I wish y’all had discussed the talk the sheriff has with his cousin near then end since I think it’s one of the more important scenes in the movie, The cousin reminds him that the idealized version of the past never existed. The world has always been full of violence and evil people. It’s just that the sheriff is becoming too old to keep up. Chigurh is the embodiment of the terror and randomness of death and the sheriff chases him to feel like he can control it somehow. In the end the sheriff finally stops chasing Chigurh. The dream at the end with the passing of the fire shows that he finally accepted(and maybe even welcomes) old age and his inevitable death.
for me, that adds to the tension. Lots of movies have the music cue certain emotions that the audience is supposed to feel. Music is usually used in movies to tell you "something intense is going to happen." or "this scene is sad". In this movie, chaos is a driving factor in the plot. So it would be heavily inappropriate to try and use music to tell the audience any sort of idea of what's happening next. Nobody, not even the audience, knows what's next. Nobody knows when it will end. much like real life.
The ending to No Country is one of my favorites of all time. By the end of the film, Bell has given up, left his job feeling outmatched. So he feels he has no more purpose in life, he feels lost. In the last scene, when he asks his wife if he can decorate the house and is denied, his last hope for something to do, his last cry for purpose is shut down. Then the way of telling his dream, with his dad waiting for him in a snowy mountain, always sends chills down my spine. In that very poetical and dreadful way, he's telling that he's just waiting for death now.
You're right, but this is more than just about "criminals" being more violent and bizarre than "in the past." The movie is a statement about society and culture writ large that is changing faster and in bizarre ways than older, more traditional people can adapt to.
I always felt that Chigurh getting injured in the car crash was a spot of optimism - he’d been portrayed as more of a “force” than a man the entire film; unstoppable because he’s an idea. His injury in the accident, even if he lives, shows that he is also just a man.
He also completely compromised his entire code and literally begged 2 kids to take a 20 for a shirt. This was not a victorious moment for him but a confirmation that he was never as in control or supernatural as he seemed, and wound up just as battered and compromised as the other survivors.
@@iannordin5250 He comprimised his code when he killed Carla Jean after she she refused to call the coin toss. It doesn't show when he kiled her, but he checks his boots for blood stains after he leaves the house she was staying in. I believe thats what led him to the car accident. Karma, just another man.
I don’t agree with Anton as an agent of chaos; he views himself as an agent of fate. Hence his use of the coin. Hence why he doesn’t take Carson Wells up on his offer of help getting the money; he believes fate will inevitably guide him to the money. This is what is in Carla Jean’s rejection of the coin; it’s not fate, it’s just Anton. And after he kills her, his belief is again refuted as Anton is near immediately in a meaningless car accident. Llewelyn Moss views himself as a master of his own fate, and as this video points out is killed by random violence.
Moss not killed randomly. Mexican drug runners sent to his motel, killed him while trying to find the money. Didn't find it. Money hidden in heater exhaust. Anton found money. None of that just by happenstance.
I also think Anton really isn't portrayed as chaos or an agent of chaos. First and foremost, he is portrayed as mentally not ok. In many, many scenes, characters point out how loony upstairs he is, which pushes that narrative. He could have been abused as a child, just for example. Furthermore, why would the directors, in 2007, want to pit the "heros" against chaos, to indicate chaos killed westerns/postwesterns? Makes zero sense. There are connections between the mentally troubled and chaos, it just doesn't make sense when you ask what the greater purpose is and not just to further the plot. Also the movie doesn't portray Anton as chaos; does chaos keep promises, make up its own rules, or be hired and told what to do by a large cooperation and actually deliver on that job? That's not chaos. Just a man who loves killing and covers his @ss and will do whatever it takes to get the job done. And finally, chaos would have caused harm to town and random townfolk and not just the townfolk who got in his way. Chaos isn't picky and choosy.
8:48 You are in error here. The dog does not come out of nowhere to steal Moss' deer. The dog has escaped the botched drug deal and is walking funny because it has been shot. It leads Moss to the crime scene when he follows its blood. Coens don't throw in things for no reason.
@@Peecamarke If it was random dog that wandered in to steal his kill it wouldn't have done anything to develop the plot. I wasn't commenting on the interloper idea just his explanation of the dog's presence.
Right, the dog is limping and looks back at Moss. Moss follows the dogs blood backwards, which leads to the crime scene. The dog is in no shape to be hunting or catching anything, it's dieing more or less. Funny how wisecrack missed that. I also think Anton really isn't portrayed as chaos or an agent of chaos. First and foremost, it seems he is mentally not ok. Many characters point out how loony upstairs he is, which pushes the narrative. Furthermore, why would the directors, in 2007, want to pit the "heros" against chaos, to indicate chaos killed westerns/postwesterns? Makes zero sense. There are connections between the mentally troubled and chaos, it just doesn't make sense when you ask for what purpose other than to further the plot. The movie doesn't portray Anton as chaos, does chaos keep promises, make up its own rules, or be hired and told what to do by a large cooperation and actually deliver on that job? No, that's not chaos. Just a man who loves killing and covers his @ss and will do whatever it takes to get the job done.
The irony of this and what Wisecrack missed about the movie/book is that this is exactly what the story is about. Cormac McCarthy wrote a bestseller that really fucks with the boomer conventions of Elmore Leonard and Carl Hiaasen's oeuvre. The books hero is Llewelyn Moss and would in the afforementioned books would have rode off into the sunset with some triumph in the end because that's important for Boomers and the books they love. McCarthy suckers these readers into picking up his book and then he kills their hero because F#$# you that's why. I love this book because it really is mean spirited and a big middle finger to boomer lit in general and that's in its title. The mix of westerns and noir is part of the source material that in a really kind of dark way what McCarthy is satirizing and I'm surprised that wasn't more obvious.
Anton isn't just about chaos. He's also about deliberate planning and always staying a step ahead of all the other characters. He's always in control. That's why you can't deal with him, he already has a plan to get what he wants without the need to bargain. The death of Carson is significant in several levels. When the phone rings, Anton knows that's Moss calling. Who else would call Carson in a motel when the person at the desk is dead? (Killed by Anton himself) Anton carefully sets the scenario to wait for the phone call, in a similar way to the coin. If the phone rings, Carson has lied, therefore he dies, if it doesn't he could've told the truth, and lives. But Anton smiles when the phone rings. He knows he was right and Carson's chance is gone (so does Carson by the way). Death always wins in the end.
Think chaos is the wrong word to represent. As you can see and hear, he follows his own rules. That means he can't be chaos at all. If anything, it is only chaos for society, which mostly sticks to its rules. But what makes these rules better or worse than Anton's? Who decides that, and what confirms that they are right about it? In the end they all live under rules and so none of them is the real chaos unless you want to claim that chaos rules itself. Which in turn could be reflected on society and thus society itself lives in chaos or creates it, which they don't want to and can't understand.
@@FuchsfeuerI feel as if he strictly follows his moral code, but in the event he has to break it, he removes himself from the decision by letting a coin toss decide. This way he feels as if it was fate that decided what he should do, and not him, justifying the broken code because he was not the one that broke it; it was the coin, or in other words fate.
@@Requiredfields2 Maybe, but the guy had already established his lack of position and power. ("Who are you?" "Nobody...accounting.") Anton would likely have no reason to kill him. Like the gas station clerk. He had no reason to kill him until the clerk gave him a reason by asking questions, hence the coin flip. But, the accounting guy's quick, straight-forward responses probably served to prove to Anton that he was not a threat, and that he knew his place, something Anton would likely respect. All through the film, you see Anton having no trouble dispatching multiple people at a time with no hesitation in between. I think that if he was going to shoot him, it would have been within seconds of the first shot. Of course, this is all guess work on my part and no one can be sure due to the cut. Just goes to show how great the film is.
"That's the best I can do". For me, this line is key to understanding Anton's character. Anton says this to Carla, right before he flips the coin to see if she lives or dies, but what's important is that he says it like an *apology*, as if he doesn't really WANT to kill her. He just has to. He's an evil psychopath, after all. He was fated to be one. Basically every character in the movie is a victim of fate. Most of them try and fail to control fate by imposing their own free will. But Anton understands that free will and fate are the same thing. You CAN'T choose to be anything except who you are, so your choices are just fate wearing a disguise. Anton knows he can't defeat fate, but he CAN rebel against it by ceding the illusion of free will to pure chaos instead. Anton isn't an "agent of chaos," or an "agent of fate," he's a victim of both (like everyone else). But Anton has decided that while fate is never just or merciful, chaos can be... sometimes.
