Comments on The House Next Door: Point Blank: No Country for Old Men

Rachel: I went into detail about this scene, compl...

2008-11-27T09:22:00.000-05:00

Rachel: I went into detail about this scene, complete with screen shots. Might help you. I'm not sure we agree on where Chigurh is standing in the shot of the light coming through the door, but when Bell opens the door Chigurh certainly isn't behind it.

It is interesting that Bell sits down on the bed and puts away his gun. Then again, he's seen enough of Chigurh's carnage to think that if Chigurh was in the room and wanted to kill him that he'd be dead by that point.

"shoulda read the book fellow, lot of stuff you pr...

2008-11-26T17:53:00.000-05:00

"shoulda read the book fellow, lot of stuff you praise the filmmakers for came strait out of the book."

i agree. i love the book. i love the movie too although i don't think they dealt with the character of the sheriff as well as they could have and i think that's kind of essential to the take-home message of the movie.

anyway, as far as the sheriff/chigurh scene in the motel room, i just wanted to throw some comments out there because i'm writing a paper about this movie for a class right now and this scene is driving me fucking nuts! :) i've read a lot of good interpretations but i just wanted to point out some erroneous observations that have been made as well as air a couple of questions about the scene that bother me.

1. the shot of chigurh inside the room does not show the shot-out lock on the right. instead, what you see is a circle of yellow light shining through the hole in the lock and onto a wall. therefore, chigurh is not behind the door. instead, he must be against the back wall, or i guess really in the back left corner of the room (what would be the left as you enter the room).

2. based on this, i think my favorite explanation is that SOMEHOW (though it's kind of a stretch), the sheriff does not see chigurh when he enters the room, and chigurh slips out while the sheriff is in the bathroom. i agree with what others have said, that chigurh doesn't kill people unless he needs to.

3. what still BOTHERS me, though, is that after the movie makes such a point of showing us that the bathroom window is LOCKED, the sheriff HOLSTERS HIS GUN and sits down on the bed with his head in his hands! the first time i saw this movie i thought the window was unlocked, and that the sheriff therefore presumed that chigurh had escaped through the window and that the scene was now safe. obviously that's not what happened. i guess i just don't get why they make such a point out of the window being locked if the explanation i described is correct. to me, the locked window screams, "CHIGURH'S STILL IN THE ROOM! TURN AROUND WITH YOUR GUN DRAWN!" but the sheriff's actions obviously don't jibe with that.

so what's the deal?! :P great movie, but now i'm going crazy!

anon: I did read the book prior to a second viewin...

2008-09-14T11:05:00.000-04:00

anon: I did read the book prior to a second viewing of the film. This is not an article about the differences between the movie and the book.

The point of this piece is not to imply that the Coens are responsible for ever single element of characterization and plotting. If there were things that the Coens didn't like or agree with, they would have changed them outright or altered them to bring them in line with what they wanted -- and they did make changes, some major, some minor. The purpose of the piece is to show how their adaptation of a source results in a movie consistent with the values and themes expressed in their other work. For "Goodfellas," Martin Scorsese kept the core of Nicholas Pileggi's book "Wiseguys" and changed and embellished a lot of the particulars, but the movie is still an expression of the director's artistic sensibility and world view.

shoulda read the book fellow, lot of stuff you pra...

2008-07-01T00:22:00.000-04:00

shoulda read the book fellow, lot of stuff you praise the filmmakers for came strait out of the book.

Greets all ...Here's my take on the final Bell/Chi...

2008-05-05T22:22:00.000-04:00

Greets all ...
Here's my take on the final Bell/Chigurh scene in the hotel room.

In the scene immediately preceding it, Bell & Old Deputy sherif speak of life (theres "NO Counrty for Old Men"....Realy.) and Chigurh's audatious returns to the scene of his own crime (killing the hotel proprieter @ the hotel eagle), to kill again (Carson Wells). I think that this thought is in Bell's mind when he approaches the hotel door behind the police tape--he imagines that this is the case here as well and that Chigurh is in the room.

You can see the resolve in Bell's face as he decides to enter anyway, letting fate be what it may. Most blogs I read say Chigurh is behind the door.

The film trick- is in the split screen of both Chigurh and the dead bolt hole in the door.The hard to see Split-Screen showed Chigurh on the left and door hole on the right.

THIS confuses the viewer into thinking Chigurh was behind the doorhiges. He was UNDER the BED.

The next view of the hole only shows it from the eye view angle of Chigurh's under the bed position.

