Athiest or Survivalist in "No Country">

This is an article from a letter printed on RogerEbert.com, which was later responded to in a full article by Jim Emerson on his site, Scanners. It deals with the theory Anton Chigurh of No Country for Old Men was a survivalist and athiest instead of the mythical reaper figure most have implied. I advise against reading this if you have not seen No Country for Old Men. The movie is good the first two times for interpretation, the third time to look back from great readings and interpretations which do the movie justice. This is one of them, but goes too far in-depth (book and movie) and gives you the intention-of-the-creator type interpretation, which always limits the ways you can interpret a movie. http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/03/no_god_for_anton_chigurh.html#more

Something Worth Reading...

Critics need voice. I can honestly say I am guilty of what Emerson is saying here and he is convincing me to change some...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/03/movie_critics_pros_and_cons.html

Movies I'm Excited About: Iron Man

Let's talk about how to do a comicbook movie right...

I'm not saying we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of Spider-man 3, but since Daredevil the writers have learned there needs to be a balance between being accurate to the character and making a good movie. The true-to-the-book trait will give it a loyal fanbase, the word of mouth, and promises of people coming to sequels. The good movie makes the other half: box office sales, critic's praise, and a good budget. Before we go too far, go ahead and catch the trailer...

The movie is given a fair share of respect. Robert Downey Jr. is one of the few actors that can pull of the fun of the character, as well as making a millionaire like Tony Stark so hated yet fun. The human side, with its fun one-liners next to visuals that can only be expressed in comics or screen is part of why we go to these movies, and here they have it.

I'm not saying there's not a dozen ways for them to screw this up, but they are putting their best foot forward with one of the reasons we enjoy our superheroes in the first place: personality. Character development is one of the underappreciated elements that make movies. Such proof of this is in Batman Begins, where we see the Bruce Wayne and Batman characters, the level of darkness in him and a feeling of guilt, a trust towards Alfred and seperating from others. They can develope the same in Stark if they play their cards right.

Interpretation of No Country

Many people have been confused by No Country For Old Men. More amazingly is how many have been possibly (there is always room for others to argue) wrong on the interpretation. I admit some of the movie is left to be vague, but certain interpretations have been too far out there.

One of these is the argument Sheriff Ed Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) and killer Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) are the same person, hence drinking from the glass of milk in the same position, they not see each other when they're in the same room, they just missed running into each other, and Sheriff Bell talks about the cattle gun to Carla Jean Moss, but not to his Deputy.

Others argue a similiar line, stating Bell is suffering from Alzhiemers and imagined it all or has split personality disorder.

These interpretations are both rediculous. The Coen brothers kept the script impressively detailed to the book, espically during the shootout scenes and the dialouge. They cut plenty, but they did not necessarily add. Having read the book, this interpretation is not the intent of Cormac McCarthy, which the film is loyal to. Although the interpretation of them being the same person does reflect a symbol of sorts towards the nature of good and evil, it contradicts movie reasoning as well. The plotline of two people being the same person (Fight Club) is to reveal it and often have them fight amongst themselves. Any villian corrupted by their second half usually fights it (referance any movie by Sam Raimi). Here, no revealing of any such thing, no look into the mirror and seeing the other and any acknowledgement. If this was the intent of the Coen brothers, they would have given the slightest hint so for us to later realize.

The mystery behind Anton Chigurh and his actions... Chirugh is embodiment of evil, merciless, detached to the point of having no trouble killing. Opening with Bell describing the killer of the 14-year-old girl and having difficulty facing the evil sets up the point behind the story: Bell having to come to terms with such evil in his world. As Bell ends the monologue, Chigurh comes into the picture, a cinematic link to the two.

Most of you are thinking why is Chigurh involved since he wasn't in the opening shootout? The best I can recollect is Chigurh set up the deal beforehand and was on his way to collect when the officer arrested him. (In the book, it is revealed it was someone who talked bad about Chigurh at a diner, so the insulted Chigurh kills him in the parking lot. My guess is he made fun of the haircut.) I will go a step further... If Chigurh did intend on the deal going well, he would probably hunt down the side that wasn't with him and steal their half. My personal guess is Chigurh set up the deal, telling the two sides a different amount, knowing the two would argue and begin shooting. He did not intend, however, for a hunter to come across the money before he did. Indeed, as Chigurh knew who hired Carson Welles, it is implied Chigurh was in on the deal or the loan, or at least associated with whoever set it up that barrowed money from the man who hired Carson Welles.

Bottom line there is... Chigurh is involved with people who incite violence to take the money. How evil is that job?

The signifigance of the coin flip? Chigurh sees himself as a machine, a means to an end. He merciless, non-stop means to find and kill. The coin is a means for Chigurh to make up his mind, as he knows death is in truth random itself. The first man is ambivilant to life, pointlessly asking travelers where they go and just "marrying into" his livelihood. Chigurh embraces his livelihood with a passion and arrogance. We see this arrogance just before he kills Welles, where he asks, "If your code has you killed, what good is it?" Welles pleaded for his life, and having lost, Chigurh spits the worth of nobility Welles tries to keep back at him.

In the scene where Chigurh flips the coin for Carla Jean, we see morality survive as stronger than this death. Carla Jean is perhaps the wisest of the characters, but never reveals it. When she sees the window open, she knows Chigurh is there. She accepts he is here to kill her and walks in to him sitting in the shadows (the final use of lighting in the movie). Notice, this is the only time Chigurh doesn't have to chase to kill someone, instead she goes to him. He informs her of his promise (he gives death a degree of certainty) and flips. Instead of taking a chance with her life, allowing everyone to blame the coin or her guess, she does not allow Chigurh an escape from the moral ramifications. She tells him it is all on him and the coin has no say. Chigurh rolls his eyes and says he got here the same as the coin. This means Chigurh admits he is a machine, a means to the end, flipped by something greater (people, society, evil) to do what he does. We can then pity Chigurh for not having a degree of self-control in his life, as he is helpless to his function, long gone past redemption.

The refelction of Sheriff Bell is the other half of the story. His character, eximplified by being the opposite of Chigurh (he tries to save people, has manners, cares, expresses the deepest of feelings), gives two dreams left for interpretation. The first is how him and his father had a dispute over money, but he forgot about it. This dream reflects money doesn't matter to him, something significant after all the chasings due to money. The second dream is about his father going on to the mountains, fire with him, and preparing for him there. In this one, Bell accepts that one day he will die, and the fire in the darkness reflects there is hope in the beyond.


Well, that's the most I can make of the movie. If anyone has any other questions about the interpretation of the movie, feel free to comment, I'll probably respond or update the article and respond with.