Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35176 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20840 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7430 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3985 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3509 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2080 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2587 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2258 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2501 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3022 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3699 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2627 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2463 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2294 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2511 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

No Country for Old Men

More
22 Nov 2012 12:16 #138210 by Matt Thrower
So a little while back, Mr. Barnes kicked off a discussion of Coen Brothers films and everyone gushed over how wonderful No Country for Old Men was. I never liked it: it started brilliantly but in the end I found it incoherent and frustrating. But I seemed to be in a minority of about one.

So I got the book, and read it, thinking it might help me understand.

I thought it the weakest of McCarthy's books that I've read so far, although that's a bit like saying some billionaires have less money than others. It was still damn good. It showed that it was once a screenplay and lacked much of his trademark prose-poetry except in brief flashes, being composed of a lot of conversation.

So .. why was it better than the film? And what did I learn from that as regards why the film failed for me? Some thoughts.

** MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD **

Some of the material that got cut in the transition from book to screen was pretty crucial. The killing of Carla Jean lent weight to the books' overall theme of fate and randomness which I just didn't pick up in the film. The few short chapters between Chigurh's car crash and the actual ending helped give the book a longer sense of narrative and avoided the jarring "... but that hasn't really ended" feeling I got at the end of the film.

=================

Sudden and unexpected transitions between characters, missing out chunks of action which are then revealed as a discovery of the new character, are a major feature of the book. They work well because they're shocking, and the text has time to lay the appropriate groundwork to help the reader patch the information together, and they can always flip back a page if necessary.

In the film, these transitions shocked, but were often very confusing. Most importantly is Moss's death: in the film I had no idea what had just happened and when I worked it out I couldn't understand *who* had killed him and *how*. But of course the narrative just carried on regardless, deepening my confusion.

========================

In the book, relatively early on, I got the sense that Chigurh was something more than human, a fictional construct suitable for a fictional story. Thus his seeming indestructibility didn't bother me (an interesting parallel with Judge Holden from Blood Meridian for McCarthy fans). Chigurh on celluloid seems much more realistic, probably a fault of the medium as much as the directors or actor. As a result he seems scarier than he does in the book, but when he starts to do all those amazing things it just feels bizarre and wrong

This was particularly important when he ends up finding and killing the employer of Carson Wells who, it is made clear, is a secretive and super-cautious man. How Chigurh tracks him down is never revealed in book or film but in the book, because I'd already decided Chigurh had more than a hint of the supernatural about him, it didn't worry me. In the film in annoyed the hell out of me. In fact it's probably the point when the film "lost" me and I started to dislike it. Also, the way he simply vanishes at the end felt acceptable for the ghostly, literary version of the character, but wrong for the realistic movie version.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 13:46 #138214 by jeb
Replied by jeb on topic Re: No Country for Old Men
I think you can draw a less-than-subtle parallel between Chigurh and the Judge--or even back to the trio in OUTER DARK. There is evil in the world, and there are evil men. What McCarthy gets right about this is that the truly evil men don't feel bad about it. There's no Mommy issues or flashbacks to tough childhoods or soliloquies on their internal anguish--they are just bad. And if you get tangled up with them, the taint will stain you; as it does the kid in BLOOD MERIDIAN.

I saw the film in the theater (rare for me!) and walked out in a daze. It was stunning. It does not forcefeed you exposition and you are left to piece together Moss's death as the film continues--in the way the Sheriff has to keep going even though the story has "stopped" for him. The book is more uneven for me, adding a lot of backstory where it's not needed, and adding more afterstory for the Sheriff after Moss is gone.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Dair

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 14:07 #138217 by Matt Thrower

jeb wrote: I think you can draw a less-than-subtle parallel between Chigurh and the Judge--or even back to the trio in OUTER DARK. There is evil in the world, and there are evil men. What McCarthy gets right about this is that the truly evil men don't feel bad about it. There's no Mommy issues or flashbacks to tough childhoods or soliloquies on their internal anguish--they are just bad. And if you get tangled up with them, the taint will stain you; as it does the kid in BLOOD MERIDIAN.