It seems to me that it was Bell's poor detective work, sitting on the bed etc...and that Chigurh simply did not kill him because Bell "did not see him" like the Accountant had.

I do not really like how this type of filmography has to be anylzed to this level of ambiguous depth though!

I also never could figure out why Chigurh deserted the money under the tree in the first place.

A plant maybe?....he had the homing device....Perhaps he was cleverly caught by the cop he strangled.

But a great movie anyway.

Wolfgang Youngs
Poughkeepsie NY

Here's my take on the Bell/Chigurh scene in the ho...

2008-02-18T17:00:00.000-05:00

Here's my take on the Bell/Chigurh scene in the hotel room. In the scene immediately preceding it, Bell & his deputy marvel at how Chigurh returns to the scene of his own crime (killing the hotel proprieter @ the hotel eagle), to kill again (carson wells). I think that this thought is in Bell's mind when he approaches the hotel door behind the police tape--he imagines that this is the case here as well and that Chigurh is behind the door waiting for him. You can see the resolve in Bell's face as he decides to enter anyway, letting fate be what it may. So it seems to me that it was Bell's imagination at work, and that Chigurh wasn't actually behind the door. I do like how it is left a bit ambiguous though!

I can't believe nobody has picked up on a very imp...

2008-01-10T10:09:00.000-05:00

I can't believe nobody has picked up on a very important part of the film just before the crash. It's the only time we see the behind Chigurh's mask, a clue to what he was and how life shaped him. I'm referring of course to his reaction to the boys on the bikes with the clicking from the spokes, an expression washes across his face almost Mona Lisa like. Is he thinking about the innocence of youth, his own one time innocence or indeed what it happened in his youth that made him the way he is?

Re: Craig’s Coens’ [w]holes: Chigurh’s as omnipot...

2007-12-27T01:57:00.000-05:00

Re: Craig’s Coens’ [w]holes: Chigurh’s as omnipotent as Death and as fallible as the universe. And so should Chigurh be 'less scary and a shade more ridiculous' at second glance; a slave to “Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men”. When all, all is said and done, Carla Jean’s defiance outlives, transcends the skulking, pathetic, absurd cipher who only kills to cover his backs, and checks his boots for tracks. Death be not presumptuous;
like my comments.

I'd like to change my previous post just a bit. I...

2007-12-15T05:21:00.000-05:00

I'd like to change my previous post just a bit. It helps to "re-read" the post in word (i need the cheater spell check help).

I also added my last bit of opinion regarding the line "Then I woke up". I end the post with my thoughts on this. Thanks.

**************
In my opinion the 'message' of the movie was left for us in the last speech of the sheriff (Jones) where he describes not one, but two dreams.

The first dream was about receiving 'something' from his father while in town. The sheriff believes it was money, but he wasn't sure. Whatever it was 'he lost it' and felt devastated for doing so.

The second dream was about being on a perilous journey with his father. His father went on ahead, left him behind, and the sheriff hoped he was going to make a fire.

Then the movie ends.

Now, before I give my interpretation as to the message of the movie we can all agree that about three quarters of the way through the movie it changed - dramatically. For me, it started when the cowboy, Lewelyn (spelling?), was all of a sudden found dead in that hotel room. I don't know about you, but that was really abrupt. For me, he was the guy I was rooting for so when he all of sudden showed up dead ... well, at that point I said to myself, "This movie is not going to be about what I thought it was going to be about ... about the money, the drugs, the bad guy, the good guy, etc. It "MUST" be about something else."

So, I started to look for something else and I found out loud and clear in the last speech of the movie - the two dreams.

That being said, here's my take:

1. The two dreams are prefaced by the movie itself and they change the movie entirely – from what we all thought was the "plot" to becoming simply a "point" trying to be made. And in my opinion the point is this: we are an absolute mess. There is too much random violence and senseless evil stampeding all around us. And we are focused way too much on this violence b/c of the pleasure we receive from watching it (or participating in it). We thought the whole point of the movie was the cat-mouse game between the cowboy and the killer ... and right about as we were going to get to the climax of that storyline the director's pretty much pulled the plug on us as to say, "Ah-hah. We caught you all with your hand in the cookie jar! See how titillated you've become with this violence, money, drugs, etc." Taking this away from us right when we wanted it most shows us exactly what we want so much. What a genius way to show us.

2. We are in such a mess b/c whatever fathers have passed down to their young sons the sons are confused about what they actually got. Additionally, "whatever" it is they were supposed to receive from their fathers while young sons they've gone ahead and lost it anyways (the first dream).

