A lot of comments in so little time, I have to second, it’s indeed a great post. the site is nicely desgined…

I now long-established my email subscription! Appreciation!…

Hi. I wanted to drop you a quick note to express my thanks. I’ve been following your blog for a month or so and have picked up a ton of good information as well as enjoyed the way you’ve structured your site. I am attempting to run my own blog but I th…

Nice posts indeed…

Impressive publish! STICK WITH IT!…

Thank you very much. This really helped me with my work. I appreciate your help. Thanks a lot….

Great blog.. Thank you for the advice and the warning.. It is a big help for me.. great job.. i hope i can see more of this…..

Thank you for sharing your article I would always follow…

The Killer murdered Brolin’s wife offscreen. We know this because he leaves home and
wipes his shoes off. I presume that it was blood he was wiping as to not leave a trail or
footprint.

Tommy Lee Jones says a monologue at end of movie that I listened to twice but did not
understand. From reading your responses I am glad at least the Coen’s know what they
wrote in this ending scene.

Great movie with a disappointing ending. I did not get to see anyone do anything
meaningful at end of movie that brought closure. I am left guessing as to what happened
and what it all meant.

The Killer murdered Brolin’s wife offscreen. We know this because he leaves home and
wipes his shoes off. I presume that it was blood he was wiping as to not leave a trail or
footprint.

Tommy Lee Jones says a monologue at end of movie that I listened to twice but did not
understand. From reading your responses I am glad at least the Coen’s know what they
wrote in this ending scene.

Great movie with a disappointing ending. I did not get to see anyone do anything
meaningful at end of movie that brought closure. I am left guessing as to what happened
and what it all meant.

I still stand firm by my prior comments… but in light of some of the insightful
commentary that has since graced this forum, I’d like to add a few things that have
occurred to me since then…

I think that it might be a mistake to try and succinctly label each character as a certain
iron-clad device within the film’s narrative… even though those ready assignments
might make the story’s progression a bit more palatable and easier to swallow. Surely,
much as been said about what each character supposedly represents… but I wonder if
the film’s abrupt resolution is a reflection of what happens when a Director is too
married to archetypes at the expense of apropos storytelling? (Keep in mind, I know that
the book ends in a similar fashion… it is not the climax itself that irks me, but it’s
execution)

I found the final denouement with Bardem and Brolin’s girlfriend to be quite well done
given the film’s otherwise disappointing (in my humble opinion) finale…
Her refusal to take part in Bardem’s game of chance… the very definition of his role
within the tale… speaks volumes about what this film COULD have been.

And then… we get the car crash…

It’s just too bad that the film didn’t end there… with Bardem a victim of the very engine
of brutal chance that he championed earlier. But his survival is expected… and it seems
to me a rather heavy-handed device to drive home such an obvious point. Especially after
the filmmaker’s careful restraint in rendering the assassin’s calculated execution of his
business with Brolin’s noble mate…

Instead… we get the final didactic soliloquy that carefully reinforces the film’s cryptic
title (just in case you hadn’t figured it out by this point and needed it clearly spelt out for
you).

Feh… just because you CAN doesn’t necessarily mean that you SHOULD…

Again… just my humble opinion…

I still stand firm by my prior comments… but in light of some of the insightful
commentary that has since graced this forum, I’d like to add a few things that have
occurred to me since then…

I think that it might be a mistake to try and succinctly label each character as a certain
iron-clad device within the film’s narrative… even though those ready assignments
might make the story’s progression a bit more palatable and easier to swallow. Surely,
much as been said about what each character supposedly represents… but I wonder if
the film’s abrupt resolution is a reflection of what happens when a Director is too
married to archetypes at the expense of apropos storytelling? (Keep in mind, I know that
the book ends in a similar fashion… it is not the climax itself that irks me, but it’s
execution)

I found the final denouement with Bardem and Brolin’s girlfriend to be quite well done
given the film’s otherwise disappointing (in my humble opinion) finale…
Her refusal to take part in Bardem’s game of chance… the very definition of his role
within the tale… speaks volumes about what this film COULD have been.

And then… we get the car crash…

It’s just too bad that the film didn’t end there… with Bardem a victim of the very engine
of brutal chance that he championed earlier. But his survival is expected… and it seems
to me a rather heavy-handed device to drive home such an obvious point. Especially after
the filmmaker’s careful restraint in rendering the assassin’s calculated execution of his
business with Brolin’s noble mate…

Instead… we get the final didactic soliloquy that carefully reinforces the film’s cryptic
title (just in case you hadn’t figured it out by this point and needed it clearly spelt out for
you).

