Saturday, May 31, 2008

No Country For Old Men


When considering a film's appeal there are two general categories that apply, either the film is mainstream and meant to appeal to a more general audience; or it can be seen as an  independent or "art-house" film.  I like to categorize what I watch as either a movie (if it's mainstream) or a film (if its more independent).  But rarely does a movie/film come along that operates on both levels, either you have to sacrifice the general entertainment value of the film or the substance, but rarely can you have both.  This film is one of those exceptions.

I have unashamedly seen this movie three times in the theatre and I would have no problem going again.  The first time I saw this film I knew I had just seen a movie, I mean...film, that would be close to #1 in my top ten favorite films of all time, and it was because not only did this film have entertainment value, but it worked on a philosophical level that I felt was accessible to the casual viewer.  I also appreciated the questions that this film raised in my mind from the first time I saw it to now when I am finally writing about it.

The story follows a man named Lewellen Moss who stumbles across a drug deal gone wrong, and ends up on the run with 2 million dollars.  Lewellen is faced with a moral dilemma involving one of the dying men he stumbled across at the site of the drug deal, and because of his choice he finds himself on the run, not only from drug dealers but from a sociopathic killer named Antoine Sugar.  Another narrative thread runs through this movie and it follows the investigation of the local sheriff played by Tommy Lee Jones.  His character is perhaps the most important in terms of interpreting the events of the film as the audience sees much of the story played out through his eyes.

Tommy Lee Jones' character keeps discussing his feeling of alienation from a society that has become defined by an increasing number of senseless violent acts, and explores this alienation in a series of voiceovers that take place throughout the film.  These voiceovers do not move the plot forward as much as they serve as narrative signposts that help the viewer to navigate their way through this film.  The true purpose of the film is found in the Tommy Lee Jones voiceovers, without these this movie would be no more than a standard drug-deal-gone-wrong-on-the-run-from-a-sociopath-killer movie...and we've already seen too many of those.  It is important if you desire to understand the meaning behind this film to focus on the voiceovers.  Tommy Lee Jones sets up one of the themes of this movie in the first five minutes when he recounts the story of a young man he sent to the electric chair for the murder and who claimed that if he was let out he would murder again and that he was not afraid of the idea of hell or a final judgment.  The sheriff then asks, "What do you do in the face of such evil?"

That is the underlying question to be asked of this film.  What is the sense in what you are watching?  And what is our response to it as an audience member?  To me the film portrays what the world would look like if there was no reality of a final judgment.  Without a final judgment than there is no protection from men like Sugar.  If we only have to fear men to deliver our judgment than there is nothing that can stop the evil of someone who has lost their fear God and man.  If one lives by a solely humanistic ideal than there is no sense to be made in the violence or wickedness of this world, there is no one man can rely on to make things right in the end, and that is a disheartening thing.

The redemptive aspect of this film comes in a dream that Tommy Lee Jones has and recounts to his wife.  He talks about finding himself in a night of utter darkness and as he is standing there his father rides past him with a horn of oil that has a fire.  And his father rides past him out into the night and up ahead begins to prepare a camp for him.  And then he woke up.  When I first heard this I immediately thought of Jesus and thought that that is truly the only hope we have.  In the face of wickedness and senseless violence I know that Jesus has gone before me, he has suffered through the violence of this world and now he has gone before me and is preparing a place for me.  (John 14:2)  Although the reality is that this hope is only found in those who can claim Christ as a Savior, without Him though, there is no hope for justice or ultimate meaning. 

P.S.  On a side note I would like to say that the aesthetics of this film are spectacular.  The cinematography, direction, acting are all superb.  The cinematographer of this film is named Roger Deakins.  Please click on his name and if you have a love of cinematography start working your way through his filmography...he truly is amazing.

What It's Worth:  If you are feeling up to it (it is violent and stark) rent this tonight.

Here is a link to the trailer.

3 comments:

Ched said...

Good Review.

I'm a fan of McCarthy, but I hadn't read this book yet. The themes of the movie resonate with the themes of McCarthy's other works.

Dreams are also very important in his novels, so I was satisfied with the movie ending the way it did, "And then I woke up."

I think you nailed it in your analysis: the voiceovers are the "poetic seams" that provide the lens through which to view the violent narrative. Without them, the film lacks cohesion. On a side note, this is the glaring deficiency of the Narnia films. Some stories need their narrated interpretive framework.

The only meaning in the incomprehensible evil must come in another world, whether the next world, or a dream world.

I thought they brought out the meaninglessness of the violence most fully with the car crash that breaks Sugar's arm. He has been killing and wreaking havoc throughout the movie, but in the end, he doesn't even get the money (someone gets there first), and for all his killing ability, he gets blindsided in the suburbs (at the mercy of two naive teenage boys).

Even in his "code" of honor (killing the wife because he said he would), he cannot escape the utter violence/evil which he himself so forcibly embodies.

George Justin Blizzard said...

I think labeling movies/films as movies/films based on some sort of merit can be kind of snobbish and arbitrary and superficial.

I didn't read the rest.

I will later.

George Justin Blizzard said...

Didn't No Country for Old Men come out like 20 years ago?

This blog sucks.