I'm sure there's something in that, but isn't it curious as to how McCarthy shows these "truly evil" characters as being almost supernatural? Perhaps he's almost saying that true evil is so bereft of humanity that it can only exist outside of it, or in fiction.

jeb wrote: I saw the film in the theater (rare for me!) and walked out in a daze. It was stunning. It does not forcefeed you exposition and you are left to piece together Moss's death as the film continues--in the way the Sheriff has to keep going even though the story has "stopped" for him. The book is more uneven for me, adding a lot of backstory where it's not needed, and adding more afterstory for the Sheriff after Moss is gone.


Odd. I felt the exact opposite.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 14:50 #138218 by jeb
Replied by jeb on topic Re: No Country for Old Men

MattDP wrote:

jeb wrote: I think you can draw a less-than-subtle parallel between Chigurh and the Judge--or even back to the trio in OUTER DARK. There is evil in the world, and there are evil men. What McCarthy gets right about this is that the truly evil men don't feel bad about it. There's no Mommy issues or flashbacks to tough childhoods or soliloquies on their internal anguish--they are just bad. And if you get tangled up with them, the taint will stain you; as it does the kid in BLOOD MERIDIAN.


I'm sure there's something in that, but isn't it curious as to how McCarthy shows these "truly evil" characters as being almost supernatural? Perhaps he's almost saying that true evil is so bereft of humanity that it can only exist outside of it, or in fiction.

You can say that for Judge Holden, but Chigurh gets in a car accident. That is a humanizing moment. I think what you are interpreting as supernatural is more often written by McCarthy as extranatural. These are not persons like you or me, they are different and their ways are not completely familiar to us or the protagonist. Imagine Chigurh is like Sherlock Holmes, but the story never refers to his powers of deduction or intellect. He just seems like an alien.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 15:07 - 22 Nov 2012 15:08 #138221 by Gary Sax
Replied by Gary Sax on topic Re: No Country for Old Men

jeb wrote: You can say that for Judge Holden, but Chigurh gets in a car accident. That is a humanizing moment. I think what you are interpreting as supernatural is more often written by McCarthy as extranatural.


I loved the movie, this was what I got from it too. You're lulled into thinking he is almost supernatural, inhuman. Then, in one moment, it turns out he's human and just as vulnerable to the same forces of randomness that tear into all the other characters.
Last edit: 22 Nov 2012 15:08 by Gary Sax.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Fallen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 15:23 #138222 by bomber
Replied by bomber on topic Re: No Country for Old Men
What was confusing about Moss's death?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 16:23 #138226 by jeb
Replied by jeb on topic Re: No Country for Old Men
It's offscreen. This is pretty unusual for cinema. He is a protagonist, or at least we are led to believe he is. The story sets you up for an epic Chigurh/Moss showdown, but it turns out that moment happens with Carla Jean and not Llewellyn.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 16:54 #138227 by Ken B.
Replied by Ken B. on topic Re: No Country for Old Men

jeb wrote: It's offscreen. This is pretty unusual for cinema. He is a protagonist, or at least we are led to believe he is. The story sets you up for an epic Chigurh/Moss showdown, but it turns out that moment happens with Carla Jean and not Llewellyn.



I was really, really loving the movie until Moss was killed offscreen. Incredibly stupid and unsatisfying. I've been following this dude for the whole movie, he goes off on this rant about making him a "special project" or whatever, then he dies off-screen?

Fuck you, movie.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 16:54 #138228 by Matt Thrower

jeb wrote: It's offscreen. This is pretty unusual for cinema. He is a protagonist, or at least we are led to believe he is. The story sets you up for an epic Chigurh/Moss showdown, but it turns out that moment happens with Carla Jean and not Llewellyn.


And then they cut most of that showdown as well.

I don't recall the film that well - it's been several years since I saw it. But I seem to remember that the scene goes on for some time before Moss is mentioned. It's clear that someone has died, but not who. And even when the audience do see that it's Moss, it's never explained who did the killing, or why whereas in the book the details are recounted by a witness.

Starting to wonder if my problem with the film is simply that they cut too much.

