No Country for Old Men - "What You Got Ain't Nothing New."

I was a guest on my friend Robie Malcomson’s podcast, Knowing You Know Nothing, (click the link for the episode) this week to discuss No Country for Old Men. As usual, to prepare for the podcast I wrote an article before we recorded. So this article will be a bit more rambling than usual since it’s kind of serving as my notes for the podcast. But I think most of my stuff is rambling, so this article is probably just like all the rest...but with a bonus podcast you can check out.

“What You Got Ain’t Nothing New.”

No Country for Old Men is mainly about an aging lawman struggling to accept what the world has become. Of course, it’s not just people in law enforcement that struggle with the changing world; it’s all of us. For me, I remember it happening pretty early in a sports-related way. Whenever I went from one level to the next (like junior high to high school), I would think, “Man, they have it so much better than we had it.” It was essentially the “back in my day” bullshit we all grow up hearing. 

Things do change over time, but that doesn’t mean they are worse. If I checked game tape on basketball over the past few decades, the style of the play would be different, but not worse. A lot of this type of complaining is technology-based. As people age, they tend to prefer the more comfortable method they use for communicating and whatnot, so they’ll talk about the “simpler” times before everyone had a phone in their pocket.

Ed Tom in No Country certainly yearns for the simpler days of the past, as the film begins with his narration about how some sheriff’s didn’t even pack a gun. In his mind, the past was more peaceful, but now, with the drugs and everything, the world has become much more violent and confusing. It’s not until the end of the film that Ed Tom realizes that it’s not so much the world that has changed; it’s him. His uncle, Ellis, sums it up far better than I can: “What you got ain’t nothing new. This country’s hard on people. Can’t stop what’s coming. It ain’t all waiting on you. That’s vanity.”

Ed Tom finishes the film by recounting a dream he had about his long-dead father passing him on horseback and knowing that his father would be waiting for him ahead. I always thought that dream meant Ed Tom had accepted that he had aged beyond this world and felt comforted knowing that his father had gone through the same thing and would be waiting for him. His final line, “Then I woke up,” signifies that he’s at least aware of his situation now and has found a little peace in a hard world.

Accepting the chaos and Chigurhs of the world is something everyone throughout time could benefit from. When I was outlining this article, I thought I would focus on how crazy the world is right now and write about how this film can help someone realize that the world has always been crazy and chaotic. I still believe that, but I think focusing on that would defeat the point. It would assume that the world now is more chaotic than it’s ever been, and while that might seem like it’s the case, I can think of plenty of other historical events/time periods that would make the world feel less certain than it is today (the Holocaust, slavery, 9/11, JFK assassination, the Civil War, etc.). And I find it silly and disrespectful to try to compare horrible events to see which one is worse. 

Yes, learning the same lesson that Ed Tom learns in this film would be beneficial for a lot of people right now, but it would also be beneficial for a lot of people at any time in history. We all need to accept the title of the film and realize that this is not a country, or world, for old people. There are children growing up right now (my own two among them) that don’t see this current world as chaotic or different, even. This is just the world to them because this world is for them. Talk to them in twenty to thirty years, though, and they’ll probably tell you about how this chaotic world of ours right now is much simpler than the bullshit happening to their world in the future. And if I’m there to talk to them about it, I’ll just remind them of the lesson I took away from this movie: the world may change a bit, but people have and will always suck.

The Terminator, as Directed by the Coen Brothers.

It really hit me watching No Country this time how similar it is to The Terminator. The easy comparison is that Chigurh is machine-like and lethal like the Terminator and Llewelyn is the scrappy Kyle Reese, doing all he can survive.

There are certainly plenty of thematic differences between the films, but the long segments of tense cat-and-mouse interactions along with the scenes of preparation and self-surgery are spot-on Terminator. It makes for an interesting watch, seeing how the Coens would’ve made The Terminator.

As far as Chigurh as the Terminator goes, I actually think he’s a bit scarier because of his obsession with chance. It’s one thing to be a machine on a mission, but his strange coin flip game is a cruel addition. But then again, death in general is the same. Although I’ve never thought of Chigurh as a simple representative of death, but more as a personification of the brutal chaos of the world. In that way, Chigurh is more realistic. I can imagine someone like him existing, whereas the Terminator is more of a science fiction fantasy.

It’s pretty obvious, and plenty of others have made this comparison (as evidenced by the video below), but it stuck out to me a bit more this time for some reason.

Why Do I Own This?

