I went to see 'No Country For Old Men', last night, and I first offer an apology to those Coen afficienados amongst you: I have never really watched many of their more highly - regarded films. My limited contact with their work comes through 'Ladykillers' and 'Intolerable Cruelty', although I have seen 'Fargo'. Maybe the advantage is that I brought to the experience less baggage than the average fanatical Coen fan, who seem (in my limited opinion - of which more shortly) to live their lives in the grip of wild mood swings.
My (short) tale begins yesterday afternoon, when I was trying to decide whether the film would make appropriate 'date' viewing material for my beloved and I. I thought I would briefly venture into the 'Comments' section of the film's imdb.com entry to see whether it contained all of the elements that would lead to a cheerful Saturday night out. "Brutal violence". Check. "Unconvential narrative structure". Check. "Psychotic killer". Check. "No real ending". Check. So, I was catered for, but what about her? Deciding to play down to some of these more disturbing elements, I mumbled something about the main character's wife being Colin Firth's love interest in 'Nanny McPhee'. Looking suitably unconvinced, she acquiesed.
The point of the parenthesised portion of my title? Well, this disturbing descent into the Coen Internet community provided me with a cautionary tale about reading too much about a film before going to see it. The opinions on the website differed wildly, with the Coens being ordained and castrated from post to post, and many of the same features of the film being lambasted and praised in equal measure by members of the dissenting factions. It all added up to a rather confusing experience, and one that I fear may have coloured my reaction to the film before I entered the cinema. What I think I am trying to say is that I will endeavour to approach films with as clean a slate as possible in the future. Lesson learned.
On to the film, which I will not ruin for those of you who still want to see it.
Javier Bardem was great. Believe the hype.
Tommy Lee Jones was a relatively effective 'wise old hand' narrator. Two good monologues bookend the film.
James Brolin was an everyman that you could identify with, at times.
Woody Harrelson was slightly misplaced.
I really enjoyed the film, despite the odd nature of its close. Some of the film's detractors pointed to the lack of a final, on-camera confrontation between the two main antagonists as a weakness (even a "travesty"), but it didn't lessen the impact for me. The first half is definitely better than the second, with the peak (for me) arriving with a particularly nail - biting encounter between Bardem and Brolin in and around a hotel room. It is MASSIVELY tense, and there is one good reason for this, which is the one thing that I will always remember about the film, even after the plot and performances have faded from memory.
The most striking feature of the film is the total lack of music, at any stage, including even the end credits. As if the cat and mouse chase between Bardem's convincing killer and Brolin's fish-out-of-water welder was not arresting enough, the Coens' decision to do without any aural accompaniment allows them to keep your nerves jangling throughout, with Bardem sliding slowly and silently into range of his victims almost imperceptibly. It took about 20 minutes for me to decide what was missing, and the realisation created a suitably claustrophobic feeling, as the sonic indicators from which our reactions often take their lead were absent. I can honestly say that I have never seen a film that has used silence more effectively, with one gorgeous early moment showing us an extreme close - up shot of an unfurling, crackling chocolate bar wrapper while Bardem deliberates over whether to dispense with an innocent gas station clerk.
I heartily recommend going to see it, if only for this alone. The ending is a little anti - climatic, but the potency of the cinematography festers, or at least it is for me. Go and make your own mind up, and don't listen to what other people are thinking. Although for the people I know that read and post here, I doubt there'll be an issue there.
F-Master out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
i read the book knowing it was going to be a film - it's like reading a screeenplay and the coens are absolutely faithful to. it must've taken them about ten minutes of copying out to do the script but i think they capture the mood and feel of the thing perfectly. and it ends like that in the book so what are they going to do. i loved it. try the book.
I saw it this weekend, I agree on the whole. I think the end was perfect, if just for the confusion it seemed to cause in this particualr multiplex. Like most Coen brothers films the characters are fish out of water, caught up in a world that doesn't interest them. The colours were amazing-bleached yellows, delicate pale blues. One definite disagreement I thought Woody Harelson's cameo was perfectly judged, a reasonable man in an unreasonable situation
I was talking to Wayne (Dean-Richards) yesterday. One of the many topics of conversation was this film which he'd seen recently. He raved over it & urged me to watch it. As a Coen Bros. fan I feel I should anyway but its interesting to get another perspective. I'm interested in what you say about 'preparing' to see the film by reading other's opinions. Sometimes I read so many reviews that I feel I've already seen the film & somehow never get around to actually watching it...
Post a Comment