It's also possible there's a language issue. A lot of the plot turns on very small details, and if you're not used to hearing rural Texan accents on a regular basis, you can miss stuff very easily.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jeb

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 17:32 - 23 Nov 2012 07:34 #138231 by wolvendancer
Chigurh is very much human; he is a human who has taken nihilism and existentialism to its end-point. He has realized (or decided, if you prefer - I had a 100,000 word email exchange with an author friend over this) that life is a tasteless mummer's show, full of sound and fury signifying nothing, and thus Chigurh has decided to worship the arbitrary. I always draw the connection in my mind to Cthulhu cultist from Lovecraft's Mythos; having decided the evil (or uncaring) nature of the universe cannot be bested (or even affected), Chigurh has decided to make its cause (or lack of cause) his own. He has made himself as arbitrary and uncaring as the Universe that surrounds him.

The car crash is important. It signals to Chigurh, and the reader: to declare yourself 'with' the callousness of the universe does you no favors. It doesn't give you special powers. It doesn't make you better, or even different, than anyone else. To care about uncaring is still caring. Chigurh is still a human, and has made a choice to impose a value-laden narrative onto the Universe. But the Universe Does. Not. Give. A. Shit. And thus part of the story is that even the most evil, heartless man in the world cannot deal with the universe's utter inhumanity.

As a bonus exercise, ask yourself: starting with Moss going back to give the man some water, does any act made with good intentions in the book come out well for anyone involved?
Last edit: 23 Nov 2012 07:34 by wolvendancer.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower, jeb, Fallen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 17:36 #138232 by wolvendancer
As an aside: Judge Holden is very much NOT a human being. He's the personification of the American spirit, ie, rape and murder (slavery and genocide). He was where it all began, is where it ends, and will incorporate all of us in his evil, no matter what we do.

I once made an offhanded comment to a fellow writer that I was going to name my firstborn son 'Judge Holden X'. She was so shocked she couldn't speak for a few moments, much to my amusement. It's a brutal character.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 20:14 #138238 by Shellhead
I haven't read the book, but I did watch the movie once. I liked No Country for Old Men, but I didn't love it. From what I'm reading in this thread, the Coen Brothers did a good job of making a challenging book into a movie. For what it's worth I didn't even understand that Moss was dead. I thought that he decided to just run for it and left Carla Jean to face Chigurh, making him almost as bad as Chigurh.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 20:38 #138242 by Matt Thrower

wolvendancer wrote: Chigurh is very much human; he is a human who has taken nihilism and existentialism to its end-point.


If that's really the case then I'm a little disappointed with the book. I don't like the fact that his tracking down of a secretive and secure drugs boss is simply glossed over - it made him feel more like a ghost than a man.

I don't think his involvement in the car accident invalidates its use as a reinforcement of randomness if he's seen that way. It could be read as fate having power over all, everything in the world and everything you can possibly imagine.

wolvendancer wrote: As an aside: Judge Holden is very much NOT a human being. He's the personification of the American spirit, ie, rape and murder (slavery and genocide). He was where it all began, is where it ends, and will incorporate all of us in his evil, no matter what we do.


That was rather my conclusion was well, although what, exactly, he is seems very much up for debate. The devil incarnate is a popular option. Personally I thought that he was older than America and felt like the animus behind war gods through the ages and who had found a new and appreciative outlet for his wares on the frontier.

Shellhead wrote: For what it's worth I didn't even understand that Moss was dead.


I'm very pleased to learn that I'm not the only one who struggled to follow it.
The following user(s) said Thank You: wolvendancer

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 22:33 #138253 by Ken B.
Replied by Ken B. on topic Re: No Country for Old Men
Yeah, my thing wasn't that Moss died...I'm okay with unhappy endings, or one where the hero doesn't "triumph"...but don't have me follow a dude for two hours and then kill him offscreen.

Literally, it's a tight, tense, enjoyable movie right up until that point. Then, the movie meanders off, teases a confrontation with Tommy Lee Jones that doesn't happen, and then Tommy rambles about weird dreams with his dad on a horse then...credits.

I went from totally digging it to wanting to throw my shoe at the TV.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Nov 2012 23:09 #138255 by bomber
Replied by bomber on topic Re: No Country for Old Men
I either fell asleep twice or it didnt bother me because im struggling to remember the moss thing. Jesus, im getting old. I thought hed been shot by the mexicans ha, i clearly need to see it again.

Was the woody harrelson such a drip in the book?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.189 seconds