3. The sons are still alone today in their scary, perilous journey through life - REGARDLESS OF AGE. Not only did fathers not pass down to their sons whatever it is we all needed them to have in order for our society to escape the epidemic of vile, random, and senseless evil acts AND our entertainment of it, the 2nd dream reveals that we as sons are still not getting what we need from our father's today. Our fathers have left us and we're still holding on to a hope without hope they've gone ahead to make us a fire (warmth, light, security, etc). But, just as the inference in the movie was one of despair and defeat, we too in our hearts know there's no fire up ahead. Dad is gone. He' left us and we're on our own to fend for ourselves on a long, cold, lonely dark road.

Lastly, we need to start as the movie ended, “Then I woke up.”

We must wake up. We must wake up and stop the violence. We must train our sons, as young men, to be men and stand up for what is right and good. We must as fathers pursue the “fire” in our dark journey. We’ve been left no light, path, or company, but we must move forward with the “hope” of the fire being the best light to guide us. And, we must as fathers build that fire WITH our sons, showing them how to build it for their sons to follow.

Just my opinion and what I took from the movie. Great movie in that regard.

I thought maybe Chigurh was hiding under the bed i...

2007-12-01T17:34:00.000-05:00

I thought maybe Chigurh was hiding under the bed in the motel room.

Nomi, you touched upon one of my problems with the movie: Bell is not a good lawman. He spends most of his time whining about how times have changed (granted, it's Tommy Lee Jones in laconic Southern delivery, but to me it still registers as whining), he doesn't diligently follow up leads, and he continually destroys evidence at crime scenes.

Forensic science wasn't nearly as advanced in 1980, but they still had stuff like fingerprints. If Chigurh already had a record, maybe they could've circulated a photo of him or something?

I just didn't have much respect for Bell, which I think is problematic when his character is intended to carry significant moral weight.

One more thing to throw into the mixer...was anyon...

2007-11-29T18:05:00.000-05:00

One more thing to throw into the mixer...was anyone else told the story as a kid about looking through a keyhole? That if you did, you would either see the Devil or a ghost?

That just occured to me in thinking about the motel scene, and Bell looking through the blown keyhole...

To me it is cut as though Chigurh is behind the do...

2007-11-28T20:59:00.000-05:00

To me it is cut as though Chigurh is behind the door. The problem is, though, that when Bell opens the door, Chigurh's feet would have to be about four inches long to fit in the space left -- the door appears to open virtually all the way.

I do agree that there is a suggestion of the supernatural about Chigurh's imperviousness. But not in a literal way. I can't buy that he simply disappears. That would be ludicrously inconsistent.

But where the heck is he? I understand the idea of frustrating or subverting our expectations, but I don't understand the usefulness of this kind of confusion.

I think the thing that bugs me most about the idea...

2007-11-28T17:37:00.000-05:00

I think the thing that bugs me most about the idea that Chigurh isn't really in the motel room, that he is either supernatural in this sequence, or a figment of Bell's imagination, is that the Coens, it is safe to assume, are well-versed in film theory. And isn't the first thing you learn Eisenstein's theory of montage? The way in which disparate shots can be cut together to form a reaction? (The example I was told was a shot of a branch snapping, and a second shot of a deer looking up. Two completely separate images, but together you assume the deer is reacting to the branch.)

Anyway, the cutting in the film suggests that Chigurh is looking at Bell's reflection in the key lock cylinder. This can't be accidental. The Coens know exactly what they are doing, and this sequence would not be put there haphazardly. I believe the sequence goes:

Bell approachs motel door
Sees cattlegun-blown lock, considers it
Reflection in lock
Chigurh looking at door (and presumably, the reflection)

Must. See. Movie. Again.

A few rambling thoughts:- Excellent review, Matt, ...

2007-11-27T14:45:00.000-05:00

A few rambling thoughts:

- Excellent review, Matt, as always.

- If you like Kelly Macdonald, you should check out Two Family House, an excellent little film from a few years back. She was also in Gosford Park and Intermission (well, I enjoyed Intermission). Um, and she was Peter Pan at the end of Finding Neverland.

- On the green light, I'm pretty sure it's actually the second time he goes through an intersection that he gets hit, but with the first intersection, there was something about the framing of it that I was actually expecting him to get hit. (Maybe it was in the trailer?)

