Any Eventuality

25 Jan. 2008

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

Filed under: Movie Reviews — by Nobody @ 6:52 pm

I saw No Country for a second time last night and I appreciated it much more than five weeks ago. I wasn’t sure how I felt about it the first time but now it’s in my Top 2 of the year — I just can’t decide if it should dethrone my personal fave, Tell No One.

I think No Country is better than There Will Be Blood though, which should be no embarrassment to PT Anderson. It’s only his fifth film compared to the Coens’ twelfth (or tenth, for purists who don’t count their work-for-hire Intollerable Cruetly or remake The Ladykillers).

Great as it is, There Will Be Blood has too many weak links, primarily by the name of Paul Dano but also in the bowling alley scene, while No Country takes literally no missteps. Not to mention that it’s visually beautiful: Virtually every color in the film is gold or green, or a sickly mixture of both, and even Chigurh’s face becomes a jaundiced yellow.

(Many SPOILERS following)

After the second screening it is finally obvious to me Anton Chigurh represents Death qua Death, moreso even than a generic Evil personified (though death is an evil). One of the key exchanges is when the accountant asks, “Are you going to kill me?” and Chigurh answers, “That depends. Do you see me?” He even calls himself a “tool” in the same scene.

Unfortunately I was not watching it through this lens last night so now I need to see it a third time! I had given up making sense of it after the first time, so I just “experienced it” last night and I’m glad I did because it’s probably the last time I’ll be able to enjoy it on an exclusively literal level. But that just goes to show how perfectly the movie works as both a suspenseful cat and mouse procedural and a touching meditation on death. Chigurh is not either human or supernatural, he is always both.

The Coens have their cake and eat it throughout the film, and the cynic who claims Chigurh can’t represent Death because we see him taking bullets out of his leg might as well say Bergman’s Death is a real human because we see him playing chess with Max von Sydow. Even Carson Wells says, “Do you have any idea how goddamn crazy you are?” To which Chigurh replies, “You mean the nature of this conversation?” The nature of the conversation is crazy because he is speaking to Death himself. But Carson says, “I mean the nature of you.” No Country for Old Men reminds us that all death is a product of evil, even death of natural causes, and Ed Tom Bell in particular reminds us to be outraged that death should exist at all.

But lest we think we are encountering Death on a new scale, more perverse than previous incarnations, Uncle Ellis reminds us that “What you got ain’t nothin’ new.” Like Sheriff Bell and the local sheriff in El Paso, every generation romanticizes the past and thinks its own problems are qualitatively different than those encountered by their predecessors. But actually “This country’s hard on people, you can’t stop what’s comin’. It ain’t all waitin’ on you. That’s vanity.”

Trying to stop What’s Comin’ is the vanity of Llewelyn, because you can never see it till it’s too late. He thinks he can hold off death by anticipating it, as if with his binoculars: in his last words on screen he says he’s “lookin’ for what’s comin’.” He means the money but the woman by the pool says wisely about What’s Comin’, “Yeah, but no one ever sees that.”

Even though the El Paso sheriff laments the cultural decline exemplified by “green hair and bones in their noses,” he admits that “none of that explains your man though”:

Roscoe: He is just a goddamn homicidal lunatic, Ed Tom.
Bell: I’m not sure he’s a lunatic.
Roscoe: Well, what would you call him?
Bell: I don’t know. Sometimes I think he’s pretty much a ghost.
Roscoe: He’s real, alright.
Bell: Oh yes.

Roscoe said he’s real as a contradiction to Ed Tom’s ghost comment, but they are both correct: He is a spirit and he is real.

The Coens have made an American Seventh Seal on the fiftieth anniversary of Bergman’s. When asked just how dangerous Chigurh is, Carson remarks, “Compared to what, the bubonic plague?” Black Death is exactly what Chigurh is, as the Coens are comparing their Ultimo Hombre to the pandemic killer in Bergman’s film. Chigurh even sports a Prince Valiant haircut to reinforce the medieval association, his challenger a sheriff instead of a knight. In biblical times he’s described as the Angel of Death and in later times as the Grim Reaper, so “in the parlance of our times” we might call him the Serial Killer.

