Red Band Trailer for those 17 years and older

click on red band trailer link on main page

http://www.nocountryforoldmen.com/





EDITED to make the official movie post... and that's that

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

But I really want a Lust, Caution red band trailer.

--------

hell-below.com

and it is a hell of a quote

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

Strong performances from the 3 male leads, especially Javier Bardem in the showy role. Brolin and Tommy Lee were great. I don't envy the Oscar voters, since they have to choose between this role and In the Valley of Elah for ol' Tommy Lee.

While the movie has loads of suspense and death to satisfy, it's also a meditation on the nature of violence and death in general. It *is* an adaptation of a Cormac McCarthy book, after all. I just read a review that said that the silence is like another major character in the film, and I'd have to agree with that. I know I can hear the "it was too slow/boring" complaints coming, but I thought the movie was like Badlands mixed with something like A History of Violence: loads of beautiful shots of the barren Texas landscape artfully combined with some kick-ass scenes of raw, violent death (and yeah, we know, History of Violence sucked otherwise).

But anyway, with this film, you get the art and you get the gore (and Be Clear © Funk Flex, this joint is BRUTAL). I don't think it gets any better than that, no?

Not to get everybody too hyped up (I can also forsee the "it was way too overhyped so I was dissapointed" reviews coming as well), but I thought this was a fantastic movie, the best Coen brothers joint since, well, Fargo (*ducks the PTP Big Lebowski heads*), and definitely in my top 5 for the year.
______________________________________________________________________
Went to the shelf
and dusted off the A.K.

best movie of the year.

Preach's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/kindablu

Cop it: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/preachhiphop

'Garveyism' REVIEWS/PRESS:

HipHopGame.com: http://www.hiphopgame.com/index2.php3?page=preach

Rap Reviews: http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/2006_10_garveyi

You really gotta anchor this soon. I plan on seeing this ASAP after work tomorrow.

I'm hoping this converts the last remaining doubters re: the genius of the Brothers Cohen.

______________________________
PSN: RuptureMD
http://hospitalstories.wordpress.com/

The 4th Annual Residency Encampment: Where do we go from here?

All you see is crime in the source code.

Canceled classes = a dramatic friday afternoon.

---------------------------------
<--The drought is over

"have fun reveling in your pettiness tho" (C) Dula summing up 98% of OKS

"I didnt finish a damn thing...matter of fact I jerked off after she left."
-Kobe speaking to investigators

L D E A

damn...

-----------------------------

HEY KIDS, (BUY MY) COMICS!! https://www.mythworldemedia.com/store

but am not sure how to compress the AVI file to get it below 100MB. Someone tell me how and I'll treat you to a cool little clip.

The event was great! Both actor's were incredibly open, funny, and you can tell they enjoy being in each other's presence.

They screened about 4 clips from the film and the moderator went through a series of questions w/ the two before opening up the floor to the audience. The session ended with the final trailer for the film.

Brolin's Bardem impression was DEAD ON and if I was thinking I would have gotten video of it.

At the end of the event Bardem was whisked off right away but Brolin stayed around to shake hands and sign autographs.

Included is video of Brolin and Bardem discussing how they got involved in the movie. Brolin has a great story about his audition tape that didn't make it into my little video but he tells it in the interview from aintitcool.com linked below.

Anyways a great event w/ two classy and incredibly talented actors.

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

He describes his famous audition tape in this interview which gives a little context to the clip that I'll hopefully post later. Great story. Great interview. Enjoy.

http://aintitcool.com/node/34724

This year is going to go down in movie history as the one in which Josh Brolin became a certified badass. With pivotal roles in four major 2007 releases (IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH; PLANET TERROR; AMERICAN GANGSTER; and the film that brought us together, the Coen Brothers NO COUNTRY FOR OLD ME), Brolin has redefined his career and opened up the door to pretty much write his ticket for what he does from this point on. This fact, of course, explains what he doesn't actually have anything lined up after NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN opens this weekend, but we talk about why that's the case, as well as covering just how much of a rollercoaster his career has been on since his high-profile film debut in the Steven Spielberg/Richard Donner/Chris Columbus production THE GOONIES and how he has slowly been building up a body of fine performances that he can be proud of even if the movies themselves weren't so great.

He's one of the most honest and spirited people I've ever met, and he's quick to hop out of his chair and move around the room or do a quick impression to tell his stories. The first thing he did as we began the three-person roundtable was grab my notebook of questions and notice that I had the film title INTO THE BLUE scribbled among a list of far better films he's been in lately. That's where we begin. Enjoy…

AND I WILL WARN YOU ONLY ONCE: THERE ARE MAJOR SPOILERS ABOUT NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN IN THIS, SO READ AT YOUR OWN PERIL
Question: So how did the screening go last night?
Josh Brolin: It went good. It's funny because I think people immediately following seeing this movie, it's so quiet and my character is so laconic, and then I come in and I'm this fucking motormouth. And they're like, “Wait a second, we've got to get our head around the movie already, and you need to stop talking as much.” I'm just here to make people laugh.

Capone: We can talk a lot about your acting process, I'm guessing, but…. Aw, come on

JB: I've gotta see this…INTO THE BLUE? “When you did INTO THE BLUE, how was…?” “What did you do to research HOLLOW MAN?”

C: Did you have to do a swimsuit fitting session for INTO THE BLUE?

JB: That's funny.

C: Almost every character you've played this year has sported some crazy facial hair. Is that a key thing for you? I know some actors talk about how changing their hairstyle gets them into character. Is it facial hair for you?

JB: You know, it's true. I saw Ridley Scott at the premiere of AMERICAN GANGSTER just a couple of days ago, and I haven't seen him since work--we've been communicating through e-mail--and he said, “How are you?” And I said, “I'm good.” And he looked at me and said, “Grow the 'stache back.” I don't know what that is. Facial hair is fun, and I can't grow a full beard, I can only grow really right here . Javier Bardem's a good example. I watched Javier do this movie with his good friend Fernando directed him in a movie called MONDAYS IN THE SUN, and I just loved that look. Javier just got really big, he grew a beard, cut his hair, bulky sweaters. It's fun, it just makes it that much more fun. At least for me, facial hair gives me about 10 years. Long hair gives me age too, so I can really mess with the age that way. I'm lucky in that way, when I shave. It's starting to become less and less that, but when I shave I look a little younger now, not a lot.
Q: Do you consider this the best year of your life?
JB: Career wise? Personally, I've always been pretty happy, so I'm pretty much the same. But yeah, I do know that most actors, when something like this happens, they're like “God yes! Thanks you, finally!” I don't feel that way. I feel that way in that I'm so happy to have worked with amazing people; that's what I've always wanted to do. It wasn't always that I wanted the success because I was always pretty happy just working. I always got to do pretty great characters and fun characters and characters in theater that I happy with and diverse stuff. So to me, I don't know, the biggest thing is that I'm really happy because I'm working with people who are brilliant storytellers, and that just makes the work a lot easier, and there's a lot less fighting, there's a lot less arguing and misunderstandings. That's great. But you could work with the greatest people, and the movies can still turn out awful, and I've done that quite a bit actually.