I understand that this is how Anton sees it but it's still boggles me as to how simple minded it is in order to remove yourself from all responsibilities. Carla is right the coin doesn't have a saying, he does.
@@rickardedman8836 I don't see it as Anton trying to remove himself from the responsibility of his actions. Carla offers the possibility that Anton could be mistaken about what he should be doing by saying that he doesn't have to kill her. So, in order to to prove to himself and her that his choice to fulfill the promise he made to Llewelyn is the right choice, Anton allows fate to decide whether or not Carla dies. The way the Coens reduced Anton's rebuttal of Carla's claim that, "The coin don't have no say. It's just you," to a single line does a disservice to the story. Anton states in the book that, "I got here the same way the coin did... For things at a common destination there is a common path. Not always easy to see, but there... Every moment in your life is a turning and every one a choosing. Somewhere you made a choice. All followed to this. The accounting is scrupulous. The shape is drawn. No line can be erased." Seemingly, Anton believes that the choices Carla made in her past, namely, becoming Llewelyn's wife, led her to the moment where she would be at Anton's mercy just as his own choices led him to be sitting across from her. To Anton's mind, he is as powerless to resist fate as anyone else which means Carla has to die. He's just using the coin toss to illustrate that point. There's no ambiguity in the book about her death either. After the coin toss and monologue, Anton just shoots her and leaves. Please pardon my ramblings. The short version is that both Anton and Carla share some responsibility for their current situation, and given the choices either has made to that point, there is only one right course of action, however evil and despicable it might be.
Thank you. I actually have to dislike this video (not that it matters anymore) because it's giving all credit to the damned Coen brothers who didn't write the plot!
I find it odd taking the position that Anton is "chaotic". to me at least Anton is a fatalist, which wouldn't be chaotic, just more complex. Anton clearly has a code, and he follows it strictly. The Gas station scene really shows that for example, He, if anything resents the gas station owner, yet lets him live because fate was in his favour. his expression is a mix of surprise and dare I say relief at the result of the coin toss. He even reiterates this with the comment of the coin being both just another coin and his lucky coin.
Yes, that's what I wanted to say. If anything, he seems to me more like a psychopath with Aspergers. He makes rules and he sticks by them. That's why he heavily insists on people calling the coin flip, it's his rule.
Absolutely - there's chaos in the film, but it's not Chigur. The only chaos for Chigur is that he uses the coin - not because he is chaotic, but because, I think, he quietly recognises the immorality of the code and method to which he's committed himself, and to the murderous habits that are both essential to the code (that he kills when someone has affronted his principles), and a source of guilt. He wants to be absolved of the consequences by - when he is not at threat - deferring to a coin to be determinant.
From Wikipedia. "He is described as having his own set of morals, however twisted they may be. While he does not kill at random or without purpose, his reasons are at times abstract. He sees himself as a hand of fate; an instrument who exacts what is supposed to happen upon those he sees accountable."
Right. This video is about the movie, but not to mention the novel - at all? The Coens were gifted a huge amount and did a wonderful job it, but they didn't create the 'philosophy'.
@Killigan Videocasts You keep running that mouth and I'm goin to to take you back there and screw you: ) The film strayed quite a bit from the book in the shootout at the Hotel Eagle. I've wondered about that every now and then. Last night I think that I understood that it worked better in film that way rather than if they had followed the letter. But still, not to mention the novel - at all? On another point; anyone care to help me with a continuity problem I've had with the book? I just cain't make sense of it and it pains me some.
Honestly, I like that. Not every story has to have a happy ending sometimes, it's okay to have a nihilistic or even sad ending just as much as the happy Disney ones because thats how life is. There isnt a lot of either one but more of a good variety.
I always loved how human and inhuman Aton was in the movie, so clinical so methodical rarely even showing emotion or pain when shot, yet he is also human and makes mistakes. Very cool. Still I found the movie tragically and unnecessarily tragic.
I literally just watched the movie. Wanted to watch the Wisecrack take on it, so I searched for the title and Wisecrack. "Uploaded 1hr ago". What timing.
larsniklas and i just saw it a week ago.. which us three days before the release of this video. I know we’re all idiots for not watching it sooner. This movie is the definition of masterpiece.
@@SacClass650they are both great neo-western. I personally like no country for old men a bit better tho. But in my book unforgiven is still the greatest neo-western of all time.
Have you ever read the book? I know the Cohen brothers did a great job making the film but it is 95% accurate to the story of the book and you gave all of the credit to the Cohen brothers instead of the author for the combination of genres and such, which honestly seems kinda fucked up. Give more credit to the original author please
In my opinion, Bell is the true main character of the story, and Moss is the side character that receives the most attention. It's about the arc of Bell realizing the world he knew is no longer there and there's a stark violent world where truly evil men get away scott free. Moss is relatively stable as a character, he just happens upon some cash and does his best to get away with it. Such an incredible movie, I loved it when I first saw it at 13 because it had such cool action and badass characters. Now I like it for its slowness, sense of reflection it creates, and the themes it touches on (changing times, meaning in life, fate versus self determiniation, what makes evil, etc).
Defiantly that its chaos. Life doaent take meaning because meaning is given. Very unfullfuling. The money is meaningful to most. But in the end it gives no meaning at all.
The dog doesn’t steal Moss’s deer. It’s wounded and running from the crime scene. Moss abandons his hunt and follows the dog’s blood trail to find the scene.
@@rod5616 he still on the channel, hes just chosen to be phased out as the face/voice of wisecrack (or at least on their main videos, hes still seems to be very active in the podcasts)
People have an almost unnatural dislike when its not him doing the vids unless the person talks or looks similar to him lol, not saying that YOU'RE saying that but maybe they're trying to find a way to lower the amount he has to do while still keeping the viewers happy.
Took me until now to watch this movie and it was incredible. Not very often a western makes me jump but this one did a few times and still does even though I know what's coming. Brilliantly done, brilliantly cast. Bravo!
Anton is definitely an a agent of chaos and a personification of death. This is made clear with the image of Chigurh's hairstyle directly resembling the shape of the grim reaper's hood and the shotgun with the large silver silencer is meant to resemble the long handle and large silver blade at the end of the scythe.
I now feel like watching the movie for the third time. It's just so good. Also, I never considered it to be a western, but just a neo-noir, just with some desert shots.
My take on it, a comment I left on another video: "I might be reading too much into this, but notice in the scene where he finds the money and makes the decision to take it, there is a shot of two trees in a field in isolation, and the dead guy with the money is propped up against one of them. This is also probably a reference to the Garden of Eden and the fall from grace. In the garden, of course, there was a tree of life and a tree of knowledge. His taking the money is like Adam being tempted by Eve to eat the apple from the tree of knowledge. It's the coin toss or risk that he takes which is the beginning of the whole story. It's the point where we "become part of the world" to quote Tommy Lee Jones's opening monologue. I don't know, it seems like you have this manichean thing happening between the villain and the hero, which is actually Chigurh and Tommy Lee Jones, and this is a bit like the biblical Satan and God wrestling over the soul of man, symbolized by Llewellyn.. As somebody pointed out elsewhere in the comments, Chigurh (seguir) in old spanish means "to follow," and of course he follows the coin, or the "rule" he references before he kills Carson. Jones also follows, which he describes in his dream where he's following his father, just as he followed him in life by becoming a cop like he did, like his father before him. One follows the rule of chaos, the other of the law and tradition, which are supposed to put put order to chaos. They're both following two opposite paths, good and evil, and they nearly collide when Jones enters the hotel room where Llewellyn was killed and Chigurh is hiding behind the door but slips out without Jones seeing him. In a metaphorical or philosophical sense, both collide in every ordinary person's soul. Llewellyn, if you think about it, is more like the rest of us. He's caught in between the villain and the hero, what a Hegelian would call a "synthesis" of the two. He's a complicated figure, partially heroic, but partially flawed. He's not the good law man or the psychotic killer, he's the ordinary man who wants to do good but is often tempted to do evil, which is one way to read the garden of eden story which is referenced in the beginning when he takes the money. Throughout, Chigurh is attempting to kill him while Jones is attempting to save him. They are, in a sense, wrestling over his soul the way God and Satan wrestle over the soul of any man. The thing with the guy asking for water and his decision to do the right thing and it leading to his being identified by the drug cartel only underscores this ambivalence as well as the element of chance, just like his being tempted to cheat on his wife before his death. His decision to do the right thing leads to his being hunted by the cartel, his decision not to cheat on his wife at the end, possibly, led to his death because he wouldn't have been in the hotel room where they shot him (maybe). Our good deeds don't save us from death, our evil deeds are often rewarded, as random as a coin toss."