Everyone who sees him dies. When Llewelyn claims to have seen Chigurh, Carson is surprised: “You’ve seen him, and you’re not dead?” But Llewelyn never saw him with his own eyes, he only saw a reflection of him in a store window at night. Everyone in the drug store is spared only because Chigurh creates a diversion so none of them see him. The two boys on bicycles do see him but at their age Death has no relevance to them. (Instead Chigurh leaves them squabbling over a blood-soaked hundred-dollar bill, setting into motion a fatal cycle like the one that has just concluded before us.)

The only two middle-aged people whom we know Chigurh does not kill are the man who wins the coin toss and the fat Desert Aire manager who “ain’t at liberty to give out no information about our residents.” She is the anomaly of the movie and resists Death through sheer force of will: “Did you not hear me? We can’t give out no information.” It seems odd that Chigurh would be intimidated by her because she is clearly afraid of him, but unlike every other bloke who treats him like an ordinary man, she sees right through him. She and Carson are the only two characters who appreciate his true nature, even if she just intuits it somehow and Carson is the only one who comprehends it fully:

“You don’t understand. You can’t make a deal with him. Even if you gave him the money he’d still kill you. He’s a peculiar man. You could even say that he has principles. Principles that transcend money or drugs or anything like that. He’s not like you. He’s not even like me.”

Death transcends human affairs like Llewelyn transcends the animals he hunts. Chigurh kills men like cattle, and immediately after we see him use his compressed-air bolt-gun for the first time, saying “Would you hold still, please?” the film cuts straight to an image of a deer through the crosshairs of Llewelyns rifle, as he whispers “Hold still.” Llewelyn’s shot injures the animal but doesn’t kill it, and he sees its spilt blood on the dirt, just as Chigurh later tracks the blood of an injured Llewelyn on the street. That’s when Llewelyn fires on Chigurh but it’s a glance shot, like Sheriff Bell’s story about Charlie Walser: “it’s a glance-shot and ricochets around and comes back, hits Charlie in the shoulder.” Like Verbal Kint says, “How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?”

When Llewelyn finally chats with Chigurh and it is, crucially, over the phone. Sight, yet again, is the key:

Chigurh: You need to come see me.
Llewelyn: Who is this?
Chigurh: You know who it is. You need to talk to me.
Llewelyn: I don’t need to talk to you.
Chigurh: I think you do.

There is no escaping the inevitable. Geography is irrelevant:

Chigurh: Do you know where I’m going?
Llewelyn: Yeah, I know where you’re going.
Chigurh: Alright.
Llewelyn: You know she won’t be there.
Chigurh: It doesn’t make any difference where she is.

Death’s march is inexorable, as Carson tries telling him:

Llewelyn: He won’t find me again.
Carson: Not that way.
Llewelyn: Not any way.

Llewelyn can’t hear what Carson is saying. He persists in treating Death as if he’s just any ol’ person.

ED TOM and ANTON

Ed Tom Bell’s introductory narration is a sleight of hand. His story about the boy who killed the fourteen-year-old girl is not primarily about the incomprehensibility of the crime, it’s about the boy’s attitude in the face of death: “Said he knew he was going to hell. Be there in about fifteen minutes. I don’t know what to make of that. I surely don’t.”

When Ed Tom says, “I don’t want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don’t understand,” it might sound like it’s the degree of evil out there he doesn’t understand, but he had just said it’s not that which he’s afraid of: “The crime you see now, it’s hard to even take its measure. It’s not that I’m afraid of it.”

What he is afraid of, what he doesn’t want to meet, what he doesn’t understand, is death. The subject is provided in the preceding sentence: “I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But I don’t want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don’t understand.”