But the last movie that I did that I really, really loved that I watched and went “Wow I'm so happy I'm in this movie” was FLIRTING WITH DISASTER with David O. Russell. To me, that's a great filmmaker. And then I started working with people like Woody Allen, when I watched MELINDA AND MELINDA, that's a good movie, but I was happy with the character. And then I started saying, “Look, if I can't be in great movies, I want to at least want to be able to pull off a good character. INTO THE BLUE is another one where I was very happy with that character. I didn't think it was the greatest movie, but I was really happy with the work. As long as I can do good work. And they I really started to focus on that and pick my parts based on that, and then something came together. I don't know how it happened; I don't know what it happened. So do I feel really fortunate? Am I smiling? Yes.
Q: So it's the material first, and the collaborator second?
JB: Not necessarily. It would be equal if I was in a position to make that choice. Had I been in a position to make that choice. But I was in a much better position to worry about material and character. My agents would go crazy because I was eight months out of work, and I'd go, “Give me a fucking job, give me a job.” And they'd say, “Okay, we got you DUKES OF HAZARD.” And I'd say, “I don't want to do DUKES OF HAZARD.” And they'd go, “You've been complaining for nine months; you're broke, and you're still saying no.” So I'm glad I set a precedent a long time before all this happened.

I did a movie--and people actually like the movie--called THRASHIN' a long time ago. I did GOONIES and then I did THRASHIN'. And I went to the premiere of THRASHIN' and I cried because I watched myself. Even though people look back at that movie now and go “God, I loved that movie, dude”, I couldn't stand myself; I just thought it was awful. And I went, “Okay, go do theater. Go figure out how to do this. Go travel. Learn. Get experience, and then go see if you can do it. If you can't, go do something else because this is unacceptable. If you're going to do it, do it well. And if you can't, go find the thing that you do well.
Q: Is it possible you were spoiled by working with Spielberg on your first movie?
JB: Oh, totally. Oh my god, yes.
Q: Because most people get THRASHIN' out of the way before they go work with Spielberg.
JB: Yeah, which makes sense. Especially now. And you've got a lot of amazing foreign like Russell Crowe or whoever, who can go do movies in Australia and go through that whole process in Australia. A lot of people get those movies out of the way before they hit America. And by the time America sees them, you've got Ewan McGregor right out of the gate, amazing performances.

So yes, I was completely spoiled. Six months working on a $35 million film in 1984, which would be probably $100 million today. Totally spoiled. I thought that's what it was, and it wasn't at all.

Capone: Is it frustrating that in IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH and in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN that you're in these two great movies with Tommy Lee Jones, but you're not in any scenes with him?

Q: Have you even met him?
JB: It was probably better for me at that point. Tommy's tough, in the beginning. He's very challenging in having a relationship with anyone. So I think in the beginning it scared me a bit, not scare me, but intimidating. The good thing for me and Tommy is that I grew up with people like Tommy, older gentlemen, older country folk like Tommy. I spent some time with people like that, so I understood what was happening. But still, it was tough. So now, doing a movie with Tommy would be great because I've hung out with Tommy. We actually like hanging out. Tommy actually likes hanging out with me. He gave me, after he saw NO COUNTRY, he gave me the best compliment I've gotten so far. He called and left me a full-blown long message of how original he thought it was, how real he thought it was. He kept going, “Good job, young man.” I don't know if he was drinking or what. “Extended moments of originality” is what he said, and he kept saying it.
Q: You and Javier have an amazing dialog in this movie. Can you think back to any favorite duels that you've seen on the big screen?
JB: Other duels in other movies that I like? HEAT, because they don't really cross paths until they actually do. AMERICAN GANGSTER is another one like that; that's a great meeting of opposites at the end. But Javier and I don't have a great scene together, which I think would have been really funny. He could have said something, and I could have said, “What?” It's kind of great because they are very similar characters; they're just on opposite ends of the spectrum. They have parallel principles, parallel integrity because of how they work and who they are. His integrity in his work is the same as my integrity about how much I care about my wife. Llewelyn has the resources to protect his wife even thought he's taken this money. I don't think he thinks there's going to be a Chigurh around the corner--I don't think anybody would ever think that. But there is, and he deals with it. But I think he feels he has the resources to prevail at the end. And even as an audience member, when you think “this is not going to happen,” by the time he ends up at the pool with the girl and you see him smile and they fade out, at least me, I go, Wow he's going to make it.
Q: Were you sad that you didn't get much of a send off?
JB: No, quite the opposite. I had read the book. Sam Shepherd told me to read the book, and I was really taken with it. And I love Cormac 's writing, “Child of God,” but I didn't know that book had come out and Sam said “You have to go read this book right now.” And I loved how it happened. I don't know if it's because of my own personal experience. My mom, 12 years ago, was killed in a car accident. And I remember talking to her one second and the next second, nobody's there. That's it. So I was so pleased to see death represented in a way that was true to life as opposed to, Okay Llewelyn's dying now, like silent movie or something . So the audience can sit there and grieve and let go of this character. Oliver Stone said the same thing to me, “I hated how sudden it was.” And I said, “I love how you hated how sudden it was, because that's how it's supposed to go.” I think it's so appropriate. And I know that when Cormac saw the movie, he was so happy that they were loyal to that moment, because it's a very hard moment to be loyal to. And I think you would find very few filmmaker, and only filmmakers like the Coens, who are not under the pressure of the studio to change things, and they won't. And they set that precedent right from the beginning with 1984. “No, we're making our movies; it's okay if you don't like them. This is what we're interested in.” And it's very personal, and I think that's why they have the fan base that they have because they stick to their guns and what interests them and not necessarily what interests anybody else.
Q: How involved was Cormac McCarthy? Was he on set at all?
JB: Nobody had spoken to Cormac, even the Coens. And it's not that he's reclusive; so are the Coens. Two reclusive people aren't going to spend a lot of time together. They had never spoken to him. A friend of mine is very good at getting phone numbers that are unobtainable got his number, and I called him and he didn't call me back. I called him a second time, and he didn't call me back. And then I called him…I don't know if I was angry or frustrated or tired or something like that, but I called him and said, “There's no reason why you shouldn't call me back. I don't need for you to sign my book, if that's what you're worried about.” And I guess he liked that, so he called me back and we actually started talking on a regular basis. And he came down to the set. He was going to come down at one point, and I said, “No don't come down then.” He was bringing his son down, and I said, “Wait until there's a fun, action-y moment.” And it was the part where Javier and I are shooting each other. And I said, “Come down for that when the car goes around the bend and slams into the other car.” And it's good for kids to see; otherwise it's like going to a lampshade factory, right? So they came down then, and they liked it so much, they came down again, which I hear is very rare for somebody like Cormac. He had a good time, and he's a big fan of MILLER'S CROSSING, so they got to talk about that a lot.

But he's not interested in talking about the writing, which I appreciated. He's involved in this Santa Fe Institute, which is a think tank, and he's the only literary part of that. They're all physicists and scientists, and he's very proud to be a part of that. That's his pride. Writing is just something he does, at least in his mind.

Capone: I know you've told this story before, but tell me the story about the audition tape you made for NO COUNTRY while you were making PLANET TERROR that Tarantino and Rodriguez shot it for you.

