The New Classics - No Country For Old Men
Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 10:25PM Michael Cusumano here to take a fresh look at a film that never fails to reward it.
Scene: The Sad, Strange Death of Carson Wells
Moss: What's this guy supposed to be, the ultimate badass?
Wells: No, I wouldn't describe him as that.
Moss: How would you describe him?
Wells: I guess I would say he doesn't have a sense of humor.
But that’s not really accurate, is it?
Anton Chigurh displays frequent amusement throughout the Coen’s adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s No Country For Old Men. It is simply that the humor exists on a wavelength only he can hear. Shortly after making that assessment quoted above, Woody Harrelson’s Carson Wells will learn just how mistaken he is...
Although by the time he’s the one staring down Chigurh’s profoundly unsettling smile, he is in no place to appreciate the absurdity of the situation. Of the many chilling acting choices in Bardem’s performance that smile is the one that haunts. Particularly, the sickening grin that floats to the surface when an ambush has left Carson at Chigurh’s nonexistent mercy.
“If the rule you followed brought you to this,” Chigurh taunts cryptically, “of what use was the rule?”
Carson knows full well what is in store and is in no mood for a Zen kōan. He defiantly answers Chigurh’s question with a question: “Do you have any idea how crazy you are?”
But again, Carson is off the mark. Yes, Chigurh is undeniably a psychopath but in this instance his question has a twisted logic. It’s a window into the serial killer’s mind, where his deadly encounters are a perpetual variation on the same joke and the punchline is always those unfortunate souls who didn’t realize that their every decision, no matter how trivial or innocuous, was setting them down a path to this moment, where they will meet their destruction. Normally, Anton has to savor the moment privately, but Carson’s full awareness of his impending doom increases Chigurh’s enjoyment exponentially. This is a man who is happy in his work.
Since 2007 I’ve read countless interpretations of No Country that posit Chigurh as supernatural being, maybe even the literal Reaper. To be fair the film leaves a few hooks to hang such fan theories on, like the way he seemingly vanishes from the hotel room at the end. I understand the impulse to tie the plot up with such a tidy bow, especially when the other option is to let the story’s unsettling ambiguities gnaw at your memory, but it is far more satisfying to take Chigurh simply as a man. Most stories are content merely to defeat evil, No Country For Old Men stands paralyzed in astonishment that it can exist so purely in human form, and you rob the tale of some of that power, I think, when you regard Chigurh as a specter. If he is as human as you or are I then that means there is nothing stopping anyone from behaving as he does, which is infinitely more disturbing to ponder than a homicidal ghost.
Thinking about the way viewers pore over the clues about Chigurh’s possible mystical nature I’m reminded, oddly, of Citizen Kane, in that there is much focus on the meaning of "Rosebud" when there is a much less famous scene following Kane’s election night defeat where he and Leland flat-out explain the character with the “love on your terms” conversation. Carson’s death feels like a similar scene. One that comes right up to the edge of explaining Chigurh... to the degree that he can be explained at all.
When you stand back from the film you notice that Harrelson’s character is not essential to the plot. He would’ve been easy to cut. Carson Wells is introduced and exits the film in such swift succession it's like a joke on the audience. In a normal film, that intro would guarantee his place as a major player, one who would die at the climax were he to perish at all. But then the randomness of his demise is the point. It prepares the audience to accept the fate of Moss, an even more violent upending of storytelling convention, and it goes a long way to explaining that Satanic grin on Javier Bardem’s face.
Carson’s estimation of Chigurh’s capacity for irony is proven wrong again, mere seconds after his death, when Anton wryly remarks “Not in the sense that you mean,” when Moss asks if Carson is there in the room. In a film where all the main characters are constantly and tragically wrong at least one of them isn’t losing sight of the lighter side.
Reader Comments (17)
The only Coen Bros film that is not in any sense a Comedy at all unless you consider it funny that Anton ultimately got taken out by a car and had to negotiate with some confused children to escape. Wonderful write up, really captured the thriller element and perhaps what makes their films great.
It is a film I respect but I do not love. It is a masterpiece, yes. Javier Bardem is absolutely outstanding but he should have won in Lead, not in Supporting. He is the true star of the film.
My fave Coens are O Brother, The Hudsucker Proxy and The Big Lebowski. Then, this, probably.
Still, I would have given the Oscars that year to Hairspray (Picture, Supporting Actor - John Travolta, Adapted Screenplay, Original Song, Costume Design, Film Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing and Make up and Hairstyle) which is odd because the rave reviews and massive box office, it landed ZERO noms in what I find one of the most outrageous snubs in Oscar history... Adam Shankman's Hairspray is a masterpiece, that amplified the subtext and message of the original and play to infinite and beyond, while delivering the message in the most effective and engaging way possible. And yes, Travolta should have won... his final dance number in "you can't stop the beat" effortlessly dancing with an over 20 kgs suit and giving the performance as a woman and not as a man in drag, was deserving of the win (finally) for him...
