Haplo on 9/2/2008 at 02:54
My favorite movie of all time is Coens' "Big Lebowski", although all their movies are excellent. Miller's Crossing, anyone?
Dunbar2 on 9/2/2008 at 05:21
NCFOM followed the book very closely and in my opinion was an excellent adaptation. Bell's dream at the end followed the book exactly. Cormac McCarthy's books (at least the ones I've read) are very nihilistic in nature. This discussion about the potential meaning at the end has caused to to think about the similarities to the ending of "The Road" (a great book on its own and even better if you like post-apocalyptic fiction) and NCFOM. At the end of the "The Road" the son asks the man who finds him after his father dies if he carries the fire. I think Cormac McCarthy uses "carrying the fire" as a metaphor for having some hope in humanity or keeping your humanity in an immoral and nihilistic world.
~Dunbar
Angel Dust on 9/2/2008 at 13:10
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Heh, obviously that's someone with no imagination explaining what happened with
Bell and Chigurh at the motel room after Llewelyn died. In my opinion, it is either a representation of Bell's fear of the new world or an artistic play on time periods, as we know Chigurh was there at some point (vent and coin) and we know that Bell is definitely there too. It's hard to say if Bell sees Chigurh in the lockspace or Chigurh sees Bell, one could argue that they're looking into themselves and seeing the other, some sort of metaphor for the duality of their nature, just like flip sides of the coin. More importantly I don't think Bell's life was ever in danger though, as he didn't "get there like the coin did".
I don't think Bell was in danger for the simple reason that Anton doesn't just kill indiscrimantly. That may sound suprising but think over all the killings in the film.
He either needed something from that person (a car seems to be the main one!), they are directly in the way of the money or they saw him (like the poor accountant). The servo guy offended him and got the coin toss and I feel that the trailer park lady who defied him would have got the same option but if you remember he hears a toilet flushing so decides it is not worth the risk. At no point did Bell pose a threat to Chigurh so he let him live.Of course the thought had occured to me that the Coen's where playing with time or showing us what Bell thought might be waiting for him in the room. Apparently when Bell opens to the door it hits the wall which would suggest no one is behind it. I'll have to check that next time I see it.
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Possibly, but that seems tautological of his meeting with Ellis. Ultimately I believe that Bell feels there is no greater meaning to life and that he doesn't quite understand it, especially this country he lives in (the description of the news article is a good example), but there's still a part of Bell that holds onto the ideal, of the lawman, of making a difference, that vanity that Ellis called it, which could otherwise be expressed as hope.
I'm still not convinced he even has hope anymore.
When I heard the dream I though 'that's a nice hopeful sentiment' but then he says, despairingly, 'And then I woke up' and then the cut to black. It hit me right in the gut and I felt the hope had vanished. I think that the last line may have more significance than just letting us know where the dream ends.In regards to the story being nihilistic: I thought it was more existential, especially Anton who had created his own beliefs and values. Although I often get the two confused as they have similarities, would someone care to explain them in layman's terms?
Vigo on 12/2/2008 at 06:01
Great movie. Hated the ending with Llewelyn getting killed. Even though he's probably the least dynamic character, the movie still does a good job of making you sympathize with him by clueing you into his slow, methodical thought process. The whole "Oh look some Mexicans are driving away oh look the pool lady is dead oh look so is Llewelyn" scene was way too speedy and undramatic imo.
Angel Dust on 12/2/2008 at 10:51
I think they elected to show, or not show as it turns out, his death to put you in the shoes of Bell. We aren't supposed to feel satisfied in any way, whether it be by watching a good action scene where he dies or having him get away and survive. It's a reality check and we are supposed to feel empty, confused and wondering about the pointlessness of it all (that is notions of good and bad etc and how they don't matter a damn in the real world unlike what usually happens in the movies). This takes us too Bell's last scenes with some understanding for his conclusions. The ending is more of an intellectual rather than emotional pay-off and I can somewhat sympathise with your feelings on the ending. I would be lying if I said I didn't sometimes wish the ending was a bit different.
I have to disagree with your view of Llewelyn being the least dynamic character though! I though he was one of the most dynamic and was always suprising me with his grit and heart. It was just a much more low-key performance that the Anton Chigurh one.
Muzman on 4/4/2008 at 18:44
Hey, just saw this (finally) and thought I'd drag it on up.
Fascinating flick. I'm actually coming to enjoy the fact that it's all about capricious reality being set to deny you of satisfaction on just about every level. I love how it polarises people and those who expect (nay insist on) a Robert Mckee structure often get driven nuts.
One detail I haven't seen discussed much is that the moment with the motel door, Bell and Chigur on opposite sides. Many have talked about the allusion to a ghost and Chigur appearing to do the imposible there. I happen to think it only takes place in Bell's head. He imagines that moment as he's got a clue and he's following it up and he's hoping it pays off, and the audience is expect that too. But there is no pay-off, no reckoning, and worse he's sort of right but too far behind to do anything about it yet again.
Or that could be all obvious to everybody so no one thought to discuss it.
Ben Gunn on 4/4/2008 at 20:12
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
In regards to the story being nihilistic: I thought it was more existential, especially Anton who had created his own beliefs and values. Although I often get the two confused as they have similarities, would someone care to explain them in layman's terms?
(a 2 months late answer but only after the bump I went over this thread)
Well, in layman's terms - the existentialism saw itself as the antidote to the nihilism and pessimism which are bound to creep into the vacuum left by all those shattered idols (religion, nationality, objective morality, ideologies etc.).
They both share the same characteristics because the existentialism does not deny the logic of the nihilistic approach, merely its conclusion.
Yes, it's true (exist' will say)- there are no objective values and there is no superior entity to tell us whats right and wrong, what's important and what's not but that does not mean we can do whatever we want. We need to rise up to the challenge and not invent new "gods" but rather write our own, personal code.
Scots Taffer on 4/4/2008 at 23:46
Quote Posted by Muzman
Or that could be all obvious to everybody so no one thought to discuss it.
You're an observant guy, so I don't know how you missed the discussion two posts up where I consider that scene to be a representation of Bell's growing fear.
TBE on 5/4/2008 at 06:20
I like where Llewelyn gets up in the middle of the night at the beginning of the movie. Ole girl asks him what he's gonna do, and he says "Fixing to do something dumber than hell, but I'm gonna do it anyways." You've gotta like his character. You can see his morals through the whole movie.
Like most everyone else, I hated the ending. :p But I also liked the ending-ending, if you know what I mean, wink wink. Anton was classic Anton.
Fafhrd on 5/4/2008 at 07:38
I'm still surprised that there are people that consider Llewelyn to be just as much a villain as anyone else in the movie, given that scene. Was taking the drug money immoral? A bit, yes, but he's not a bastard for doing it, and he could have easily gotten away with it if he hadn't gone back to offer some small comfort to a man that he knew was probably dead by then anyway.
