Tentatively scheduled to be on Mike & Mike at 8:42 am EDT on Monday. Latest draft blog entry is posted, with updates on the Cardinals, Blue Jays, and Rangers.
I wanted to read Cormac McCarthy’s No Country for Old Men
I still haven’t seen the film version, but if the movie was true to the book for the character of Chigurh, I’m surprised to see that any actor could win an Oscar for that role. Chigurh is central, and he is undeniably scary, but he is also completely one-dimensional and boring. He’s an automaton, a remorseless, reasonless killer with no personality and little action in the book beyond (sometimes inventive) murders. The reader sees Chigurh from the omniscient narrator’s perspective, but the narrator’s view is limited to Chigurh’s actions during the events of the novel, and we are left with the same confusion and lack of information as Sheriff Bell, who refers to Chigurh as a “ghost” and whose window into Chigurh is limited to the events laid out in the novel. We know Chigurh by the trail of dead, but we know nothing else of him. (One possible interpretation of Chigurh is that he is Fate or, more likely, Death, which would explain the lack of emotion and inability to change his course of action; I imagine you could write a whole thesis on that topic.) Sheriff Bell is the most interesting and complex character, but he’s not involved in the action – he’s the thoughtful, not-dead narrator who can’t figure out the hows and whys of what he witnessed – almost as if he’s God looking down on a world gone mad.
I also found McCarthy’s prose, a little unclear in the best of circumstances, to be at its most confusing in No Country, not just due to his standard aversion to punctuation but also due to the constant scene-shifting. There are two unnamed characters in offices whose roles were never clear to me, and, when one of them is killed, I wasn’t even sure which one it was.
The problems with thin characters only bothered me upon reflection – the book was a fantastic read because of the pacing and McCarthy’s tremendous and sometimes beautiful prose, and there’s plenty of material to consider after the fact that makes up for the weak characterizations. It’s not as good as Blood Meridian or The Road but still a solid read.
Next up: Back to Blandings Castle for some Heavy Weather
I haven’t read the book, though it’s on my list. I did see the movie.
I am not sure it was Oscar-worthy, but Bardem’s portrayal of Chigurh is compelling. He embodies exactly what you say: he is a remorseless automaton. But he is not stupid or unaware of what he is doing; it is just what he does.
And boy does he do it. Bardem gives the role enough traces of camp to make you feel unsettled not just by Chigurh’s actions – after all, we are sadly used to going to the movies and seeing a bad guy kill people – but by his bizarre mannerisms and methods. Chigurh is ruthless, but that is not enough to scare audiences. Bardem, and, really, the Coens, makes him truly scary.
(err, MAKE him truly scary)
I agree with Mr. P. The portrayal was fantastic and is anything but boring. Perhaps it is just the medium in which the character is, but I’m somewhat surprised to hear that the book read that way. I would highly recommend the movie. I didn’t see all of the other big-ticket movies that year, but was very impressed with No Country. The only complaints I heard about it were primarily from people looking for a more formulaic movie that made more “sense”, which I generally understand to mean people who want movies with A) happy endings, B) someone to explain everything that happened and why, or C) both of the above.
Interesting take, because I felt similarly about the movie (haven’t read the book). Was gripping while experiencing it. But upon reflection, it seemed kind of thin and, in some places, nonsensical (i.e. more interested in its overall philosophy then in telling a realistic story).
Oh, and Casey Affleck should have won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar.
Oops, mistakenly wrote “then” instead of “than”…
I saw the film and have not yet read the novel, a one-dimensional no-depth character did indeed win the Oscar. It’s a relatively good performance, so far as it goes, but it’s just pure evil and a bad haircut, no depth or complexity to it. He made me feel physically ill, which scores some points for being evocative, but the kids in your local high school drama club can do a one-note performance.
Other than being a 110-minute advertisement for fatalism (which I have no doubt fairly represents the novel, based on my other encounters with McCarthy’s writing), I thought the movie was a big so what that derived most of its value from the utterly amazing sound of the murders that came across in the theater. Without that, I don’t see what was significant about the film at all.
I enjoyed the film quite a bit, but I was actually more enamored with Tommy Lee Jones’ acting than Bardem’s. I’ll abstain from defending my opinion, though… I realize that I’m a total mark for Cohen Bros. films.
It’s funny that 25% of the commenters so far (at the time I type this) went back to make corrections to minor errors. Keith’s not that mean, is he?