I need to rewatch this movie. Bardem was great but I would have loved the oscar to Hal Holbrook for Into the wild.
So good, and it seems like it's been underrated ever since it won. Picking a "best" Coen brothers is nearly impossible, but this one has to be in the mix. Has held up well.
And I'm fine with Bardem winning (and winning in Supporting). He was excellent. But someone I wish had been in the mix that year (I say this with a dozen years hindsight, and I too would've thought it a bit of an odd wish at the time) is Timothy Dalton for Hot Fuzz. But comedy gets so little respect during awards season.
ScottC: "I'm a slasher...of prices!" So...so good.
Great movie, but "There Will Be Blood" was the real Best Picture of 2007. But a terrific film year all around.
I’ve never shared the bonkers enthusiasm that others have for this or THERE WILL BE BLOOD and, while we’re at it, MICHAEL CLAYTON.
I think 2007 is a great film year, but for little of what showed up at the Oscars. I liked Gregg Araki’s SMILEY FACE, Cristian Mungiu’s 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, AND 2 DAYS, and, frankly, the BRATZ movie more than those ones.
I didn't get around to it in the post, but how brilliant is Woody Harrelson in this scene?
Has there ever been a better performance of a person who knows that their number is up and that his attempts to prevent his demise are utterly futile, yet he is compelled to try anyway?
He is understandably overshadowed by the names on the poster, but just fantastic.
Michael -- lovely piece and i agree with what you said about the very strict interprtations of him as a supernatural being (i think it's readable in multiple ways)
Woody Harrelson is a very very fine actor in general and yes excellent hear again.
The great thing about seeing the Coens adapting someone else's work is that it's even more striking the fact they are astonishing directors. The way this movie is STAGED, Jesus Christ. Every single scene is a masterpiece. The editing. The way you never knows how every sequence is going to end. This is perfection.
This was a very well made, well acted film but I must confess...I kind of hated it and have never rewatched or desired to rewatch it. Just too relentlessly bleak and nihilistic for me.
2007 was a strong and diverse year in film, all right - everything from Ratatouille to Hairspray to There Will Be Blood to Lust, Caution. I remember No Country barely and begrudgingly cracked my top 10 for that year.
Weirdly, I *loved* There Will Be Blood, which is in some ways just as bleak as NCfOM..but there's a kind of wildness and insane energy about it that made it a lot more riveting.
Lynn--cosign your thoughts. I have never loved this. I appreciate the craft and atmosphere, but for me it leaves me feeling cruelly empty. I did not like the movie at all when I first saw it. I like it a bit more after several repeat viewings, but I always feel something is missing. In particular, that scene between Bardem and Kelly MacDonald has always bothered me. It feels like a cheap trick. Michael, I do like this writeup though.
cal roth: REALLY think we missed out on a great movie when the Coens passed on The Yiddish Policemen's Union. Hope they get back to it eventually, honestly. Definitely over a couple of their pre-production titles. Dark Web? Scarface 3.0? First: Even YOUNGER filmmakers have been tripped up by "internet movies" (think Jason Reitman's misbegotten Men, Women and Children) and you guys are closer to Michael Mann than Ben Wheatley. Second: How has crime changed in the, pretty much, 40 years since DePalma Scarface was in development? Are the ways in which it has such that a third take is justified?
Lynn Lee: I mean, it's kind of the difference between a movie made by Heath Ledger Joker (No Country) and one made by Mark Hamill Joker (There Will Be Blood).
Lynn –
I see what you’re saying about the film being so relentlessly bleak. I think it works so well for me because I see some of that insanity that electrifies There Will Be Blood in No Country. Only where in Blood it’s a wild lightning storm in No Country it’s a sizzling tesla coil. There are just so many weird flourishes and eccentricities of the language around the edges of the existential dread.
Michael: I know what you mean, though your reference to "existential dread" also pinpoints what I don't like about the movie. The dread, too, is unrelenting, and there's never any catharsis. Which is 100% deliberate, but that doesn't mean I like it. :)
I remember also being favorably impressed by Kelly Macdonald in this, but yeah, her final scene is probably what sealed my dislike for the movie.
Anyway, another excellently written piece! This series is great.
Lynn- Thanks so much. I appreciate it
What’s the deal with Woody Harrelson?
So why did the Coen brothers cast him in the first place? Why introduce such a magnetic, capable character only to kill him off three scenes later? The answer should be familiar at this point: to further the movie’s message that nobody, no matter how charming, interesting, or important, is safe from the relentlessness of death or the uncaring nature of cruel happenstance.