No Country For Old Men (First Viewing)

Oh, I need to thank you for that heads-up! I couldn't sleep last night, so I watched Blood Simple. I like it at least as much, possibly even more than, No Country..... Amazing to think it was the work of a first-time director!

 

This is one part of the movie I have a hard time taking at face value.
The "Cow Punch" or "Captive Bolt Gun" would NOT go unnoticed by those who are supposed to notice oddities.
There is no way he is placing that bolt against my head while I calmly stand there and allow it to happen, and I suspect most others would react likewise. Maybe he kills me anyway, but there would be a struggle of some kind.
Portraying him simply walking around with this thing is somewhat absurd.

Yes, it may be relatively quiet, but knocking out a lock set with raw power is NOT quiet. Plunging a bolt into a scull does not produce a silent, clean death.
You are not checking into a Hotel with that thing unquestioned. Maybe you explain it away as an oxygen tank for COPD, or some other affliction, but they do not go into that in the movie.
We are just left to expect this big item goes unnoticed, unknown, and silently into that goodnight...

Don't get me wrong. There is a lot to like about the movie. The cow punch going unnoticed, however, does not work for me.

 

At first watch I was thinking the same as you've outlined.

But Chugurh didn't come across as a hit man or any type of threat considering the odd and out of style page boy haircut and blue jean jacket and slacks. He looks like a self employed pest control exterminator.

For me it would be understandable with the kind of country bumpkin "mind your manners" types he came across on the highway and in remote towns that his oddness would've thrown them off with a kind of hypnotic curiosity to see what he was going to do. The bolt gun is so foreign and unfamiliar and he was often quick about using it if you recall some of those scenes out on the remote highways.

 

Fun fact:

Spoiler

This forum allows spoiler tags!

 

I had never read the book but was disappointed the sheriff wasn't explored more. Seemed like the most interesting character in the movie, IMHO.

 

Why on earth would you expect spoiler tags for a movie that won the academy award for best picture 10 years ago? If you haven't seen it, crawl out from under your rock but don't expect people to hide their conversations.

How would you know it was any kind of bolt gun meant to cause bodily harm? It doesn't need any explanation. Most people who want to kill you don't ask you politely to stand really still while carrying what looks like an oxygen tank. Even when Chigurh does use a firearm to murder, it's never at a moment that people expect. But the Coens are brilliant at making these quirky types of things work.

 

Besides the ones you mentioned, Woody, Tarantino, I would add David Mamet. Dialogue driven but also very stylized. The Coen's are more stylized than dialogue driven, as you noted, but that's not to say they do not have quotable dialogue. The Dude anyone? Good points.

 

Yeah, his part was pretty skimpy, so I wasn't completely feeling his part.

 

Just curious since I didn't read the book but was wondering if this bolt gun is in the book? Or is this a Coen brothers invention?

 

It was a symbolic part. He represented law. Chigurh, chaos. Llewelyn, is the everyman that exists with free will to explore.

The really haunting moment is the way it ends with the recounting of the dream.

 

I like No Country for Old Men as a thriller. It's one of those "invisible" Coen brothers movies like Blood Simple or Burn After Reading or True Grit. Non-satire. It's just very well directed. I think the Coens are great filmmakers, with a few clunkers like everyone else. I call it 50/50 Woody vs the Coen's career-wise. Woody is funnier, though.

 

The movie very closely follows the book in this and all other plot devices (the bolt gun being used traditionally to kill livestock is meant to symbolize man is no different than animals) and the fact that Chigurh consistently uses it to open doors is not a coincidence either. Cormac M. was consulted by the Coens for the film.

 

The Coens had definitely matured a lot since their days with Fargo. I don't think they could have made No Country back then. Possibly their masterpiece, although Fargo, Big Lebowski and my favorite Barton Fink are up there too. Their films are more thoughtful and better written than Woody's.

 

Not happening without some sort of defensive response.

Nope, nobody will suspect anything, or even look at him with the tank, hose, and thing in his hand...except for just about everyone.

It is unlikely he is walking around with a sawed off Remington 11-87 shotgun with a large suppressor without being noticed either.
This is not exactly your average conceal and carry weapon.

 

Okay, so you are telling me the very "country bumpkins" who are most likely to actually know what a cow punch is, because they either use it for cows, or know of others who use it for cows, would not take notice to a stranger just walking around with one?

Then you have to take into account the victim is so trusting as to let an odd man, with an odd tool, place a thing against the forehead without so much as a flinch?
Now where I come from. Not with the people I know. There would be some reaction, other than simple death.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying it is not an inventive weapon for a movie bad guy. I am simply saying I don't think a guy walking around with one would get away with it so easily.

 

Yeah, you've said. People are generally trusting, and predators are generally good at preying on people. You've taken those photos out of context, badly. In the first photo, Chigurh had been driving a police car and had pulled over the victim, who thought Chigurh was an officer. If you're trying to tell me you'd take defensive action against a police officer at what you thought was a routine traffic stop, I've gotta call BS.