This movie taught me if i found a briefcase full of cash in the middle of nowhere with no cameras or witnesses to search as much band of bills that can fit my pockets and run as far away as possible.
What this movie really is shining examples of expectation subversion. I watched when I was 23 I didn’t enjoy it much. Rewatched it 10 years later and it’s much more satisfying now that I’m older and have seen so many of the typical tropes that always follow through with movies and “no country” exists and says nah dude it’s not gonna go that way *gasp*(juslikereallife)
i believed that anton was a ghost the whole movie, like the part when sherif bell looks in the tv and his reflection turns out great, when anton looks at the tv there’s not shadow and just a tiny reflection, i thought he was a ghost of death that died of a coin flip. the car crash scene proved everything i thought wrong and left me in total confusion because it showed anton really being a true human
The Sheriff is the only person who changes throughout the movie. He’s constantly reminiscing on the good old days, when lawmen didn’t need to wear guns. His cousin at the end tells him the truth, that violence has always been apart of the world. And to think he alone will change it, is vanity. The reason he believe the past is better is because stoic heroes from our past “carried the torch” and lit the way. That’s what his dream represents. That the people before us light our path. The heroes of the past become remodels for the future.
When it comes to movies based on books, I've never thought it was fair to the author of the book to ask what the filmmakers were trying to tell us in some element that was identical to the book. The only way to figure out what the filmmakers are trying to tell us is to contrast the film with the book and see where they deviate from the book or take some liberty and invent something that was never in the book, or possibly in elements from the book that are left out of the movie. The questions raised regarding morality, justice, the silence of God, and chaos vs order came from Cormac McCarthy. A question worth exploring regarding the Coen brothers might be "why did they leave out Ed Tom's background?" The Wisecrack video says Ed Tom is a shadow of the old west hero who was a representative of justice. If we're looking only at the Ed Tom from the movie excluding the book, then that's fair enough. But if we're looking at the Ed Tom from the book, it might be more accurate to say he was an impostor of the hero who represents justice. It's been a while since I read the book but I think Ed Tom thought himself a fraud and a coward for getting a metal for something he didn't do in WW2 and using it to get elected sherif. If they made that omission simply for the sake of brevity, then the Coen's told us nothing regarding Ed Tom and the argument could be made that Ed Tom is a false representative of justice rather than a true one who is fading away. If they made that omission for some other reason then the argument in the video would carry more weight.
And it implies that almost any other rule would have led to a happier result. BUT one might argue that any rule you follow will eventually lead to the same or similar result, because your fate is dogging you regardless of what you do to avoid it. In OEDIPUS REX, in fact, the moral to the story is that you can meet your fate in the very act of trying to avoid it.
The tactic of causing the format of the video to become more chaotic and broken up as the run time goes on is most appreciated. There's a real sense of synergy between message and form, here.
Of course, as the filmmakers, the Coens have the final say with what makes it on screen but the movie is almost identical to the book. This video asks a lot about the Coens which should be asked initially of McCarthy.
This movie, for me gives the message that life is not always sugarcoated and glorious. There are just some dark unstoppable force of evil that no one can stop, leaving most of us disappointed and defeated either we run away or fight it.
Loved this! Also, 9:58 ... Those are North American pronghorn, whose closest relatives are not deer, but giraffes and tapir. Not nit-picking, just letting you know something that would likely be intriguing for y'all. 🤘
I think Sheriff Bell's monologue at the end is a little inspiring. It sounds like a an old man's lament, but the fire his dad carries is like a eternal sign of hope too. He may not know where it goes, but he'll follow.
You guys should do a video on where to start with studying philosophy. Maybe recommend some books and authors. I’d really appreciate that as I’m having trouble figuring out where to start with philosophy.
Pure, unadulterated, arthouse cinematography. This isn't a movie for everybody, but it's transfixed on satisfying both western and film noir buffs alike. The camera itself tells the story, without focusing too much on dialogue or exposition. Not much music either, the opening is dead silence, save for the narration. Same with the ending. There IS chaos in silence. It's your brain reeling from the events that just transpired on screen, and the silence is screaming.
A lot of the choices you seem to be ascribing to the Coen brothers were in the novel, like the lack of a showdown with the bad guy, the story ending with the old sheriff explaining his dream (to the reader in the book), Moss being killed "off-screen", etc.
His name actually isn't Cormac McCarthy; it's really Charles McCarthy. He changed it to Cormac because, at the time, there was a famous ventriloquist who had a dummy named Charles McCarthy. I gotta say tho, Cormac sounds much more badass!
One of my favorite parts of the movie is the four or five sentence segment of the conversation in the hospital between Moss and Wells when Wells questions Moss about his former job as a welder. This is a rather esoteric subject to the vast majority of the audience but the questions Wells asks Moss and Moss's answers are ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON ACCURATE! If you can spot some significance in this jargon laced nugget of dialogue being dropped into this scene, other than the obvious exposition, I'd like to know what it is.
I would attempt an answer to that question. Wells is questioning Moss because he is an analyst of details, and in this case the detail is Wells relationship to material reality via his profession as a welder. This is a stand in for skill, efficiency and intelligence that judges combat effectiveness. Wells judges Moss high but critically in his boastful claim of welding skill. This is where Wells prediction of the death of Moss is formed I think and leads to the further dialogue in the scene. This is based on my memory of the scene. It is a parallel to the missing floor earlier, not a triviality but a test and evaluation. Wells evaluates and measures everything.
That “whimper” of an ending is the whole point of the movie, the good guy doesn’t always live, the bad guy gets away sometimes and gets no penalty for it, leaving massacre in his wake. A country not fit for men of the previous generation, and his realization of this.
I loved the ending. And the more I think on it the more I appreciate it. I believe the true battle in this movie was between the western and noir stories being told and the ending basically reflecting on that felt right to me.
I started this video saying "they can't overlook the Jungian interpretation of the shadow, even to the point how moss mirrors everything sugar does. He is the perfect archetype to the conscious mind, moss, and his repressed shadow trait is an irrational love for money." You did overlook this, but this interpretation was a great opinion which im glad I learned about.
I always thought that Anton did what he did because he believed he was some kind of bearer of fate, but he really was just psychotic. The coin toss symbolizes this, and you really have to pay attention to the opposite side, which reveals the holes in Anton's philosophy. The clerk doesn't understand the coin toss because it doesn't make any sense to him, he doesn't understand what he's gaining or losing because he has no reason to lose or gain it.
If anyone is going to ever direct a film adaptation of Blood Meridian I would want it to be the Coen brothers. Just like if there's ever an adaptation of another Thomas Pynchon novel I would want it to be by Paul Thomas Anderson. Something about these directors seems to have connected with the root meaning(s) of the books their films are based on, and actually let me go back and appreciate the books with a new perspective that I've never had after watching other film adaptations.
I think Bell's final monologue is a metaphor for the faith he still has in "the old ways". I think his father in the dream signifies those who came before him to force some kind of order from the chaos of life. Bell says that his father was carrying fire (a possible nod to McCarthy's next novel, The Road, in which two characters also "carry the fire", perhaps?) and is going ahead into the darkness and will be there waiting for him. I feel like this symbolizes the solace Bell finds in placing his faith in the traditions created by his predecessors who built the world in which he now lives. That's my two cents, at least.
I used to care about hurting any animals til the glitch in oblivion where you had to beat the crap out of your mare to store random stuff. ... momma needs 50 pounds of flat ware and turnips.
The whole story begins with a 50-50 good and bad guy tries to do a good deed. It would have been more plausible if he had returb to the crim scene to loot some more money or valuables.