- Someone at another site was asking what we were supposed to take away from the last scene with Chigurh. My quick response was that it was such an obvious callback to Llewellyn's earlier scene that Chigurh is now where Llewellyn was then, which is not a good sign for him. I know he took out Stephen Root, but does that mean no one else is coming after the money? Granted, Chigurh is more capable than Llewellyn (he knows enough to buy silence as well as the jacket), but he's now the prey, not the hunter. That's just a theory, though.

- I wasn't all that crazy about Bardem's performance, and this seems to be just me. But the character was just so over-the-top and theatrical, from the haircut to the exotic weapon to the coin-tossing, it became too much for me. (Then again, if he's not supposed to be real, it may make more sense.)

- Did Chigurh kill the accountant? We don't know how he answered the question.

- Yeah, Llewellyn did try to go and bring water to the injured man, but how many hours later? Even if he wants to get the money away, he still waited until the middle of the night. (Also, it turns out there's a river not that far away, which someone who goes out hunting in that area regularly would presumably know.) If he'd done the right thing at the start, he'd have been much better off.

Great essay! I purposefully avoided reading it un...

2007-11-26T15:10:00.000-05:00

Great essay! I purposefully avoided reading it until I was able to see the film on Saturday. Like many other commenters have alluded to, it was an overwhelming experience and I've been puzzling over what I saw for the last two days. For me BLOOD SIMPLE, MILLERS CROSSING and FARGO have been the perfect Coen Bros tryptych. It's now a quartet.

I had no knowledge of the novel and so had the thought as the screen faded to black that Sheriff Bell DID fall victim to Chigurh in the hotel room and his subsequent scenes with Ellis and his wife were occuring in some sort of afterlife state (hell? purgatory?). I see now that is probably not a valid theory/interpretation...if such can ever be said of a Coen film.

The comment about "did my eyes deceive me or was h...

2007-11-26T11:59:00.000-05:00

The comment about "did my eyes deceive me or was his light green?" raises an interesting point. I believe his light was green and after spending two plus hours with this character and every situation you can think of he gets hit by a car. Love the thought of Chigurh leaving this world in such a banal way.

On second viewing: More timeless; stronger, but I...

2007-11-24T13:35:00.000-05:00

On second viewing: More timeless; stronger, but I think not more so than any very well made film is going to be when you're able to take in details and layers that you were unable to absorb the first time through. Vaguer or more specific? Um, both?

On Bell's dream at the end, the second one: For me, my first reactions were confirmed. Hopeful? Not exactly. But comforting in that they assure Bell that despite his own feelings of failure and inadequacy, his father loves him, knows he did his job as best as he could -- and, as well as any of them did facing the same "nothing new" horrors.

Bell's expression at the end there strikes me as one of deep emotion, perhaps a kind of release of the sense of duty he'd held onto for so long, which would be at once painful and new -- potential freedom of acceptance, but also the acknowledgment that his life is coming to a close. But . . . well, now it's going to sound like I'm talking about another movie, but I can't help hearing his wife saying, "I'm not retired," and wondering if Bell, who's clearly at sixes and sevens sitting there without his work, is going to go back. I know, I know, that's a different picture, but, still, why do they have her say that like that? Anyway, back on track. I do not find Bell's final words hopeless, nor his expression hopeless.

The cut to black is, to me, a somewhat irritating reminder that we're not watching a sentimental film. "Don't get too carried away with romanticizing these dreams; this is still a disturbing, ambiguous film." Similarly, with his saying "And then I woke up." I don't truly feel we're meant to take that as "and then I woke up to the grim reality of what life really is." That's too easy. But it is another way of countering something that could, God forbid, slip into a kind of unironic sentimentality that must be avoided, sometimes to a fault. However, since the Coens rarely move so far in that direction that something can't be read another way, I can just as easily see that line as the final line of anyone telling any dream, particularly in the context of a man, the only man in this movie, able to sit at breakfast with a woman who loves him and understands him. What he's gone through ain't nothing new, and she knows that.

BUT what really tripped me up this second time through was realizing in a much more specific way that Bell is never really going after Chigurh like a law man should, in the way he should. We come away from the movie thinking, hell, that monster was unstoppable (or, with broader more philosophical versions of that same idea.) Maybe true. But there are numerous instances of Bell simply not doing all he could. The most explicit is at the trailer park when his deputy (Garrett Dillahunt!) upon realizing that they've just missed him says they've got to go put this out immediately. Bell says what are we going to say, looking for man who just drank milk? Huh??? The woman in the office there could have described him to a tee.

