by Allan Fish
(USA 2007 122m) DVD1/2
Looking for what’s coming
p Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Scott Rudin d/w Ethan Coen, Joel Coen novel Cormac McCarthy ph Roger Deakins ed Joel Coen, Ethan Coen m Carter Burwell art Jess Gonchor
Tommy Lee Jones (Sheriff Ed Tom Bell), Javier Bardem (Anton Chigurh), Josh Brolin (Llewelyn Moss), Woody Harrelson (Carson Wells), Kelly MacDonald (Carla Jean Moss), Garret Dillahunt (Deputy Wendell), Tess Harper (Loretta Bell), Barry Corbin (Ellis),
No film was more universally praised in its year than the Coens’ adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s tale of consequence, changing times and murder. Yet no film excited more discussions over an ending arguably in its decade, let alone its year. For those seeking a traditional climax, they’ll come away scratching their heads and bemoaning a lack of cohesion. Yet were they really looking, or to be more accurate were they watching but not really listening. It’s your ears you need to have at attention, even more than your eyes.
Set in 1980 in Texas, No Country follows one Llewelyn Moss. One day out hunting he finds a group of abandoned trucks, several corpses, a stash of heroin and two million dollars. He decides to keep the money, a decision which leads him to suggest his wife leave and meet up with him later while he tries to shake off the various types after him. They consist of Ed Tom Bell, a soon to be retired sheriff and son of a sheriff in turn, a group of underworld Mexicans, Anton Chigurh, a psychotic hit-man who wants the loot, and Carson Welles, hired to find and deal with Chigurh.
For an adaptation, the Coens certainly turn it into one of their own, most memorably in a wonderfully dry sequence where Jones and his deputy, Dillahunt, find the abandoned corpses and ponder the chain of events in a way that deliberately recalls that in Fargo when Marge Gunderson casually discusses “the execution type deal”. “It’s a mess, isn’t it, Sheriff?”, Dillahunt says; “if it isn’t, it’ll do until the mess gets here” replies Jones. The essence of the plot is thus established, will Moss evade his pursuers and will Chigurh get away with his multiple capital crimes. All along, though, one has the feeling of something undercutting the action, like an oboe softly undercutting the brass of an orchestra. When the brass stops playing and the bodies are left and the Crime Scene tape goes up, then only the oboe is heard, and it’s here that the movie goes off on its tangent.
The Coens build up the plot slowly, deliberately so, and lull the audience into a sense of false, if not security, then expectation. Then, literally, just before the gypsy switch in the narrative, Moss tells a woman by a pool that he’s “looking for what’s coming”. She retorts that it’s the one thing you never see, and we don’t see her when she says it, hence it can be seen to be an address the audience. As if the Coens are saying “did you see this coming?”, then perform the WTF moment and the film is twisted on its head. It’s not stretching it too far to say that everything in this film is very deliberate – even the seemingly throw-away but iconic ‘toss a coin’ sequence gets a spectacular, beautifully understated pay off at the end which leaves the fate of one of the characters seemingly open but actually very plain (just watch what Anton does when he leaves the house). It’s only then in the final scene that we see that the title is not only vindicated, but the significance of money is made as plain as in other Coen films from Blood Simple to Fargo (as Marge said, “there’s more to life than a little money, you know”), with the villain skulking off injured and the retired sheriff confirming that “you can’t stop what’s coming.” Life isn’t tied up in a pretty ribbon with a neat beginning, middle and end, so why should a film be so? It’s one of the Coens’ supreme triumphs, typically masterfully shot by regular Roger Deakins and with memorable performances all round, especially from Jones as the contemplative sheriff and the superb Javier Bardem, as one of the most deadly characters in modern movie history. There are references to numerous other films, while the atmosphere recalls Sayles’ Lone Star, but this is really a film unlike any other, and one requiring multiple viewings to take in the majesty of the script alone.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
I love the oboe metaphor. Indeed, what I sometimes feel like I’m missing in other Coen films is that oboe.
Certainly one of the most impressive films of this decade. Just about perfectly executed. On second thought, strike the “just about” and let the other two stand. I’ve repeated the anecdote multiple times, but after watching this film I thought, “Damn, the Coens could adapt the phone book and make it visually striking.” But it’s worth pointing out here that they have a hell of a lot more than a phone book to work with, and that makes a difference too.