Favorite parts all involved Tommy Lee Jones. 1)When he's speaking with the sheriff from the next town discussing the state of affairs; "it's just beyond everything!" 2) When he visits his cousin who is in a wheelchair and the heavy nature of the thought-provoking conversation 3) The ending scene when he tells his wife his dream
Something I’ve also noticed is how a duality exists within Chigurh; We might even see it as a glaring contradiction. He believes himself to be an agent of chaos yet in declaring himself to be a man of his word tells us he carefully orchestrates his path through life. This makes what happens to him in the very next scene all the more pertinent. Her is not an agent of chaos, as chaos needs no agent. He is just as much victim of it as everyone else. We might even say that he is the very first victim of an actual chaotic event in the story, everyone else having had their fate delivered as an act of will.
Thanks for doing this. I've read the book at least once a year since I saw the movie in 2008. Every time I read it I pick up something useful. *Also*: I will refute that Ed Tom is NOT a character from the old west. His grandfather and much of his family were. Ed Tom just idealizes them and attempts to imitate them. He has a whole passages in the book, some of which made it into the movie, musing about how he's different from the old timers. He, correctly I believe, concludes he's a man of the current times. That's why he doesn't face off with Anton Chigurh or fill out the old west tropes like we would expect. That's also why he retires. He's not equipped to deal with the burgeoning future that's intruding on his corner of the world. He's a man becoming a relic. Not a relic yet. 2007 was a strange but good year for film with "no country for old men" and "there will be blood" both being released.
@@Enzaio oh yeah. The kid and them glanton boys got themselves in a heap of trouble when they met the devil and started travelling with him. "Et in Arcadia Ego" suggests that the judge represents death but he's too purposefully malicious to be death.
@@Enzaio Eh, could be. He just does so much overtly mean stuff (the preacher, the boys destroying conquistador relics etc) I figured he was an incarnation of evil. But he does have dialogue about war and conflict. So I dunno.
Something about this guy just hurts my ears to listen to, the last person was fine. I don’t think I’ll finish this vid:/ just something about his voice.
I used to dislike the ending how it just cuts off without any explanation or context when i first saw this in 2007 i never understood why they made it like that until a few years went by after revisiting it again i've come to like it a lot with an even deeper appreciation for the ending. the Coen Brothers are my favorite writers & directors for making these kinds of movies that make the audience guess & wonder. films like Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Oh Brother Where Art Thou etc.. this movie is definitely a timeless masterpiece! great casting as well, every actor gave an outstanding performance!
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
I wish y’all had discussed the talk the sheriff has with his cousin near then end since I think it’s one of the more important scenes in the movie, The cousin reminds him that the idealized version of the past never existed. The world has always been full of violence and evil people. It’s just that the sheriff is becoming too old to keep up. Chigurh is the embodiment of the terror and randomness of death and the sheriff chases him to feel like he can control it somehow. In the end the sheriff finally stops chasing Chigurh. The dream at the end with the passing of the fire shows that he finally accepted(and maybe even welcomes) old age and his inevitable death.
what you think about this? ruclips.net/video/gM7ISi0eb0M/видео.html
RIGHT?! of ALL the things to talk about in that movie & you DONT pick that one?!?
I love that scene
you literally did more than this dude in a 20 min video
Cousin...sort of a pale version of actor Johnson...
I really loved that the entire movie doesn't have a score.
d3rrial Except the quarter scene. That has a small one and it’s intense.
Brandon I honestly didn’t notice til the credits rolled. Thats when I realized there was no music the entire movie
Wow, i never noticed that. Makes it feel real
for me, that adds to the tension. Lots of movies have the music cue certain emotions that the audience is supposed to feel. Music is usually used in movies to tell you "something intense is going to happen." or "this scene is sad". In this movie, chaos is a driving factor in the plot. So it would be heavily inappropriate to try and use music to tell the audience any sort of idea of what's happening next.
Nobody, not even the audience, knows what's next. Nobody knows when it will end. much like real life.
The point is, NCFOM doesn't use music to build mood. Like when Chigurgh attack Moss in the hotel, the silences makes the scene more captivating.
Chigur doesn't kill the bird he shoots at, he misses. This parallels his attempts to kill Moss.
the impression I always got was that, for a pro like him, at that range, he wasnt really trying to hit the bird, just toying with it.
I don't think he was really trying to kill Llewelyn, either. I think he was enjoying the hunt too much.
I thought he hit the bird and then another one flies off
NibiruLives Many also theorize its death that he is trying to kill since Ravens often portray Death
@mcclane. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?
Anton, the only dude with a funny haircut who u would never laugh at
Clearly a dare.
That haircut disarms enemies.
You clearly don't watch JoJo.
@@TheJanitorIsIn Bruno! aw.....i'm sad now..
The haircut could be a clock work orange reference.
The ending to No Country is one of my favorites of all time. By the end of the film, Bell has given up, left his job feeling outmatched. So he feels he has no more purpose in life, he feels lost. In the last scene, when he asks his wife if he can decorate the house and is denied, his last hope for something to do, his last cry for purpose is shut down. Then the way of telling his dream, with his dad waiting for him in a snowy mountain, always sends chills down my spine. In that very poetical and dreadful way, he's telling that he's just waiting for death now.
Brings me to tears every time
You're right, but this is more than just about "criminals" being more violent and bizarre than "in the past." The movie is a statement about society and culture writ large that is changing faster and in bizarre ways than older, more traditional people can adapt to.
I always felt that Chigurh getting injured in the car crash was a spot of optimism - he’d been portrayed as more of a “force” than a man the entire film; unstoppable because he’s an idea. His injury in the accident, even if he lives, shows that he is also just a man.
He also completely compromised his entire code and literally begged 2 kids to take a 20 for a shirt. This was not a victorious moment for him but a confirmation that he was never as in control or supernatural as he seemed, and wound up just as battered and compromised as the other survivors.
@@iannordin5250 Exactly. He's not chaos himself, but just another victim of it.
@@iannordin5250 He comprimised his code when he killed Carla Jean after she she refused to call the coin toss. It doesn't show when he kiled her, but he checks his boots for blood stains after he leaves the house she was staying in. I believe thats what led him to the car accident. Karma, just another man.
@@SALmetalseven You are wrong, killing someone who does not agree to the fate of his coin is part of his code
I felt that disparity when he got shot and had to medicate his wounds, I actually spoke loudly: "so hes not invincible"
I don’t agree with Anton as an agent of chaos; he views himself as an agent of fate. Hence his use of the coin. Hence why he doesn’t take Carson Wells up on his offer of help getting the money; he believes fate will inevitably guide him to the money. This is what is in Carla Jean’s rejection of the coin; it’s not fate, it’s just Anton. And after he kills her, his belief is again refuted as Anton is near immediately in a meaningless car accident.
Llewelyn Moss views himself as a master of his own fate, and as this video points out is killed by random violence.
I like these multiple interpretations, some say he's suppose to be death incarnate, others say he's chaos, others say he's fate
@@Peecamarke Anton reps the US while in Viet Nam. See Wikipedia for more on this angle.
Moss not killed randomly. Mexican drug runners sent to his motel, killed him while trying to find the money. Didn't find it. Money hidden in heater exhaust. Anton found money. None of that just by happenstance.
I also think Anton really isn't portrayed as chaos or an agent of chaos. First and foremost, he is portrayed as mentally not ok. In many, many scenes, characters point out how loony upstairs he is, which pushes that narrative. He could have been abused as a child, just for example. Furthermore, why would the directors, in 2007, want to pit the "heros" against chaos, to indicate chaos killed westerns/postwesterns? Makes zero sense. There are connections between the mentally troubled and chaos, it just doesn't make sense when you ask what the greater purpose is and not just to further the plot. Also the movie doesn't portray Anton as chaos; does chaos keep promises, make up its own rules, or be hired and told what to do by a large cooperation and actually deliver on that job? That's not chaos. Just a man who loves killing and covers his @ss and will do whatever it takes to get the job done. And finally, chaos would have caused harm to town and random townfolk and not just the townfolk who got in his way. Chaos isn't picky and choosy.
@TAR ICO You are correct. My mistake.