JB: I was making GRINDHOUSE and I couldn't leave. I know it wasn't a situation where the Coens were like “We really want to see him read.” It wasn't on of those jobs. So I said, I know this is happening; I'd read the book. And then Skeet Ulrich actually called me, and said, “Do you know about this part? You'd be great in this.” So basically I came up to Robert and said, “Would you do me a favor and videotape…,” because Robert and I are always videotaping stuff. He always has a video camera. And I said, “Would you just tape me?” And he said, “Why don't we just use the camera that we have?”, which is a $950,000 Genesis camera. We did the nicest looking audition tape ever; it was amazing. And then Quentin was doing it. It was one of the scenes with Carla Jean, and Quentin was trying to direct me. She goes, “Llewelyn, were did you get the pistol?” And Llewelyn goes, “At the gettin' place.” And Quentin was saying, “I think you should say 'At the GETTIN' place.' Really emphasize gettin'. The-GETTIN'-Place!” I was like, “Bring it down, bro. I want this to be subtle.” And everybody was giving their two cents about how energized they wanted me to be, and I didn't see it like that. I saw him as much more subdued. So we did it, and we sent it to them, and they said No. They said, “Who lit it?” That was their response. So no, I didn't get the part from that. I wasn't until my agent was very persistent, and finally their last meeting with actors, they brought me in as a favor to my agent, who wouldn't leave the alone. So I found out about it at 9 o'clock the night before it happened, got the pages at 10, studied until 1, got up at 6, drove at 7, got there at 8:30, met with them at 9, and had the part by noon.
Q: You brought up GRINDHOUSE before. Why didn't more people fall in love with GRINDHOUSE? It kills me.
JB: You know what? It kills me too. I don't understand because I truly love that movie. Because Quentin, Robert, and I would all sit around watching movies at Quentin's house, and he would get up and give these 30-minute drunken introductions to zombie movies. And Robert has it all on video. “So here” and it would only be me and Robert. He just loves to talk. So we would watch these movies and just crack up. And the great thing about that too was that Quentin would be serious about these introductions. But he'd want us to really look at the story, this guy went on to do this, this, and this, and his influence was so and so, Italian filmmakers and this filmmaker. He knew everything. And we'd watch these movies, and even though they were ridiculous sometimes, you started to see that it was actually a really well-structured story. They just only had $5.65 to do it, so that's why it looks the way it does. Or it went through so many awful theaters and that's why it's so scratched. So it was a very studied passionate homage to that time, and it guess it was just too geeky. I don't know. Maybe separate was the smart thing to do; it kind of defies the whole purpose to me. I wish I knew. That to me was going to be a huge film. The trailers, the whole thing, “Thanksgiving.”

Capone: With this year in your career, you've basically kicked open the door of possibilities on what you can do next. Where do you go from here? What are you looking at? Are there people you'd like to work with?

JB: Yeah. We've been very fortunate to be offered a lot of really nice stuff. I don't know anybody else, but I respect the moment. But the moment isn't essential to me. I know that these moments happen, and there's always a down with the up and an up with the down. I'm just happy that I'm working and that I have more choice. And that's honest: I'm just happy that I have more choice. So instead of someone like Scorsese to so, “I'd love for Josh to do my film,” and the studio going, “Nope, no value there.” So now it's different. Now they go, “There's hype on Josh.” And most of the hype is totally unfounded because most people haven't seen . “Dude, what an amazing year for you! You're amazing, and I always knew you were amazing! This is fantastic.” “Have you seen the movie?” “No, but I can't wait! It's got buzz. And you've always been the man!” It's all bullshit. And having done it long enough, I know that's the case. And what I mean by “respect the moment” is I'm very humbled by the whole thing. I don't feel pressured to do a great movie; I feel pressure to do good work. Because you never know how the movie is going to turn out. But you have better odds and it's easier and it's more about the work.

When I was working with Russell and Denzel , that was a great moment because I thought, “I'm working with THE guys, guys that scare the shit out of people when they work with them. And I love that, and I'm really happy to be in that position. I want to see if I'm going to buckle or if I'm going to show up. That was more interesting than anything else. Can I be involved enough and focused enough and committed enough to my character to not go…you know, I'm supposed to be a tough guy. “ Um, I'm going to kill you.” Can I pull it off? And that meant something to me. If I can pull that off, then I'm okay and I can look for the next scary thing.

Capone: So you're just looking for scary shit, is that it?

JB: I do. Like now, I've got this bad guy thing going on. It makes me want to do a comedy really badly. It makes me want to do a funky, dark, farcical comedy. Or it makes we want to go to Shakespeare or something like that, just to keep mixing it up, just because I get bored.
Q: You spoke a little about the intimidation factor with Russell and Denzel, but the Coen Brothers have an unusual style too, don't they? And a lot of people have spoken about the lack of feedback from them on set. Can you talk about their style?
JB: It's intimidating only in that their style of directing actors is a lot like Woody Allen, where it's no an affectation. They're totally involved, they're watching every moment, they're completely committed to everything that's going on. And yet, the greatest compliment I every got from Ethan was this . And I later learned that that meant, “That's amazing. You got it. Let's move on.” Whereas in the first couple of weeks, I thought it meant, “You suck. You're not going to get any better. Let's move on because we don't have any money left. We have to stay within the budget.” And Javier and I were like, “Did they hate us? I don't understand.” But then you start to learn their vernacular or lack of vernacular. And then Woody came and did this scene with me and him in the hospital, and Woody just kind of stumbled over the scene and did what he did and got through it and it ended up being a great scene. And after he finished were like, “Oh my God. That was great!” And they gave him a big hug, and I was like “What the fuck, man. What's happening? I've been here for two months; Woody wasn't that great.”

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=interviews&id=12443

INTERVIEW: THE COEN BROTHERS (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN)
11.08.07
By Devin Faraci

http://chud.com/nextraimages/no_country_large_tiff.jpgLately we have been less interested in doing roundtables here at CHUD. The idea of sharing the exact same content with a dozen other outlets and having to deal with plenty of crummy questions just doesn't seem worth it, in the long run. But of course there are always exceptions, and one of the big ones is for genius. Like the Coen Brothers.

No Country For Old Men might be their masterpiece. A film that is at once an identifiable part of their thematic history and yet completely different from what they have done before, No Country is almost flawless. Every scene in the film works; the moments of suspense are almost unbearable, the character moments are nimble yet absolutely defining and the ending is a marvel. A lot of people will have major problems with the last twenty minutes of this film - there's always The Game Plan playing somewhere else for them.

I met the Coen Brothers a long time before I started doing all this stuff, by the way, back when I was in high school. They were at a Fangoria Weekend of Horrors in the company of Sam Raimi, and nobody at the con cared who they were, except me. This must have been right around Raising Arizona, and you would have thought people would have been more interested. At any rate, I chatted with them briefly (about Crimewave and Blood Simple, of course), and they were kind of weird and off-putting dudes. Not much has changed in the ensuing twenty years, it turns out. Except that they've completely eclipsed old buddy Sam Raimi on every level... except popularity. I imagine that Sam would still be the one getting mobbed at a Fangoria Weekend of Horrors.

Q: This seems to be the least mannered of your films to date. Was that dictated by the source material or did you make a conscious attempt to-

Ethan Coen: Knock it off? (laughs)

Joel Coen: No, well we never make those kind of overall abstract decisions or calculations. It’s an adaptation of a book, and we like the story so we try to serve the story. But you know, it’s also what we do in movies that derive from our own stories; our attitude toward them is the same - you kind of want to treat it how it feels to you it wants to be treated.

Q: Does that extend to the characters as well? Because in some of your other films, you have characters who are maybe a little buffoonish, and in this film they all seem to get a fair shake.

Joel Coen: Again, it’s kind of like the answer to the last question. Yes, there’s no question that we’ve written some buffoonish characters. Their stories are about buffoons, but this was not a story about buffoons, so they’re not treated that way or portrayed that way. The concept of giving the characters a fair shake is one that I don’t understand, at least in the abstract.

Q: What was it about Cormac McCarthy’s book that you responded to? Do you see this as perhaps a distant cousin of Fargo?

Joel Coen: Honestly we didn’t think about it that way, although retrospectively at one point I sort of realized there are certain superficial resemblances to Fargo, like the very specific regionalism of the story, and the fact that they’re both about sheriffs in small towns confronting crimes. But no, to be quite honest we were presented with the book and just took it on as an interesting book that we had that had another sensibility that comes from somebody else’s imagination, and it was our job to take that and adapt it into a movie.

Q: Can you talk about your fidelity to McCarthy’s novel? There are aspects to the story, especially the end and the fates of some of the characters, that are not very Hollywood.

