Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen, 2007.
Main characters:
Tommy Lee Jones: sheriff Ed Tom Bell
Javier Bardem: Anton Chigurh
Josh Brolin: Llewelyn Moss
Woody Harrelson: Carson Wells
Kelly Macdonald: Carla Jean Moss
Production: Scott Rudin, Joel and Ethan Coen are the producers. Paramount Vantage and Miramax Film are the production companies.
Duration 123’
“you need to call it. I can’t call it for you. It wouldn’t be fair”[1]
A cat and mouse chase between three men that will lead to an unexpected conclusion. In a Texas still reminiscent of the wester era, but no longer bound by it, the future comes nocking at the doorstep of the past.
Keeping themselves loyal to McCarthy’s novel, the Coen brothers were able to create a film like never before. No Country for Old Men is all of this, but so much more as well. The auteur style of the two brothers was never so present: in the cinematography in general and most importantly in the film’s ideology. Without any doubt, the way they ask their spectator to actively interact with their work has always been a peculiarity of the Coen brothers. Meaning that above mentioned spectators will never receive an ethic, moral or ideology to side with; in fact, what is required from the viewer is to formulate their own opinion and idea on the matter. By saying this I refer to, not only the events of the film, but also the characters’ psychology. This is especially true for NC (No Country for Old Men).
Because of this, if avoiding first impression and superficial analysis of this film, in NC there will never be a definite ethical answer. Put more clearly, there isn’t a clear distinction between good and evil, but only characters with their flaws and points of view. It is not a case, if during the film, the spectator, will be able to see the world each time through the eyes of a different character and therefore understanding their perspective on things. This not only accentuates the multiple ways one might read the film, but it also connotes the cat and mouse chase between the protagonists of the film.
The peculiar switching between different characters is also present in other previous films made by the Coen brothers, for example: Mr Hula Hoop and Fargo, but also in later films like: Burn After Reading and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.
About what concerns cinematography and mise en scene, what represents better the type of cinema the two Brothers make and therefore is worth talking about is:
Throughout the film many track in[2] are present. They substitute the standard zoom in, making the movement more natural and smooth. This is due to the camera being physically brought closer to the subject. The lighting in the film is mostly natural, this is used very cleverly by the two brothers in the making of chiaroscuro[3] lighting scenes or even complete blackness. This type of lighting is used by the Coens in scenes such as Moss running away from the Mexicans, Chigurh trying to kill Moss, and the final coin toss with Carla Jean. Chiaroscuro provides the tension needed for the scenes and it also enhances the aesthetics. Lastly, I think it is important to notice the lack of music throughout the entirety of the film; the soundtrack doesn’t replace the ambience sounds, like you would expect in a western. In my opinion, the film would have been damaged by the use of non diagetic music, as the tension and suspense of every key scene would have been compromised if not lost.
What makes this film so interesting and enthralling more than anything else is, in fact, the clash between the various ideologies. Each of the three main characters represents an ideology: Moss represents opportunism, Chigurh nihilism and, finally, Bell obsession with the past and nostalgia. Both Moss and Chigurh seem to be acting under the influence of the fil rouge known as capitalism, even though they have different reasons: Moss desires money and because of this he lets his opportunistic nature transpire, he effectively reflects individualism, foundation of capitalism. Furthermore he symbolises the perfect cowboy, the American stereotype: a strong and capable man, lone wolf, always wearing his leather boots, classical iconography of the far west, even in the hospital, it is him who wears the trousers at home[4] and let’s not forget he is a war veteran. In some way one might argue that he is a symbol of the long gone past of Texas, of a wild and uncivilised America and of the gunman’s pride. Maybe it is because of this that he is destined to fail against the inevitable future and meet his doom by its hands, embodied by Chigurh.
Chigurh, instead, is hyperbolic, a true symbol of consumerism. He consumes everything he can, especially human lives. The lack of pathos in his murders and the consequent lack of meaning in life, reoccurs frequently in the Coen brothers’ films. Their nihilism could find its roots in the atheism of the positivist sciences. Hence it would be a rejection of the old religious morals by the future, this could easily describe the film itself [5].
It is also important to underline Chigurh’s second most important characteristic that distinguishes him more than anything else: his fatalism. When he doesn’t kill for necessity, consumerism, he acts as agent of fate and with his coin toss lets fate chose if spare or not his victims. This trait, unique to him, can be noticed in his speech with the shop keeper when, talking about the coin, he says: “Nineteen fifty-eight. It’s been traveling twenty-two years to get here. And now it’s here”. Chigurh makes it seems like it’s up to the coin and he has nothing to do with it. Thus giving up his free will.
When talking about Bell nothing describes him better than crippling depressed and trapped by his expectations on life and, probably, by his failures up to that point of his life. At the beginning of the film, thanks to his voiceover, the spectator gladly sides with him, his respect for the past and concept of justice. As the film goes on, however, it is impossible not to see how his lack of positivity and interest in the world makes him a negative influence. Because trapped by the past he venerates so much, Bell is always one step behind the future represented by Chigurh. In his final speech Bell describes himself and his condition perfectly: “I always thought when I got older God would sort of come into my life in some way. He didn’t. I don’t blame him. If I was him I’d have the same opinion about me that he does”. His depression manifests itself in his lack of faith, iconic really, of how the future with its violence and relativism doesn’t have time for God anymore.
Chigurh with his different haircut, flamboyant boots and lack of morals represents the above mentioned future. When Bell decides to finally go all out and capture Chigurh, he arrives too late. This finale was foreshadowed by the two twin scenes in Moss’ trailer, after he run away, where it is possible to see Bell repeat everything Chigurh did before him in the same Trailer. Like sitting on the couch, and having his image reflected in the TV, in the same way Chigurh’s image was reflected.
At the end one could say, quoting the Coens, that “the film is about a good guy, a bad guy and a guy in-between”. This incredibly minimalistic statement inevitably reminds us that life is never that simple.
[1] Dialogue between Chigurh and the shopkeeper at the gas station.
[2] Technique involving getting the camera physically closer to the subject.
[3] Technique involving the use of high key lighting and low key lighting to create strong contrast.
[4] This is connoted in one of his dialogues with his wife: “You keep running that mouth I’m gonna take you in the back and screw you”.
[5] The inside dynamic of the film, seems to re-invoke the argument between the theologian and the rationalist in Wild Strawberries by Ingmar Bergman, where the two of them dispute about the meaning of death, showing in that occasion (and maybe in all of his cinematography) the line that his work draws between the values and tradition of the western world and the modern scepticism, based on rationalism.