Feh… just because you CAN doesn’t necessarily mean that you SHOULD…

Again… just my humble opinion…

“Tommy Lee’s lawman was essential to the film, as the Old Man who was always a step behind the two main protaganists – intentionally so. He is the aged sage of the sagebrush, mystified by the violence and amorality that Vietnam, Watergate, crack cocaine and Ronald Reagan had and would inflict on America. Brolin was the cyncial vet, clinging to a country long dead, while Bardem was the Wall Street assassin who would doubtless take his millions and make a mint on leveraged buyouts.”

Greg Follender’s comment below really made me think more about the film:

“I fully understand that his (Brolin’s) death is one of the lynchpin moments that cement Javier Bardem’s character as a sort of elemental force or personification of the brutality of random chance (or Death, if you must be literal)… but the choice to portray this climactic moment off the action is not only counter-intuitive to the story-telling voice established throughout the majority of the film, but it is also unfair to the film’s audience who have invested their attention (and dare I say.. hopes?) in one of the story’s main protagonists… only to have his tale’s climax take place without them sitting in witness.”

If Bardems character is fate & chance then I think this unexpected & disapointing part of the film is appropriate to feeling the vulnerability that we all have to fate & chance.

But ultimately, I don’t agree with some of the ideas here that some characters were not needed. I think each one represents a positon dealt by either fate or chance that most of us experience at some point in life, yet never have the objectivity of an observer.

Tommy Less’s character presents the feeling of knowing exactly whats going on, but despite that always being one step behind and never being able to catch up. He is futility.

Brolin is on the edge; one wrong move and everything falls apart. He made one single error in judgement and thinks he can run, then hide, the kill it, then confront it, then reason it away, then outsmart it…. maybe he represents regret or something.

It is suggested that Bardem IS fate & chance. I’m not sure about this. It seems to me he might represent faith in fate or chance. He tosses the coin, he is sure about everything he does, but he remains the same, unmoved & unchanged by his experiences.

Woody Harrleson’s knows exactly what his fate is. he represents the desperation of knowing.

The girlfriend is the most obvious one even though many of you think her part is unimportant. Much of the movie deals with a focus on her being safe, her being moved, Brolin getting back to her, Bardem promising to go to her… and ultimately we do not know what happens to her. She is the “not knowing” where fate & chance will take us. She is uncertainty.

Anyway… perhaps I over thought it. But just my 2 cents. I really enjoyed reading everyone else’s perspectives.

“Tommy Lee’s lawman was essential to the film, as the Old Man who was always a step behind the two main protaganists – intentionally so. He is the aged sage of the sagebrush, mystified by the violence and amorality that Vietnam, Watergate, crack cocaine and Ronald Reagan had and would inflict on America. Brolin was the cyncial vet, clinging to a country long dead, while Bardem was the Wall Street assassin who would doubtless take his millions and make a mint on leveraged buyouts.”

Greg Follender’s comment below really made me think more about the film:

“I fully understand that his (Brolin’s) death is one of the lynchpin moments that cement Javier Bardem’s character as a sort of elemental force or personification of the brutality of random chance (or Death, if you must be literal)… but the choice to portray this climactic moment off the action is not only counter-intuitive to the story-telling voice established throughout the majority of the film, but it is also unfair to the film’s audience who have invested their attention (and dare I say.. hopes?) in one of the story’s main protagonists… only to have his tale’s climax take place without them sitting in witness.”

If Bardems character is fate & chance then I think this unexpected & disapointing part of the film is appropriate to feeling the vulnerability that we all have to fate & chance.

But ultimately, I don’t agree with some of the ideas here that some characters were not needed. I think each one represents a positon dealt by either fate or chance that most of us experience at some point in life, yet never have the objectivity of an observer.

Tommy Less’s character presents the feeling of knowing exactly whats going on, but despite that always being one step behind and never being able to catch up. He is futility.

Brolin is on the edge; one wrong move and everything falls apart. He made one single error in judgement and thinks he can run, then hide, the kill it, then confront it, then reason it away, then outsmart it…. maybe he represents regret or something.

It is suggested that Bardem IS fate & chance. I’m not sure about this. It seems to me he might represent faith in fate or chance. He tosses the coin, he is sure about everything he does, but he remains the same, unmoved & unchanged by his experiences.

Woody Harrleson’s knows exactly what his fate is. he represents the desperation of knowing.

The girlfriend is the most obvious one even though many of you think her part is unimportant. Much of the movie deals with a focus on her being safe, her being moved, Brolin getting back to her, Bardem promising to go to her… and ultimately we do not know what happens to her. She is the “not knowing” where fate & chance will take us. She is uncertainty.

