Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
Keyword Tag Cloud
11/16/2007
Javier Bardem, Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, Josh Brolin
A discussion about the film No Country for Old Men
Keywords:
A discussion about the film No Country for Old Men with filmmakers and brothers Joel and Ethan Coen and actors Josh Brolin & Javier Bardem. The film follows the interweaving paths of the three central characters (Moss, Chigurh, and Bell) set in motion by events related to a drug deal gone bad near the Mexican-American border in southwest Texas.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Comment by Don Nuzzo on Thursday, Apr 24 at 04:56 AM "At the end of the film, Chigurh walks out of the house and stops on the front porch, and he reaches down to each foot or heel, and makes some type of motion, one at a time. Anybody care to hazard a guess at that meaning?" I think he's making sure there's no blood on his boots. He propped them up on the bed after killing Carson Wells. Comment by Tara L. Paronto on Thursday, Mar 27 at 10:21 AM "The wife states, she just buried her mother, but there was no word on what happened to her husband. Yes, it showed the scene that he was "supposibly" murdered, but then nothing after that. Am I missing Something?" Yes. It was hard to tell, but the husband was killed in the shootout at the motel in El Paso. Tommy Lee Jones gets to the motel a moment too late and Llewelyn is dead on the floor in the doorway. I must admit I had to rewind the film and review this scene in order to see what had happened to him. From that angle they chose it was hard to tell that it was Llewelyn. Very poorly shot crucial moment. Comment by sjh on Tuesday, Feb 12 at 10:14 AM "There were too many inconsistancies ie: if you find that kind of money, you don't go back, and other times. It did get the other viewers and myself talking, as to why this and why that. I think the coen bros were "trying" to make another Fargo. Unfortunately that only worked once, then again some people think it worked for this movie." I think this film was more of a fairy tale in the Raising Arizona genre. Multi-protagonists, one seemingly unstoppable major antagonist of mythic proporotions. Fargo was more human, really, more plausible. We may empathize with Llewelyn's character because he needs to go back and give that dying man water, but this behavior contradicts his behavior at the scene of the shootout where he originally finds the money. Anton Chigurh's killing spree that starts off the movie, seems at odds with his alliance with the two men he's with (and then kills) later at the shootout scene. We don't know for sure until much later that he was hired for this mission. Inconsistencies or unclear moments, yes. I think the film is made, or perhaps the book is written to leave you asking yourself a question. Well, I asked myself: does the sherriff decide to hunt down Chigurh or does he accept his fading, powerless existence? This was an effective, suspenseful, horror film with some meaning but not a whole lot. The line that sticks with me goes something like "Once 'Sir' and 'Ma'am' have left the vocabulary, it's inevitable what follows." That's good comedy - the idea that nose rings and green hair are to blame for this bloodbath. More than Daniel Plainview, (and frightening in a different way) there's a profound emptiness of McCarthy's barely-human psychopath Chigurh. Same emptiness as the landscape. There lies the meaning. That's Coen brothers: painting a deeper, effective picture of the landscape using characters and story.
At the end of the film, Chigurh walks out of the house and stops on the front porch, and he reaches down to each foot or heel, and makes some type of motion, one at a time. Anybody care to hazard a guess at that meaning?
Other than the interestingly played and moving speech ending the movie, it was a pretty lame film and utterly forgettable. Certainly not the best of the year by a long shot.
"No worries, my original critique of the film has apparently been removed." Hmmmmmmm. I came late to the discussion so now I'm wondering what you said that stirred up so much controversey, peter. What could you have possibly said that caused it to be removed????? Anybody? Bueller...Bueller...Bueller
I found this movie to be uterly invigirating! Granted, I didn't read the book (I'm not much of a reader) but I do believe that great books make great movies. I was a little puzzled towards the end when Chigurh shows up at the home of the elderly mother. The wife states, she just buried her mother, but there was no word on what happened to her husband. Yes, it showed the scene that he was "supposibly" murdered, but then nothing after that. Am I missing Something?
During the scene between Chigurh and the gas station attendant, there is a line by Chigurh which doesn't seem discernable on the DVD I bought? I played the conversation several times at higher volumes, but one sentence by Chigurh makes no sense, it's as if it's an editing mistake or my DVD is faulty...has anyone else noticed this???
Anyone actually read the book ? Yes, it is a good movie compared to all the drivel out there these days, however, why would the Coen brothers leave out/change important facts that were crucial to Antons' character ? Case in point..in the flick he kills the CEO (drug boss) and is referred to constantly as ' a loose cannon', when in fact the book version shows him to have made very calculated moves. He does not kill the CEO, but brings him the money as he wants to impress him and be in his employ.....everything he did brought him to this place....by having him kill this dude, it turns the flick into another cowboy movie.....I was greatly disappointd...
While I can see how this movie would be viewed as a "classic", I disagree. (would like to see Peter's comments) There were too many inconsistancies ie: if you find that kind of money, you don't go back, and other times. It did get the other viewers and myself talking, as to why this and why that. I think the coen bros were "trying" to make another Fargo. Unfortunately that only worked once, then again some people think it worked for this movie. NOT
The ending dovetails perfectly with the V.O. at the beginning, and all of the character's conversations early on. Brian David, please, we see enough pretentious prattle from mainstream critics.
Utterly captivating. Bardem's heartless facade is more than just the bizarre gaze of a psychopath; it is the embodiment of evil. Close to perfect, I agree.
Loved it. Left momentarily dumbstruck, then slowly agreed it was perfect - and maybe the only 'true' way to 'stop.' CLASSIC! And the dialgue and acting were stellar as well.
I was sitting on the fence until the final act, when the raw, desolate vernacular of Cormac McCarthy, to me, was most poignantly represented. I walked out of the theater feeling a sense of community with whoever else recognized the ways in which the film transcended or, if you prefer, rescinded its conventional trajectory and became instead nearly nonpareil. Charlie: You're the best. Next time you have folks who have used the tools of their medium to create something as affecting and resonant as No Country For Old Men (please) ask them what cumulative effect they'd like their art to have as a means of routing their motivations, which, by my hypothesis, will be only secondarily devoted to the construction of something peerless and thrilling and, though in-admissibly so, primarily devoted to tempering and helping their fellow humans. Just an idea.
Why does a film need to have a clear story or "plot" that gets all wrapped up with a bow in the end? Are we so conditioned to the "normal" mode of storytelling that we cannot even appreciate a movie that uses novelestic techniques and digressions? Personally, the last fifteen minutes of the film is exactly what transforms it from a well-made, run-of-the-mill thriller into a modern classic.
I believe the movie was meant to leave the viewer as frustrated as the sheriff.
I believe the movie was meant to leave the viewer as frustrated as the sheriff.
everybody has commented on what I wrote rather than give much support to this pulp with veneer of philosophy (if hoplessness qualifies as a philosophy) permitting you to indulge in the usual shoot 'em up chase, No worries, my original critique of the film has apparently been removed
Hey, Peter -- I winced...at your writing!
peter wintz, you could not be more wrong. But I do not have the time to elaborate. How's the view up there on that high horse?
Well, no, the novel is more than that, Peter, and seen by many as a parable rather than a thriller. Woody Harrelson's cameo was a nice touch, especially considering the Harrelson connection to the real Chigurh of that drug era. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamiel_Chagra