Anyone else find this scene stupid as fuck?
No Country for Old Men probably could have been one of my all time favorite films up until this scene, but it was so over the top and out of place just for shock value.
Im not sure how much of the movie was left but at this point it was so retarded and i was so pissed off that they would put in such a stupid scene i just thought fuck this movie and left the theater.
still don't even know how it ends.
Other urls found in this thread:
When he was hit by a car? It's the end.
You completely missed the point of the movie, congratulations pleb
You really missed the point, retard.
>just for shock value
I see you didn't understand the movie
Please rewatch it, perhaps read some critical analysis of the movie
>but it was so over the top and out of place
yeah that's kinda the point, not like a plot twist device, its more subtle than that
i think the point is to make him seem not human
...
I like to think Carla Jean's questioning and this scene made Anton question his beliefs.
Why can't i remember this scene ?
When was that ?
Gotta give that movie a rewatch
This was to show that Chigur is an unstoppable force of nature.
Arrested? Got away. Shot by a shotgun? Pulled out the shell debris himself. Hit by a car? Got back up and kept walking.
I know this is bait but I wanted to give a legit answer.
Yeah this scene is indefensible
it was just put in for shock and so fedoras could circlejerk about how crazy and clever it was.
movie was a 8/10 went straight down to a 6/10 after this scene. shame could have been a classic.
It frustrated me that he lived and never got his comeuppance. It seemed fitting that the way he would finally meet his end being a random act of god - the car accident. That would have been a perfect ending. But then for some reason he survives it? Makes no sense.
Nobody claims this scene is what makes the movie great. The Cohen B. is what makes the movie great
This. These force of nature characters are common in Cormac McCarthy's work. Judge Holden is another example.
>Why can't i remember this scene ?
Because you're too stupid to use question marks properly. You probably have a learning disability.
Everyone here is saing he's an unstoppable force of nature, but he's quite clearly shaken up by the event. It's not like he isn't human.
Surely the scene was to show that he was human - despite being so 'evil'
I've seen this post word for word on Reddit
The point is that he can take extraordinary amounts of punishment and still keep going. Tommy Lee Jones' character decides that the chase isn't worth his life.
But he still got away with it in the end. Couldnt stop him
He's like a supernatural dude in the book i think
But that's kinda the point of the movie? Even a person who thinks and acts like the death personified is not invulnerable.
This is right. Cormac made him much more supernatural in the book. Same with Holden. A lot of this was a Coen Brothers invention. Cormac is. Much greater storyteller than those two.
I don't think it shows him as a 'force of nature'.
He can be killed and he can fail.
You mean like life?
I don't think you understand subtlety. If he was an indestructible hulk it would hurt the story.
...
But realistically, surely that's him finished? He runs because he can't be caught by the authorities, so how will he get his arm fixed? He could do it himself or get help from a dubious source, but without the expertise and equipment, he wouldn't be the same as he was - he'd be out of whatever business he had.
I mean maybe I'm overthinking it. I get what you both mean about him soldiering on, but I also thought the scene highlighted his vulnerability. That he was almost stopped by something so unexpected and irrelevant to anything else we'd seen.
That's rude of you.
What I took from the scene was the absurdity and chaos the characters on both sides stood against and the fact that he's not above natural law.
No. Country. For. Old. Men.
This scene ruined the movie for me. or maybe it was the pretentious dialogue ending right after
The scene in the movie made him look fearful and beaten due to his facial expressions. This wasn't in the book and it wasn't Cormac's intention for the character.
>What I took from the scene was the absurdity and chaos the characters on both sides stood against and the fact that he's not above natural law.
This guy gets it.
I could be wrong, but I think he can be affected by someone's coin toss too.
Are you fucking dumb? Tommy Lee Jones monologue was great and enforced the themes of the movie.
Honestly, the book has more than one theme and all of these are good takeaways.
can explain the monologue to me like i'm 5, i'm just a Sup Forums pleb and I didn't really get what he was talking about
Nothing it was just pretentious dialogue. it didn't mean anything.
He was at a fork in the road. Chasing Chigur would end with him dead and retiring would allow him to live.
Death awaits as all but it's important to keep the ball going.
>This was to show that Chigur is an unstoppable force of nature.
i actually think the opposite. the point of the movie is that the world is, and always has been, violent and chaotic. the different characters all have different ways of trying to overcome and control the violence and they all fail one way or another. chigur's strategy is to embrace the violence and control things by dominating everyone else, but the car crash shows that this doesn't really work either--he can still become a victim of random, senseless violence and he was never really in control.
