|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
babtangee
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Location: OMG! Charlie has me surrounded!
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:11 am Post subject: Re: No Country For Old Men |
 |
|
| tombirner wrote: |
| ...and McCarthy's probably my favorite writer. |
Pity. if a less pretentious, more talented writer had of fiddled with the story it actually might have made a good film.
| Quote: |
| The Coens didn't make this film for you. They made it for themselves. That's what true artists should do. |
That's garbage. Pushing convention is one thing, excluding it is another. Buildings have rooves for a reason. Architects include rooves in their buildings for a reason. Same goes for stories. They have endings for a reason. Artists include them for a reason. McCarthy (and the Coens) not including the ending is not artistic. It's a cheap trick. Plenty of great artists have come and gone who never had to pull such crap to get attention.
I hate McCarthy. He's a hack taking advantage of pretentious people in a pretentious time for literature appreciation. I love the Coens, but they are far from artists. They admitted they never re-draft their screenplays. Sorta explains the oh-too-common saving of the hero by pure coincidence/the mercy of god in their films. Sometimes they bash out a gem. Just as often they regurgitate a mixture of wit, crap and cheap tricks.
I mostly blame McCarthy for NCFOM's shortcomings. The Coens just don't have the sense to know any better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: No Country For Old Men |
|
|
| babtangee wrote: |
| [That's garbage. Pushing convention is one thing, excluding it is another. Buildings have rooves for a reason. Architects include rooves in their buildings for a reason. Same goes for stories. They have endings for a reason. Artists include them for a reason. McCarthy (and the Coens) not including the ending is not artistic. It's a cheap trick. Plenty of great artists have come and gone who never had to pull such crap to get attention. |
Oh please.
The story has an ending. Maybe not the 'conventional' ending that you speak of, but it's there.
The ending reminded me of the feeling I had when I watched 2001 A Space Odyssey. Just kind of left me hanging, until I used some thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: No Country For Old Men |
|
|
| crescent wrote: |
| babtangee wrote: |
| [That's garbage. Pushing convention is one thing, excluding it is another. Buildings have rooves for a reason. Architects include rooves in their buildings for a reason. Same goes for stories. They have endings for a reason. Artists include them for a reason. McCarthy (and the Coens) not including the ending is not artistic. It's a cheap trick. Plenty of great artists have come and gone who never had to pull such crap to get attention. |
Oh please.
The story has an ending. Maybe not the 'conventional' ending that you speak of, but it's there.
The ending reminded me of the feeling I had when I watched 2001 A Space Odyssey. Just kind of left me hanging, until I used some thought. |
Stoners loved that film too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| For different reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I watched it last night for the first time and, whilst I like the ideas, I think it's an overblown piece of crap. The dialog is often very difficult to follow as Southern American is not a language I can understand. I realize people there do actually speak that way, but it'd be nice if authenticity was sacrificed for clarity for the sake of those of us not redneck white southern trash. My hopes weren't that high, frankly, because I lost patience with 'The Big Labowski' after about 20 minutes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Accents should be changed so you can understand better? Don't watch movies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Burndog
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I liked the ending, it had a certain poetic ambiance to it. It's terribly subjective though, and I think for me the dream metaphor was decent because I often dream of my Father who recently passed away. Art reaches some people in some ways that it doesn't reach others, there's no point arguing too much about it, it's unlikely that somebody who hates the film will suddenly change there mind based on a rebuke in an online forum! Likewise, I am not going to suddenly hate the film based on somebody saying that they thought it was cr@p. But it passes time I suppose  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
No Country For Old Men gets credit for it's style. It's stylistic. Is there another film like it? No. Does it have a 'quality'. Yes. Does it have an 'atmosphere'? Yes.
Films like this are not made for entertainment. They're made to push a corner of movie-making a little further. The Coens didn't make this film for you. They made it for themselves. That's what true artists should do. |
In that case, we shouldn't have to pay them to watch it.
Not that I did, of course, but you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Accents should be changed so you can understand better? Don't watch movies. |
I've completely changed my mind about the movie as a whole (having watched it again alone), but stand by my previous criticisms.
(a) The dialog is in a very heavy Texan accent and I have to try very hard to understand it. When Americans saw Trainspotting, they had subtitles because of the rough accents and slang. Anyone not from the South needs English subtitles. Or maybe not, it was much clearer second time round.
(b) The ending is feeble. It does actually have an ending but they chose to add another. The real ending is when Chigurh is in a car accident and gives money to the young guys for the shirt. Llewelyn was clearly killed. I assume Chigurh found the money. Basically, the baddie won, but "and then I woke up" is unnecessary and weak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Accents should be changed so you can understand better? Don't watch movies. |
I've completely changed my mind about the movie as a whole (having watched it again alone), but stand by my previous criticisms.
(a) The dialog is in a very heavy Texan accent and I have to try very hard to understand it. When Americans saw Trainspotting, they had subtitles because of the rough accents and slang. Anyone not from the South needs English subtitles. Or maybe not, it was much clearer second time round.
