Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Movie Mix

No War for Old Men

By James Rocchi, Huffington Post. Posted March 26, 2008.


No Country for Old Men is a striking metaphor for the challenges faced by our democracy.
Advertisement

Recently, the winner of the 2007 Oscar for Best Picture, No Country for Old Men, came to DVD, and I've had the chances to re-watch it several times since I first saw it at Cannes in May. We've also recently marked the fifth anniversary of the beginning of major combat operations in Iraq. And the one had me thinking about the other. Looking at any film for the presence of symbolism and metaphor for its times is one of those exercises so simple it can possibly slide over the line to simplistic, but even back in December (when I first wrote some of these notes below down) it was easy to see No Country for Old Men as a striking and cautionary tale about the challenges democracy is facing right now. And as we pass the fifth anniversary of the War in Iraq, I think we've all been thinking a lot, lately, about what exactly five years of this war -- a war ostensibly started to make us safer -- has actually done to eliminate the threat of terror. Over the months, my repeated viewings of No Country for Old Men led me to a very different reading of the film than the one I had at first, and increased my already substantial admiration for the film.

Of course, it's got to be said that the elements in play that led me to this perspective may not be intentional on the part of the Coens or Cormac McCarthy; at the same time, I think that how No Country for Old Men offers as many -- and as rewarding -- readings as it does is a great indicator of why it's going to endure. Tommy Lee Jones's Ed Tom Bell is a Sheriff, the classic Western hero (which is to say the classic American hero), but his time-honored ways and methods can't cope with the seemingly irrational Chigurh (Javier Badem). Josh Brolin's Llewelyn Moss isn't motivated by tradition or law; just capital and expediency. But he's not prepared for Chigurh, a man who can't be bribed or threatened or worn down or outrun.

Chigurh is inventive, bold and resolute; he has a value system, even if we can't understand it. He will kill on principle, and does not care if we find those principles hard to comprehend and accept. He also doesn't have much respect for the principles and codes of the West; as he asks Woody Harrelson's Carlson at gunpoint, "If the rule you followed brought you here, then what good was the rule?"

Ed Tom is the past -- tradition and honor. Moss is the present -- greed and self-protection. And neither of them can face what's coming, or are willing to. Ed Tom talks a mean game, and he's folksy as hell, but he doesn't really do anything to stop Chigurh from finding and killing Moss, and he doesn't go to Odessa to find Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) and keep her safe afterwards, either. Ed Tom can't even imagine someone using a cattle-killing gun as a murder weapon anymore than we could wrap our heads around the use of hijacked planes as weapons, even with warnings in advance.

Moss can run, and Moss can hide, but after a lifetime of thinking he's pretty damn tough, he finds out -- the hard way -- that he's wrong. There have been some theories put forward that Chigurh is the spirit of death itself in the film, but Chigurh isn't some ghost. He's shot by Moss, hit by a car; he's flesh and blood, just a man. Ed Tom or Moss could have killed him -- if they had been willing to "push all their chips in," risk their lives in the struggle, let go of the things they thought mattered.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war on terror, iraq, no country for old men



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Mr. Rocchi, I find your analysis of No Country for Old Men
Posted by: paula.c on Mar 28, 2008 4:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
incredibly beautiful and frighteningly true. How long can we Americans go on in this corrupt fashion? We must end this obscene war.

More power to you

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting interpretation
Posted by: glbrt1812 on Mar 28, 2008 5:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for sharing these ideas. I like the movie better after reading them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All that blood
Posted by: Urstrly on Mar 28, 2008 7:11 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
really obscured the message of the movie for me, I guess, but I can't help but feel the US long ago abandoned the Ed Tom role for something far more aggressive. Maybe we were uncomprehending of the enemy we faced in 2001,2002, early 2003, but we struck out blindly at a killer who posed no immediate threat to us and let those who did threaten us go free. And now our aggression has spawned more killing.