8:48 You are in error here. The dog does not come out of nowhere to steal Moss' deer. The dog has escaped the botched drug deal and is walking funny because it has been shot. It leads Moss to the crime scene when he follows its blood. Coens don't throw in things for no reason.
Well he mentioned it was an interloper. Meaning it was intentionally placed right? Or do I misunderstand interloper?
He didn't miss the deer
@@Peecamarke If it was random dog that wandered in to steal his kill it wouldn't have done anything to develop the plot. I wasn't commenting on the interloper idea just his explanation of the dog's presence.
@@julesvox Right, he hit it but didn't kill it. It's been a while.
Right, the dog is limping and looks back at Moss. Moss follows the dogs blood backwards, which leads to the crime scene. The dog is in no shape to be hunting or catching anything, it's dieing more or less. Funny how wisecrack missed that. I also think Anton really isn't portrayed as chaos or an agent of chaos. First and foremost, it seems he is mentally not ok. Many characters point out how loony upstairs he is, which pushes the narrative. Furthermore, why would the directors, in 2007, want to pit the "heros" against chaos, to indicate chaos killed westerns/postwesterns? Makes zero sense. There are connections between the mentally troubled and chaos, it just doesn't make sense when you ask for what purpose other than to further the plot. The movie doesn't portray Anton as chaos, does chaos keep promises, make up its own rules, or be hired and told what to do by a large cooperation and actually deliver on that job? No, that's not chaos. Just a man who loves killing and covers his @ss and will do whatever it takes to get the job done.
I feel like we need another 10 minutes just to talk about the dreams
Watch this:
ruclips.net/video/l37O0iZxfGw/видео.html
the whole story is a dream except the very beginning and the very end. Just like Wizard of Oz. Sheriff Bell's dream
Whoa. I mean Dang.
This film could've been 2 hours of Anton doing his laundry, and I still would've given it 10 stars.
And the shirtless kid on the bike voiced Jack Marston in Red Dead Redemption so there's that.
Great trivia, love it!
Promethean Knight He's also Brian D in VGHS, got really excited when I saw him
Elias Lindberg Abrahamsson me too, thought I was the only one
Lenny?
LENNY WHERE ARE YA
GAVIN? HAS ANYBODY SEEN A BRITISH MAN NAMED GAVIN?
"Ok Boomer" = ❌
"No Country for Old Men" = ✅
Theo Suguitan hell yeah
The irony of this and what Wisecrack missed about the movie/book is that this is exactly what the story is about. Cormac McCarthy wrote a bestseller that really fucks with the boomer conventions of Elmore Leonard and Carl Hiaasen's oeuvre. The books hero is Llewelyn Moss and would in the afforementioned books would have rode off into the sunset with some triumph in the end because that's important for Boomers and the books they love. McCarthy suckers these readers into picking up his book and then he kills their hero because F#$# you that's why. I love this book because it really is mean spirited and a big middle finger to boomer lit in general and that's in its title. The mix of westerns and noir is part of the source material that in a really kind of dark way what McCarthy is satirizing and I'm surprised that wasn't more obvious.
It's a very ellaborate "hold your horses there, boomer", really
Jason Hitzert Damn. You said all of that because, old people?
@@Meatwad787 Yeah I know, I guess being Gen X means I've carried this shit around for a while.
Anton isn't just about chaos. He's also about deliberate planning and always staying a step ahead of all the other characters. He's always in control. That's why you can't deal with him, he already has a plan to get what he wants without the need to bargain. The death of Carson is significant in several levels. When the phone rings, Anton knows that's Moss calling. Who else would call Carson in a motel when the person at the desk is dead? (Killed by Anton himself) Anton carefully sets the scenario to wait for the phone call, in a similar way to the coin. If the phone rings, Carson has lied, therefore he dies, if it doesn't he could've told the truth, and lives. But Anton smiles when the phone rings. He knows he was right and Carson's chance is gone (so does Carson by the way). Death always wins in the end.
Think chaos is the wrong word to represent.
As you can see and hear, he follows his own rules. That means he can't be chaos at all. If anything, it is only chaos for society, which mostly sticks to its rules. But what makes these rules better or worse than Anton's?
Who decides that, and what confirms that they are right about it?
In the end they all live under rules and so none of them is the real chaos unless you want to claim that chaos rules itself. Which in turn could be reflected on society and thus society itself lives in chaos or creates it, which they don't want to and can't understand.
It is our desire to play God. We make our rules, but his rules always stand. Our rules last only until we die, or when our desire to be God dies.
@@FuchsfeuerI feel as if he strictly follows his moral code, but in the event he has to break it, he removes himself from the decision by letting a coin toss decide. This way he feels as if it was fate that decided what he should do, and not him, justifying the broken code because he was not the one that broke it; it was the coin, or in other words fate.
Stop advertising for Up Start! They are an awful company.
Their business model seems very dubious to me... Im sure many americans fall for it.
Yea I had 3 personal loans (one being upstart) barely made a dent in my credit cards. Finally just filed for bankruptcy
@@roscojenkins7451 Damn, man. I'm sorry to hear that. I assume you live in America though, the land of second chances. Silver linings.
@@cottonballs185 way to be xenophobic. Very respectful.
They got to pay the bills somehow, I don't think youtube channels have an option on a lot of businesses
"You going to shoot me?"
"That depends...do you see me?" *cut to black*
So many GREAT lines in this movie, I swear!
And that means he got shot, unfortunately.
@@Requiredfields2 Maybe, but the guy had already established his lack of position and power. ("Who are you?" "Nobody...accounting.") Anton would likely have no reason to kill him. Like the gas station clerk. He had no reason to kill him until the clerk gave him a reason by asking questions, hence the coin flip. But, the accounting guy's quick, straight-forward responses probably served to prove to Anton that he was not a threat, and that he knew his place, something Anton would likely respect.
All through the film, you see Anton having no trouble dispatching multiple people at a time with no hesitation in between. I think that if he was going to shoot him, it would have been within seconds of the first shot.
Of course, this is all guess work on my part and no one can be sure due to the cut. Just goes to show how great the film is.
@@JamVar Well, he just murdered his boss in front of him. "Do you see me?" is the same as asking, "Are you a witness?" So he's dead.
@@JamVar Yeah see I always took it as him implying, "Are you going to rat, or keep your mouth shut?"
@@ibSprintin Yeah, that's what I thought, too.
"That's the best I can do". For me, this line is key to understanding Anton's character. Anton says this to Carla, right before he flips the coin to see if she lives or dies, but what's important is that he says it like an *apology*, as if he doesn't really WANT to kill her. He just has to. He's an evil psychopath, after all. He was fated to be one.
Basically every character in the movie is a victim of fate. Most of them try and fail to control fate by imposing their own free will. But Anton understands that free will and fate are the same thing. You CAN'T choose to be anything except who you are, so your choices are just fate wearing a disguise. Anton knows he can't defeat fate, but he CAN rebel against it by ceding the illusion of free will to pure chaos instead. Anton isn't an "agent of chaos," or an "agent of fate," he's a victim of both (like everyone else). But Anton has decided that while fate is never just or merciful, chaos can be... sometimes.
I understand that this is how Anton sees it but it's still boggles me as to how simple minded it is in order to remove yourself from all responsibilities. Carla is right the coin doesn't have a saying, he does.
@@rickardedman8836 I don't see it as Anton trying to remove himself from the responsibility of his actions. Carla offers the possibility that Anton could be mistaken about what he should be doing by saying that he doesn't have to kill her. So, in order to to prove to himself and her that his choice to fulfill the promise he made to Llewelyn is the right choice, Anton allows fate to decide whether or not Carla dies. The way the Coens reduced Anton's rebuttal of Carla's claim that, "The coin don't have no say. It's just you," to a single line does a disservice to the story. Anton states in the book that, "I got here the same way the coin did... For things at a common destination there is a common path. Not always easy to see, but there... Every moment in your life is a turning and every one a choosing. Somewhere you made a choice. All followed to this. The accounting is scrupulous. The shape is drawn. No line can be erased."
Seemingly, Anton believes that the choices Carla made in her past, namely, becoming Llewelyn's wife, led her to the moment where she would be at Anton's mercy just as his own choices led him to be sitting across from her. To Anton's mind, he is as powerless to resist fate as anyone else which means Carla has to die. He's just using the coin toss to illustrate that point. There's no ambiguity in the book about her death either. After the coin toss and monologue, Anton just shoots her and leaves.