ABSOLUTELY! This film had me from the opening scene and Tommy Lee Jones iconic narration. “I don’t wanna face something I don’t understand…” Those words parallel everything to come, but Chigur (Javier Bardem), himself. Set in a time when all hell breals loose and the law means nothing within the drug trade and runnings from Mexico of the 1980’s, the balance of socio/historic observation and pure noir hit a fever pitch. If it weren’t for my favorite movie of the decade (THERE WILL BE BLOOD) I’d have picked this ad my favorite of that year. In all, its gripping, frightening, fast paced and hysterically funny. NO COUNTRY reminded me why the Coen’s should be considered treasures amongst the film world. A rare perfect film, totally repeatble. Bardem give one of the decades great performances, a pure original. Wonderful film.
Well written. As I’ve made it clear through my list, this happens to be in my opinion the best movie of the last decade.
At the risk of being labelled a ‘cretin’ or a ‘retard’, or of being told I have landed my Zog spacecraft on the wrong planet, I can’t see much in this film.
Some pyscho with weird hair kills like swatting flies using a fashioned pneumatic killing machine, hunts down a dumb redneck who thinks he can get away with his loot, and an even dumber sheriff whose corn-acre wit is revered as bizarro-Zen truth, plods along in their wake. It is not enough to see a deputy garroted, we have to indulge in a ghastly voyeurism as the victim’s boots make a pretty pattern on the lino.
No matter that the Coens have nothing to say, as long as cineastes can chatter about technique and the ‘majesty’ of the script. Too bad his majesty has no clothes.
you’re certainly neither, Tony, but by God, you make me look like an eternal optimist and take contrariness for contrariness’ sake to a whole new level. I’ve said it before, it’s like Groucho sang in Horse Feathers, “whatever it is, I’m against it.”
I agree that Tony is neither, and I love his commenting, but it’s interesting to compare the Tony in the BEFORE SUNSET thread to the Tony here, or the Tony in the CROUCHING TIGER thread. One hates critics or film fan who quickly lambaste films and act with a whiff of superiority, another is that exact person. Just curious, I suppose it comes down to films he like and doesn’t but can’t others get that leeway?
For the record I like this film (though I own it and need to see it again), but consider it the third best film of the decade for the Coens. This just says how strong of a decade it was for them.
I thought I was being less than forthright. Truly I loathe this film. As for chronic contrariness, this appellation is a bit unfair. What raises my ire is having to defend having a contrary view.
If one cares to consider my persona as it has been revealed here at WitD, I think it is pretty clear that my views are based on a pretty transparent and consistent moral compass.
It may shock ‘cineastes’ (if anything smacks of superiority it is the penchant of many here to claim this distinction… ) but there are many decent people who will never visit a film blog who share my feelings about this film. For argument’s sake, even if we accept the ‘majesty’ of the script, which of course I don’t, most viewers will not see beyond the fetish of violence and nihilism that propel the narrative.
For me rather a cinematic failure that makes an honest attempt at truth than such so called ‘masterpieces’ that do nothing to question our understanding of the world we inhabit. For me rather films like Rendition, The Valley of Elah, Michael Clayton, The Green Zone, Bamboozled, Bloody Sunday, Boiler Room, The Constant Gardener, Das Experiment, Der Krieger und die Kaiserin, Don’t Move, Good Night and Good Luck, My Brother is an Only Child, Pan’s labrynth, The Pianist, Slumdog Millionaire, Thirteen Days, Zodiac, and others…
Yes Tony I find your opinions on specific films consistent for the most part (or as consistent as one can be in these sort of matters), I was mostly pointing out your handling of others is less then consistent. The point remains that the Tony here wants to jump on, say, Dennis for not writing a lengthy review in defense of this films strengths, but the Tony elsewhere (see CROUCHING TIGER thread) offers less then Dennis and that’s A OK. I think it is–I think if someone likes a film they can merely say that (after all I was the person who posted the Rilke quote), and surely the Tony that writes at Filmsnoir cherishes brevity but here you want to play the martyr, or some other version of the superior opinion. I just want to point out how unbecoming that is on you, or anyone for that matter.