Ethan Coen: Well, it’s unusual in that kind of book - it’s a surprise in the book… but you’re right, even moreso in a movie. The convention is even more ingrained that the good guy is going to meet the bad guy and they’re going to confront each other. We were aware of how unusual that is and we talked about it with Scott Rudin, the producer, we didn’t want to do the movie if we got the idea that he was asking us to do a Hollywood-ized version of the , and he was very much not. He liked the book too, and he wanted to see the book made, as opposed to seeing it turned into something else. I mean, the story is very much about how unforgiving and capricious the world can be.

Joel Coen: I think if the novel had been more conventional in that respect, I think we wouldn’t have been much interested in making it into a movie, but that was one of the things about the novel, from a storytelling point of view was interesting to us. But from the point of view of it being a full appropriate and satisfying expression of what the author was trying to say what we thought the book was about, and therefore there would be no reason to change that from our point of view either in terms of making it into a movie. We didn’t feel that it was in conflict with some larger sort of dramatic idea that couldn’t be satisfied for an audience, although whenever you’re doing things you’re aware - as we’re sure Cormac McCarthy is aware when he writes a novel - that he might not be writing it for everybody. We’re aware when we make a movie that we might not be making the movie for everybody, but we’re convinced that we’re making it for enough people who sort of will see it as an interesting thing that we don’t worry about it.

Ethan Coen: Not just interesting, but satisfying, because in a way it’s frustrating but it also has to be satisfying. And as Joel says, for some people it never could be, but-

Joel Coen: We didn’t see it as being fundamentally as being so perverse dramatically that it couldn’t work as Ethan was say in a satisfying way. That we didn’t think.

Q: It seems like Tommy Lee Jones’ character carries that satisfying portion of the story as he holds the movie together until the end.

Joel Coen: Right.

Q: Well not to belabor the Fargo connection, but both Jones’ character and Marge are in a line of work that puts them in contact with this evil that mystifies and saddens them.

Joel Coen: That’s true.

Ethan Coen: Ehh, right. (laughs) Evil may not be the perfect right word, but yes, with the real, horrible world.

Joel Coen: What they share explicitly is a certain amount of bafflement, being baffled by what it is, by the world and how it manifests itself that way.

Ethan Coen: In the case of that character in Fargo, in kind of a naïve way, and in the case of Cormac’s character, sort of a more sophisticated way.

Q: Talk a little about how you cast Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh.

Joel Coen: Javier is someone that we always wanted to work with, but there’s lots of actors we’ve wanted to work with, and it’s all about finding the right marriage of that person you want to work with in a part that’s going to be right for them. One of the things that was interesting about this character is that he is described so little in the book, but one of the things that you do get in the book is the sense that he’s the one character that’s not sort of “of the region,” that there’s something exotic or maybe foreign about him. That gave us a certain amount of license to think outside of American actors, and another thing that we needed which was extremely charismatic screen presence that we knew was necessary for that part. That’s how it happened: we didn’t know what Javier was going to do with the part, but we were utterly convinced that whatever he did, it wouldn’t be what we were most afraid of, which is to make the character into a cliché of the sort of implacable, terminator killer. We felt having satisfied that fear, having allayed that fear in our minds, we were perfectly confident with him and we just thought it’s going to be very interesting, whatever he does.

Q: Speaking of Chigurh, if he’s not evil then what is he?

Ethan Coen: Quite clearly in the book, he’s a personification of the world, which is an unforgiving and capricious ; the embodiment of that is the whole coin-tossing thing that gives the character place, and it doesn’t have to do with good and evil. The book is also about trackers, it’s about predation, which is a horrible thing in a way, but you know, it doesn’t have to do with good and evil.

Q: Have you ever thought of making a movie without one another?

Joel Coen: We think about it all of the time (laughs).

Q: How would you describe the balance of humor in this? Because there seems to be an undercurrent of humor, but there wasn’t much chuckling happening in the theater during the screening.

Ethan Coen: We weren’t trying at all, although he’s the best way of putting it: I think there’s a lot of humor in Cormac’s work and this book specifically, and we were alive to that and we tried to be faithful to Cormac’s spirit. I think if you’re alive to it, it’s there.

Joel Coen: But on the other hand, it’s one of those things where we don’t really have any feelings positive or negative about how anyone takes the movie, in terms of that. If people choose to see the movie completely clenched, you know, in terms of what the movie is - a chase movie or suspense movie or whatever it happens to be - that’s fine, and in fact from our point of view it means that a certain aspect of the movie is working well. And people also choose to laugh - for instance, people often laugh in places we don’t expect it, or never expected, and that doesn’t bother us either; so it’s not in any way bothersome to us if somebody takes it either more comically or not comically at all. The only thing that as Ethan was saying that we both thought that in the book there was a real sense of humor there as well, and as he said, that was part of the sensibility from our point of view that informed the movie.

Q: How does that mean you shape or direct the tone of the material on set? Tommy Lee Jones, for example, said that the way to play the character was to read the lines; how do you make sure that you’re getting what you need or want artistically?

Joel Coen: Just again it comes down to a scene and story thing. Even when we’re doing something which we’re very conscious is a comedy, we’re not asking the actors to sort of acknowledge the comedy in their performances. It’s kind of the same thing here. It’s like yes, there may be humor in this, but when it comes to sort of what you’re looking for in a performance, you wouldn’t want to be directing the actor towards a self-conscious awareness of that in a performance.

Q: So then are you just sort of dealing practically with what’s going on in a scene, or do you discuss at any level what the film or even just the scene is about?

Joel Coen: Well, yeah, it depends on the actor, I suppose. They’re all different, in terms of what they want to talk about, or whether they want to talk about it at all. It just runs the whole gamut.

Ethan Coen: Yeah, we do what the actor wants to do, and it does vary. We don’t have a position on that. In terms of discussing it in the abstract, discussing very specific things which some actors like to do as a way of getting at maybe deeper things, but you know - everybody’s got their own .

Joel Coen: There’s so many different ways that actors arrive at a performance and it’s just so idiosyncratic. Some do tons of research, some don’t look at the script until the night before they’re shooting the scene; everything down by heart weeks in advance, and other people are looking at the sides right before you start shooting the scene. Some people do lots of research, some people want to have very sort of subtextual discussions about motivation, and some wouldn’t go near that.

Q: How do George Clooney and Pitt work, given that you just worked with them on Burn After Reading?

Joel Coen: Where would they fit in that spectrum?

Ethan Coen: George is interesting because on the last two movies we’ve done with him, our whole discussion of the character took place about five minutes before we started shooting (laughs).

Joel Coen: Brad is kind of the same, although Brad struggled a little bit more in terms of trying to find the right . But George had worked with us before - this was the third movie we’d done with George - so sometimes it’s a little different in that respect too, and I think Brad was trying to find a place where he was going to both understand the character and find a place where he was going to pitch it that was going to be appropriate in terms of what everyone else was doing.

Ethan Coen: Sometimes this happens a lot with actors, they kind of don’t know where to jump off from, like where do you start: geographically where is he from, or ethnically, or could he be this or that. You kind of talk about those things, and you never arrive at any conclusion and you feel vaguely dissatisfied, but then everything’s fine - it takes care of itself.

Joel Coen: And they all start from different places. There are actors who if they get the right haircut, they’ll know exactly what to do. There are actors who in the costume fitting sill start to understand the character, because they may get directorial signals just in terms of what you’ve chosen to show them, or your conception of how the character dresses that they didn’t understand from the script. I mean, there are actors that can set up very externally like that and come to a really interesting understanding of their characters that helps them do the part that way, and others who that means nothing at all.

Ethan Coen: Actually with Brad, I think the character all came from a botched dye job that he had on his hair for a commercial, and we all looked at it, us and Brad, and thought, “oh, okay, that’s the guy.”