Please pardon my ramblings. The short version is that both Anton and Carla share some responsibility for their current situation, and given the choices either has made to that point, there is only one right course of action, however evil and despicable it might be.
Leon sullivan...excellent 👏
so much credit to the directors, and so little to the actual author. let me fix that: McCarthy's vision
I think Coens are some of the only people capable of adapting McCarthys work
And this is McCarthy's most easily digestible work, philosophically speaking.
Thank you. I actually have to dislike this video (not that it matters anymore) because it's giving all credit to the damned Coen brothers who didn't write the plot!
I find it odd taking the position that Anton is "chaotic". to me at least Anton is a fatalist, which wouldn't be chaotic, just more complex. Anton clearly has a code, and he follows it strictly.
The Gas station scene really shows that for example, He, if anything resents the gas station owner, yet lets him live because fate was in his favour. his expression is a mix of surprise and dare I say relief at the result of the coin toss. He even reiterates this with the comment of the coin being both just another coin and his lucky coin.
Is it fate or luck? We explored this in TDK. The only real fairness in a chaotic system is chance. I like that analogy.
I like the multiple interpretations of Anton, tbh some people even think he represents death incarnate
Yes, that's what I wanted to say. If anything, he seems to me more like a psychopath with Aspergers. He makes rules and he sticks by them. That's why he heavily insists on people calling the coin flip, it's his rule.
Absolutely - there's chaos in the film, but it's not Chigur. The only chaos for Chigur is that he uses the coin - not because he is chaotic, but because, I think, he quietly recognises the immorality of the code and method to which he's committed himself, and to the murderous habits that are both essential to the code (that he kills when someone has affronted his principles), and a source of guilt. He wants to be absolved of the consequences by - when he is not at threat - deferring to a coin to be determinant.
From Wikipedia.
"He is described as having his own set of morals, however twisted they may be. While he does not kill at random or without purpose, his reasons are at times abstract. He sees himself as a hand of fate; an instrument who exacts what is supposed to happen upon those he sees accountable."
McCarthy directed this film from his typewriter.
Right. This video is about the movie, but not to mention the novel - at all? The Coens were gifted a huge amount and did a wonderful job it, but they didn't create the 'philosophy'.
@Killigan Videocasts You keep running that mouth and I'm goin to to take you back there and screw you: )
The film strayed quite a bit from the book in the shootout at the Hotel Eagle. I've wondered about that every now and then. Last night I think that I understood that it worked better in film that way rather than if they had followed the letter. But still, not to mention the novel - at all?
On another point; anyone care to help me with a continuity problem I've had with the book? I just cain't make sense of it and it pains me some.
The movie ended as a disappointment because thats what life really is, a series of disappointments and unfulfilled desires.
o o o f
Sometimes it be like that. But if you can soldier on thru life, it does get better.
Always gonna be bad things. But there’s a lot of highs too.
Truth . I work at walmart. Your %100000 right.
@mindless monk
Has nothing to do with the point of the movie ending the way it did, which was the question that the video asked
Honestly, I like that. Not every story has to have a happy ending sometimes, it's okay to have a nihilistic or even sad ending just as much as the happy Disney ones because thats how life is. There isnt a lot of either one but more of a good variety.
This movie reflects life. There isn't always a happy ending. I loved this film, it was so gripping and had me on edge. What an amazing story.
No soundtrack. Just like real life.
Love this film. I always felt like Anton represented death.
His haircut even kind of mimics a hood, and his pale complexion like a skull.
More of a Fate
@@munawwarshaikh8010
I think the Anton is a servant of fate and chance because from the human prospective they’re ultimately the same thing...
I always loved how human and inhuman Aton was in the movie, so clinical so methodical rarely even showing emotion or pain when shot, yet he is also human and makes mistakes. Very cool. Still I found the movie tragically and unnecessarily tragic.
Your kitty sucks you stinking dirtbag. My kitty is b0ss
I literally just watched the movie. Wanted to watch the Wisecrack take on it, so I searched for the title and Wisecrack.
"Uploaded 1hr ago". What timing.
larsniklas and i just saw it a week ago.. which us three days before the release of this video. I know we’re all idiots for not watching it sooner. This movie is the definition of masterpiece.
Your mom is literally Hitler
Is it fate, luck, or just a coin?
Neo-Western masterpiece: Hell or High Water
Good move but doesn't hold a candle to No country for old men.
@@selforganisation Fair enough. For me, however, Hell or High Water is superior.
@@SacClass650they are both great neo-western. I personally like no country for old men a bit better tho. But in my book unforgiven is still the greatest neo-western of all time.
"Lords of the plains..."
Great pick! Maybe try the first Sicario film! From the same writer and it was so damn good!
Glad to see this movie is still talked about today.
Have you ever read the book? I know the Cohen brothers did a great job making the film but it is 95% accurate to the story of the book and you gave all of the credit to the Cohen brothers instead of the author for the combination of genres and such, which honestly seems kinda fucked up. Give more credit to the original author please
Best author living right now and probably one of the best of all time. In my opinion, Shakespeare and Dante both live in McCarthy's shadow.
Same with them showing lines right of book game of thrones to talk about D&D's writing.
@@johnsterne178 I love GoT but really, don't bring that up here, it's out of place. Book or whatever
TH3 F4LC0N bold statement
The book is amazing and I loved how the Cohen bro’s left it quiet the book is quiet there is very little internal thought and that rare for a book
Anton's presence is what I remember most about the movie. Chaos and precision packed into one deadly persona.
"cohens west"? no, all credit goes to Cormac Mccarthy's book. Read the book and you'll see, that it reads just as the movie.
In my opinion, Bell is the true main character of the story, and Moss is the side character that receives the most attention. It's about the arc of Bell realizing the world he knew is no longer there and there's a stark violent world where truly evil men get away scott free. Moss is relatively stable as a character, he just happens upon some cash and does his best to get away with it. Such an incredible movie, I loved it when I first saw it at 13 because it had such cool action and badass characters. Now I like it for its slowness, sense of reflection it creates, and the themes it touches on (changing times, meaning in life, fate versus self determiniation, what makes evil, etc).
Entire philosophy in a nutshell: Justice = chance. "The only true justice is chance. Unbiased and fair."- Harvey Dent / Two Face: The Dark Knight.
Literally just made this comment on another reply. Love it. Because it’s a mix of anarchism and order. Well, at least imo.
I like that the movie can have multiple philosophical interpretations, this is a good one
Defiantly that its chaos. Life doaent take meaning because meaning is given. Very unfullfuling. The money is meaningful to most. But in the end it gives no meaning at all.
"You know the thing about chaos? It's fair."
I want to know what Anton does in his off time, im guessing:
Drinking Milk on a quiet day while reading a book.
Probably something heavy. Like… the road.
What business is it of yours what he does in his off time friendo?
More like, holding an open book and not drinking milk in his hand
This movie is a masterpiece not every movie needs moral substance and i love that about this movie!
this and there will be blood, 2 best movies EVER made.
“What’s the most, you’ve ever lost, in a coin toss?”
Pokemon cards
The movie's prequel should be called: Got Town for Young Boys
A movie about the YMCA? "Young man..."
The dog doesn’t steal Moss’s deer. It’s wounded and running from the crime scene. Moss abandons his hunt and follows the dog’s blood trail to find the scene.
'Evil cannot be conquered in the world, only overcome within oneself' [mic drop]
Despite it being kinda old now, every wisecrack vid without jared still feel awkward
Davi Duarte what happened to him?
I hope he finally got that dream job as a voiceover artist
@@rod5616 he still on the channel, hes just chosen to be phased out as the face/voice of wisecrack (or at least on their main videos, hes still seems to be very active in the podcasts)
People have an almost unnatural dislike when its not him doing the vids unless the person talks or looks similar to him lol, not saying that YOU'RE saying that but maybe they're trying to find a way to lower the amount he has to do while still keeping the viewers happy.
@@angelcalderon5680 this aged poorly
Took me until now to watch this movie and it was incredible. Not very often a western makes me jump but this one did a few times and still does even though I know what's coming. Brilliantly done, brilliantly cast. Bravo!