Carson may be cocksure of himself but he understands Death, which is why he’s more scared than anyone else of Chigurh when he meets him. Llewelyn doesn’t understand Death which is why he’s so foolhardy in threatening Chigurh: “Yeah, I’m goin’ to bring you somethin’ all right. I’ve decided to make you a special project of mine. You ain’t goin’ to have to look for me at all.”

Ed Tom begins the film not understanding Chigurh, afraid of what he doesn’t understand, and therefore perhaps too cautious. He is a passive character through the entire film, just following the footsteps of Llewellyn and Chigurh, and moments too late to protect Llewelyn. It’s not till after this that he finally pushes his chips forward to go out and meet what he doesn’t understand. When he approaches the motel room door with the possibility that Death awaits him on the other side, he has finally decided “to put his soul at hazard” and say, “okay, I’ll be part of this world.”

double-shadow.jpgHe crosses the police tape that warns DO NOT CROSS and is faced with a choice between two doors. He chooses one and Death is not waiting behind it. Chigurh was hiding behind the door in the room next door. (The vent wasn’t big enough for him to have escaped through it. The grille had been unscrewed by Llewelyn who was intending to hide the money in the vent.) The duality of the choice is reinforced by Ed Tom’s double-shadow cast by the headlights onto the wall.

So Sheriff Bell wins the bet and earns his chips back. After searching the room for Chigurh he sees the coin on the floor. It’s his lucky coin: he has won the coin toss and gets back everything he’s been putting up his whole life without knowing it.

27 Comments »

  1. Dude, great analysis. I really like some of the points you have made, including the significance of the medieval haircut, which I think looks really great BTW - he should have kept it. I like what you said about the lady in the caravan park, it’s true, she does will him away and she is a brilliant character. Also the parallel between the two scenes with “hold still”. I never noticed that either. Well done!

    Regarding the final hotel scene though. So many people are confused about this. Chigurh WAS in the room that Sheriff Bell entered. You can see him standing in the dark behind the door as Sheriff Bell opens it. The coin signifies the fact that Chigurh has opened the vent himself and retrieved the money. The coin was the means by which he opened the previous vent and has become his tell-tale sign. But Bell doesn’t know that.

    It’s true that the coin does have a extra significance in this movie. In an introduction to the “I-Ching” I read that the act of tossing the coin is giving the “hand of the Divine” a chance to act. I believe this is what Chigurh is doing - allowing the person one last chance to stay on the earth, as decided by a random chance which is decided by the Divine.

    Comment by Douglas — 11 Feb. 2008 @ 3:33 am

  2. Thanks for your thoughts! I deliberately avoided discussion of the film’s explicit theme of fate vs. chance because I figured it would turn into an essay in and of itself. In many ways it is the unifying theme of all the Coens’ movies — I recently saw The Man Who Wasn’t There for the first time and I think it is one of their best!

    If I may respond to a couple of your points:

    Chigurh WAS in the room that Sheriff Bell entered. You can see him standing in the dark behind the door as Sheriff Bell opens it.

    The second time I saw it I looked closely to see if Chigurh is behind the door when Bell opens it and I could NOT see him. Admittedly it’s only a split second, but I think the door even hits the wall and there simply is no room for someone to be behind it — especially WITH that giant shotgun.

    The coin signifies the fact that Chigurh has opened the vent himself and retrieved the money. The coin was the means by which he opened the previous vent and has become his tell-tale sign.

    I agree that the coin is understood to be Chigurh’s because that was how he opened the previous vent grille, but that is exactly the same precedent by which we should believe he was in the room next door, because we have already seen his practice of renting the room next door.

    Comment by Nobody — 13 Feb. 2008 @ 4:48 pm

  3. My blog has started to automatically identify trackbacks as spam so I accidentally deleted what I think was a trackback from Dre Rivas’ Film.com article on Javier Bardem in which he linked to this post.

    On a completely unrelated note, Dre is as excited about Jumper as I am. This weekend you can find out if we’re crazy.

