No Country For Old Men

No Country For Old Men seems to have been just unpleasant enough to garner critical attention. The film had its points (few, but sharp), and while I don't begrudge it a few laurels (the Coen brothers doubtless need encouragement too), I do think it represents a relatively minor contribution to the Coen canon, and will fade over time in ways that, e.g., Miller's Crossing and The Big Lebowsky will not. I can only hope that the garnering of prizes doesn't discourage the Coen brothers from striking out in new directions.

My principal objection to this film is that it tells a tale that had been told before (by the Coen brothers, no less) and doesn't need retelling (this should not be interpreted as a statement about the relevance of Cormac McCarthy's book, which I haven't read but have heard is superb.) At heart, No Country For Old Men is a tale of brutal deeds committed by brutal men, formally interlarded with brief visions of humanity, beleaguered and outmatched and doomed to defeat. Humanity loses. This is the non-Hollywood element, but everything else about this film seems to target the baser interests of a blood-crazed public. We see lots of brutal and gratuitous murders, some executed by drug runners, some by a psychopath, and though the latter is intelligent, philosophical, competent, and consequent, these characteristics seem like window dressing, thrown on to justify our interest in his blood rituals. Understanding what motivates a homicidal maniac may be of interest to many people, but does showing a fascination with chance, an adherence to a code of vengeance, and the capacity to exercise mercy really help us enter the psychopaths mind? Even if these elements are psychologically relevant, in this film they serve as examples of the Coen brothers' own fascinations with these themes, and seem to add nothing new to what we learned in, e.g., Blood Simple or Fargo.

Life is violent. Killing can be a passion and an ethos. Strong men crack. The good sometimes lose. OK, Coen brothers, I get it. But I got it last time, too, and the time before that. Perhaps you could say something I didn't know? Show me some interior landscape that I haven't seen before? Maybe even forge once again into the luminous territory of comedy, creativity, and history through which you've blazed brilliantly on several occasions? This was a long, painful, unpleasant film. Its plot twists kept me thinking for a few hours after the final credits, and I rather wished I could rewatch certain scenes to verify a few details here and there. But it's telling that the prospect of sitting through this film again is unthinkable. Non, mes cheres freres Coen, vous pouvez mieux faire.

Comments

Kate's Occasional Blog said…
Carlito, you are damn good at this. Why don't you quit your day job and become a full time Flick Nitpicker? Really.
March 28, 2008 at 2:40 AM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
November 11, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mouchette

directed by Robert Bresson, 1967 Bresson films don’t tell stories: they present blueprints. Mouchette’s rape is a wisp of smoke; her death a ripple on a pond. The rest of the film is a sequence of formal symbols, arranged in chronological order and designed to show how these events ensue. It is a dark, vivid, boring, and unforgettable film. Bresson’s characters never cry on screen, ill-used, abused, or undone though they be. Emotion does not edify: consequence is all. The drama that plays itself out in a Bresson film is deliberately stripped of verisimilitude, reduced to a sequence of significant sentences, inexpressive faces, and long silences. Most stories show both the good and the bad sides of their characters. Mouchette dwells on the bad. There is not a single act of selfless good will in the film. Mouchette dies not because of the bad things that happen to her, but because of the unbearable tedium of such a predictable...
Read more

L'Argent

Robert Bresson, 1983 Watching a film by Bresson is a bit like following a long and somewhat tedious proof of a mathematical theorem. In both cases the plot advances through small, logical steps which are as consequent as they are sterile. Where the mathematician strives to relieve each step of his argument from the taint of intuition or vagueness,Bresson obtains the same reduction through the paring of character, drama, and realism, leaving in their place a sequence of abstract forms whose narrative logic we admit even as we struggle tosuppress our craving for color and life. L'Argent is a somber, bloody film. It apparently derives from a story by Tolstoy, another ardent moralist with a weakness for didactic art. This is a curiousdidacticism , however: it does not so much instruct, as sketch, small, bleak segments of human experience starkly constructed with the basic,blocky elements of standard narrative. The story begins begins calmly, the story evolves calmly, the s...
Read more

Pickpocket

Robert Bresson, 1959 Robert Bresson is a small, quietly expressive man with a vaguely rodent-like face and the floppy coiffure of a French genius. In a clip included at the end of the Pickpocket , Bresson articulates and defends his uniquely minimalist sense of cinema with clarity, humility, and a controlled passion that bubbles into his smile and gestures. One senses that Bresson has thought his world through. That he has grappled with the dark currents of vice and failure, cruelty and cosmic indifference, and that slowly, deliberately, courageously, he has made his peace with these things. What strikes is how well he has come through the peace process: how for all its sinister silence, its perversion and its suffering, Pickpocket remains a film of redemption. The Pickpocket is Bresson's version of Crime and Punishment . From the avuncular cop to a misguided theory of supermen, the allusions and parallels to the Russian novel of transfiguration follow one ...
Read more