Thanks first of all to thor for the kind offer, and Carin for her concern.  Yes, I have been sick, actually.  But mostly I’ve been out of the game because I haven’t been able to charge my computer.ÂÂ
You probably know that I’m a fan of the Coen Bros’ films, and, given the reviews of No Country, I had such high hopes that I almost went to see it in a theater–something I seldom bother to do.  So, yesterday I rented it, and . . . it’s a good movie.  It’s not worth an Oscar.ÂÂ
The cinematography really is top notch, the pacing is great, and there are some notable acting performances (including Woody Harrelson, whom I don’t particularly care for).  For the most part, the script does a good job of capturing rural Texas inflections.  There are several set-piece scenes that are very memorable.  The problem, oddly enough, is the plot, in which there are tremendous holes.  I speak not of motivation, where most movie scripts go awry.  I mean that certain technical aspects of the plot don’t particularly work.  The most glaring of these regards the tactical errors committed by the main character and would-be hero of the piece, who is supposed to be a two-tour ‘Nam vet, who has the drop on his nemesis any number of times. There are numerous themes here: the hunter and the hunted, domesticated and wild, motivation, fate and chance, that are cast up into the air, and a coupld of soliloquies that are meant to give them resonance and depth.  Like Llewellyn, they are not redeemed.ÂÂ
I like Giant more better. Hope you feel good soon.
I was thinking Giant a lot could’ve killed two of those Oscar thinger with one stone this year, if you follow.
*thingers*
Sorry. I’m rushing cause I have to go to dinner but I wanted to say glad you’re back.
Thanks, hf. Have fun. See you soon.
The sherrif found redemption, and that make sense considering it was his story.
Question:
What was your oscar pick?
Dan – Welcome back.
As for the movie, I found it, in the end, quite fulfilling. I understand the themes, I just find moral ambivalence a cop out in good story telling. Maybe it’s my age.
Crap! Make that *unfulfilling*
Interesting. My argument is quite the opposite, while concluding the same as you. I found the plot compelling, while the Cohen-style comi-caricatures I found trite and boring. Anton could not be killed, because he was the force of pure chance in the world. Chaos. Ed could not be killed. He is the force of order, destined for disappointment. The two can never meet. It would be like this.
Order wins out only when it totally wins. Chaos wins so long as Order doesn’t. But there’s a paradox at work. Each of the murdered characters says, “You don’t have to do this.” To which Anton replies, “Yes I do.” Chaos follows an order. The tragedy of Ed’s dream soliloquy, at the very end of the picture, is that there is no need for anyone to go ahead of him with a light — the order of things plays out. Ed is tragic because he doesn’t know that he’s won. Llewelyn is tragic because he doesn’t know he can’t cheat the order of things. His wife refrains, “You don’t have to do this.” Unfortunately, Anton does have to do it. He wipes his boots on the porch, and leaves.
On the other hand, maybe I’m being a dumb and pompous ass.
Dan,
Glad to hear you are feeling better.
It’s possible reading the novel might help answer some of your questions.
Possible.
Bardem, overrated. Brolin, underrated.
I had a hard time following, the film was so heavy on the dialog :-P
Are there any flopping boombahs in the first few minutes?
Hello
NewmanKarl. I’ve noticed you haven’t posted in awhile. Don’t letthe duct tapeyour ego get in the way of speaking up or is itthe trunk of my carthat your pen’s run dry? Faint sounds of yourfingernailsbaseless opinions of the Soviet Union’s fall stillmake scratching soundsreverberate in mygaragehead. I hope all is well and look forward tothe ransom moneyhearing fromyour parentsyou.