"No Country for Old Men" by Cormac McCarthy

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
"No Country for Old Men" by Cormac McCarthy

Firstly, may I direct you towards a piece I have just posted about this (more specifically about the character of Anton Chigurh) on my blog? (see below)

Secondly, I would just like to say that I don't think I have ever read a book that so closely resembles the film. This could, generally speaking, be a good thing or a bad thing, but in this case, I think it is a testament to McCarthy's literary skills and the Coen brothers' skills as film-makers – their understanding of the book, their enlivening of the characters, the locations, etc. I did, in fact, decide to read this book on the recommendation of the various people involved with the making of the film who, on one of the documentaries on the DVD, spoke so highly of it and of the Coens' interpretation of it. So…

There is, in my experience, very little "out there" which is similar to "No Country for Old Men" (as this is the first McCarthy novel I have read, this does, of course, perhaps not include his other works). It is, shall we say, stylistically unconventional. It has been described as a "neo-Western," and as such, it is written in a pared down Texan patois, with little regard for paying too much attention to punctuation or superfluous verbiage. One could indeed say that the language that is used for describing the events, dialogues and thoughts of the characters therein resembles the vast, barren wastelands of Texas itself… which in turn resembles the uncluttered, focused mind of Anton Chigurh, the undoubted anti-hero of the story, who fulfils his dark destiny with an incomparable sense of purpose and precision.

There are, of course, the other two main characters – the good old boy, Llewlyn Moss, who pretty much stumbles into a whirlwind of trouble; and the cynical but morally uncompromising Sherriff Bell – but it is the "Zen psychopath," Anton Chigurh who is (and would seem to be intended to be by McCarthy) the story's main draw. He is an artful, morbidly fascinating portrayal of the potential (albeit calm, methodical potential) for "Evil" in the soul of mankind. He may or may not be a character who exists in reality, but irrespective of whether or not there are anyreal Anton Chigurhs out there, he serves as a powerful archetype of the dark side of humanity – a "warning" to us all, if you like. All very "Western"!

I'm not sure if I personally like the term, "neo-Western," but there's no doubt that this story (as portrayed through the book and the film) has a very strong Western-feel to it. The fact that it is set in the latter part of the twentieth century (1980, to be precise) does not belay the fact that it is infused with classic Western themes – the eternal battle of Good Vs Evil; the power and vulnerability of individuals; the casual, almost off-hand use of (often extreme, usually fatal) violence. "No Country for Old Men" is a Western – "neo" or otherwise; the fact that it contains trucks, automatic weapons and high-rise buildings almost seems irrelevant to this fact. And like a good Western (of the proper, serious, spaghetti type), you will come away from it feeling thrilled, horrified, morally challenged and perhaps a little disturbed…

pe
ps
oid

"the progenitor"
"the art of tea"
"that's an odd courgette"

I do, of course, mean my Art of Tea blog! ;) pe ps oid "the progenitor" "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