The second photo looks like an orderly or RN at an old folks home bringing some oxygen to an elderly resident. What's your point exactly? We know he's sinister because we're the audience in a movie where he's clearly the bad guy, but taking this photo out of context proves the point opposite the one you're trying to make. The third photo doesn't show any context, either. Chigurh was rarely walking around with that thing, except in the dead of night with no witnesses around, and in a hotel where he had recently killed anyone who could identify him and he was stealthy enough to sneak up on someone who was supposed to be hunting him.

 

“You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

 

Thanks for the reply Greg.
First. The photos are not taken out of context because I presume people responding have seen the movie, and thus understand the context already.
An "Officer" in plain clothes, pulling me over and attempting to place some object against my head, for no good reason, would get some sort of defensive reaction from me.
Even if that reaction was to simply step back, to the side, or away, I would not simply let him do so. That is not BS.

You are correct. He does look somewhat reasonable and could probably come up with some plausible excuse to tell anyone who asks questions...but that does not happen.
People would look, take notice, "see him" based solely on the O2 tank because it would draw attention. Not necessarily negative attention, but attention just the same.
Last, concerning the shotgun. I call this unlikely based on direct experiences.

Finally, these are opinions...my opinions. I think these items are a bit much to take within the limitations of the movie. If you still like the movie then so be it.
I like the movie, even with the issues I mentioned, but that does not mean my opinion is any less valid from my experience and perspective.

 

Thank you too. People are conditioned to follow officer directions and not resist. If someone gets out of a cop car, they're presumed to be an officer, even a plain clothes officer. The victim acted skeptical that he did anything to warrant being pulled over. He was reluctant to exit the vehicle and seemed to be resisting the reaction you suggest (e.g., step back) specifically because he was being directed to stay still. I haven't seen the movie in a while, but did the victim not initially seem to recoil, prompting Chigurh to direct him to stay still? The victim voiced his skepticism at several points, and his reaction was well within what anyone would call normal in that situation. This scene was set up as a juxtaposition to Llewelyn targeting the antelope at long range, who gave similar direction under his breath to stay still.

It doesn't happen because Chigurh was strategic about carrying the thing around and avoiding being seen with it, except presumably prior to the beginning, which landed him in police custody. The film showed that Chigurh was strategic in his actions. For example, even though he wanted to coerce or kill the receptionist at Llewelyn's trailer park, he heard a toilet flush and decided to leave. He seemed conscious at all times of where he was and who could potentially see him. The film went to great lengths in showing him avoiding stepping in blood, so that he couldn't be tracked. This is meant to show that he understand how to avoid being caught.

Everything about Chigurh is unlikely. As for the shotgun, like the O2 tank, he didn't walk around where crowds could see it. He was strategic about isolating each of his victims and taking them by surprise, from the officer at the beginning to Carla Jean at the end, without leaving witnesses that knew what happened.

I hear you, but of all the movies that require suspending disbelief I think this is far, far down the list. Chigurh is not walking up to random people with the tank or the shotgun. He targeted each victim pretty much in seclusion for a specific purpose.

 

That really didn't answer my question. Was the bolt gun in the book or did the Coen brothers come up with it for the movie?

I'm not seeing any symbolism in this movie. I understand those that do. The early '70's "Parallax View" with Warren Beatty was the one and only movie where I could derive symbolism in the writing, directing, set locations and cinematography.

 

You are describing what you would do and think that applies to all. It is clear that the driver was not focused. Perhaps he is a city folk (driving a newish Ford Granada the luxury compact Mercedes designed look with the cost efficient feature for oil crisis) that felt rather annoyed that he would be pulled over at all for no good reason. He seems dressed nice and rather oblivious to the supposed weapon that doesn't even have a gun attached. I mean it is literally a release trigger that could very well look like an instrument.

The dude was caught off guard and while he clearly looked worried/confused, he was mainly processing after getting over his original annoyance. Doesn't seem to unreasonable to me, especially when he is looking at a police car with what could be a plain clothes officer. Again, all kinds of assumptions instead of looking at the scene for what it is, and the unlikely nature that the man approaching would be dangerous.

But hey, let us go with your example..are you saying that there aren't people ignorant enough to not even question it? The dude even asks "what is that"...and "what is that for?" As impossible as this may seem, there are people in this world that don't even know what an gas cylinder is, let alone understanding what it could do at close range.