This has been a side I’m been wanting to take more and more, alienating each other for personal likes and dislikes is tres stupid. I loathe Pixar, I don’t feel anyone is worse off for not–and I’ll just shake my head and move on. But I also don’t want to be belittled for feeling this way either. (see my ‘Dead Alive/Braindead’ adoration too)
Jamie, by consistent I was referring to my ethical outlook. You want a neat package, don’t look at me, or your heroes for that matter.
You mean Allan not Dennis, right? I was thumped and jumped. Terrible huh.
Comments are not reviews, or have I missed something? Did I question the length of the review? No. I never just say I liked/hated this or that – I try to encapsulate my reasons.
Who is playing the martyr? Me or you? If you disagree with me say so, but why all the petty angst? I simply said I was annoyed at having to continually justify having a contrary view.
Unbecoming? Give me a break! We are not having tea and cucumber sandwiches with Oscar Wilde. What is that he said about being in the gutter?
Please point me to where I belittled anyone. If I have punctured some inflated egos, well boo-hoo…
Nice work.
TONY-You are neither. However, there is more to this film than meets the eye. On one hand its a pseudo-metaphorical take on the lawlessness that hit a fever pitch on the Mexican borders in the 80’s (remember Depalma’s SCARFACE?). On the other hand, its a first-rate thriller that comments on the ever changing moral values that come with “progress”. To me, this film is a pretty damning film by the brothers. Where they are progressive in their film-making techniques, I see them as old fashioned boys that long for the ways of the old days. What’s the point of all this? Well, depends on a persons definition of ENTERTAINMENT. BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID is about exactly the same things. But, if you look at it strictly for just what’s on screen, then an argument can also be made as to “what’s the point?”. BTW-BUTCH IS a favorite of mine.
I guess what I’m trying to say in limited space is this: Time is an automoton that relentlessly chugs ahead and lays waste everything and anything that doesn’t conform or accept its passage. Listen to Tommy Lee Jones opening narration and monoloque and really think about before the film really get moving. What McCarthy in the book and the Coen’s with the film are saying is (through metaphor) that the older, safer conservative view is extinct and, like it or not, the newer, more progressive, liberal way of life is now the status quo. Aside from the metaphors, I happen to think of this film as a superior chase film dotted with real tension and some incredibly original set pieces. Its almost like (I’m gonna get killed for this) a really REALISTIC version of Cameron’s THE TERMINATOR (with Bardem going much further than Arnold as the unstoppable force of the future).
Dennis your first sentence is why I love Zodiac so much. No Country For Old Men is a great Coen Brothers film. I’m a little surprised Tony doesn’t enjoy this movie more considering his love of noir.
Hi Dennis. I respect your position and appreciate your effort to engage with me. And most importantly you at least attempt to explain your liking for the film, unlike others who think that woolly platitudes preaching to the converted constitute a film review. I suppose it gets down to what each of us expects from giving a film a couple of hours of our time.
Maurizio, I think I made clear in the DeeDee interview what I value in film noir.
I’ve always admired and have appreciated Tony’s ‘contrarian’ positions here at WitD and elsewhere, as they do keep people on their critical toes, which is my case is beneficial what with my penchant for hyperbole. And Tony is a tremendous friend and part of this places’ fabric. His brilliant work at FilmsNoir.net has more than entitled him to disagree here, no?
Well, Tony – count me in as a contratarian too! A cheap way to catch an audience attention, with it’s savage murder of the sherrif and a really mussed up ending, as if they got bored a stopped in the middle of a scene or just ran dry of inspiration. ‘Burn After Reading’ ends as amaturely too. But the middle section, with the chase – was edge of my seat stuff. For me, it’s ‘Fargo’ and ‘A Serious Man’, with ‘Blood Simple’ and ‘Barton Fink’ behind them.
Of course, this all comes down to personal taste. I think, although I could be wrong, that the Coen’s are masters of gleeful and inventive anarchy on screen. They’re having a blast ripping everything apart and injecting it all with their bizarro sense of humor. So, TONY, you’re NOT wrong, this film just isn’t your brand of tea-bag. On the other hand, I think most of the Coen’s work this decade as rather tedious and self important if not just downright boring and awful. THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE has many things going for it but (to me) is nothing more than great black amd white cinematography and amazing set designs. INTOLERABLE CRUELTY, THE LADYKILLERS are just quickies I don’t think they even liked. I recently caught A SIMPLE MAN and, though extraordinary, I still like NO COUNTRY better. For the record, I’d place this film reviewed above just under FARGO as their very best and, depending on my mood, better than FARGO on certain days.
