No Country for Old Men Review
I think it an important component of intellectual honesty to identify bias in advance of statements that may be influenced by said bias. For that reason I feel I should mention the experience surrounding this movie was not a happy one for me. As part of my Christmas gift my partner watched the kid so I could have an evening out with my friend. I contacted my friend in advance to get an idea when he would be available.
We didn’t meet up until 3 and a half hours later than planned resulting in a cancellation of our original plans but we thought we’d see a movie instead. My friend brought a friend of his who I had not met before. This fellow was intractable and inflexible essentially forcing us to watch this movie because in his eyes the Coen brothers, whom none of us were very familiar with beyond Fargo including the man singing their praises, could do no wrong.
Oh, I beg to differ. I’m not saying the movie was without merit but it did fail to accomplish some basic requirements of story telling and movie making.
Failure 1: Establish the Car
My friend and I, ironically the same one I saw the movie with, used to do improv. In one endowment game you pick up a series of hitchhikers and hilarity ensues. But if you don’t clearly establish the set as a car the scene won’t work as the audience spends the whole time figuring out just what the hell is going on to enjoy the nuances of your performance. This can be done with pantomime, props, or if you’re uncreative, exposition.
This movie fails to establish the car in significant ways. Most notably it’s not clearly stated that it takes place in 1980 until someone dies about 90% of the way through the movie. Prior to this the boxy cars, clothes, lack of cell phones, and low motel room prices just serve as a distraction. Had the timeframe been established I would be commenting on the quality and accuracy of the atmosphere but having not established the car properly it was a nuisance, not a nuance.
The characters, their roles and relationships, are not clearly established either. Not so much when it comes to spouses and partners but very much so everywhere else. If I don’t know who a guy is, what he does, or anything about his relationship to other characters, if any, I have trouble giving a damn and getting into the movie. You spend so much time trying to gather clues from the minutia you can’t enjoy the meat and potatoes of the movie.
(I don’t think I will even be able to write the word ‘potato’ without thinking of Dan Quayle. It’s been 15 years and yet it persists. The preceding has been the definition of digression)
Failure 2: Ending
I’m not so rooted in form to think every story needs a beginning, middle, and end or in that order. You can have 2 beginnings, no middle, and 3 endings for all I care. Hell, one of my favorite novels begins with The End; but to have no ending at all? The movie just randomly ends in the middle of a story. The bad guy’s still at large, some folks are dead, other folks may or may not be dead, and there seems to be no point to any of it.
I would love to force Mr. Pompous-That-Was-Not-Satisfying from I Am Legend to sit through this dog.
Failure 3: Under-utilization and Marginalization of Tommy Lee Jones
You take Tommy Lee Jones’ character out of this movie and nothing changes. If anything the plot becomes more cohesive and tightens up. He gives his usual great performance but he’s given criminally little to work with and a character that has no relevance to the central plot of the movie. He does nothing but slowly chase the bad guy, always several steps behind, never getting particularly close or accomplishing anything but making fun of his deputy. Yes, I understand his character was relevant to the overall theme and title of the movie but it was such an insulting footnote of a role that I would have much more gladly watched him in a remake of Smokey and the Bandit.
These 3 failures were personified when my friend repeatedly fell asleep and was snoring loudly and not a single person in the theatre minded. Frankly it added some much needed levity to the whole thing and I doubt a soul would blame him for taking the easy way out on this one.
Now as I said the movie was not completely without merit. The two main characters and their contests of wills and intelligence were fascinating to watch, however the final encounter between these characters is never shown! It builds and builds and then nothing. It was a missed opportunity to have the final encounter between these two very interesting, original, and well-performed characters. Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin given wonderful nuanced performances but are denied a climax. Woody Harrelson does a great job as well but his character has less screen time than Tommy Lee Jones but has infinitely more relevance. I like Woody but we need to acknowledge there is a continuum of acting ability and he falls far behind Tommy Lee Jones and it is painful to see Woody given so much more to do and more relevance. Steven Root is always a joy to see, but his character isn’t even given a name! So help me he is listed as “Man Who Hires Wells”
Perhaps if I had read the novel, a synopsis, or even a movie poster I would have understood and appreciated the film more but you can’t expect your audience to do that, nor should they have to. The fact is as a filmmaker you are telling a story and I think I’ve clearly outlined how they failed to do so and in turn failed seasoned actors and what seems like a great story. Now this is based on a novel, a work of fiction and apparently the movie adheres to the book faithfully. I had hoped that perhaps it was based on a true story and that might mitigate the problems I have with the film as perhaps it was adhere to actual events and life doesn’t play out like a good movie but no, that excuse is not present.
Despite my criticisms the film is intelligent and interesting, it delves into issues of morality, chance, free will, and responsibility quite well but the failures provide such a distraction and detraction from all that it truly is a shame.
I’m not certain exactly who is to blame for where this movie goes wrong but whoever’s fault it is this movie can be summed up in one sentence: A poorly executed set of missed opportunities held up but not completely saved by some good performances.
In defiance of logic the film has received numerous positive reviews and award nominations which I contend, except for the actor’s performances, is undeserved. I think it a case of so many reviewers and awards people seeing so many movies that anything stylistically unique or different is a joy to them that it catches their attention; but just because something is different or fresh does not make it good or worthy. A fart can be both different and fresh but it should not be confused with a breath of fresh air.