I own almost every Coen Brothers movie (except Buster Scruggs [which seems silly to own since it’s a Netflix movie] and Hail, Caesar!, which has not grown on me enough yet. I used to be a completionist, which is why I own Intolerable Cruelty. All that written, I’d own this no matter who the filmmakers were. I believe this is easily in the top ten of the past twenty years.

Random Thoughts

I’ve seen this movie at least a dozen times, and this is the first time I noticed that Llewelyn’s first line is, “You hold still,” which is very similar to what Chigurh says to the unfortunate motorist in the previous scene. One is killing a man, the other is killing an animal. I suppose this film is asking if there’s a difference.

Gas station and grocery store scenes in period films always bother me because they rarely get the product packaging right. In this case, the Jack Link’s beef jerky in the background should not be there since the movie takes place in 1980 and Jack Link’s wasn’t founded until 1986. Not to mention that there’s no way the packaging looked like that in 1986. It’s a pet peeve that I wish I could ignore. Who else would let beef jerky take them out of such an amazing scene?

“Age will flatten a man.”

I love how the trailer park office lady says, “Did you not hear me?”

“You telling me he shot this boy in the head then went digging around in there with a pocketknife?”

“Sir, I don’t want to picture that.”

“I don’t either.”

Hotel clerk, incredulous: “That’s got two double beds!”

This is a movie largely comprised of scenes of preparation and tension. Come to think of it, that’s another reason why this movie reminds me of The Terminator more and more each time I watch it.

It’s also an all-time Coen Brothers film in regards to scenes with people working behind counters and desks.

“Is Carson Wells there?”

“Not in the sense that you mean.”

“They torture them first. Not sure why. Maybe the television set was broken.”

“But that’s what it took, you notice, to get someone’s attention. Digging graves in the backyard didn’t bring any.”

“Oh. That’s all right. I laugh myself sometimes. Ain’t a whole lot else you can do.”

“It’s certainly true that it’s a story.”

At first, I was annoyed that Llewelyn died off screen. Now I see that the shift in narrative focus is part of the point. People die and the focus drifts to the next person.

I was confused for a while about where exactly Chigurh is when Ed Tom goes back to the hotel. But you can see briefly that the lock to the next room has been shot out, as well. So I believe he’s waiting in the next hotel room and takes off while Ed Tom is looking through Llewelyn’s room.

“I always thought that when I got older, God would come into my life.” I’m not so certain now, but there was a time when I just thought older people were religious because they were old, and that’s what you do when you’re old, and that when I got older I would become much more religious. I’m not exactly old, so perhaps this will still be the case when/if I’m elderly.

The “vanity” line from Uncle Ellis really speaks to me. The idea that it’s vain to assume the world is at its worst during your lifetime is something I use to comfort myself from time to time. When I was little, I used to be very worried about the end of the world (the impending year 2000 was a point of concern for me for a while). Eventually, I came to the realization that this current generation of humanity is nothing special, so why should the world end while we’re here? It’s a bit of a messed up way to comfort yourself, sure, but it works for me. Why would the world end while we’re here? We suck too much for the apocalypse. An apocalypse would be wasted on us!

When I watched this in the theaters the first time, some dido behind me said, “Are you serious?” at the end. Yeah, they’re serious, you fucking moron. Look at the title. It’s called No Country for Old Men, not The Coen Brothers Made a Terminator Movie and That’s All. I hate to claim that someone doesn’t “get” something, but if you watched this movie and came away disappointed by the end, which encapsulates what the movie is actually about, then...you didn’t get it.

Here are a couple paragraphs of notes that didn’t make the cut for the first section, but I didn’t want to just delete them:

This is why we die. If we live too long, this world changes too much for us to handle. It happens sooner for some people. For simple folk like myself, I’m able to step away from it mentally and focus on other things, like parenting, video games, movies, work, etc. Life sometimes seems like one big distraction from the world.

But I don’t believe humans have become worse over time. We just know more things now. I imagine plenty of fucked up terrible shit happened even back in the cave dwelling days of humanity. But all we have to go by are some cave paintings of deer and shit. Now, we can just go back through someone’s Twitter history to find out how big of a piece of shit they are. We’ve always been awful, now we’re just better at letting everyone know, and, worse, a lot of people are proud of it.

..

Meet the new Bond, (almost the) same as the old Bond

Skyfall - Directed by Sam Mended, written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan, starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Ben Whishaw, Albert Finney, Ralph Fiennes, and Javier Bardem - Rated PG-13

This just makes sense: a Chigurh for a film in which Javier Bardem plays the villain.