I agree with Fargo and No Country being the Coen’s two best films. I would say though that The Man Who Wasn’t There is probably my third favorite. Blood Simple and Barton Fink would round up my own top 5. I agree this was an inconsistent decade for them. Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers, and Burn After Reading are rather weak efforts. A Simple Man is okay but not a big favorite of mine either. They are so prolific that they still squeezed out 2 great movies in my estimation. Almost every year you can expect a new release by the Coen Brothers. After all these years that is quite commendable considering they can still create wonderful pictures like the one featured here at 28.
FARGO was always my #1, until A SERIOUS MAN.
Succinct and yet incisive appreciation, Allan.
This film has been discussed and picked apart and turned this way and that, and yet there it still sits, an contemporary American masterpiece by any measure. There are other works from the 2000s that are more sophisticated or richer throughout. Heck, the Coens’ own A Serious Man, is, I am coming to believe, a much deeper film than No Country. Still, this is the rare work that I can savor again and again and every time it plucks at something deep within me. Even if the film had ended with Llewelyn’s bullet-riddled corpse cooling in the morgue, it would have been a near-perfect thriller. Astonishingly, No Country transforms into something far more profound: first a murmuring of despair and a lament for justice denied in a cold, godless world, and then a renewal of the a son’s moral bond with a father. Audacious, devastating, and exquisite.
There’s a reason I have “You Can’t Stop What’s Comin'” tattooed on my right leg. 🙂
There’s a reason I have “You Can’t Stop What’s Comin’” tattooed on my right leg.
Ha! Now that is class, Andrew!!!!
Damn Andrew thats hardcore!!!
ANDREW-and the other iconic line… As Anton sits in the hotel room, feet up, to avaoid getting his boots bloody: “You know how this is gonna end…”. Chilling, to the point, and all meaningful to every person ever born.
MAURIZIO-I see there films as two distinct types. The cryptic “meaning” films that require a lot of thought by the viewer and reveal themselves as a kind left to the viewers interpretation (BARTON FINK, A SERIOUS MAN, MAN WHO WASNT THERE)and the more “hands on” films that splash it all on svcreen but still have meaning weaved in behind the hijinx (FARGO, BLOOD SIMPLE, NO COUNTRY, LEBOWSKI). If I am honest with myself my favorites are NO COUNTRY and LEBOWSKI. However, BEST is a big difference from favorite and, that said, then FARGO nestles itself between LEBOWSKI and NO COUNTRY. I’m also a big admirer of BLOOD SIMPLE, as pure a film they ever made, and MILLERS CROSSING that’s loaded with style and their typical “fuck you if you don’t get it, we’re having fun” attitude.
Just on pure fun nothing beats The Big Lebowski. That is the ultimate college stoner film (that I can somewhat attest too)!! Looking at it now in my early to mid 30’s it still makes me laugh uncontrollably. I just drop it down because the five I mentioned above are simply better overall films in my humble opinion. I could see how someone would say it’s not their best but still considered a personal favorite. I would probably rank it 6th overall in the Coen’s filmography.
Also, I don’t think enough can be said for the three main actors here in NO COUNTRY. Josh Brolin holds this whole film together and never gets enough praise for his turn. He’s us in the situation McCarthy and the Coen’s present and I see every inflection and REACTION the actor makes as exactly the ones WE would make if put in the same predicanent. Lee Jones, well, who else could have played this part? His wrinkled face alone defines the kind of weathered exasperation a guy who has seen it all would suffer. BARDEM is perfect. His face never flinching as a man who has so totally convinced himself that his gain is all that matters. He a horror as evil and unfeeling as they come. Notice the way he just casually strolls into the drug store as everyone runs fot cover after the explosion. If “i don’t give a fuck” ever had a face its this bad-hair-cutted monstrosity. Oscar was calling Bardem the moment the Coen’s yelled “ACTION!”…..
Dennis:
Brolin definitely holds the film together, as you say. I love the little flourishes he puts on things, like the hard-boiled way he spits phrases like “any swinging dicks,” or his quiet, “Yep,” when he opens that suitcase and sees the money for the first time.