He's given up. He doesn't believe he's capable of stopping what he sees as an un-understandable force of evil. He still wants to save Moss, and does go out of his way to try to do that. He sees Moss as an over-matched pig-headed innocent, identifies with him, and wants to be able to protect him, save him.

He fails. But is that because we can't fight these forces, or because Bell thinks he can't?

I agree with Dragon management. Carla Jean is the real hero of the movie. But does her triumph compensate for the obvious satisfaction we are denied? Hell, no.

I saw the film a second time, after watching the f...

2007-11-24T09:36:00.000-05:00

I saw the film a second time, after watching the film first and then reading the novel. The second time, I was viewing it as allegory - and it was a very different experience.

I also think you can (need to) bookend Bells opening and closing monologues because they provide insight/context for the Chigurh/Bell tension.

Re: Bell's dream - it's a pretty overt reference to a prophecy in the gospel of Luke.

I was unhappy with my first review and so wrote a ...

2007-11-24T09:29:00.000-05:00

I was unhappy with my first review and so wrote a follow-up after my second viewing, Matt. The complicated answer to your questions is all of the above: a stronger film just in terms of following (mostly) everything that happens; a weaker film regarding the character of Chigurh, whom the Coens seem to want to be both omnipotent and fallible at the same time (hence much of the confusion in the last 20 minutes). For me, he's less scary and a shade more ridiculous the second time around. This is my favorite movie of the year so far, but it's got some holes.

I've been meaning to see this movie twice, but hav...

2007-11-24T04:04:00.000-05:00

I've been meaning to see this movie twice, but haven't gotten to see it again yet. I am curious to hear from more people who've given it a second viewing. Does it seem stronger or weaker the second time around? Vaguer or more specific? More timeless or more obviously of-the-moment?

Yeah. "And then I woke up" is a line loaded with s...

2007-11-24T03:51:00.000-05:00

Yeah. "And then I woke up" is a line loaded with subtext, regardless of whether or not you end a movie on it.

Oh, man. I'm actually going to see this movie a s...

2007-11-23T15:47:00.000-05:00

Oh, man. I'm actually going to see this movie a second time in an hour and a half. It will literally be the first time I've ever seen a movie twice (in the theater) that I really don't want to experience again.

I blame all of you.

"My reading: The only "hope" in Bell's speech at t...

2007-11-23T11:37:00.000-05:00

"My reading: The only "hope" in Bell's speech at the end comes from his ability to realize he can't reconcile his dreams with the reality around him. (which, of course, he realizes once it's too late)

It sounds mundane, but I doubt Tommy Lee Jones' face would wear the expression it does when the movie cuts to black if the intended idea was a hopeful one."

I don't think the Coen's were even as subtle about it as this, considering the dialogue note on which they cut to black.

"And then I woke up."

Great article/discussion; a few rambling thoughts:...

2007-11-22T00:31:00.000-05:00

Great article/discussion; a few rambling thoughts:

In one scene, Chigurgh says to his victim “hold still.” In the very next scene Moss says “hold still” as he hunts for antelope. There is a connection between the two. Granted, there’s a huge difference between killing people and hunting animals (some may argue that the degree is negligible, if non-existent), but violence is violence.

There is also the contrast in the scenes of Moss buying a jacket for $500 from the frat boys and Chigurgh trying to buy the shirt from the kids after the car crash. The frat boys are pure capitalists. Instead of trying to help, they’re out for money and want more for the beer. The kid at the end is willing to give his shirt for free. He took the hundred (ostensibly to keep his mouth shut) but the money was irrelevant – until his buddy wanted a cut from it. When one has money it begets greed.

The doling out of money is also a recurring image. The two scenes mentioned above, plus with the Mexican Band, the cabbie and the hotel clerk. Money buys silence or action.

Finally, no one has mentioned the performance of Kelly MacDonald as Carla Jean, but her performance blew me away. I recognized her, but couldn’t put a name to her face till the middle of the movie and then I realized she was from “Trainspotting.” It was a hell of a southern accent given her English/Scottish accent. In contrast to Woody Harrelson’s scene, Carla refused to cower. Woody tried to make a deal. Carla refused. If she died, she died honorably and refused to let Chigurgh win.

Carla Jean is the real hero of the story.Enjoyed t...

2007-11-21T20:44:00.000-05:00

Carla Jean is the real hero of the story.

Enjoyed the commentary, and I linked to you at my own post.

http://otherpoisondevils.blogspot.com/2007/11/free-will-and-anton-chigurh.html