| |
 |
|
|
Movies Forum Index » International Movies Forum » _No Country for Old Men_
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:14 am |
|
|
|
|
I reneged on my promise to see this on the big screen
and was relieved to see that it was shot 2.35 to 1 after
all. The opening, low-angle montage of West Texas
terrain are memorable. Unfortunately it is probably
the best part of the wildly uneven and disappointing film.
Having read all the reviews, I am surprised at how much
the film deviate (in subtle but significant ways) from
McCarthy's admittedly minor novel, and just how
technically flawed it is. The main problem is the Chirugh
character, who is turned into the major character; he
probably has more screen time than anyone else, and
is the Coen Brothers' favorite. The rest of the film has
a brisk pace with sharp edit between scenes. Every
time Javier Bardem's Chirugh comes on screen, lumbering
like the spaceship Discovery in Kubrick's _2001_, everything
grinds to a halt, time slow to a molass _Miller Crossing_
fashion. The worse thing is that he is all too often
centered in the frame, and the film even uses his point
of view shots. In the novel, he is more of a ghost and
a peripheral (if ever present) shadow; he features in
probably less than 1/4 of the book. There is no attempt
to take his point of view; McCarthy of course tend to use
this God-like, omniscient third-person narration. A very
interesting example is in the early drug-war scene where
he shoots two unsuspecting "colleagues." The film
focuses on him taking the transponder (which tracks the
drug money). In the novel the device is obliquely referred
to a "box"; it isn't until Llewelyn Moss figures out there is a
tracking device that the reader sees it too. The novel's
sympathy lies with Moss. The film makes Moss and
Chirugh equal adversaries in the early going, but its
technique is so boring; even _Dekalog 5_, which is shot
for TV, has a much more interesting take on the protagonists
on intersecting paths; the characters are photographed
angling towards each other from the edge of the frame.
There are other bad changes from the novel too. Moss
actually held Chirugh at gun point once, and let him
go (unwisely it turns out). The shoot-outs are much more
chaotic in the book, involving lots of anonymous Mexcian
gun runners, so it is never a one-on-one battle. In one
scene where Moss rents a second motel room, the
woman attendent is depicted as stoic and taciturn
rather than condescendingly, as a whiny fool, in the
film. (This is unfortunately what the Coen brothers are
notorious for.)
On the other hand, the rest of the film are well cast.
Tommy Lee Jones is perfect (if a bit young) as Sheriff
Bell, and the Scottish Kelly McDonald is just terrific
as Moss' wife; I can't imagine any young American
actrress who can be as dignified and sympathetic in
this role. (Maybe Michelle Williams.) The last scene
with her is well done. A critic just described the coin
flips as a Pascale's wager that she rejects. The novel
is in some sense a corrective to the all-powerful,
eloquent philosopher-devil characters that populate
McCarthy's novel. (Chirugh is ultimately seen as
deluded and the victim of random chance, not a man
of destiny.) The most powerful example is of
course judge Holden from _Blood Meridian_. As one
book critic pointed out, Bell's complaint about the
ferocity of the drug wars is quaint in light of the blood
baths along the Tex-Mex border in the 1840s-1860s,
the period during which McCarthy's greatest novel
was set. I reread part of _No Country for Old Men_;
perhaps it is a better book that I thought after all.
I wish I could say the same for the film. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue May 13, 2008 12:29 pm
|
|