The man of the house liked No Country a lot better than I did. As with much that springs from the mind of Cormac McCarthy, I felt women were pushed to the margins, but I'm not giving up on the Coens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yet again ...
Posted by: ladybroadoak33 on Mar 29, 2008 2:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yet another review of this film without mentioning the women in the film.

Sigh.

America's greatest problems are systemic racism and sytemic SEXISM.

A little FACT most people overlook.

People wonder how US policy with its torture agenda has become SO psychopathic; I do not.

Look to the reservations of indigenous persons and see what you see.

Look at the discrancies in money earned by males and females for the VERY SAME WORK after DECADES of fighting for equality.

To me, the most interesting and truest depiction in the movie is that the Mother in the film, who has now be totally traumatized her entire life, is depicted as INSANE; she's totally marginalized as she rails against The System.

The US war of aggression on women, children and people of conscince is definitely the theme of the movie and it could not have been depicted better than the Coen brothers show it, thanx to their skill and Cormac McCarthy's incredible book.

But I think the lessons in this movie are going way past people's consciousness, what they REALLY are.

The impotence of the sheriff in PROTECTING the females is the real lesson - and he ends up with no real relationship with his wife in the end either. She gets to be bearing all the responsibility for social order, but has no "official" status in being able to have real POWER to change anything that happens. In America today look at the icons - the Condi, the HiLIARy, Britney, Paris - c'mon all whores to the corporate, neoliberal globalist state.

Have another, DEEPER Look at this film.
You might write a better review that includes the morality lessons for WAY over 50% of the US population - it's not *just* a movie about White Guys.

I want to mention one other thing I noticed: Canadian audiences and American audiences reaction(s) to this film are COMPLETELY different. Totally. Although Canada is a US puppet state, in the main we are more evolved racially and still speak out about psychopathology shown to racial groups. The depiction of the REAL US NEOCON morality has us TALKING about the film.

For a look at the Thatcherization of the UK, people must watch The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. This is really the only comparable movie showing the progression of the INSAME state .. which runs on the idea that the MADMAN ideology is to supercede any human rights.

It's that DEGENEATE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

movie was too gory and nihilistic
Posted by: whealeydj on Apr 5, 2008 4:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ind i was disappointed that it made the immoral killer who couldnt be stopped. it seemed like a return to the anti hero that dominated movies in the lates 1960s and 1970s. As a metaphor for a worthless war ok but I think you have to do a lot of interpretation to get any redemption out of No Country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not only about Iraq but...
Posted by: saltpeter on Apr 23, 2008 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think from the perspective of Cormac McCarthy's initial writing (shortly after Vietnam) it seems to be a story about America's enemies after WWII. Up until WWII America often fought Europeans, people who had a very similar sense of morality and shared values. Even during WWII, in many ways, Japan gave American forces a harder time because they have a culture where kamikazes existed (an inconceivable tactic to Americans) and a strict loyalty to the Emperor was of utmost importance. Even after the two atomic bomb blasts, Hirohito wasn't necessarily willing to concede defeat. It was the fear that there might be more atomic bombs that finally caused him to surrender.

McCarthy seems to be suggesting that Chigurgh is a man with values, deeply rooted in fate, that are extremely foreign to most Americans. The best that these West Texas characters can do to figure him out is, in the case of Bell, chalk him up as a new form of incomprehensible evil and, as Carson Wells, simply a crazy psychopathic killer. At no point do any of these characters, including Llewelyn Moss, attempt to understand him on his own terms. They merely apply their own value system and judgement upon him and react accordingly. The reason that we came to a tie in Korea, lost in Vietnam, are losing in Iraq, and had to use drastic measures for victory in Japan is that we were/are fighting within cultures who value life and property differently and prize disparate ideologies than we do. Until we recognize that, and until we deal with our "enemies" on levels that are meaningful to them, we are doomed to constant failure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]