.
I saw No Country for Old Men last night and nihilism aside, I don't understand how you can say this isn't a good movie especially with the garbage that comes out these days. Personally I think this is one of the best coen brothers movies of all time. Their characters are always memorable and this movie is no exception. Javier Bardem plays one of the best characters I've seen in recent memory. You know how to tell a good actor, it's when you can just watch that person without any sound and fully comprehend him/her. You can feel this cold, dreadful place that Mr. Bardem has gone to dig up these emotions and you realize its a place you can never visit because only a real psychopath or talented actor can go there.
The rest of the cast is also pretty brilliant in their own subtle ways.
The dialog is deadpan humor and maybe you do need to be a bit messed up in the head to fully appreciate this. I am 25 years old and I will admit that my taste in movies is more to the liking of something like this than to say a romantic comedy. But don't get me wrong. I like all types of movies from all different decades. My favorite decades being the 60's & 70's while my least favorite is sad to say, the one we are currently in. So when a movie like No Country comes around, I find it hard to believe that soo many people think that this is a bad, boring, stupid, or any other negative adjective to describe this movie. But I guess that is where taste lies.
No Country For Old Men is a good old fashioned thriller. It doesn't add in any special effects, the editing isn't fast paced and jarring. The camera work is smooth and graceful which is operated by the great cinematographer Roger Deakins. And the directing is in top form. Out of all the movies I've seen in 2007, this is my favorite (I haven't seen Eastern Promises but I hear its pretty amazing also. In fact, I guess I'll go see what Mr. Sarris has to say about that one)
To quote Ms. Jenkins above, this is a -- ahem -- "dog turd" of a review. It is always unfortunate when great works of art are maligned by those who do not understand them; by those who are too afraid of being "disturbed" to look beyond their knee-jerk emotional responses to appreciate what the creator of the book or film or what have you is attempting. To quote Kafka: "A book should be an axe for the frozen sea within". I think this applies to film as well, and this film certainly is that axe...
(It baffles me, by the way, that someone could possibly think "The Road" is an awful book. McCarthy's prose is utterly transcendent. I suppose Ms. Jenkins to be an Oprah fan or some such who attempted to read the book based on her recommendation -- I mean, Jenkins didn't even know who wrote it before she began reading it... 'nuff said -- and was horrified that it was not composed of the pabulum Ms. Winfrey typically endorses...).
Peace out.
You know, I love cinema, and I love art, and i love All things expression, but sometimes you ask your self, why was this made? or written? etc... I respect the Coen Brothers, but I'm sorry, this movie was just so bleak, so full of cynicism that I felt it pointless to watch. It was a miserable experience in the movie theatre. I really felt like I was in hell for 2 hours. You know, if that's what the Coen's wanted, then sure, they got it, but you know what, I don't want to watch it, and I don't want to enter it again...Thank goodness, I got some movies that speak about hope, or at least love...or something! What was this movie doing?
Sorry if i'm ranting, but it wasn't a fun experiance, or enjoyable or anything at all... i'll see yah later
Hey, I posted right below you, and i ranted on how nihilistic it was, and I still stand by my point, but you raise a good quote or point, in which kafka speaks how a book should axe you.
I agree with that statement, and I have been thinking maybe i should watch it again, give it a second chance? Because it affected me so hard, maybe i should watch it in different eyes...However, this may not make me like the film any better, but maybe it will help me change my "knee jerk reaction." But sometimes Jenbot it is hard not to follow your gut, but since we are humans, we can view things again, and i guess that takes courage, especially if it's a miserable experience at the movie theatre.
As much as I disliked this nihilistic movie, maybe a second chance it needs...
I saw the Cohen's Blood Simple in 1975 at Filmex and recognized good story telling skills when I tripped over them, and of course, like many others, have been pole-axed by some of their choices over the last two decades; Hudsucker Proxy, The Man Who Wasn't There...long stretches of Barton Fink...but, if Mr. Sarris' point is that in the American millieu of political impotence of the every man awash in a time when a prayer seems as foolish as extending a purple finger on voting day or returning the Congress to the democrats with the result only of exacerbating
the constipation that keeps us from taking action, then regardless of the deliciousness of the empty calories one might mistake from this film for spiritual nourishment, is it essential?
No Country For Old Men might turn out for me to be a wonder, but like Children of Men, as technically superb as it might be, it might influence my children to the point, that they determine that there is no point in continuing with humanity and I would like to be a grandfather one day.
After all, it is only another retelling of Red Riding Hood lost in the scrub brushed forest of desolation. Sarris might prefer a burning bush. I know I would.
Stick to your guns, Mr. Sarris, they are your guns.
I see the movie as speaking to the universal belief people tend to share that things get worse, not better, over time, and each generation loses something as values and traditions are lost forever. This feeling affects nearly all of us, with greater resonance as we age. ( Hence the title of the book/movie, and the musings of the retirement aged sheriff as a framing device). That the Coen's choose a story that suggests that we now live in a valueless society where all manner of void-of-conscience evil is common and the only commodity worth pursuing is money, even blood money from the vile and rotten corruption of drugs, may seem a nihilistic and overly bleak view, but is it really unsupported?
I turned 55 today, and this movie was a present of my choosing. I live near a city, (Boston), where children are killing children day in and day out, there is a 75% illegitimacy rate, and a 70% drop-out rate. Is this any less "nihilistic" than the Coen's western? Is the evil personified by the soul-less killer any more terrifying and meaningless than the inability or unwillingness of people to escape from an escalating descent into self destruction? Is it more senseless than abandoning values and rejecting tradition so as to not offend people who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing? In a world where the hiltons, lohans and speers qualify as art, is the Coen's vision of a soul-less society really off the mark?
I like the line that says "It all starts when 'sir' and 'ma'am" disappear..." Perhaps we have really degenerated to far, and lost too much.