|
 |
 The truth about No Country For Old Men
By Wescoat on January 23, 2008 1:32 PM
It's common knowledge now that No Country For Old Men is already being hailed as a modern classic, not to mention leading the Oscar nomination pack with 8 (well, tied with There Will Be Blood but who's counting anyway?), including Best Picture and Best Director/s for Ethan and Joel Coen. But here's the hard truth about that film: When all is said and done and the Coen Brothers are dead and gone and being studied in film classes or holograms or whatever learning venues exist in the future, Country will be largely forgotten . "Oh it's a beautiful film technically," the instructor or alien or holographic image will transmit into your grandchild's learning chip, "but its story and characters and thematic explorations and other elements that make a movie great don't add up to a hill of beans."
Beneath its layers of stunning cinematography, awe-inspiring sound design and great performances, Country is a mediocre film based on a mediocre novel by Cormack McCarthy. It introduces an intriguing premise (man finds drug bust gone wrong, man takes money from drug bust), a creepy-as-hell villain (Javier Bardem, rightly nominated for Best Supporting Actor), and a great cast of side characters, then proceeds to take them all on a journey to... nowhere. The elements taken individually are amazing to behold; together they add up to nothing much.
Think I'm wrong? I challenge you to watch the film again and see if it gets better on repeat viewings (as all the Coen Bros' great films do, and even some of the lesser ones like Intolerable Cruelty). I predict you will find that Bardem's character, despite being creepy as hell, is a depth-less cartoon as opposed to a fully realized person. In Josh Brolin's Llewelyn Moss you will see a man embroiled over his head in a violent situation that causes neither change nor reflection in him. And in Woody Harrelson's briefly seen bounty hunter role you will observe the film-makers' sneakily desperate attempt to pump drama into an inherently empty story by squeezing in a meaningless character in the third act.
Only Tommy Lee Jones' sheriff character exudes pathos or lasting value, but his story is muddled under the clutter of the other story lines. Some people who have disagreed with my bitching about this film (which includes pretty much everyone) have argued that it's ultimately about Tommy Lee's character and that's why the other characters' stories wind up feeling irrelevant, and also why (SPOILER ALERT) Llewelyn's death scene at the motel is not so much handled as completely ignored. But, while I agree Tommy Lee's thread is the most meaningful of the lot, its prominence is lost under all the time spent developing the other threads, which all end up going nowhere. If the Coens truly meant to make Tommy Lee the focal point, they played a dirty trick, because the first 3/4 of the film has us rooting and rooting hard for Llewelyn. When his death arrives in such an anticlimactic, unsatisfactory manner, I felt cheated, and was not appeased by the alleged, last-second "switch" over to Tommy Lee as Guy to Root For.
But the main reason I knew No Country was not a classic (and I saw it on opening day, so there was no hype putting pressure on me to not like it) was because, unlike the Coen Bros movies I love (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Blood Simple), it was easily and immediately accessible. It was entertaining and suspenseful and simple to follow... until it wasn't entertaining anymore. Classic Coens, however, are NOT accessible upon first viewing, or if they are, it is only on a surface level. The first time I watched them I felt that I basically got what was going on but somehow didn't enjoy them as much as I could have. This was because I didn't understand them fully because they were teaching me a NEW KIND of movie; they were doing something I hadn't seen before. Upon subsequent viewings, my mind began to understand, to learn what they were doing, and I came to love them on an impossibly deep level because they helped me grow as a movie watcher and as a person—they forever enriched me. No Country does not and did not have that effect. It is a very well-done thriller with awe-inspiring production and a chilling pace that are unique enough to make it stand out. It is nothing more beyond that, and near the end, when it tries to be something it isn't (a classic Coen brothers film), it loses focus and becomes downright mediocre. It will not stand the test of time, it will barely be remembered.
The entire notion of Best Picture is a joke and a blatant ploy to increase ticket sales. I don't care what wins Best Picture; it doesn't matter. I'm sure plenty of people out there think Transformers should win Best Picture—what makes their opinion wrong? No, what rubs me the wrong way about the No Country hype is how people whose opinion I know and respect are ranking it among the Coen Bros' finest films. It's an imposter. Sure, it may be a better movie experience than Alien vs. Predator: Requiem (what isn't really?), but within the world the Coen Brothers' have created, it's a dying star, and I'm tired of hearing about it.
Thanks for reading this far. I hope you don't hate me now.
|
Reader Discussions:
|
|
Your Devaluing Of No COuntry For Old MEn
|
 reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 23, 2008 6:47 PM
Actually, yes, I hate you. What is wrong with your analysis with No Country For Old Men is that it assumes that a movie with great production value alone won't be remembered. But we know for a fact that that is not true. Many of the "greatest" movies of all time are listed simply for their innovation (what was so great about Blade Runner?). But you also devalue No Country in terms of other aspects of movies. First, is that it was probably the most accurate literary adaptation I have ever seen. It was also well written in terms of the Coens' own twists on the story because if you compare the dialogue between the book and the novel, you will notice that they are very similar, but the Coens changed it in such a way that it would have greater impact toward its viewing audience. Also, it was all around a great movie. It had a working plot, fantastic character development, along with the other major elements of production which were superb. And if you compare it to other Coen films, it is easily their best. Fargo, for instance, had great dialogue, a fantastic plot, but many were as disappointed with the ending to Fargo as they were with No Country's (those that didn't understand the ending, anyway). IF you compare it to the Big Lebowski, there is no competition! The Big Lebowski was funny, and easily more accessible that No Country. No Country was accessible on the surface, it was rather the broader implications within the subtext which make it a great film. And the trailing off toward the end, as you described it as, was one of the most original and fascinating endings of all time! You felt cheated because you came to feel for the character, and that is also symbolic of how Llewelyn's one simple mistake cheated him out of life. In terms of new kinds of movies, this movie was the least formulaic movie i have seen in years, with an ending that is more a reflection of the real world. You look too much on the surface of things. Tommy Lee says at the beginning of the movie, that to do his job, you have to say "ok, i'll be part of this world." in the end, moss's death and jones' retirement symbolize that he liived in a world he didn't want to be a part of.
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 23, 2008 8:40 PM
I doubt that this movie will be forgotten once the Coen brothers are dead and I completely disagree with what you said about the plot of the movie. The poster above pretty much explained the crux of it so there's no need for me to repeat it but maybe you just don't like Cormac McCarthy novels. No Country talks about the rising violence in America and where it comes from (among MANY other things). I suppose his style (which is interperated extremely well onto the big screen by the Coens) can be of an aquired taste. Some might find it bland but there's just so much substance beneath the surface that, I believe, you'll notice something every other time you watch the movie. Sort of like those comedies with so many jokes you can't take it all in at once.
|
|
no counrty...who cares??
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 24, 2008 3:11 AM
I 110% agree with you. Finally a review by someone who hasn't fallen for all the hype. I wouldn't even class 'no counrty' in the top 5 Coen brothers movies...
|
|
RE: no counrty...who cares??
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 24, 2008 4:58 AM
I like The Money Pit.
|
Post YOUR opinion!
|
|
|
More Movie Trailers »
|
![Digital Theatre [DTheatre.com]](images/logo.gif){kind=logo}