    Comment by Nobody — 13 Feb. 2008 @ 5:57 pm

  4. Dude! Film.com! Representing my people.

    Comment by Amanda — 14 Feb. 2008 @ 6:49 am

  5. This is so brilliantly and elegantly written and analyzed. Kudos.

    Comment by Jessica — 20 Feb. 2008 @ 5:55 am

  6. Thank you for your insightful analysis. I cannot agree, however, that his is one of the best movies of 2007. In my view, the Coen brothers have satisfied their own sadistic urge to reveal a “slice” of life — particularly American life — and ensure that there can be no redemptive quality to this life. As implacable evil stalks the land, in the form of the pitiless hit man, the senselessness and hopelessness of overcoming him becomes apparent. In the Coen Brothers’ universe, hell is here, there is no hope, and all we can do is recognize it. I thought this film was an outrage, an indulgence of the twisted sensibilities of people permitted by our society to create media works which can and will influence the thinking and behaviour of large groups of people. Mass depression is the only logical outcome of watching this movie! Even if one considers that this film follows the nihilism begun by Sartre, and the rise of this philosophy as reflected in modern art from the 1960’s onwards, one should not allow such drivel as this film to be perpetrated on human beings attempting to stay balanced about the existence of good and evil. The Coens view society as not only “no country for old men”, but a country, and possibly a planet, with no hope, beset by flashes of true evil, and whipped by regret. I am truly sorry I viewed this film. Thanks for the chance to provide my reaction.

    Comment by Denise — 20 Feb. 2008 @ 2:35 pm

  7. I pity the reviewer Denise above who saw this movie with only the two eyes God gave her and not with her mind, soul or heart. The movie was a Greek poem painted in blood on a canvas of rock, tumbleweed and desert sand. It is a movie for philosophers, not audiences, a description of the metaphysical negotiation we make everyday with death and fate. Moss and Bell and Chigurh are avatars of each other, essentially identical but from different angles they appear as either noble or greedy or psychotic. Yet from other perspectives they appear principled, cowardly or loving. Chigurh asks the accountant if he sees him; only sinners and the damned can envision his earthly evil, and thus condemn themselves. Others, innocently encountering Chigurh, determine their fate based on caprice and gravity pulling on a metal disc. I have seen the movie 4 times and every time appreciate anew its genius. Denise needs to see it a second time and evacuate her blindness to the unseen.

    Comment by Hardy Campbell — 20 Feb. 2008 @ 5:01 pm

  8. Though I disagree with your conclusion, Denise, that we “should not allow such drivel as this film to be perpetrated on human beings”, you are right to situate No Country in the context of the Coens’ universe, for the film is of a piece with the rest of their work. Whereas their other films examine humanity’s bondage to fate and chance through the person of one everyman per film, No Country merely extrapolates it to every man in one film.

    The only thing missing from Chigurh’s soliloquies is the observation of Sweeney Todd that “we all deserve to die, even you Mrs. Lovett, even I” — the Coens are simply less explicit than Sondheim/Burton.

    Hardy writes:
    The movie was a Greek poem painted in blood on a canvas of rock, tumbleweed and desert sand.

    This is a wonderful encapsulation that is both literarily and literally true!

    Moss and Bell and Chigurh are avatars of each other, essentially identical but from different angles . . .

    I agree: we see the three imitate each other’s actions throughout the movie, not just in the broad sense that Chigurh is retracing Moss’s footsteps and Bell is following them both, but on a more minute scale as well. Two such moments, off the top of my head, are Chigurh opening the truck door and seeing the dead Mexican just as Moss had done; and Bell sitting down on the couch, taking a swig of milk, and seeing his reflection in the television, just as Chigurh had done. Most tellingly, both of their reflections are faceless silhouettes.

    Comment by Nobody — 20 Feb. 2008 @ 10:38 pm

  9. THE ANALYSIS BY ALL IS APPRECIATED BUT I’M REALLY ONLY INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CASH. JUST BECAUSE THE VENT GRILL HAD BEEN OPENED, AND MOST LIKELY BY CHIGURTH’S DIME, DOESN’T MEAN THAT HE GOT THE MONEY.