Q: What about Kelly MacDonald? She’s an unexpected choice to play a Texas wife.

Joel Coen: Yeah, it doesn’t work on paper (laughs). It’s true. On paper we weren’t even anxious to see her because we figured why would we see this actress with this thick Glaswegian accent for a gal from west Texas? But she came in and did this very convincing accent, just completely off the cuff, really, and so that went well.

Q: Did any of the material’s potential relevance resonate with you, with the current emphasis on the border?

Joel Coen: We never thought about it in terms of topicality.

Q: Why then was the location or setting so important to you?

Joel Coen: Well, in every story that we do it’s important, just in terms of how you think about story, that it be very specific from the point of view of a region or location. It’s hard to imagine stories for us sort of divorced from that aspect. I don’t know why - it’s something that we share with Cormac McCarthy and part of why we were drawn to this, is that sort of intense focus on the place informing the story., But beyond that, there were lots of reasons that we liked the book. The ideas in the book were also very interesting to us - the characters, all of those things. It’s a big soup; you go and you try to parse the soup, and it’s a little artificial; it was just kind of the whole package that just kind of appealed to us.

Q: After doing something serious like this is it natural to move to a comedy?

Joel Coen: That happened really because of availability of all of these actors at this time. That had more to do with that in relation to the other movies than anything else.

Q: Do you know what you’re doing after this?

Joel Coen: Yeah (laughs)

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

i'll say more about it later, but it was everything i thought it'd be. loved the lack of music, too.

before moving away from LA.

Great script, great performances, and great casting for the secondary actors and actresses throughout the movie. Added to the small town Texas vibe the movie was going for. I have to admit I got caught up with the whole suspenseful vibe the movie established and missed some major dialog that occurred in the movie. I won't spoil too much, but I thought it was interesting how the movie omitted certain violent scenes in the movie.

This movie is fucking gangbusters. Best movie I've seen in a while.

I swear, every few years Joel leans over to Ethan and says "meh, let's get some more Oscars." I love the Coens 'cause it seems like they just make whatever movie they feel like. I don't think they give a fuck if some critics didn't like The Ladykillers, the movie isn't that much different from The Hudsucker Proxy in mood, same bizarre attitude to bringing a ridiculous story to the audience. And every now and then they'll pump out a "serious" movie like Barton Fink or Fargo and collect some awards.

That being said though, I've never seen a Coen film this humourless. It's dark as fuck...maybe Blood Simple was this dark, it's been a while since I've seen it. I thought Miller's Crossing was this dark, but I bought it a few weeks ago and I think I was just too young when I saw it to understand how subtly hilarious and over-the-top it was with its parody.

Bardem is simply electrifying, and the adaption of american psychopath McCarthy's intense themes of US violence to the big screen is done with heaviness, yet without making you feel like you caught a beatdown. The writing (often lifted directly from the book) is spellbinding, incredible writing actually. The whole movie has this unbearable intensity to it, kind of like a Kubrick film. Thumbs up, go see it, tell your friends, tell your girlfriend she should come watch a Javier Bardem movie...it's balls out.

...says Wrongthink

Real talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12JJv6yCk7Q

Current Rotation:

Shad - TSOL
Onra - Long Distance
Cool Kids - Tacklebox
Shabazz Palaces

>That being said though, I've never seen a Coen film this
>humourless. It's dark as fuck...maybe Blood Simple was this
>dark, it's been a while since I've seen it. I thought
>Miller's Crossing was this dark, but I bought it a few weeks
>ago and I think I was just too young when I saw it to
>understand how subtly hilarious and over-the-top it was with
>its parody.

To those reading this thread, don't read this reply and think this movie is totally devoid of humor. There is some dialog that has it funny aspects to it, in particular some of the Tommy Lee Jones monolouges. Make no mistake, this is a straight up suspense movie, but it isn't totally without humor. Even Anton Chigur(s) has some brief moments of humor to his lines. Dark humor, but some humor is there nonetheless.

>Bardem is simply electrifying, and the adaption of american
>psychopath McCarthy's intense themes of US violence to the big
>screen is done with heaviness, yet without making you feel
>like you caught a beatdown. The writing (often lifted
>directly from the book) is spellbinding, incredible writing
>actually. The whole movie has this unbearable intensity to
>it, kind of like a Kubrick film. Thumbs up, go see it, tell
>your friends, tell your girlfriend she should come watch a
>Javier Bardem movie...it's balls out.

Dude was so good (and I guess some of the credit has to go to the Coen Brothers and the cinematographer as well) that I didn't pay attention to certain monolouges in the flick because I was waiting for the dude to bust on the screen and wreck shit. When the film opens up nationwide, I'll have to peep the movie again to pay more attention to the monolouges I for the most part ignored.

I've crossed that very border. To be that young and carefree again...sigh

It was eerie.

It reminded me how Texan I am, and how not Texan I am...and how much I miss it.

Everybody gave a stellar performance.

And the ending was great.

one
k. orr

No doubt in my mind and I rarely every say it...

But this is a classic, a masterpiece, it is superb IMO!!!

Top of my list for the year.

There have already been good reviews for it so I won't go into the details, but everyone needs to see this whenever possible.

just in the sense that i knew joel and ethan still had it in 'em.

best shit i've seen all year.

Shows were selling out at Times Sq. This could be the Coen Brothers best film yet. It's strong from beginning to end and I never felt a drag.

This post was paid for by the following.

www.twitter.com/13Rose
www.debunkthemyth.org
http://dashaunworld.wordpress.com/
www.mothergreen.com

Remember MJ The Great!
PSN: ThirteenRose

Some of the audience was laughing at weird times but still I really liked the movie. The ending didn't exactly do it for me but it didn't take away from it.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

although I actually find myself agreeing with Anthony Lane a bit, as far as it's more or less strictly a great genre exercise and the Texas it depicts is a myth. It's more Blood Simple than Fargo or Barton Fink.
Still, fucking amazing and tense as hell.

I think Woody stole the show to an extent.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

>although I actually find myself agreeing with Anthony Lane a
>bit, as far as it's more or less strictly a great genre
>exercise and the Texas it depicts is a myth. It's more Blood
>Simple than Fargo or Barton Fink.
>Still, fucking amazing and tense as hell.
>
>I think Woody stole the show to an extent.

And come on now, you know there's only one scene stealer in this movie and he was never on Cheers.

...says Wrongthink

Real talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12JJv6yCk7Q

Current Rotation:

Shad - TSOL
Onra - Long Distance
Cool Kids - Tacklebox
Shabazz Palaces

he was brilliant, no disrespect to all of the other brilliant performances.

And this movie was more Blood Simple than Fargo or Barton Fink.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

i hadn't seen him in anything in so long i forgot how good he is

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

Top tier.

I'm just saying that the show stealer was Bardem, no question.

