Mooreover / Blog

I saw “No Country for Old Men” this weekend (see new quote in sidebar). I wish I could say that I had a definite feeling about it, but I don’t. It would seem to be an easy film for me to like: I love the Coen Brothers (screenwriters, producers, directors) and I love Cormac McCarthy, who wrote the novel that the screenplay was adapted from. I guess loving the parts doesn’t equate to a love for its whole.

Those of you who aren’t familiar with the Coen Brothers by name might be more familiar with their work (Fargo, Barton Fink, Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, O Brother Where Art Thou?). If I had to pinpoint what makes a Coen film different, it would probably ride on their ability to humanize the villain. Violence is prevalent in their films, but I wouldn’t say that it’s glorified - rather, each depiction seems to reveal the absurd and futile nature of the act, and - in turn, the absurdity and futility of the character carrying out the violence (Fargo probably illustrated this best).

This ideal takes a sharp turn in “No Country for Old Men,” and not having read the novel, I’m guessing that this is due more to McCarthy’s influence than a change in the Coen brothers. The violence, while absurd - doesn’t reveal the futility of the villain, but the futility of the fight against evil. In their other movies, justice has a voice. In this movie, it’s the silence of justice that has one of the larger roles.

I, myself, believe that evil should be fought, and that that fight isn’t futile - so the film didn’t sit all that well with me. That’s not to say that the movie isn’t good for many other reasons, but this was not the indefinite feeling I was hoping for in attending a Coen film.