    Comment by LAWRENCE MCMANUS — 24 Feb. 2008 @ 5:11 am

  10. [...] no doubt that No Country for Old Men was a flawless picture, but there were several other films across many genres that could have been nominated along with [...]

    Pingback by The 2008 Awards With No Name « Any Eventuality — 28 Feb. 2008 @ 5:49 am

  11. I love the work a few of you have done here in breaking this movie down. I am confused about some of the symbology however. I was wondering if someone could explain the significance of the reflections in the movie. ie:Chigurh’s reflection in the tv in the trailer followed by Bell’s reflection in a later seen and they are both doing the same thing when they see their reflection. And throughout the movie i constantly saw Chicurh’s reflection, motel mirrors, windows, etc. It seemed like the director was throwing it in my face. Also the scene in the motel after Moss dies, Bell is contemplating going in the room where Chigurh might be and i saw his reflection in the brass of the blown out lock on the door.

    That would be reat if someone could shed some light on this for me.

    Comment by JROC — 4 Mar. 2008 @ 3:25 pm

  12. Great analysis. Brought into perspective alot of concepts and interpretations that I failed to see the first time. Makes me want to see it again.

    This my take on the scene when Bell returns to the crime scene: If I could recall correctly, Roscoe mentioned something in regards to “how he didn’t understand how anyone would return back to a crime scene. He just didn’t get it.” Which could have contributed to Bell’s wondering if death was awaiting him behind the door if it indeed returned back to crime scene. I think that Chigurh was in neither the room of the crime nor the room next door. In fact he wasn’t there at all. The room had no light inside, and the only light that was reflected into the empty key hole was the light coming from outside. Which meant the figure he thought he saw refected in the key hole was not Chigurh, but his own reflection. The lights were playing tricks on him, in the same way the double shadow reflection when he opened the door. The relief of knowing that it was his own shadow. I think the Chirgurh whom we saw standing behind the door was not an actual happening in reality but was rather a figment of Bell’s imagination.

    Btw, keep up the good work. Hope to see more analysis of other movies as well.

    Comment by JK — 14 Mar. 2008 @ 4:27 pm

  13. Yeah, I was never convinced that we could actually see Chigurh’s reflection in the empty lock cylinder. That’s why, for the purposes of the literal story, we can say Chigurh was in the next room, but for the purposes of the symbolism, Chigurh was behind the door but disappeared when Bell opened it.

    After all, we do see Bell’s reflection from inside the door–supposedly Chigurh’s POV–but it’s difficult to make out anything distinct from Bell’s POV shot. (I don’t understand how Bell could see his own reflection from his angle though.)

    Comment by Nobody — 15 Mar. 2008 @ 12:03 am

  14. Hey Nobody - Great analysis of the film. I agreed with all your insight, and was happy to see I wasn’t alone in the theory of Chigurh being death - the angel of death, the grim reaper, the serial killer. I was not aware that it was the 50th anniversary of the Seventh Seal.

    I did have one slight variation of interpretation with what happens when Sheriff Bell crosses the police tape and goes into room 114. We see Chigurh hiding behind the door, but the door opens, slams against the wall (I agree that no one could be behind the door then), and Bell enters an empty hotel room. He has his gun drawn, he’s ready to face death, but death isn’t ready for him, which is why he doesn’t see Chigurh behind the door, which is why Chigurh disappears. What’s comin’ for Bell hasn’t come yet. The coin is a sign the Chigurh has been there and I your idea of it being Bell’s lucky coin.

    Bell not seeing Chigurh continues the “I don’t know, do you see me?” theme seen throughout. Even the pharmacy - he creates a diversion so no one in the pharmacy sees him. Even as he’s pilfering medicines, the by-standers are saying “it just blew up” as though no one even saw him at the car. No one notices him behind the pharmacy counter either.