...says Wrongthink

Real talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12JJv6yCk7Q

Current Rotation:

Shad - TSOL
Onra - Long Distance
Cool Kids - Tacklebox
Shabazz Palaces

upon 3rd viewing.....

let me preface this by saying i finished the novel a week before the coen's were announced as the directors of this picture. the novel itself blew me a way and it was one of those books that i read thinking 'God in heaven I want to make this into a movie.' I've read the novel twice now and I still find it terrifying. No book has shook me as deeply and fundamentally because no book has served as reflection of my own mortality. so when the coen's were announced i didn't exactly jump for joy. my opinion was equal parts interest and disbelief in their (or anyone else's) ability to pull this story off, not to mention doing so w/ fidelity to the original source material. Although they damn near sold me when I heard they'd cast Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell because I read Tommy Lee Jones (or perhaps Michael Parks) when I first read the novel. As the rest of the principals were announced I was struck w/ the utmost certainty that the brothers coen would pull this off. The Brolin/Bardem combo is casting of such pitched perfection that you want to scream 'why didn't I think of that?' but you don't because you know 'duh, because it's simply too perfect'....then the trailers hit and i don't think i've ever gotten the sense that an adaptation had stayed quite as faithful to its source material. there was no doubt in my mind that they nailed it.

and then i saw the picture. i had minor gripes the first viewing that were grounded in the novel to screen transfer. certain things were lost in translation that when you adore the source as much as I do the novel you can't help but be put out. second viewing i felt pretty much the same as the first. ultimately the coen's made a hell of a picture. easily one of the best of the year (i don't forsee anything topping it at this point other than Anderson's 'There Will Be Blood') but the novel it wasn't....quite.

i saw it today for the third time. this time focusing on the techinical and thematic elements of the picture. and i was blown away. the coen's are on master class level with this one. this is a picture that deserves to be studied. deakins' cinematography is incredible. no, it's not doyle's crayola confections but in terms of visual storytelling it knows few equals in this year's field. his collaboration with the coen's has hit a high point with this picture. the sound design, and i'm not someone who is big on sound or sound design, is mind bogglingly good. in my mind the hallmark of a good picture is whether you can watch it on mute and enjoy it more than with sound (why do you think they are called 'pictures'?). here the film works either way. you can watch it without sound (which I look forward to doing on DVD) or you can watch it without picture (which I equally look forward to doing on DVD). so much of the film's effect is grounded in its soundscape as sounds link seemingly disparate characters, actions and even scenes together. plenty has been and will continue to be made of the performances and I won't say much more here other than to give praise for their casting of the bit parts (the trailer park lady, the sporting goods clerks, the accountant, ed tom's friends, the numerous drivers on along the highway, the sheriff in el paso, the boys on bikes etc). their looks and line readings are all pitch perfect and their work here will be overlooked because of the strength of the work of the principals. the production design and period continuity were fantastic which was a HUGE gripe of mine w/ American Gangster. Nothing in Gangster felt lived in or organic. It all felt like it came off of the '70s rack in the wardrobe truck and every car felt like a picture car. Here, it felt like the 80s all over again which is much easier to do in the desert and the outskirts of Marfa, Texas but still. The world felt lived in beyond as if it exists beyond on the calls of 'action' and 'cut!'
the direction here is of the highest caliber. even if you didn't like the movie you'd have to give the coen brothers credit for their sheer confidence. it's difficult material and they not only navigate it fearlessly they own it. they lay claim to the ultimate achievement in adaptation: remaining utterly faithful to the source material while making the material utterly yours.'
this is everything film and filmmaking is meant to be.

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

>i had minor gripes the first
>viewing that were grounded in the novel to screen transfer.
>certain things were lost in translation that when you adore
>the source as much as I do the novel you can't help but be put
>out.

I haven't read the book but:

1 The Coen Brothers are known for their humor, especially in terms of the use of irony. Now the movie offered a couple more laughs than I was anticipating--I actually wasn't anticipating any--and I have to ask how honest was that to the book? And if it wasn't in McCarthy's novel to begin with, did it add anything? I guess I'm mostly talking about a couple little moments: Chigurh and the bottle of milk, the mother-in-law, the chicken feathers, etc. In Fargo, when Francis McDormand is questioning the two prostitutes that hooked up with Buscemi and his friend the mute, it's a fucked up situation they're all involved with, but there's kind of detached humor that's used for levity's sake. That works there because overall it's a pretty absurdist film. I thought this movie was much more dire and dark, but still some of the way the "locals" were portrayed (the trailer park manager, the motel manager, the border patrol guy, etc.) had almost a slight wink to it. I don't think that hurt the movie, because honestly a couple small moments of relief aren't bad, but I don't know if people that loved the book first would be so open to such touches. (On some Cormac McCarthy fan website, when the Coens were first announced, if they would be able to play the novel "straight" was one of the most prominent worries.)

2. Did you think that Llewelyn was made any more likable for the screen, and if so, at what cost, if any? Sure, he's still a thief, but from what I understand is that in the book he actually hooks up with the girl at the motel pool who offers him the beers. Conversely, in the movie, when first propositioned, he immediately points to his wedding ring. No matter how illegal a mess he might have made for himself, that he remains faithful to his wife, doesn't break their vows, makes sure she's in a safe place, etc., gives him the redeeming quality of "oh, he's a good husband." Now, if it's true that he really does sleep with the beer-girl, then that quality is quickly gone. Yes, he still turns down Chigurh's offer to save his wife so long as he turns himself and the money over, but I guess you can read that as pure hubris rather than strict greed / selfishness. Anyway, I still buy everything he did as it is on screen, but I wonder if anyone would think the Coens took the easy way out. (Though because of how the movie played, as far as pacing and plot and all, I'm not so sure that kind of hiccup in the story would have served any part of the film, i.e., I don't mind it not being there. After all, most great adaptations, for instance L.A. Confidential, often take liberties with how they choose to represent certain aspects of the particular literary work, so long as it strengthens the overall cinematic experience.)

*THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW*

>
>1 The Coen Brothers are known for their humor, especially in
>terms of the use of irony. Now the movie offered a couple
>more laughs than I was anticipating--I actually wasn't
>anticipating any--and I have to ask how honest was that to the
>book? And if it wasn't in McCarthy's novel to begin with, did
>it add anything? I guess I'm mostly talking about a couple
>little moments: Chigurh and the bottle of milk, the
>mother-in-law, the chicken feathers, etc.

All of those little moments (and more, including Chigurh eating the nuts at the gas station) are all in the book. To be honest, while I was reading the book I was frightened at the fact that some of these things made me chuckle because they struck me as odd. I just didn't expect to see them in this kind of story, so when I read it, it seemed like there was a different reaction from me, not a different telling of a story. The movie does a fantastic job of bringing out the humor, and I think in a way that is very natural to the essence of the book. To me, you will either laugh at this movie or you won't, and everybody will laugh at different times. The main reason why is because things here aren't funny because there are punchlines, they are funny because they ARE just so offputting. When Chigur is in the gas station eating the peanuts, you laugh because it is so absurd. Here he is offering this man the choice between life and death and all he is doing is eating nuts. So, to answer your question, yes the humor is in the book, and the style of the humor is a great reason why the Coens should have made this movie.

That works
>there because overall it's a pretty absurdist film.

This may sound lame, but I think the humor here is okay because life is absurd. The movie/book is frighteningly real, but also kind of surreal. An ongoing chase, an indestructible man, etc.

I thought
>this movie was much more dire and dark, but still some of the
>way the "locals" were portrayed (the trailer park manager, the
>motel manager, the border patrol guy, etc.) had almost a
>slight wink to it. I don't think that hurt the movie, because
>honestly a couple small moments of relief aren't bad, but I
>don't know if people that loved the book first would be so
>open to such touches. (On some Cormac McCarthy fan website,
>when the Coens were first announced, if they would be able to
>play the novel "straight" was one of the most prominent
>worries.)

This is hard to say. All of the characters you mention were, in my opinion, much more skeptical in the book, but they were all still open. Honestly, they kind of reminded me of cattle in the book. When something strange comes along they just cock their heads sideways and say "what the hell" and follow it along their path. This mentality leads some of them to their death (correction, many of them to their death) and others just walk away.