Anton is definitely an a agent of chaos and a personification of death. This is made clear with the image of Chigurh's hairstyle directly resembling the shape of the grim reaper's hood and the shotgun with the large silver silencer is meant to resemble the long handle and large silver blade at the end of the scythe.
I now feel like watching the movie for the third time. It's just so good. Also, I never considered it to be a western, but just a neo-noir, just with some desert shots.
I love this movie. One of the best movies I ever seen
Thank you for spoiling "The interlopers" !
My take on it, a comment I left on another video:
"I might be reading too much into this, but notice in the scene where he finds the money and makes the decision to take it, there is a shot of two trees in a field in isolation, and the dead guy with the money is propped up against one of them. This is also probably a reference to the Garden of Eden and the fall from grace. In the garden, of course, there was a tree of life and a tree of knowledge. His taking the money is like Adam being tempted by Eve to eat the apple from the tree of knowledge. It's the coin toss or risk that he takes which is the beginning of the whole story. It's the point where we "become part of the world" to quote Tommy Lee Jones's opening monologue.
I don't know, it seems like you have this manichean thing happening between the villain and the hero, which is actually Chigurh and Tommy Lee Jones, and this is a bit like the biblical Satan and God wrestling over the soul of man, symbolized by Llewellyn.. As somebody pointed out elsewhere in the comments, Chigurh (seguir) in old spanish means "to follow," and of course he follows the coin, or the "rule" he references before he kills Carson. Jones also follows, which he describes in his dream where he's following his father, just as he followed him in life by becoming a cop like he did, like his father before him. One follows the rule of chaos, the other of the law and tradition, which are supposed to put put order to chaos. They're both following two opposite paths, good and evil, and they nearly collide when Jones enters the hotel room where Llewellyn was killed and Chigurh is hiding behind the door but slips out without Jones seeing him.
In a metaphorical or philosophical sense, both collide in every ordinary person's soul. Llewellyn, if you think about it, is more like the rest of us. He's caught in between the villain and the hero, what a Hegelian would call a "synthesis" of the two. He's a complicated figure, partially heroic, but partially flawed. He's not the good law man or the psychotic killer, he's the ordinary man who wants to do good but is often tempted to do evil, which is one way to read the garden of eden story which is referenced in the beginning when he takes the money. Throughout, Chigurh is attempting to kill him while Jones is attempting to save him. They are, in a sense, wrestling over his soul the way God and Satan wrestle over the soul of any man. The thing with the guy asking for water and his decision to do the right thing and it leading to his being identified by the drug cartel only underscores this ambivalence as well as the element of chance, just like his being tempted to cheat on his wife before his death. His decision to do the right thing leads to his being hunted by the cartel, his decision not to cheat on his wife at the end, possibly, led to his death because he wouldn't have been in the hotel room where they shot him (maybe). Our good deeds don't save us from death, our evil deeds are often rewarded, as random as a coin toss."
This movie taught me if i found a briefcase full of cash in the middle of nowhere with no cameras or witnesses to search as much band of bills that can fit my pockets and run as far away as possible.
always regretting why moss never checked the case for transponder
What this movie really is shining examples of expectation subversion. I watched when I was 23 I didn’t enjoy it much. Rewatched it 10 years later and it’s much more satisfying now that I’m older and have seen so many of the typical tropes that always follow through with movies and “no country” exists and says nah dude it’s not gonna go that way *gasp*(juslikereallife)
i believed that anton was a ghost the whole movie, like the part when sherif bell looks in the tv and his reflection turns out great, when anton looks at the tv there’s not shadow and just a tiny reflection, i thought he was a ghost of death that died of a coin flip. the car crash scene proved everything i thought wrong and left me in total confusion because it showed anton really being a true human
“Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody's gonna die. Come watch TV” -Morty
You have to have a "high IQ" to understand those lines.
@@darcflame37 Agreed. It's practically drips with Turgenev's influence.
BURN DOWN THE CARPET STORE!!!
A fellow intellectual
The Sheriff is the only person who changes throughout the movie. He’s constantly reminiscing on the good old days, when lawmen didn’t need to wear guns. His cousin at the end tells him the truth, that violence has always been apart of the world. And to think he alone will change it, is vanity.
The reason he believe the past is better is because stoic heroes from our past “carried the torch” and lit the way. That’s what his dream represents. That the people before us light our path. The heroes of the past become remodels for the future.
The wolves weren't the interlopers, the men were. That was the irony of it all, that they'd encroached on nature.
When it comes to movies based on books, I've never thought it was fair to the author of the book to ask what the filmmakers were trying to tell us in some element that was identical to the book. The only way to figure out what the filmmakers are trying to tell us is to contrast the film with the book and see where they deviate from the book or take some liberty and invent something that was never in the book, or possibly in elements from the book that are left out of the movie. The questions raised regarding morality, justice, the silence of God, and chaos vs order came from Cormac McCarthy. A question worth exploring regarding the Coen brothers might be "why did they leave out Ed Tom's background?" The Wisecrack video says Ed Tom is a shadow of the old west hero who was a representative of justice. If we're looking only at the Ed Tom from the movie excluding the book, then that's fair enough. But if we're looking at the Ed Tom from the book, it might be more accurate to say he was an impostor of the hero who represents justice. It's been a while since I read the book but I think Ed Tom thought himself a fraud and a coward for getting a metal for something he didn't do in WW2 and using it to get elected sherif. If they made that omission simply for the sake of brevity, then the Coen's told us nothing regarding Ed Tom and the argument could be made that Ed Tom is a false representative of justice rather than a true one who is fading away. If they made that omission for some other reason then the argument in the video would carry more weight.
"Let me ask you something. If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"
A line I will literally never forget.
And it implies that almost any other rule would have led to a happier result. BUT one might argue that any rule you follow will eventually lead to the same or similar result, because your fate is dogging you regardless of what you do to avoid it. In OEDIPUS REX, in fact, the moral to the story is that you can meet your fate in the very act of trying to avoid it.
The tactic of causing the format of the video to become more chaotic and broken up as the run time goes on is most appreciated. There's a real sense of synergy between message and form, here.
Finally a "philosophy of" video again. I am tired of "deep or dumb"!
Of course, as the filmmakers, the Coens have the final say with what makes it on screen but the movie is almost identical to the book. This video asks a lot about the Coens which should be asked initially of McCarthy.
Finally, a Wisecrack video on No Country for Old Men. Our waiting is no more.
This movie, for me gives the message that life is not always sugarcoated and glorious. There are just some dark unstoppable force of evil that no one can stop, leaving most of us disappointed and defeated either we run away or fight it.
Loved this!
Also, 9:58 ... Those are North American pronghorn, whose closest relatives are not deer, but giraffes and tapir. Not nit-picking, just letting you know something that would likely be intriguing for y'all. 🤘
I thought the coin flip thing was absolving him of choice in lue of fate which is flawed because HE chooses what heads or tails means.
Not exactly. If the person calling it gets it right, they live. So it’s technically up to chance (even though Anton is forcing them to make the call).
I think Sheriff Bell's monologue at the end is a little inspiring. It sounds like a an old man's lament, but the fire his dad carries is like a eternal sign of hope too. He may not know where it goes, but he'll follow.
Do "The Philosophy of Matilda" next
Welcome back “The Philosophy of” finally
You guys should do a video on where to start with studying philosophy. Maybe recommend some books and authors. I’d really appreciate that as I’m having trouble figuring out where to start with philosophy.
Try Crash Course Philosophy on RUclips. Best introduction you could ever hope for.
"What's this guy supposed to be, the ultimate badass?"
Remember the time when Carnage visited Thanos in the hospital to give him flowers?
Pepperidge Farms remembers
“promise you won’t screenshot and show your friends”
Me: 18:09
Pure, unadulterated, arthouse cinematography. This isn't a movie for everybody, but it's transfixed on satisfying both western and film noir buffs alike. The camera itself tells the story, without focusing too much on dialogue or exposition. Not much music either, the opening is dead silence, save for the narration. Same with the ending. There IS chaos in silence. It's your brain reeling from the events that just transpired on screen, and the silence is screaming.
Had to double take when I saw this I was almost certain you guys had already done this makes perfect sense.