A very well made film albeit with a somewhat depressing premise. I saw it as being about social breakdown. Riveting to watch.
Typical Coen... and yet... not... N'est-ce pas? pe ps oid "the progenitor" "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Nicely put. Understand our appetite for film noir and you have your answer I think.
I didn't really want to get into a discusion about "No Country..." since I have not read the book but as the film has been mentioned and I have already made comments about it on my 'Snapshot' post I feel I ought to explain my point a little better. Many people will remember A Cockwork Orange a truly brilliant film version of Anthony Burgess' novel by the same name. It was released in 1971 (UK) and yet Stanley Kubrick (the director) requested that Warner Brothers withdraw the film from UK distribution - which it was around 1973 (it was re-released after Kubrick's death in 2000.) Now I saw this film with a gang of friends when it first screened in our local ABC cinema. We all greatly enjoyed the film and left the cinema full of dreams of acrobatic violence. Of course such images soon faded from our minds as we were not a particularly violent bunch - just your average rebel teens I expect. Why did Kubrick request its withdrawal? It had always been thought that it was copycat crimes which caused the withdrawal but after his death his wife said it was death threats againt Kubrick's family. Whatever the reason it shows just how dangerous a film can be - creating anti-heroes and copycat crimes. In the same vein I found "No Country..." to be a riveting film and the performance of the anti-hero was superb but I also knew that it was a dark and dangerous film and that, in my opinion, the world would be better off without it... at least for 20 years or so.
A case can always be made that dark entertainment encourages, and even endorses, antisocial behaviour. The counterargument is always that 'it's only a small minority' that take it too seriously. Being able to see both sides I always end up defending artistic freedom but that may change if and when I get attacked by someone like Hannibal Lector or Anton Chigurh. Another thought...maybe the bigger danger is that society becomes numb to this kind of thing after repeated exposure. I still don't see how a free society can stop it.
I think you've hit the nail on the head Chuck. Should we rethink our ideas of censorship and free speech? Certainly, my experiences over the last few years have made me think that, at least, there should be some penalty for those who knowing lie and cause a great deal of pain and suffering in the process. In theory libel etc, can do this but in practice you need to be rich or powerful (preferably both) and usually very patient to get any satisfaction through the courts. I don't argue with the man who said "I may not agree with what you say but I would die to defend your right to say it." but I believe that those who abuse this principle should not be allowed to get away with it unpunished. Further more I think that it is about time that the onus was on the speaker to prove the truth of what he says rather than the listener to disprove it. Having said all this I have little idea how you could enshrine it in law without opening the door to horrific human rights abuses. Maybe society is only as good as the people who make the laws and enforce them and the better they are the less laws you need. At the moment the world seems to need a lot more law :O)
I don't see how there can be legislation when it comes to the Coen brothers. They do nastiness in such an artistic way. I think I just realised why 'No Country' was so disturbing. There's none of their usual dark humour in it.
I hate to say it Chuck but censorship is bound to make a come back. Everything needs balance and always goes in search of its extremes before it can find its center! People are far more easily swayed than they would ever care to admit to themselves and the modern media has been exploiting this fact. PAD were so sucessful because they could reach a large audience via ASTV - not because they were particularly persuasive. If you can reach enough people then you will always find followers. The Internet is further proof of this and that in turn will eventually be regulated and censored as people slowly realise the dangers - especially to the young. We have somehow become convinced that anything goes is a sign of freedom when in fact it is a sign of decadence! I don't expect that view to be popular but I do expect it to eventually be seen to be true.
Well I don't disagree with you. Decadence is easily mistaken for freedom. The pendulum swings. It's the mechanics of censorship that puzzle me. How will it work? Who will decide what is OK and what isn't? Perhaps what happened recently with Messrs. Ross and Brand is an indication?
For Me the ridiculous fuss over Brand and Ross summed up the British media (in fact probably much of the Western media) and seemed to amount to “Two children put shit on actors doorstep and ring the doorbell.” Now whereas I could quite understand why this might become headline news in the ‘entertainment’ section of some third rate rag I could not see any reason for its domination of the UK headlines for what seemed like weeks. I have to admit that I was abroad at the time and most of my access to the UK news was limited to the occasional Internet session or ‘heaven forbid’ the ‘unbiased’ news as presented by Fox. Still, not being caught up in the media furore it probably gave me a better insight into just how important the Brand/Ross issue was. To digress, several months ago, here on ABCtales, I posted a link to a past article from one of the major newspapers which asserted that Tony Blair had known that Iraq had no WMD but used the fiction as an excuse to bring about regime change in Iraq. I read that and wondered why no-one seemed to have bothered to follow up on the obvious conclusion that he must have used the very same ploy to force a regime change at the BBC! One headline ’suicide’, the question of deliberate deception by an official inquiry into whether or not a report had been ‘sexed-up’ and the acrimonious departure of the head of the BBC are never even mentioned let alone considered. Why not? Could it be that it would reveal just how currupt the establishment is or is it simply that no-one actually cares and days of endless speculation about the fate of those guilty of making childish phone calls is the kind of news that the public really want? Do people actually want news or do they simply want a bit of entertaining gossip with the world headlines as a conveniant cover to disguise the magazine content within? Have we become a nation that prefers title tattle, juicy gossip and outlandish opinion masquerading as voice of the people – or is it simply that the media would like us to believe that?
And is it decadence or were things always so? Sorry but all I have is questions too.
Back to "No Country..."! Firstly... I disagree, Chuck, I think there was plenty of dark humour in the film! Although perhaps it was somewhat darker than usual. There is (or is it just me?) humour in the sinister, psychotic, coldly calculating eyes of Chigurh. Re... "it was a dark and dangerous film and that, in my opinion, the world would be better off without it... at least for 20 years or so"... ...I would like to quote Chigurh himself in response... “How to prevail over that which you refuse to acknowledge the existence of?” - i.e. how can we fight such evil if we refuse to acknowledge it exists? Or at least... would we not be better placed in such a "fight" if we stare such evil in the face and attempt to understand it? I think this is the purpose of the film/book... (or one of!)... pe ps oid "the progenitor" "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