>
>2. Did you think that Llewelyn was made any more likable for
>the screen, and if so, at what cost, if any? Sure, he's still
>a thief, but from what I understand is that in the book he
>actually hooks up with the girl at the motel pool who offers
>him the beers. Conversely, in the movie, when first
>propositioned, he immediately points to his wedding ring. No
>matter how illegal a mess he might have made for himself, that
>he remains faithful to his wife, doesn't break their vows,
>makes sure she's in a safe place, etc., gives him the
>redeeming quality of "oh, he's a good husband." Now, if it's
>true that he really does sleep with the beer-girl, then that
>quality is quickly gone. Yes, he still turns down Chigurh's
>offer to save his wife so long as he turns himself and the
>money over, but I guess you can read that as pure hubris
>rather than strict greed / selfishness. Anyway, I still buy
>everything he did as it is on screen, but I wonder if anyone
>would think the Coens took the easy way out.

If anything I think he came off as less likable in the movie version. In the book, I genuinely felt like he could win. He was full of piss and vinegar, sure, but he was still a guy you rooted for. And no, in the book he doesn't have sex with the girl, who he actually picks up as a hitch hiker, and they have a few really great conversations with each other. With her is when he really comes to the realization that he HAS set himself on this course and there is nothing he can do but ride it out, which obviously seems to be one of, if not THE, major theme in both the book and the movie. The biggest aspect left out of the movie in my opinion was Moss' and Bell's reverence for their respective wives. Llewelyn is much more gruff in his ways with his wife, but he seems to be much more motivated in surviving to get back to her than he is for strictly the money. Also, Bell gushes endlessly about his wife in the book, about what a wonderful woman she is, how she makes up for his faults, etc. etc. It was definitely something they left untapped. I wonder if Frances McDormand has read the book?

- Dub

I give rappers the biz for being m-izza-a-archaic.

And so spare, too! Not so much as an eerie piano clinking anytime Chigurh walked into a room.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

I've been looking for chances
to say this in passing conversation
since i saw this.

that air compressor weapon thing was so gully.

____________

"If I ever run into any of you bums on the street corner, just let's pretend we never met before."

can somebody explain the ending to me?

OKAYDIGGER

I think TLJ realized he couldn't bring the bad guy to justice nor could he protect anyone. And that realization is echoed throughout the movie.

It's present at the start in the narration, it's part of the story between him and his relative, and it's at the very end in the recounting of the dream.

You could play it out a few ways
- end of innocence
- the drug trade got real serious
- the triumph of evil

But ultimately, Tommy Lee Jones knew that he couldn't stop what was going to come. He may have thought of his own family as well.

one
k. orr

>You could play it out a few ways
>- the triumph of evil
>
>But ultimately, Tommy Lee Jones knew that he couldn't stop
>what was going to come.

I think what you have here and what SoulHonky wrote below basically capture the two major themes of the movie: evil is ever-present and principles are fleeting. The second dream that TLJ confesses essentially spelled to me "there is no salvation." The fire in the night that his dad would provide represented a kind of hope, light through the darkness, but then he wakes up. Nothing is there. Hope is gone. Evil was and always will be, since before 1909 and beyond 1980. The idea that Anton Chigurh is a ghost--and I'm forgetting if someone said that to TLJ or if Jones said it himself--would reinforce this idea: you can't kill a ghost, it's restless and moves in any which way it chooses. That Chigurh returns to crime scenes, lurking in the shadows, and that he can manage to escape a car accident, where he bribes the two boys to tell the ambulance that he had disappeared before they came upon the crash, again suggests this spectre-like presence. I mean, unless we're talking of Casper, ghosts are often seen as the personification of evil, the spirit of that which goes against any human order.

Secondly, TLJ and Josh Brolin are men of fleeting principles. Woody Harrelson's speech to Brolin at the hospital mentioned how Chigurh has a set of principles that goes beyond what he and Brolin can ever know or possess, extending beyond even money and drugs. Brolin is tempted by the two million, something he senses is trouble from the start, and even when he shows that he wishes to protect his wife, he refuses Chigurh's deal to turn himself and the money over in order to save her life. Next, TLJ has principles of law and order to uphold, but he's lost the heart / nerve / will to deal with what he perceives to be an ever-increasing evil world. Chigurh, on the other hand, no matter how violent or unseemly his methods of expression are, is unwavering in his principles. When Woody offers him 14 grand to let him go free, he never considers it for one second (look at how he laughs at the mere notion of the ATM). And when it comes time to kill Mrs. Moss, though she doesn't have the money and there is no strategic purpose behind it, he's given Brolin his word that she would die, so she must. Again that backs up the first point--evil is ever-present--because how can you stop evil when it's more determined than the forces set up to oppose it?

The look he gives Moss's wife when she says he doesn't have to flip said it all IMO. The notion that he doesn't have to kill her despite giving his word doesn't make sense. He gave his word. He can't simply break it because she doesn't have his money. He can leave it up to the fates to decide, on a coin toss, but for him to willingly decide to break his word is impossible.

I think it really speaks to what is going on in America today. The people who stand by their principles (no matter how fucked up they may be) are the ones who control everything. Once a person struggles with their principles, they are toast.

Look at how the whole mess started, Moss went for the money and didn't do anything to help the injured man. He wouldn't even close the car door for him. That finally ate away at him so he went back (which is how everyone then connected him to the scene). If he had gotten the man his water (or had Chiggur's principles and just put the guy out of his misery), he, like Anton, could have been a ghost, taking the money and disappearing.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

this is spot-on..
the presence of evil is the overriding theme in this film..
tommy lee jones' heart is broken throughout the whole movie..
broken for the realization that this is a cold cold world...

peace

------------------------------------------
REP MUZIK, TIL DEATH DO US:
http://www.myspace.com/boxcutterknow1edge
http://www.soundclick.com/boxcutterknow1edge

thinking back, that line the old guy says about
'the whole world can't wait for you - that's vanity'
that's really the writers speaking to the audience

the most notable aspect of this film is it's lack of resolution. so to rephrase that line
'the whole plot of the film (which is supposed to reflect reality) can't tie up neatly just to please you - that's too easy'

it seemed to me most of the times the film was discarding conventions. the various Westernish characters like the 'tracker'/private-eye dude (Woody) were killed off too abruptly. the hero didn't come close to rescuing his girl. the sheriffs were impotent

it even invented its own conventions, like the killer's coin-tossing, only to abandon them when they got in the way of serious business

so to sum up, the film was less about real world troubles (they rejected that with the story about the Indians killing that fellow 100 years ago, as if nothing had changed. whereas the 'dismal tide' speech was deliberately comedic) and more about the nature of fiction, specifically plot resolution

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

Tommy Lee Jones couldn't live up to his principles. He knew how to be a good lawman but didn't have what it took.

In the beginning of the film, he says he likes to compare himself to the old lawmen and wonder if he would be able to do as well as they had. However, soon after, he cops pleas, saying times now are hard and things are going crazy. It's not as easy as it used to be.

However, the old man with the cats dispels this notion; he tells the story of the former Sheriff getting gunned down on his front porch and says that people have always had to deal with monsters, Tommy Lee Jones's world is no tougher than the world of the old timers.

And when it comes down to it, Tommy Lee Jones's character didn't have what it took to stand up to the evil. He saw Bardem in the hotel room (in the reflection in the door) and didn't do anything. The shadow was obvious but Jones still ignored it and just sat in the bed.

That's what, IMO, the final monologue was about: Tommy Lee Jones knew the evil he had to fight but when it came time to face it, "I woke up". He couldn't even face the evil in his dreams, let alone in reality.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>Tommy Lee Jones couldn't live up to his principles. He knew
>how to be a good lawman but didn't have what it took.
>
>In the beginning of the film, he says he likes to compare
>himself to the old lawmen and wonder if he would be able to do
>as well as they had. However, soon after, he cops pleas,
>saying times now are hard and things are going crazy. It's
>not as easy as it used to be.
>
>However, the old man with the cats dispels this notion; he
>tells the story of the former Sheriff getting gunned down on
>his front porch and says that people have always had to deal
>with monsters, Tommy Lee Jones's world is no tougher than the
>world of the old timers.
>
>And when it comes down to it, Tommy Lee Jones's character
>didn't have what it took to stand up to the evil. He saw
>Bardem in the hotel room (in the reflection in the door) and
>didn't do anything. The shadow was obvious but Jones still
>ignored it and just sat in the bed.
>
>That's what, IMO, the final monologue was about: Tommy Lee
>Jones knew the evil he had to fight but when it came time to
>face it, "I woke up". He couldn't even face the evil in his
>dreams, let alone in reality.

