No Movies For Young Men
From a friend…
So I was browsing your blog this morning and noticed a rave review of No Country for Old Men. I recently bought the dvd and just watched it for the first time this weekend.
Frankly, I just don’t understand why anyone thought this movie was remotely watchable. I mean, I enjoyed the psycotic Javier Bardem character and all but there was just so little else…and the ending? Jesus. I actually said to myself as the credits were rolling…”what happened to Lard Ass?”
I’d really love some commentary on why people found this movie enjoyable…I honestly think people give media way too much credit just because a story leaves something out, leaves something to imagination or just doesn’t finish the story that was set in motion. Yes, it was a different way to tell a story but that’s all I saw…
Overall, I just didn’t find it entertaining at all…perhaps I was angered more b/c it won an oscar, etc.
Thoughts?
Okay, I’ll bite…
This movie seems to inspire the same sense of bewilderment in some of its viewers that Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) felt about the rising tide of violence in West Texas in the early 80’s.
Somewhat ironic that much of the audience (see the incredible amount of one and two star reviews on Amazon.com) is completly missing the main theme of the movie: Life can be relentless and complex, and will at no time bend to neatly fit your expectations. There are forces at work that you simply can’t control and it’s an act of conceit to believe otherwise. The sooner that you realize this, the better off you will be.
The big hangup seems to be that the people who didn’t like this film were generally expecting a big shootout out at the end and were disappointed when the directors chose to resolve most of the big plot points off the screen.
If you look at the details presented in the film, it’s pretty clear that:
- Moss is killed by the Mexicans at the motel at the end of the film
- His wife is killed by Chigurh at her house
The only detail left up in the air is who got the money, Chigurh or the Mexicans, and I believe that this is purposefully left unsolved because it really doesn’t matter - the movie was never about the money.
Now, assuming that a second or third viewing of the movie will make sense of the plot points for someone, is a negative reaction to the movie still justified?
Sort of.
You could say that it’s boring, you could say that it’s too “artsy” or violent, you could say that you didn’t like the characters - I suppose all of those would fall into the “you’re entitled to your own opinion category” and it would be tough to objectively argue against such subjective things.
But, to say that the movie was “unwatchable” or didn’t deserve Oscar consideration doesn’t fly with me. Hyperbolic media reactions aside, this film deserves the accolades that it has received, and if you can’t at least “appreciate it,” even if it’s not your cup of tea, then I say order another Bud Light at The Olive Garden and enjoy your breadsticks because, like Sheriff Bell, you’re in for a long hard ride from here on out.
Now, I’m no elitist (in the past week I’ve watched a NASCAR race from start to finish (who’s going to stop that Kyle Busch!?!), seen “Iron Man” in the theater, and yes, have even put back a couple of Bud Lights), but in this case I’d say that if you go beyond not personally enjoying the movie and question others for thinking it’s great, you’re in the wrong on this one.
To be fair, my friend’s comment above doesn’t go this far, and our subsequent email exchange confirmed his open mindedness about the film, but he’s uncommonly reserved compared to most of the people who didn’t like this film.
I’ll also admit to not really answering his “what’s so great about this movie” question - there are much better commentaries out there to read - and also to having asked similar questions myself in the past:
For example, I don’t “get” the new Radiohead album that made the top of every single best of 2007 list last year. I’m still waiting for someone to explain the genius of it all to me, but knowing enough about Radiohead and their prior work (”The Bends” is coming to any desert island I ever get sent to), I’m willing to concede that there is something happening there above and beyond the huge amount of hipster-fanboy fanboying going on.
I’ll also concede that there are plenty of things out there that really are lousy, “No Country For Old Men,” is just not one of them.
And, one last point, depending on your definition of “psychotic,” I’d argue that Chigurh is potentially the least psychotic character in the entire movie.
Other comments?