I don't argue that we should not stare such evil in the face and attempt to understand it. It's just that I felt the film actually glamourised it in a peverse way. To put it a different way - which character in the film would you choose to be?
We seem to all agree it was a well-made and thought provoking film. I guess I'm with the old sheriff...trying to understand what's happening to society.
Just a passing thought but don't you think that the latest Batman movie (even though it caricatures) better addresses the evils poisoning modern society and actually depicts how, sometimes, good men not only fail to defeat evil but eventually, perhaps inevitably, become corrupted by it. I would argue that despite being an American film the anti-hero in NCFOM is more Samurai than Western although he does display some of the skill and charisma of the Coburn character in the Magnificent Seven that too was a Samurai rip off ;O)
I don't know if the latest Batman actually resolves anything. The Ledger character seems basically nihilistic. It certainly mirrors the complexity. Samurai movies and Westerns both deal with good guys, bad guys and nuanced guys i.e bad guys who can be good sometimes. In No Country good and evil were fairly clearly defined I thought. The evil was total, the good was confused and paralysed.
I ought to watch them both again as I was very tired when I watched NCFOM on the plane (and so I probably missed a lot of the detail) and I was disturbed twice while watching Batman - but for what it’s worth... I thought Batman latched onto perhaps the greatest challenge that faces almost every society – terrorism and chaos. The Joker is a chaotic figure who sees modern society as a facade that puts a fair face on an ugly, corrupt, system in which those who pretend to be good are, for the most part, playing the game for their own ends and would sell out their own mother should the need arise. His methods are those of the terrorists and demonstrate the power of chaos and fear of the unknown. In the end, NCFOM is just a tale of drug gangs spiced up with lots of graphic violence and a super human almost supernatural villain. Okay, it had the usual cowboy element of people taking on the gunslinger and losing but it wasn't really to be taken seriously was it? A bit like watching Kill Bill and convincing yourself that with the right sword and the wrong attitude you can kill anyone:O) For me it was the chap from Men In Black who invested the film with anything important – dealing with the fact that he was too old for his High Noon :O) NCFOM’s anti-hero was just an American style reversed reflection of the traditional Japanese hero more interested in his own version of honour and justice than in the generally accepted ones that society begs us to uphold. In the end you can probably clamp down on crime but so far it has proved impossible to do the same with terrorism - at least with any great success!
OK but to get back to your original point....the way movies like No Country influence mores...I'm sure some viewers will find the Joker's chaotic vision very attractive. It excuses all kinds of anti-social behaviour.
Perhaps, in the final analysis I feel that no-one is likely to take the Batman movie too seriously and it would be difficult to imagine how anyone could imitate the Joker if they wanted to. I feel that terrorism is something that is much more likely to be influenced by upbringing, beliefs and desperation where as coin flip murders are far more likely to be based on simple imitation. Beyond all that though Batman is essentially a black fable set in the imaginary Gotham City and with all its pyrotechnics and technicolour violence it never felt real, never seemed like something that might actually happen in the real world. NCFOM is set in the 'real' world and because of this many people will see it as real and it will just feed their fear and paranoia making the real, 'real world' closer to the one potrayed in the film. As a teenager I used to hitch-hike all around the country meeting interesting people and exchanging ideas as we drove along. I'm not actually sure that hitch-hiking is any more dangerous now that it was then but there is little chance of finding out because people are too paranoid to stop nowadays.
I know it's become a cliche but one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That's often used to justify terror tactics. I don't see much of the freedom fighter in the Joker.
I not suggesting that the Joker is a traditional terrorist (if there is such a thing) but perhaps the quintessential terrorist since he seemed to have no cause other than to cause chaos. I liked the butler's story about a similar man from his past who stole diamonds and threw them away. Batman asked how they managed to dealt with him and the butler replies "In the end we burnt the jungle down." Re your terrorist/freedom fighter comment Chuck. http://www.abctales.com/story/mykle/pepsoidian-challenge
I've seen reviews of Dark Knight where Batman is equated with Bush. Not sure if that's relevant. I've got to say BTW that as a movie I found it too long and climactic. No comparison with No Country.
Yeah, but neither can compare to the perfection of Kung Fu Panda ;O)
Well, if nothing else, I am rather pleased that my review has provoked an interesting discussion/debate! Not that one can really take credit for such… but… well… you know… one does… ;) I have to confess to not having yet seen the latest Batman, and I saw The Magnificent Seven so long ago that I’m not really qualified to discuss such… and I’ve never seen The Seven Samurai… However!... I suppose there is always a fine line, in the two-men-Vs-meat/poison vein, between portraying evil “responsibly” – even defining what “evil” is – in such a way that we (the experiencers of its portrayal) are better equipped to recognise and “fight” it… and doing so in a way that is likely to lead to emulation, paranoia and other such negative/destructive responses… and then there is the “but it’s art” excuse/justification… the nuances of which debate will probably reign for all eternity! In response to the question… Who would you be? …I have to say that I don’t really fancy being either of the three main characters! Or indeed most of the peripheral ones… :/ … But if I have to choose… From a moral standpoint, I can’t say Anton – the Sheriff is the most morally commendable (probably!); but he certainly isn’t happy with his lot. Anton, however, seems the most contented and, within his own mind and set of rules and principles and so on, “happy.” But like I said, I can’t choose Anton! May I offer a sort of compromise answer to this question, and say that I would be Llewellyn, but a Llewellyn in an alternative universe, who decides not to take the money, or going back further, doesn’t even investigate the drug-deal-gone-wrong far enough to know that there is any money to be taken…?? That darned limping dog! But I suppose it is the “limping dogs” in life which force us to consult our moral compasses… Is the “limping dog” an archetype of the devil-on-the-shoulder who leads us to great rewards, leaving us to deduce whether the risks to our body and soul are worth those rewards…?? Finally (for this post)… Ahh, the Pepsoidian Challenges! Maybe I should rejuvenate these… ;) pe ps oid "the progenitor" "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Topic locked