Anyway… perhaps I over thought it. But just my 2 cents. I really enjoyed reading everyone else’s perspectives.

I teach Journalism, Literature, Film History, and Film Application. My students are taught
that the Arts do not exist to tie up endings in tidy false resolutions that make audiences
comfortable. On the contrary, they exist to provoke thought, evoke emotion, and bring
about change in the reader/viewer. That which is considered Art (and we all agree that
not all that is framed, bound and published, or shown in theaters can be called Art)
challenges us to reflect, evaluated, re-evaluate, interpret, etc. Quite often pieces are
“unsatisfying,” seemingly leaving us hanging. There is a reason for that. Now, there are
certainly those pieces which are poorly done and unresolved because they lack
appropriate structure (for the genre), or because the writer/director compromises the
details or characterization that pull the story off track. However, keep in mind that the
stories that wind up neatly target our base level; we don’t need to interpret or examine
because we are not challenged, but are, rather, merely entertained. That’s the mass
audience most films “shoot” for. Then there are the films that allow us to think,
encourage us to discuss, to get out of our instant gratification mindset and tackle
philosophical, moral, and ethical issues/questions that open our eyes to who we are.

Our brains crave resolution; they look for patterns in order to solve puzzles. When that
doesn’t happen we feel off balance, unsatisfied. We often mistake dissatisfaction for not
understanding, or for someone not doing his job properly. We are selfish viewers and
want film makers to pander to our whims, and when they don’t we discuss whether or
not the film was worth our time. What if we try to see films from the artists’ points of
view? Just because we don’t get it or don’t like it doesn’t mean its not valuable.

“No Country” is not necessarily told the way I would tell it, but I understand it. The main
characters are not Llewellyn and Anton. Tommy Lee Jones’ character is. He is the one
who goes through changes as a result of events in the film. As you discuss this further
please investigate other types of characters, learn who Llewellyn and Anton really are in
this film, then view the movie again or just rethink it. You may find that it has much
more to offer than selling out to the masses.

Also, it is possible to debate without circular thinking, big words, and convoluted
sentences. That doesn’t make for an intelligent argument, only a pretentious one.

I teach Journalism, Literature, Film History, and Film Application. My students are taught
that the Arts do not exist to tie up endings in tidy false resolutions that make audiences
comfortable. On the contrary, they exist to provoke thought, evoke emotion, and bring
about change in the reader/viewer. That which is considered Art (and we all agree that
not all that is framed, bound and published, or shown in theaters can be called Art)
challenges us to reflect, evaluated, re-evaluate, interpret, etc. Quite often pieces are
“unsatisfying,” seemingly leaving us hanging. There is a reason for that. Now, there are
certainly those pieces which are poorly done and unresolved because they lack
appropriate structure (for the genre), or because the writer/director compromises the
details or characterization that pull the story off track. However, keep in mind that the
stories that wind up neatly target our base level; we don’t need to interpret or examine
because we are not challenged, but are, rather, merely entertained. That’s the mass
audience most films “shoot” for. Then there are the films that allow us to think,
encourage us to discuss, to get out of our instant gratification mindset and tackle
philosophical, moral, and ethical issues/questions that open our eyes to who we are.

Our brains crave resolution; they look for patterns in order to solve puzzles. When that
doesn’t happen we feel off balance, unsatisfied. We often mistake dissatisfaction for not
understanding, or for someone not doing his job properly. We are selfish viewers and
want film makers to pander to our whims, and when they don’t we discuss whether or
not the film was worth our time. What if we try to see films from the artists’ points of
view? Just because we don’t get it or don’t like it doesn’t mean its not valuable.

“No Country” is not necessarily told the way I would tell it, but I understand it. The main
characters are not Llewellyn and Anton. Tommy Lee Jones’ character is. He is the one
who goes through changes as a result of events in the film. As you discuss this further
please investigate other types of characters, learn who Llewellyn and Anton really are in
this film, then view the movie again or just rethink it. You may find that it has much
more to offer than selling out to the masses.

Also, it is possible to debate without circular thinking, big words, and convoluted
sentences. That doesn’t make for an intelligent argument, only a pretentious one.

Furthermore, for a movie that is trying hard to send a message, I find it ironic that the use of so much violence really doesn’t lead to much of a thought-provoking ending. Anyone who’s ever listened to their grandparent or someone that has lived on earth a long time could tell you everything and more that this movie sort of attempted to say.

Furthermore, for a movie that is trying hard to send a message, I find it ironic that the use of so much violence really doesn’t lead to much of a thought-provoking ending. Anyone who’s ever listened to their grandparent or someone that has lived on earth a long time could tell you everything and more that this movie sort of attempted to say.