When Bell goes back to the crime scene towards the end, are you sure the shadow he sees isn't his own?

The shadow might be his own but he definitely sees the reflection in the door knob. I could have sworn the reflection was Bardem's though but I could be wrong.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

i mean, for a start the room was dark so there would be no reflection from that side, and secondly the reflected head was wearing a hat

although i suppose that leaves the question, what was the point of that whole scene

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

but that puts it all together

"I'm getting it, i'm getting, i aint talking about it, i'm living it"

blkprinceMD05 and beyond

"Not nigger, but Man"- from 47, by Walter Mosley

Bell gives a long description of his dream in which he's traveling through a deathly cold country and his father went on ahead, and he assumed that his father went to light a fire for him but "then I woke up." End movie.

The movie wasn't about Moss, and it wasn't about Chigurh, it was about Bell. Bell's waking up to the existence of this underlying and unescapable evil (or the brutal and deadly cold in his dream) being all their is was the point of the movie, which is pessimistic in nature but that's McCarthy for you. Chigurh represented the world's unbreakable force of evil, and when Bell "woke up" to the idea that this wasn't some new and strange force that you could associate with the Devil but a universal constant of mankind (as revealed when he met his old uncle in the shack) he lost his faith.

You could associate his father in the dream for the Holy Father 'tending the fire ahead,' but he woke up to the idea that there is no one tending the fire, all there is is the cold. In the last scene you see a man whose entire image of the world has been shattered. He can't even make his own plans for the day but had to ask his wife if he should go out riding or not. He's beaten and pathetic, a man destroyed by his own epiphany.

Once Bell "woke up", well, that's the story. End scene. No need for any further closure, that's it.

...says Wrongthink

Real talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12JJv6yCk7Q

Current Rotation:

Shad - TSOL
Onra - Long Distance
Cool Kids - Tacklebox
Shabazz Palaces

>He's beaten and pathetic, a man destroyed by
>his own epiphany.
>
>Once Bell "woke up", well, that's the story. End scene. No
>need for any further closure, that's it.

doesn't he say something like "but i know he'll be waiting for me ahead". my take is that basically, he's surrounded in this freezing mountain pass (i.e., the cruel world) and he wants some help to get by, but there's no one who can help him now. but eventually, he will be warmed by the fire his father is making. so he's crushed by this world, but with a glimmer of hope for the next.

i only just saw the movie, and i haven't read the book, so i don't know if that's what the intent was, but that's what i got out of it.

------
"I can't promise I'll try. But I'll try to try."

You shouldn't have to have read the book, (though I did after I posted my original post up there, quick read, you should check it out...my roommate's doing a class on McCarthy right now so I picked up a copy to check out), the movie is an art form unto itself. The Coen's themes don't have to be represented in the book, and vice versa. They are each individual pieces of art and should not be confused.

In case you were wondering though, the book ends with the exact same monologue, and the words are "in the dream I knew that he was goin on ahead and he was fixin to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. And then I woke up."

I see how you might come to that conclusion that Bell expects the fire to be real...but I would ask you why put "and then I woke up" at the end of the monologue and the end of the movie? To me it's like adding a 'but' to a sentence. I think he realized that God's promise was a lie, and that was his 'waking up'. If it wasn't, why the "and then I woke up" phrase in the first place? How does waking up factor into your interpretation? And if such an optimistic idea, why does he present himself as so defeated in the final scene?

...says Wrongthink

Real talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12JJv6yCk7Q

Current Rotation:

Shad - TSOL
Onra - Long Distance
Cool Kids - Tacklebox
Shabazz Palaces

These write ups are prolly some of the best breakdowns i've ever seen on OKP/PTP.

Y'all should be commended.

one
k. orr

or at the very least more frequent.

it's a testament to the quality of the film and to the quality of some of the members here in engaging the material.

i'll be back w/ a few notes

but k_orr is right that it is quite nice to see a quality discussion on the boards. and hell it's nice to see a quality movie that fosters critical thinking

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

agreed.

and its triumph over good

because i think that oversimplifies the film and especially its source material

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

and I think each post has some truth in it. It was just a multi-layered movie that allows for multiple interpretations.

For me, Chigur had such a grip on my mind that by the end of the movie, I fully expected him to come and wreck havoc on every single character's life. So, after the "then I woke up," I didn't know if we were supposed to interpret Chigur's presence in the Sheriff's house and, consequently, the Sheriff's impending doom, or, like all of you seem to think, it was simply a final epiphany that summed up the moral of the story.

OKAYDIGGER

and screw people who need neat Hollywood endings this movies had nuts too big for that

Rather than repeat everything everyone in his said, I'll just say it's the best movie I've seen all year and it unfolded absolutely perfectly.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

best movie of the year.
i'm gonna say one of my favorites ever.

------------------------------------------
major win.

even when he wasn't in the scene, you almost expected him to pop up out of the shadows.

an amazing movie.

>even when he wasn't in the scene, you almost expected him to
>pop up out of the shadows.
>
>an amazing movie.


Dude to this, I totally ignored Tommy Lee Jone's dream monologue to his wife because I expected Chigurh to pop out and go off.

I went to the 7:10pm showing at Tower Theater. I gotta say, this movie was intense and satisfying. When Anton Chigurh was lurking in the background or when he would popped in the scene, I felt this Jason Voorhees/Michael Myers vibe. Like this was a slasher movie mixed with an old western with a Coen Brothers feeling. I had a feeling they would end the movie abruptly too. But I had no problem with it, I think this was a move to reflect on with friends. I watched it with my twin brother and his girlfriend and with my girlfriend. My girl's reaction with each scene with Anton "Sugar" (haha) Chigurh was awesome. But like the person said several post above me, many people might think it's boring or that the movie is overhyped. o-well. I enjoyed each performance. Clearly one of the best movies this year.

Probably worth seeing again in the theater, but I don't have the time. It'll be an instant DVD buy though.

And you guys killed the breakdown above. I gotta co-sign k_orr and say it's some of the best work I've seen on this board.

Hopefully "There Will Be Blood" will inspire similar discourse.

______________________________
PSN: RuptureMD
http://hospitalstories.wordpress.com/

The 4th Annual Residency Encampment: Where do we go from here?

All you see is crime in the source code.

most torrents seem to be fake.
-------------------------------------------
Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chaidealo/

Fuck a torrent

It's well worth the price of admission

And if it ain't out in your area, wait
______________________________________________________________________
Yeah, fuck what these other dudes is talking
Thank you, Lloyd
for everything

you won't regret it.

thank you for the recommendation. i'll definitely be checking this in the theatre. i have to wait until january 23rd, 2008. DAMN!
-------------------------------------------
Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chaidealo/

is when TLJ goes back to the motel of the last firefight, and he doesn't know if he wants to walk through that door. he knows the danger that has stalked every day of his job, and it seems to bet getting worse and worse. and chigur seems like he's going to kill him, but then TLJ opens the door and then you wonder if chigur was really in there? was the danger present, or was it imagined by TLJ? then you see the bathroom window latch is undone, and the vent with the screws undone, and i think TLJ realizes he is asking for trouble by staying on the job.

------
"I can't promise I'll try. But I'll try to try."