 

 

 

 

Casino Royale marked the introduction of Daniel Craig as the new James Bond and set up his tenure as dark and brutal, which was quite a departure from a series that at one point went into outer space.  I loved the film, though some were not fans of the tonal shift and the lack of traditional Bond elements like Q and his gadgets.  Then Quantum of Solace came out and ruined everything (for me, at least).  It was utterly forgettable, had indecipherable action, and was implausible, but not in a fun way.  After that film, MGM (the Bond studio) went bankrupt and it put Bond on an indefinite hiatus.  Apparently all that time off allowed them to come back and get things right…again.

 

In many aspects, Skyfall serves as a segue into a new Bond, even though the actor is the same.  Q and the gadgets are back along with a lot of familiar music.  (There are also a lot of changes and additions that would be considered spoilers.)  There are plenty references to Bond being an older man and how the old ways need to give way to the new.  It basically felt like the filmmakers were saying, “You know that brooding, hulking Bond?  Well, we’ve toned him down a bit.  Meet the new Bond, (almost the) same as the old Bond.”  That is just fine with me.  I dig the more hardcore James Bond that Craig created, but I also love some gadgets.

 

Skyfall stands apart from other Bond films in that it is a very personal story for both Bond and MI6.  Bond is presumed dead at the end of the opening mission and is forced to resurrect himself as a spy.  MI6 is attacked and is forced to revaluate their function in a modern world.  Bond gets to do battle with a bitter old MI6 agent (Javier Bardem), and M (Judi Dench) gets to do battle with bureaucrats like Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes).  The stakes are exponentially higher than they were in Quantum, when Bond was trying to save the utility department of Colombia or something.

 

If the stakes are high, then the action will prosper.  Skyfall has a few gigantic action set pieces and they are all well shot and impressive.  Any action fan should be pleased, but you should not expect nonstop action.  In fact, there is about an hour lull between action sequences.  Normally, that would be a flaw in pacing, but the film does not suffer from it because all of the inner workings of MI6 are actually quite interesting.

 

Rarely do you get downtime in a sequel.  This is Daniel Craig’s third outing as Bond, so there is really no need for him to hang out in the office.  In the previous films, he never seemed to be in England.  Finally, he’s been corralled in a bit and the audience has a chance to breathe between location changes, a welcome change to the usual breakneck speed of sequels and action films.  The interactions between Bond and M help make this time bearable, as Skyfall brings to fruition their love/hate relationship.  Fiennes is there to mix things up, and Ben Whishaw, as Q, makes every scene he’s in a bit more interesting. 

 

A good Bond film is usually defined by its villain, though, not by the protagonists.  Javier Bardem was brought in to give Craig his first true villain.  I am a big fan of Mads Mikkelson (Casino Royale), but he was not very imposing as far as villains go.  He had an inhaler! (The villain in Quantum doesn’t even deserve mentioning; I only bring it up to let you know I did not forget about the boring Mathieu Amalric.)  Bardem ratchets it up as a weird, tittering, angry psychopath.  He’s basically like the Joker from The Dark Knight, except he’s more than happy to let you know why he’s so messed up.  Some have already cried foul about the similarities, but I’m cool with it.  He’s entertaining, and that’s all that matters.  In fact, my only complaint is that we don’t get to see him until over an hour into the film.  I suppose that adds power to the reveal, but more Bardem is always good.  He chewed up the scenery and it was exactly what the film needed. 

 

Bardem may have chewed on the scenery, but the scenery itself made the film absolutely beautiful.  This is easily the most impressively cinematic Bond film.  Director Sam Mendes and Director of Photography Roger Deakins present one amazing visual after another.  The locales, like Shanghai, are naturally exotic and beautiful, but they add to it using a vast array of colors and it is shot in a way so that it can be appreciated.  I also liked how a lot of the film is shot behind Bond, so we get to enter most of these locations right along with him.

 

Skyfall was a long time coming, and it was certainly worth the wait.  Those let down with the last effort, as I was, will be pleased.  Those who are upset with the direction the series had taken in general might not be completely happy, but they definitely have less to complain about with this one.  I consider Casino Royale to be one of the best Bond films ever made, and now Skyfall is part of that discussion.  Let’s just hope they don’t need to restart it again anytime soon.      

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I have to admit that I loved seeing James Bond get all Home Alone when they all started booby-trapping the old house.  Bonus points go to M for her awesome lightbulb shotgun rounds.