Bardem is a undeniable and terrifying presence in the film, and I’m always mesmerized when he’s on screen, but my praise for his performance is limited by the fact that Chigurh is not really a character. He’s an elemental force, and is presented as such. For my money, the standouts in the film are Kelly MacDonald, who is so utterly convincing and heartbreaking every moment she’s on screen, and Jones, who gives the hands-down best performance of his career. (Seconded only by his own film, Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.) I mean, seriously, how can anyone look at Jones’ acting in this film and not be floored? It’s a virtuoso feat of dialed-back emotion where the man uses every tool in his arsenal to sell the last twenty minutes of the film. You could teach a class just on the ways he uses his eyes or the tone of his voice.
lets not confuse lack of compassion with nihilism. Clearly the Coens’ are nihilists. Watch this one and THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE and A SERIOUS MAN, these guys clearly have beliefs about humanity and specific worldviews.
And, this is beside the point, but why can’t a nihilistic piece of art be a masterpiece or worthwhile? Isn’t viewing art viewing it on it’s terms? The execution of it’s position? And at some point, even if Tony disagrees, execution and craft is important. Some paintings are brilliant for a number of reasons the first of which is how a painter handles or applies paint. Sometimes a poem is beautiful because of word play or language and not subject matter or comment. Art in this way is more difficult to describe I suppose as if you’ve never painted, or wrote poetry it’s an appreciation that is difficult to understand.
opps,
‘Clearly the Coens’ are nihilists.’
should be ‘Clearly the Coens’ areN’T nihilists. ‘
My comment wasn’t necessarily directed to you Andrew, more to the dialogue you are having with several others btw.
“We are nihilists! We believe in nothing!”
I doubt the Coens have much use for that particular ism more than any other.
Jamie, I reserve the right to say that ‘Piss Christ’ is shit, and to say that a world-view that says “because evil is inevitable my incompetence and failure to fight it is somehow acceptable” is nihilist.
“The negation of aesthetic, spiritual, and moral values has become an ethics; unruliness has become a rule.”
Simone de Beauvoir, ‘the ethics of ambiguity’
Tony, sooner you realize we all don’t share your subjective moral or ethical viewpoints the better off we’ll all be. It would also save you a lot of cock strutting you feel the need to do. It will also save my ears from being talked down upon.
That and the Coens are artists in that they create something, if they were nihilists they wouldn’t create anything they’d be devoid of any creative impulse or desire to comment on the world in any direction. I think the US TV show ‘Bones’ had that line a few weeks back.
In interviews Cormac McCarthy has said that he’s not interested in literature that doesn’t deal with the important things, that doesn’t deal with life and death. Ironically, Tony seems to be saying a similar thing here, that he’s not interested in films that don’t deal with human life in a compassionate way, which includes No Country For Old Men. I think he’s absolutely wrong about the film, and it strikes me as a moralistic work in fundamental ways, but I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with his line of argumentation. Jamie, your moral or ethical viewpoint might differ from Tony’s, but that doesn’t change the fact that these individual viewpoints and orientations define your life and his, and they should always have a place in this kind of conversation.
Oh yeah, I forgot The Big Lebowski merchandise. As for Simone de Beauvoir, read The Blood of Others, and take a powder.
Doniphon, certainly we all have different viewpoints on these things (hence why I called them subjective) and should discuss them, I am mostly commenting on Tony’s apparent need to add an insult at the end of each point. Most recently I needed an ‘ego deflated’ and a ‘powder’, so there ya go. I suppose I’m finished here.
For the record Jamie, I was not referring to your ego… [deep breath] mea culpa if I gave that impression.
We know Sam, we know. I sat with you that night of FARGO and were both blown away. I have a barometer that I measure films by: if I can here myself, again and again, saying “this is so working” in my head more than 10 times during a screening, then I know I’ll give it great praise. With the Coen’s, “its so working” sounded off dozens of times in my head with BLOOD SIMPLE, MILLERS CROSSING, FARGO, THE BIG LEBOWSKI, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and A SIMPLE MAN. The only way I can order the films is by personal preference. That said I’d rank MILLERS CROSSING last and SINGLE MAN, LEBOWSKI, FARGO and NO COUNTRY as the top four.
Single? Simple? Haha. Miller’s is my favourite Coen, actually.
Undoubtably a work of exceeding nihilism, but still as entertaining as a film could be.