Of course, outside of that range..which is what, a few inches...they are pretty ineffective as a weapon being that they are merely blowing air. So as long as the tank doesn't have the end suddenly cut off why would anyone in this world bat an eye at someone walking around with it like say a million businesses people do daily. Much less in Texas as you pointed out! It is not like the things are illegal (though there are state safety policies if one wants to get technical) and cattle get a headache from them by the millions. Other than one dude, no one gets killed by it. It was used distinctly to take out locks, and with the way it looks and the fact that it isn't a crime to walk around with and the fact that it is virtually no danger to anyone (heck it is even a slow club weapon)...again lets say if one did notice. You think anyone would do more than just feel it was a little odd? Think Texas, think anyone that does know about it, would think it was a dude just going about his business.

Sorry, I don't agree with this being an issue with the film at all.

Where did this happen? He walked around during night time scenes and we don't know when he pulled out the shotgun, let alone put that suppressor on. I would think a good assassin knows where people are and when to strike. I saw no indication that a bunch of people were looking at him or that he was making any effort to pull a gun out where people could see him. As pointed out the lobby of the hotel could have been empty...people already dead...or just pulled the gun out seconds before (like maybe behind a chair...in a bag...whatever...waiting for Carson to show up.

Just because an assassin chooses a weapon for a day (much like blowing out locks with the cattle bolt), doesn't mean that this is his choice of a weapon for life. You use the tool, and then ditch it eventually. Actually I see every indication he did just that after leaving Carla (I am not sure what weapon he used...if any).

I don't know if I can say that is true. Your perspective can be that he is walking around in places that can be greatly noticed, but then when you examine the facts yes it does takes away validity when I see very little indication that this is the case. At best what you say is a theory, like perhaps there is a convention just out of view that has stopped mid drink/food/conversation and here is this man weirdly walking by with a shotgun without a care in the world, or what is likely to be true with a hotel in its evening hours (perhaps on a weekday) with nothing going on...dead as Julius.

Oh and for the record, it is legal in many cases to carry around shotguns (loaded at that) if you are properly licensed. In Texas this is a common occurrence and again no one would bat an eye. Not following this one either.

I have no reason to believe the suppressor was put on anywhere else besides the last minute. It be screwed on in mere seconds...some with quick release.

 

You and I have lived different lives and this has given each of us a different perspective, and way to react to the world around us.
My opinions, likes, and dislikes, are not a statement of who is right, wrong, or indifferent. They are my opinion about what I saw in the movie, and how I reacted....Not how you reacted, or they reacted...How I reacted.
I hope you don't think I am trying to change your mind, sway your perspective, or garner some sort of special place.
I made my statement, explained my reasons, and you can either live with that or not.

I still like the move despite my minor grievances. I own a copy on DVD.
There is a lot to like, but this does not change my reactions to what I watched during the movie.
I hear your positions, and respect your opinions and hope you understand I am not arguing against your sides.

One tidbit lies in the open carry laws in Texas. I don't think they allowed this until passing laws in 1995. While open carry is now legal in Texas, especially due to the 2015 law, walking around with an open shotgun (meaning not in a case of some sort) is not normal. I believe the movie is set in 1980. I think this explanation is about as far as I can go with this particular subject matter, while still remaining within forum rules. I do not wish to get this fun thread closed. If you need to reply concerning this matter please do so via private message. Or just keep it to yourself. I will not respond any further concerning firearms, and the laws governing them, in this thread. I hope you understand my point here.

 

Obviously. The world would be a dull place if that were not true. I never said you were right or wrong and apologize if it seemed that way to you.

As for the open carry laws, good point. Though I think even in the 80's it still wouldn't have been that big of a deal.

I see no reason to close the thread down because of a few words or some debating about the finer points as long as it is done in a respectful manner.

Forgive me if I didn't keep it to PM or heed your warning of keeping it to myself (if you were communicating with me). I find it impossible to have a meaningful discussion without placing some reality to the subject at hand in its proper perspective. Also, I don't think it is really fair to post a statement and then tell the other person not to respond (even in part). If it breaks the rules, that is on me.

Also that includes enjoying others points of view, which when it comes to yours, I thought it through, looked over what you have stated, and countered in kind. I meant no disrespect which is why I edited after I posted to curb quite a bit of what I said taking out various question marks, more direct statements, and taking out several parts that just seemed harsh. I usually try to do this before the fact, but time and mood obviously changes this.

Either way, it still made me think of this great film more and that I thank you for along with your general thoughts even if I disagree with them.

 

Just re-watched this movie yesterday. Its brilliant and I am sure I will watch it again. The one and only choice that the Cohens made that really bothers me is the death of Moss. I know its probably selfish of me as the viewer but I feel strongly about my disagreement. Why in the world did they choose NOT to show the audience this man's demise ? We have followed this pursuit throughout the movie. We probably are rooting for him to survive even though we know he won't. We hear gunshots as the sheriff is pulling up and we see Moss dead in a motel room. I feel like they cheated the audience out of a great dramatic scene. I find it very unsatisfying to not see his death at the hands of the cartel.

 

I think to emphasize the movie is about tommy lee jones and how he handles evil he can’t understand. How he experiences Moss’s death is more important than the killing scene.