I thought this was a very good send off for Judi Dench.  I must admit that it felt kind of weird that she remained as M, even though Bond changed.  (I know it's happened like this before, but this is first time I witnessed the change as the films were released.)  Looking forward to seeing Craig report to Fiennes for at least two more films.

It's good to finally have a Moneypenny and a Q. 

How cool would it have been if Pierce Brosnan had been Bardem's character.  A former agent cast aside, back with a vendetta against M.  That would have been amazing.  It would also acknowledge that James Bond is simply a code name just as M is.  Still, I was happy with Bardem's performance. 

"Biutiful"

Biutiful - Directed by Alejandro González Iñárittu, written by Iñárittu, Armando Bo, and Nicolas Giacobone, starring Javier Bardem - Rated R

It's very fitting that I can give this movie a Bardem-worthy Chigurh.



Biutiful, the latest from filmmaker Alejandro González Iñárittu (21 Grams, Babel, Amores Perros), is not a pretty film. The film, which is mainly about death, is gritty in the best sense of the word. The world of the film is lived in and realistic, even though the film itself has a supernatural undertone. It’s a tough film to sit though, but it is ultimately very rewarding.

Consider the above paragraph the full review if you want to go into this one fresh, which I highly advise. This isn’t a big twist ending kind of movie or anything, but if you only have a vague idea of what the film is about it will most likely be a much more rewarding experience. The rest of the review won’t be filled with spoilers or anything, but it will spoil the supernatural element, so be warned.

Biutiful is about Uxbal (Javier Bardem), a single father who is about to die of cancer. He has to deal with an estranged wife, dealings with illegal immigrants, and the fact that he can talk with the recently deceased. Yes, you read that last part right. Don’t be alarmed, though, this is not a Spanish version of The Sixth Sense. The supernatural element is extremely toned down, but the issue of death in general certainly is not.

Death is in Bardem’s eyes throughout this entire film. He gives a truly understated performance (it was great to see him get an Oscar nomination for Best Actor this week). Much of the film focuses on Bardem’s facial expressions and you can see such desperation in his face. It’s a very sad performance that will stick with you after the credits roll.

When the camera isn’t focused on Bardem’s face, there are some interesting things going on. A careful viewer is rewarded with very slight visual effects (reflections, shadows, etc.) that make the film a bit unsettling at times. Unsettling is a good thing when the film in question is about death. If you miss out on those details, the film may be a bit too slow and languorous; so make sure you focus on this one.

There are strange audio aspects of this film, as well. The soundtrack is a bit different here and there, but that’s not it, exactly. The sound design of the film (usually something that doesn’t draw attention) is a bit odd. When characters hug, it sounds like they are wearing microphones. But you can also hear their heartbeats. It’s an effective use of sound. There are many moments that stick out in this film because of sound and they work to develop Uxbal’s character. Uxbal is all about order and discipline at the dinner table, that’s obvious from how he reacts to his son making too much noise as he eats. But the sound puts you in Uxbal’s shoes. The grating sounds of a fork on a plate and a table leg being kicked are amplified to the point of annoyance. The entire film shows Uxbal’s perspective in ways like that and it ends up being very effective.

Biutiful does have its faults, though. At two and a half hours it runs a bit long. This wouldn’t be an issue if the film maintained focus on Uxbal. But Iñárittu couldn’t resist adding more storylines. The subplot with the Chinese couple could’ve been left on the cutting room floor. The characters are needed for the story to build Uxbal’s character and to show why he needs redemption, but there was no need to follow their story when Uxbal wasn’t around. This is just a minor problem; though the film would have been better if it had been limited to two hours.

Biutiful is an interesting film that leaves the viewer with plenty to think about. It won’t hit you over the head with a message or strong visuals, but if you pay close attention to it you will find it very deep and possibly moving. In a cinematic world that seems to be obsessed with astounding visuals and straightforward messages, it’s nice to see a low-key film like Biutiful.


Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Just wanted to point out the interesting things I spotted during my viewing:

Uxbal's reflection when he bends over to pick something up in front of a door doesn't move, even though he backs away into the street.

The shadow of the fork Uxbal uses when he gets home from the nightclub is a bit behind (or ahead?) of the actual fork's movement, though this one is fairly obvious.

The butterflies on the ceiling lead to some speculation of their meaning. There are plenty of theories out there, depending on what culture you belong to. Either way, it's something to talk about.