I have to disagree here, Peter. Is it a film about despair? Absolutely. Does it acknowledge the absence of God and the fundamental injustice of the world? Certainly. However, the final minutes of the film redeem it decisively from nihilism by posing an alternative role model rather than a non-existent (or at least uncaring and uncommunicative) deity, namely, everyone who has gone before and wrestled with such matters. Ed Tom’s final revelation is to recall that he has always had a moral compass, a sense of justice and goodness, and the courage to carry on in monstrous and terrifying world, because of his father, not his Father. We may be alone in the cosmic sense, but we are not alone in our lives or in the broader sweep of history. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we are always following others–our parents, or whoever we model our own moral life after–who have gone before into the cold and darkness to make a fire for us. The cold and darkness is not just the mortality that is speeding towards Ed Tom, it’s the world in which Anton Chigurh gets away and where good men die. Our world. No Country is ultimately about coping with the reality of that by not letting the mere fact of it defeat our commitment to goodness.
This is a brilliant response to me Andrew, but I must stand by my position. I never bought the ambiguity of that final scene -the weakest in the film- and am not so sure there was any kind of deliberate attempt to pose a morality, since throughout the film there wasn’t a glimmer of compassion. I do think this is consistent with what the Coens were up to in their newest film too. You admit there is endless despair, and I say it isn’t really mitigated by that seemingly compromised conclusion.
Peter:
For me, the film doesn’t have to decisively “pose a morality” in order to make a statement about morality. I think that it’s obvious that many characters–principally Ed Tom, but also Llewelyn and most of the other characters save Chigurh and his associates–are striving to behave morally, whether they succeed or not. It’s not that there is no compassion in the tale, it’s that compassion is often rewarded with misery, pain, and death. Part of what No Country is addressing, I think, is our misconceptions about what the point of moral behavior is if there is no cosmic judgment on our actions, no karmic accounting of our good and bad deeds. (It is, in a sense, the agnostic twin of A Serious Man.) Ed Tom suffers despair partly because he has given up on his belief in God, but also partly because he doesn’t see the fucking point of being a good man anymore, of railing against the darkness, if men like Chigurh get away. I think Ellis’ speech is not just about the persistence of evil, but also about banishing Ed Tom’s rather naive notion that his personal acts of goodness could change anything about the nature of the world. That is not, and has never been, the point of being a moral person.
Andrew: you make a fine case, and I commend you. But I saw this hellish, unredemptive film as a classic case of nihilism, for whatever surface morality is being implied. As I say, the final scene remains as cryptic as ever on repeated viewing. The definition of nihilism applies directly to the narrative and philosophical arc of this film, and this is the way I interpreted it. I have read where the critic Andrew Sarris had the same reaction.
A huge fan of Coens but this was a slight disappointment. I’ve only read The Road from McCarthy, but no matter how brilliant the source material was, the brothers are one of the best original screenwriters (teams) around, and while the film has some great thrills (the use of silence is commendable) and performances (Bardem is the most memorable, but everyone’s great), the climax left me cold. A Serious Man is a masterpiece, however.
1 – you took the comment right out of my mouth! I agree with you wholeheartedly. I love the Coens, and this had some compelling elements…but it was middle of the road for me in terms of their canon.
I still stand by my original spin on the film despite others trying to sway my opinion:
http://davethenovelist.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/a-review-of-the-coen-brothers-no-country-for-old-men/
McCarthy clearly fancies himself Faulkner reborn–note the lack of quotation marks anywhere in his work–but Chigurh is just a Hannibal Lecter knockoff who seems to have taken a Calvinist community-college course in providence and predestination.
David – LMAO – McCarthy has his merits, but he is no Faulkner. And I agree with your Chigurh assessment, though Bardem’s perfomance was worthy of the hubbub around it.
I find this a very weird thread, especially with respect to the naysayers. The film is a pretty faithful adaptation of the underlying novel. Therefore, to say Coen-this or Coen-that in relation to what McCarthy himself devised is really quite bizarre and/or bestows upon the brothers unfair praise/criticism. This includes both the graphic manner in which Chigurh kills the deputy sheriff 3-4 pages into the novel, the ending, and key lines of dialogue, amongst many other things.
Frankly I find this a terrific cinematic realisation of McCarthy’s vision – whether one agrees with it or not. However, when speaking in terms of the Coens’ own work, it is also why I prefer “A Serious Man”, despite its obvious magpie elements.