    Money obviously plays a huge role in the symbolism of this movie. I’m still torn about Bell’s first dream, which he glosses over and to get to the more graphic dream. About the first dream, he says:

    “Anyway, first one I don’t remember to well but it was about meeting him in town somewhere, he’s gonna give me some money. I think I lost it.”

    This makes me wonder if the money was his or if this was all part of his dream. He went with to meet his dad in town and he had lost some money. It is definitely what motivates him to retire. But the second dream, I think, makes him wish he hadn’t. He’s now aware that whatever path he takes, his dad is up ahead of him, waiting, with a warm fire in all the cold dark.

    There are other symbols in this movie that I haven’t analyzed completely but I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on them:

    Reflections obviously (or lack of) - in the TVs, the windows, the mirrors. The first reflections are in the TV in Llewelyn’s house (I think). First Chigurh and then Bell, which makes me wonder if Chigurh is still sitting there but they can’t see him. We’re made to think that he has moved on to harass the trailer park manager, but the time here is all sort of fuzzy.

    Time is another symbol. Chigurh and Carson are both obsessed with it. Chigurh wants to know when the gas station closes and when the man goes to bed. Carson remembers the time and date he last saw Chigurh. Llewelyn knows when he went to Vietnam.

    Drinks - water (aqua), milk, coffee, beer - these all seem important and act as more than just refreshments. Beer helps Llewelyn get into Mexico. Coffee is served just as Bell and Wendell are feeling creeped out about the missing bullet. Aqua is how Llewelyn gets caught at the scene, enabling the Mexicans and Chigurh to ID him through his truck. Milk is how Bell knows he’s just missed Chigurh.

    I’m looking forward to your further analysis of this movie and others! :)

    Comment by Monica — 15 Mar. 2008 @ 10:18 pm

  15. Oh yeah - tragic that Denise feels so strongly about this movie - “should not allow such drivel as this film to be perpetrated on human beings”

    It’s a blessed fact that all movies aren’t about unicorns, rainbows, and happily ever after. These are the themes that are ruining humanity.

    Comment by Monica — 15 Mar. 2008 @ 10:21 pm

  16. We see Chigurh hiding behind the door, but the door opens, slams against the wall (I agree that no one could be behind the door then), and Bell enters an empty hotel room. He has his gun drawn, he’s ready to face death, but death isn’t ready for him, which is why he doesn’t see Chigurh behind the door, which is why Chigurh disappears.

    I completely agree with this, Monica. It is only in the sense that NCFOM is also a literal story about chasing drug money that Chigurh was in the room next door. But symbolically or allegorically, Death is behind the door and still in the room but Bell just can’t see him because Death is not there for him!

    I should have “seen” that before — thank you very much for connecting it with the theme of sight!

    I also love your idea that Chigurh is still in Llewelyn’s trailer when Bell and his deputy are there. Perhaps it is Anton’s shadow that Ed Tom sees in the TV!

    Comment by Nobody — 16 Mar. 2008 @ 1:31 am

  17. Would anyone agree that the dime by the vent in the room that Bell enters, signifies that Chigurh IS in the same room behind the door?

    Comment by Jroc — 20 Mar. 2008 @ 2:01 am

  18. Before Monica’s comment I wouldn’t have concluded that necessarily. The dime could be from the Mexicans retreiving the money after killing Moss, it could be from Moss being caught in the midst of putting the money in or out of the vent, or it could be from Chigurh finding the money after the cops left then moving back to the room next door.

    But now I think it is most consistent with the overall interpretation in my original post that Chigurh IS in the same room but Bell (and therefore we) simply cannot see him.

    So I think you’re right, JRoc. The three options above seem equally unlikely: once Chigurh retrieved the money why would he go back to the next room? And why would he wait if he wasn’t there to kill Bell?