A lot of the choices you seem to be ascribing to the Coen brothers were in the novel, like the lack of a showdown with the bad guy, the story ending with the old sheriff explaining his dream (to the reader in the book), Moss being killed "off-screen", etc.
I defy anyone to put more C's in a name than Cormac McCarthy's parents
His name actually isn't Cormac McCarthy; it's really Charles McCarthy. He changed it to Cormac because, at the time, there was a famous ventriloquist who had a dummy named Charles McCarthy. I gotta say tho, Cormac sounds much more badass!
Grab a phonbook from Wales
One of my favorite parts of the movie is the four or five sentence segment of the conversation in the hospital between Moss and Wells when Wells questions Moss about his former job as a welder. This is a rather esoteric subject to the vast majority of the audience but the questions Wells asks Moss and Moss's answers are ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON ACCURATE! If you can spot some significance in this jargon laced nugget of dialogue being dropped into this scene, other than the obvious exposition, I'd like to know what it is.
I would attempt an answer to that question. Wells is questioning Moss because he is an analyst of details, and in this case the detail is Wells relationship to material reality via his profession as a welder. This is a stand in for skill, efficiency and intelligence that judges combat effectiveness. Wells judges Moss high but critically in his boastful claim of welding skill. This is where Wells prediction of the death of Moss is formed I think and leads to the further dialogue in the scene. This is based on my memory of the scene. It is a parallel to the missing floor earlier, not a triviality but a test and evaluation. Wells evaluates and measures everything.
Shoots a pronghorn antelope * sorry couldn’t help myself. Awesome analysis
Early in the movie the bad guy shoots a bird and at the lasr scene a sililar bird as a sculpture decorates a table.
That “whimper” of an ending is the whole point of the movie, the good guy doesn’t always live, the bad guy gets away sometimes and gets no penalty for it, leaving massacre in his wake. A country not fit for men of the previous generation, and his realization of this.
I loved the ending. And the more I think on it the more I appreciate it. I believe the true battle in this movie was between the western and noir stories being told and the ending basically reflecting on that felt right to me.
No country for young men, either
Or women
Anakin: And children.
I started this video saying "they can't overlook the Jungian interpretation of the shadow, even to the point how moss mirrors everything sugar does. He is the perfect archetype to the conscious mind, moss, and his repressed shadow trait is an irrational love for money." You did overlook this, but this interpretation was a great opinion which im glad I learned about.
Weird I thought that they already covered this movie
Me too. Another video where they talk about post-westerns and mention this one maybe?
I always thought that Anton did what he did because he believed he was some kind of bearer of fate, but he really was just psychotic. The coin toss symbolizes this, and you really have to pay attention to the opposite side, which reveals the holes in Anton's philosophy. The clerk doesn't understand the coin toss because it doesn't make any sense to him, he doesn't understand what he's gaining or losing because he has no reason to lose or gain it.
I'd love to watch a two hour documentary about everything related to the writing and portrayal of Anton.
Twice.
This movie subverts your expectations in such a clever way that you don't mind the subversion.
Anyone who wasn't expecting the ending to anti-climatic never read Blood Meridian.
Judge Holden is the perfect villain
If anyone is going to ever direct a film adaptation of Blood Meridian I would want it to be the Coen brothers. Just like if there's ever an adaptation of another Thomas Pynchon novel I would want it to be by Paul Thomas Anderson. Something about these directors seems to have connected with the root meaning(s) of the books their films are based on, and actually let me go back and appreciate the books with a new perspective that I've never had after watching other film adaptations.
@@ryanbrink4390 Coen brothers, along with Roger Deakins, doing Blood Meridian would be a dream come true.
I think Bell's final monologue is a metaphor for the faith he still has in "the old ways". I think his father in the dream signifies those who came before him to force some kind of order from the chaos of life. Bell says that his father was carrying fire (a possible nod to McCarthy's next novel, The Road, in which two characters also "carry the fire", perhaps?) and is going ahead into the darkness and will be there waiting for him. I feel like this symbolizes the solace Bell finds in placing his faith in the traditions created by his predecessors who built the world in which he now lives. That's my two cents, at least.
4:40 I punch a horse in red dead 2, and i felt bad...BUT THIS MADE ME LAUGH AND I FEEL BAD NOW!
I used to care about hurting any animals til the glitch in oblivion where you had to beat the crap out of your mare to store random stuff.
... momma needs 50 pounds of flat ware and turnips.
@@nomoregdm Seems harsh, but it's fair sacrifice for the cause🤣
The whole story begins with a 50-50 good and bad guy tries to do a good deed. It would have been more plausible if he had returb to the crim scene to loot some more money or valuables.
Wisecrack: "wHaT dOes iT mEaN?"
It means READ THE MF BOOK
Something few people pick up on: In the hotel where Moss and Chigurh have their shoot out, the painting on the wall is Sheriff Bell's dream.
Just an idea but Deep or Dumb: The Book of Eli?
I first watched this movie with my dad when I was 11 and to this day this is still one of the best movie i saw by far
Why all the scummy companies for sponsors? Why can't you shill for Raid Shadow Legends like everyone else?
Favorite parts all involved Tommy Lee Jones.
1)When he's speaking with the sheriff from the next town discussing the state of affairs; "it's just beyond everything!"
2) When he visits his cousin who is in a wheelchair and the heavy nature of the thought-provoking conversation
3) The ending scene when he tells his wife his dream
Lol "Cinema's most successful trolls" 😝
Something I’ve also noticed is how a duality exists within Chigurh; We might even see it as a glaring contradiction. He believes himself to be an agent of chaos yet in declaring himself to be a man of his word tells us he carefully orchestrates his path through life. This makes what happens to him in the very next scene all the more pertinent. Her is not an agent of chaos, as chaos needs no agent. He is just as much victim of it as everyone else. We might even say that he is the very first victim of an actual chaotic event in the story, everyone else having had their fate delivered as an act of will.
Welcome to the under 301 club, how tough are yah?
I hit that bell icon so I aint tough
I'm under 1000 club. I guess that's something.
How tough am I? I watch cringe videos for relaxation.
Thanks for doing this. I've read the book at least once a year since I saw the movie in 2008. Every time I read it I pick up something useful.
*Also*: I will refute that Ed Tom is NOT a character from the old west. His grandfather and much of his family were. Ed Tom just idealizes them and attempts to imitate them.
He has a whole passages in the book, some of which made it into the movie, musing about how he's different from the old timers. He, correctly I believe, concludes he's a man of the current times. That's why he doesn't face off with Anton Chigurh or fill out the old west tropes like we would expect. That's also why he retires. He's not equipped to deal with the burgeoning future that's intruding on his corner of the world. He's a man becoming a relic. Not a relic yet.
2007 was a strange but good year for film with "no country for old men" and "there will be blood" both being released.
Did you read McCarthy's Blood Meridian? Also a masterpiece.
@@Enzaio oh yeah.
The kid and them glanton boys got themselves in a heap of trouble when they met the devil and started travelling with him.
"Et in Arcadia Ego" suggests that the judge represents death but he's too purposefully malicious to be death.
@@calska140 I thought he represented something like war. He will never die.
@@Enzaio
Eh, could be. He just does so much overtly mean stuff (the preacher, the boys destroying conquistador relics etc) I figured he was an incarnation of evil.
But he does have dialogue about war and conflict. So I dunno.
@@calska140 Plus I don't think he's purely evil in that he basically isn't much worse than the humans he rides with. Except for the pedophilia.
Something about this guy just hurts my ears to listen to, the last person was fine. I don’t think I’ll finish this vid:/ just something about his voice.
Perfect piece of filmmaking. Flawless start to finish. Top 5 all time favorites.
I used to dislike the ending how it just cuts off without any explanation or context when i first saw this in 2007 i never understood why they made it like that until a few years went by after revisiting it again i've come to like it a lot with an even deeper appreciation for the ending. the Coen Brothers are my favorite writers & directors for making these kinds of movies that make the audience guess & wonder. films like Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Oh Brother Where Art Thou etc.. this movie is definitely a timeless masterpiece! great casting as well, every actor gave an outstanding performance!
Great video! I loved the new title text placement. But Wisecrack needs to do Legions FX! I feel like there is something there!