(b) The ending is feeble. It does actually have an ending but they chose to add another. The real ending is when Chigurh is in a car accident and gives money to the young guys for the shirt. Llewelyn was clearly killed. I assume Chigurh found the money. Basically, the baddie won, but "and then I woke up" is unnecessary and weak. |
I may be from a very particular part of the world, but I tend to understand almost any accent on tv or in movies. I, for example, can follow Snoop word for word on 'The Wire'. I didn't even realise that the people in this movie had particularly strong accents. Maybe it because my original accent(its changed alot since i came here) was pretty unintelligble to north americans. I suppose you could have subtitles but it takes awy from it a little. Under no circumstances should the accents be changed for easier understanding.
I didn;t interpret the ending the same way. The baddie did win, yea. The dream didn't change that. The cop didn't dream the whole movie. I thought the dream was about hope for the future/afterlife despite the bad guys winning. It could be interpreted in other ways of course.
The first dream which he forgets is about money...maybe it means money is not so important(ubdermining the lengths to which the movies main charachters went to get the money)
The second dream is about hope..imo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
inukshuk
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
notice how the coen brothers use product placement to get their message across?? As Jones drinks more and more coffee, he's less able to keep his nerve and mind together. Way to go coens!
Anton Chigurh is running around the cattle kill gun (co2).. an obvious classic reference to humans living in society as cattle. This motif is standard through out classic hollywood flicks (it's a wonderful life, john ford films, last picture show, etc). You can choose two sides. You can like cattle, for all their faults - as Jimmy Stewart's character does in It's A.., or you can crack up and hate it as Anton Chigurh does. (people are fu@$ morons, etc). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I understood the accents ok, it was Tom Hanks fake redneck accent in Charlie Wilson's war that was tricky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
I may be from a very particular part of the world, but I tend to understand almost any accent on tv or in movies. I, for example, can follow Snoop word for word on 'The Wire'. I didn't even realise that the people in this movie had particularly strong accents. Maybe it because my original accent(its changed alot since i came here) was pretty unintelligble to north americans. I suppose you could have subtitles but it takes awy from it a little. Under no circumstances should the accents be changed for easier understanding.
I didn;t interpret the ending the same way. The baddie did win, yea. The dream didn't change that. The cop didn't dream the whole movie. I thought the dream was about hope for the future/afterlife despite the bad guys winning. It could be interpreted in other ways of course.
The first dream which he forgets is about money...maybe it means money is not so important(ubdermining the lengths to which the movies main charachters went to get the money)
The second dream is about hope..imo. |
Indeed, I take back the criticisms. It's a classic and shouldn't be messed with....although! Personally, I would have the movie end when Chigurh walks away from the two boys. The de facto ending obfuscates in my opinion, but I accept what you say above. What I suspected to have taken place is that the Coens had �my� ending as the original, but because Chigurh is so vile, it seemed intolerable for him to win � thus add some vague tosh on the end and, as such, it ends with a blatant red herring. I knew the cop didn't say it was all a dream because that position couldn't be deduced from the dialog at all, so, if it wasn't all a dream, I couldn't really see the point, but your analysis is fine. I guess I'm rather a black and white thinker with regard to movies.
| Inukshuk wrote: |
notice how the coen brothers use product placement to get their message across?? As Jones drinks more and more coffee, he's less able to keep his nerve and mind together. Way to go coens!
Anton Chigurh is running around the cattle kill gun (co2).. an obvious classic reference to humans living in society as cattle. This motif is standard through out classic hollywood flicks (it's a wonderful life, john ford films, last picture show, etc). You can choose two sides. You can like cattle, for all their faults - as Jimmy Stewart's character does in It's A.., or you can crack up and hate it as Anton Chigurh does. (people are fu@$ morons, etc). |
Excellent analysis!
Wow, it's amazing how different Javier Bardem looks in real life.
My favorite movies are things like Resevoir Dogs, Usual Suspects, Psycho and NCFOM has gotten my blood going in the same way. I love it when a movie gets in your bones and it�s all you want to talk about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
It took two viewings coz I was a little annoyed by the hanging in the air end. I like a bit of a conclusion to films. The second time I watched it, I marveled at it. You noticed how some of the "cattle" talked their way out of it, or got the coin toss. The man at the garage, and the old woman working at the reception of the trailer park who wouldn't tell Anton where Llewelyn worked. But judging by Llewelyn's wife was killed because she turned down the coin toss and you see Anton taking off his socks when he leaves her house.
Excellent. Maybe in time it'll be held in the same regard as fargo, big lebowski and O brother.
The accents I wouldn't have any other way, adds so much more to the film. Taking it out would be like taking out the 'nadsat' from Clockwork Orange. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| inukshuk wrote: |
notice how the coen brothers use product placement to get their message across?? As Jones drinks more and more coffee, he's less able to keep his nerve and mind together. Way to go coens!
Anton Chigurh is running around the cattle kill gun (co2).. an obvious classic reference to humans living in society as cattle. This motif is standard through out classic hollywood flicks (it's a wonderful life, john ford films, last picture show, etc). You can choose two sides. You can like cattle, for all their faults - as Jimmy Stewart's character does in It's A.., or you can crack up and hate it as Anton Chigurh does. (people are fu@$ morons, etc). |
I'd say the cattle are the ones who go nuts about this mediocre flick and read more into it than a frosh Lit major who just discovered "The Scarlet Letter".
I finally discovered what irked me so much about this film and that is that it so ineffectively rips off the 1973 Walter Matthau classic, "Charley Varrick".  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