    Comment by Nobody — 21 Mar. 2008 @ 5:05 am

  19. Another note on reflections. I may have been seeing things last night when I watched the movie, but when Chigurh is in Llewelyn’s trailer and the shot is focusing on his reflection in the TV, it appears as though Chigurh has a skull for a face. At first glance it looks like a fingerprint, but if you pause the film during that shot, what appears to be merely a fingerprint bears a striking resemblance to a skull! Conversely, when Bell is in the trailer, the exact same shot is used, but Bell appears to have a “halo” of light around him in the reflection. Coincidence? I doubt it.

    Comment by Andy — 24 Mar. 2008 @ 8:08 pm

  20. Interesting observation, Andy! I don’t have the DVD yet but when I do I’ll be sure to zoom in on that shot looking for the skull.

    Comment by Nobody — 25 Mar. 2008 @ 3:11 am

  21. Excellent discussions and analysis to read here. I’m glad I finally searched for your review, Nobody.

    Comment by Ryan — 11 Apr. 2008 @ 8:55 pm

  22. This is a good analysis except it fell apart at the end. Moss did not unscrew the cover from the ventilation shaft. If he had, Bell would have seen this when he arrived the first time after Moss was shot. The vent was unscrewed by Chigurh who took the money (shown in scene where he gave boys $100 bill). Chigurh used a dime (the proper tool) to unscrew the vent. Moss had used a screw driver.

    Also, Chigurh was not hiding in the adjoining room. The lock was not blown, the cattle gun was not outside the door. This room was a mirror image of the room Bell entered and as such, the lighting and position of Chigurh relative to the door, as shown in the movie, was inconsistent with the adjacent room.

    Chigurh WAS depicted as hiding in the room Bell entered. Two possibilities.

    1. he was imagined by Bell
    2. Bell didn’t “see” him because Bell refused to “see death”, for the metaphorical reason described in the review.

    Comment by Allison — 4 Jun. 2008 @ 3:00 pm

  23. Thanks for the comment, Allison; I think you are absolutely right that Chigurh is still inside the room but Bell can’t see him.

    As I said in comment #16 I finally realized this thanks to Monica making the same observation, and it does fit better with my overall interpretation of Chigurh.

    This room was a mirror image of the room Bell entered and as such, the lighting and position of Chigurh relative to the door, as shown in the movie, was inconsistent with the adjacent room.

    This is evidently correct. It is so obvious I am embarrassed it did not occur to me.

    Comment by Nobody — 4 Jun. 2008 @ 11:20 pm

  24. Would anyone agree that the dime by the vent in the room that Bell enters, signifies that Chigurh IS in the same room behind the door?

    Comment by Jroc — 20 Mar. 2008 @ 2:01 am

    ———–

    I agree and feel the dime being left on the floor is significant. I feel it shows that Chigurh was INTERRUPTED in the act of removing the ventilation grate. Otherwise he would have returned the dime (the proper tool) to his pocket, just as he had at the Del Rio motel. I feel this proves Chigurh was in the motel room at the same time Bell entered, but Bell couldn’t “see” him because he wasn’t ready to meet death.

    Comment by Allison — 9 Jun. 2008 @ 3:41 pm

  25. So the case of money also became invisible to Bell since it was now in the possession of Chigurh?

    I know I shouldn’t apply the metaphorical story to the details of the surface story, but I can’t help myself…

    Comment by Nobody — 9 Jun. 2008 @ 4:48 pm

  26. I thought about that too. I suppose you could throw Chigurh’s cattle gun (which he needed to blow the lock) in the same category as the satchel. It would have to be invisible to Bell as well.

    “I suppose those hombres made off with the rest of the stash”,…”though they was leavin’ in a hurry”.

    The movie is like a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle that can’t be solved. You can fit in 498 pieces but there a few that just won’t go. You can fit them in, but only after you remove other pieces you had in before. Frustrating!

    Comment by Allison — 9 Jun. 2008 @ 5:38 pm

  27. True enough!

    Comment by Nobody — 10 Jun. 2008 @ 2:26 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress.com