>holden
>force of nature
Sorry user you didn't get it
The point is that he realizes he IS human, and just as susceptible to random chance as the people that play his stupid game. He uses the coin in an attempt to "remove himself" from the decision to kill, thus absolving him of murder. In the last scene he understands that there are forces playing that same game with him.
It's all chance baybee
i wonder if being this much of a pleb makes the world more or less confusing
In accordance with "ignorance is bliss," I'm inclined to believe less confusing.
I'll tip my own fedora assholes
>In the last scene he understands that there are forces playing that same game with him.
Bravo, user.
>the light was green
>the other driver went through it
>"f the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"
The guy doesn't age.
He teleports.
He creates gunpowder from piss and magma rock.
He never once gets slightly injured.
He's extremely skilled in everything.
He's 7 feet tall with babyish features.
He lives to create conflict and war.
YOU didn't get it.
Oh and he carries a howitzer canon like it's nothing. That's impossible.
LOOK AT THAT FUCKIN ARM
This
Chigur represents the chaos of the world the other characters can't adapt to
*tips fedora*
Exactly. The movie isn't exactly subtle about this. Moss gets shot in the doorway of his motel by the Mexicans. When Ed Tom is talking to Ellis, Ellis recounts how Uncle Mack came to his demise: Shot in his doorway by Indians.
>What you got, aint' nothin' new.
This is the closest you can get to a singular interpretation for this film. Good work, user.
And then it turns out it's just what he thinks he is.
That's the point of all Coen movies. Life makes no sense at all. It's very jewish and pessimistic.
tommy lee jones' monologue might be my favourite ending of any film. it's the best coen film just for that.
>It's very jewish
That's actually not true. You should really check out A Serious Man, an examination the jewish faith.
More like 'it's impossible for an active participant to understand the event'.
One of the greatest films from the last decade.
A large part of jewish culture is about pretending god doesn't exist at all. It's not a coincidence jews have invented communism.
Are you trying to say ASM is against Judaism or something? It can be interpreted in both a theistic and atheistic way.
That's one of the great aspects of the movie - it makes you think without being pretentious.
>A large part of jewish culture is about pretending god doesn't exist at all
Is that so? What evidence have you to substantiate this? I mean look at this shit.
>Are you trying to say ASM is against Judaism or something? It can be interpreted in both a theistic and atheistic way.
No I mean, I thought was saying to be jewish is to be pessimistic, or nihilistic. Which isn't necessarily true. Things like Seinfeld's way of judaism, moseying alone through life not worshiping the faith, is a result of American culture.
"Shame could have been a classic."
Like you just DECREED it and made it law.
Holy fuck by far the most fedorian thing I've ever read.
more devil figure than force of nature
Again, all best case scenarios for a guy like him. More likely is he would collapse somewhere a quarter mile down the road and be picked up by the police the same day, and sent to death row within six months.
part of my post didn't copy/paste correctly.
My original post was basically
best case
>staggers down the road and steals a car
>makes his way to a safe house
>crooked doc patches him up
>probably still gets hooked on painkillers because the wreck would fuck up his back and neck
That's his best case scenario.
He's not some unstoppable force or embodiment of death. He's just a man and the end of the movie is to remind you of that.
It's sort of like his coin flip. It's just random chance that he got hit. (although I do believe he ran a stop sign).
Precisely. After the wreck he is now "old".
Sucks when you have to experience this yourself. I was in a bad wreck at the age of 29. Haven't been the same since.
I wondered if this scene was suppose to parallel with josh brolins scene when he pays the kids for their shirt and beer when he was wounded
No it was a green light.
Anyone else think the Coen Brothers are the greatest contemporary directors? I'm not talking about director duos or anything like that but just out of all the directors at play right now I'd say I'm more consistently awed by the stuff they do than any other director or director duo.
Even their early and more obscure stuff is vastly superior to most other films, and they've managed to make what, two cult films? Fargo and the Big Lebowski, which still enjoy a great deal of success today.
I think it's also interesting to note that they chose or write projects set in Middle-of-Nowhere, United States, especially showcasing bits of the South or the West that aren't commonly seen in big budget films, and hammer them in to the point where the setting is as much of a character or a catalyst for the story as everything else.
I just love these dudes.
I love their most of their movies but some of the comedies just don't jive right with me. I would certainly say they've made the most kino of any directors in the past 25 years.
Sorry for my shit grammar. I typed it quickly on my phone.
It follows the book, dumbass.
>Lewelyn's scene on the bridge was foreshadowing
>Lewelyn's scene on the bridge was foreshadowing
?
I could see that. I'm bored during the Ladykillers but I liked Burn After Reading. Never saw Hail Caesar I'll have to buy that soon.
I think the same thing. They are the best directors in the industry.
