Ben Gunn on 5/4/2008 at 08:16
I dont like the theory that Anton was only in Bell's head in the motel scene. It's a cheap old trick, more suitable for films such as I M Legand and it's inconsistent with the rest of NCfOM which was preaty strait forward all the way through (what you see actualy happens).
I dont have a better idea though.
Morte on 5/4/2008 at 08:24
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 think his vanity is more that he thinks the world actually has changed. Ellis and his story is there to to tell him the sort of evil he's so taken aback by has always existed, that the world has always been cruel and evil.
And I have to agree about Chigurh just being imagined by Ed Tom at the motel. I went through that scene again and there's no way he could have hidden in there.
Ben Gunn on 5/4/2008 at 08:36
Quote Posted by Morte
And I have to agree about Chigurh just being imagined by Ed Tom at the motel. I went through that scene again and there's no way he could have hidden in there.
There are two rooms you know, he could be in the next one. Though the problem still remains- there is no reason for Chigurh to be in the other room after grabbing the money.
Muzman on 5/4/2008 at 09:26
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
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.
Heh, well occasionally observant I guess. It was late, what can I say. Well, you know where I sit, not that it really matters one way or another.
The fact that we spend a bit of time on the other side of the door with Chigur looking back through the reflection in the lock does suggest the time separation thing pretty well, but I took it overall as his desire for a 'narrative moment', something to give form and presence to his growing depondency. His fear is in there as well too of course. It's a rich moment.
Scots Taffer on 5/4/2008 at 09:42
Quote Posted by Morte
I think his vanity is more that he thinks the world actually has changed. Ellis and his story is there to to tell him the sort of evil he's so taken aback by has always existed, that the world has always been cruel and evil.
Yeah, that's kind of what I meant - vanity is his thinking that he could make a difference or that the world just ain't the same anymore. It's great though, there are so many interpretations that are similar yet subtly different, that's what makes it art I suppose.
And yeah, Muz, while I'm comfortable with thinking it's a representation of Bell's fear or that it was a time-elapsed director-play, I honestly don't care so much as I care more about the overall progression of the movie.
Muzman on 5/4/2008 at 12:33
What do people make of Sherrif Bell apparently knowing what kind of weapon Chigur is using but sort of denying it to the deputy at one point? (depending on if you read it that way. We see them ponder a bullet-less gun and then later Bell is talking about a slaughterman's bolt gun in some detail without ever connecting it to the case out loud. I've kinda taken it that he, being an earthy country type, knew all along what it was, but he's sort of protecting his young deputy from the implications, symbolic and otherwise, like Bell's father might have done. Or he really hadn't thought what the weapon might be and found out later, but didn't bother to make a big deal out of it. However it goes I find it hard to picture that, knowing about bolt guns, he wouldn't make the connection.)
Fafhrd on 5/4/2008 at 20:39
I don't think he's capable of consciously making the connection. The idea of using a device that was designed to kill animals to kill people, and blow the locks out of doors, is a level of crazy that he can't fully comprehend. Subconsciously, of course, he knows, which is why he brings it up while talking to Carla Jean and immediately wonders why he would even think of it.
I'm also firmly on the side of 'Chigurh was in the room with Bell.' The grate still being open, and the dime used to turn the screws still being on the floor is indication enough.
ignatios on 9/4/2008 at 13:25
I read him as not knowing what it was until that moment with Carla Jean. It surprises him so much that he has to talk about it, talking himself through all of its implications, without letting her know what he's realised.
The wondering out loud is just a cover-up since it's a pretty random (not to mention gruesome!) thing to bring up at breakfast.
And Anton was definitely in the room with Bell.
Scots Taffer on 9/4/2008 at 23:33
Then I guess I don't get it.
timb116 on 10/4/2008 at 09:59
Quote Posted by ignatios
I read him as not knowing what it was until that moment with Carla Jean. It surprises him so much that he has to talk about it, talking himself through all of its implications, without letting her know what he's realised.
The wondering out loud is just a cover-up since it's a pretty random (not to mention gruesome!) thing to bring up at breakfast.
And Anton was definitely in the room with Bell.
I agree with this man here on both counts. Anton being in the room is also more faithful to the book where although they dont share the same room they are both definitly in the same vacinity but Bell decides against a confrontation.
It was a pretty straight shooting film up to this point so dont really see it as going all Barton Fink on us. Although I wouldnt put it past the Coens...