Though I will say hail Caesar was the first time I was kinda disappointed. I still want to give it a second watch though to see if I'll like it this time
Strong themes of the movie are nihilism, fate/chance and how we ultimately can not control it
The car crash was to show that even the seemingly invincible chigurh is held to this (notice the light was green, Chigurh was not at fault, this is to show that even when everything should go right, sometimes it doesn't anyway)
They're the best of the mainstream directors.
you missed le point. no upvotes for you today XD
I agree with you. O Brother Where Art Thou? is a cult film too, at least in the South.
What was the point of the movie? I thought it was boring shit that didn't go anywhere. You spend all this time building up to Tommy Lee Jones kicking some ass then he does fuck all, monologues, end of movie. Pointless.
>paying for the jacket
>showing the greed of the bystander
basically the character arc was the same; they were doppelgangers
No Country was Cormac's sequel to Blood Meridian, with the same arc.
Except Judge Holden could never be hurt. He emerged from the novel without a scratch. It literally ends with him raping/killing the Kid then dancing and singing "I'll never die".
I got you senpai
is retarded
is wrong
closest
First you need to view the film, and life, from its /the sheriffs viewpoint
That being that life is mostly meaningless, chaotic, and governed more by chance than some force of good
The sheriff's father might of understood this, or maybe he just was a participant (as we all are) and went off ahead (perhaps referencing his older age/that hes already dead) to make a fire in that cold darkness
The fire is to find "goodness" or perhaps to more accurately make it yourself, the ultimate meaning that life is cruel chaotic and perhaps meaningless, but that all we can do in the face of this is to make of it what we can and try to find good
Source: my Ass
That sounds like a very fast and loose interpretation.
meant for a 5 year old
its hard to keep it simple and quick within the confines of a post in a thread
If he wanted a real understanding of the film he'd watch it again, and perhaps again, or maybe let someone else do the work for him and google a critical analysis
honestly there are a lot of good points brought up in this thread that I didn't touch on like
and though I dont entirely agree with it
I think it's good tbphwyf. It represents how he's just another random evil thing that Ed Tom encountered in his career. He came and he went, just a completely pointless evil, like every other murderer and violent human being out there, who without reason causes harm to others.
???
Judge Holden was a walking form of the Demiurge. He gives away his one weakness to the Kid when he says "Anything that exists without my knowledge exists without my consent. The freedom of birds is an insult to me, I'd have them all in cages."
>That'd be one hell of a zoo.
Holden is not in control of the universe but he wants to be, he's forever cucked by the holes in the heavens. He thinks he is the master of the material world and his own creations like Yaldaboath, but behind the scenes the Monad has already saw to it that the material will fade.
I don't disagree. However, the book made a clear point of showing Holden achieving feats that are clearly impossible for strictly natural humans. McCarthy's work is always incredibly nuanced and I believe he leaves room for an abundance of interpretations.
Barton Fink is one of the best films ever imo.
>I AM A WRITER! THE THEATRE OF THE COMMON MAN! [points to temple] -THIS- IS MY UNIFORM!
and
>Heil Hitler.
Nvm just reread your post and saw that you called him a demiurge. We pretty much completely agree.
Interestingly though, they don't seem to fully understand the settings of their movies. For example, they got "Minnesota nice" wrong. Minnesotans are actually very passive-aggressive and "Minnesota nice" is a euphemism for all the ridiculous ways they have of carrying out interpersonal conflict without direct confrontation. The Coen Brothers missed this dynamic completely.
In O Brother Where Art thou, they came close in the baptism scene to reaching into the void of time and pulling the zeitgeist of the period into the film, a rare feat and pretty much the holy grail of any period piece, but then screwed it up by playing the scene for laughs. You can tell by how the scene plays out that they had no clue how close they came to capturing something special about the time and place being depicted.
They are like filmers who make documentaries about some native tribe, but never grasp what it's like to be the native. In one sense, they can do a better job of depicted a period, place, or culture than a member of said time/culture due to not having all the baggage that prevents the native of the setting from seeing their own situation clearly or objectively, but on the other hand they'll never quite grasp the spirit of what they depict. At least when it comes to Middle America
It's right in line with the core theme of the film. It was a great scene to capstone things off with.
Would have made the point better if he actually died in the car crash.
>shown as unstoppable monster
>dies in some random car crash
Showing Chigur with the kids and his state of vulnerability is ment to emphasize that he is now the "old man" and that fate could turn on him as quickly as it did for Carson or Moss.
I always thought that it was implied that he would die soon after. Like if your bone was jutting out of your arm and you refused to go to a hospital, you would likely be in deep shit.
In the book "I know" the kid snitches on Chigur, and the cops (presumably) get him