He’s not mean. He’s snarky. And a grammar Nazi. (Uh oh, did I just call into play Godwin’s Law?)
I don’t understand the criticism of the Oscar nod. He won for Supporting Actor, not Best Actor. How much depth do we really need from a supporting role? Yes, the role was somewhat one-dimensional but I don’t think anyone can deny that Bardem absolutely nailed the part and brought Chigurh to life. It was an incredible performance, and one that won’t be forgotten.
Rick,
Having seen the movie, I agree with you. Sounded to me like Keith was speculating since he admitted to not having seen it. I imagine we’ll get a review/comparison once he does.
I thought Bardem was fantastic as Chigurh. He is quite possibly the the scariest character in film since Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. The man was pure evil, which is not necessarily an easy thing to portray. Bardem was a good choice.
Portraying a one-dimensional character is not that special. Characters with depth and complexity are much harder to portray. Chigurh looks to me like a layup for a half-decent actor.
I read the book a couple of years ago, immediately after reading Blood Meridian (because it seemed more accessible than the Border Trilogy). In any case, it is one of the few movie adaptations of books I have seen that was totally faithful to the book.
I’ve never totally understood the Oscar process, but it seemed like Bardem did a great job and was more or less what I pictured when I read the book. As a News Radio and Office Space fan, I also enjoyed seeing Stephen Root in a different type of role than he normally plays, but that is really neither here nor there.
I would be interested in knowing what more savvy readers than myself thought about the parallels between the Judge and Chigurh. The Judge seemed a little more fleshed out as a character, but they seemed to serve almost the same role, personifying violence as an indomitable/inexorable force.
Also, I’d like to know how people compare the Road to Blood Meridian and No Country. Is it as good?
Keith, I think what makes Bardem’s performance compelling is that he is one dimensional in function and purpose, but *not* one dimensional as a character.
And what I mean by that is that he is the embodiment of Evil, if not Death, but he’s not just a grim reaper who shows up and then the next shot shows a casket. He has his quirks, and he is a human being. He’s as layered as any of us, but he just happens to have been put on Earth to kill people. It’s what he does.
Chigurh’s lack of interest in (or perhaps lack of apology as to) why that is his mission is part of the character. Bardem, I think, shows you that. He’s not just a villain, he’s a *fascinating* villain. We yearn to know more about why he is the way he is. IMO the quirks (weaponry, gimmicky dialogue) don’t work unless you believe that this is a multi-dimensional person with a one-dimensional purpose.
All of which is to say Bardem infuses the character with both humanity and a complete lack of compassion. It’s really well done.
I’m curious to see what you think if you have a chance to catch the film.
Keith,
Do yourself a favor and see the movie ASAP. It is my FAVORITE movie of all time, and I believe it to be the best film in the last 25 years.
The Coen Brothers elaborate even more on the issue, that you correctly and impressively pointed out, that Chigurh is fate and/or death. I do not want to spoil the film for you at all, but I hope you have a stronger opinion of Bardem’s depiction than you did while reading the pre-script (book).
The Road is Cormac McCarthy’s masterpiece, but I can’t imagine the movie version being anywhere in the vicinity as good as No Country.
Hmm…I thought much of the drug/murder story was supplementary to Bell. Bell was the linchpin as he realized that the nihilistic violence was more than he could take – and he couldn’t stop it. He was a good man in a bad world. The idea however was more about his realizing that his experience wasn’t special but rather ordinary. The punch in the nose isn’t the heinous evil in the story but the somewhat normalcy of it. It was more of a snippet in the timeline of humanity rather than a stand alone story.
I have seen the movie 3 times and read the book (after the first time I saw the movie). I am not sure I agree with the statements that Chigurh is one dimensional.
He goes into detail on “what brought him to where he is” and the rules that he follows(as ridiculous as they may be).
We also in the movie see some type of humor from him (gas station scene).
And some type of normal interaction with kids (car accident scene).
I am not sure how a psychopath serial killer that ISNT one dimensional would fit into this movie. What would you prefer? For him to have a wife? Friends? The fact that he shows no interest in that type of thing actually tells you alot about his character.
And PD – I agree Casey Afflack was really good in Gone Baby Gone – but that was an easier role to play than Borden’s
Thanks for the review. I have checked it out from the library based on your review and will power through it next week.
Jonathan – Casey Affleck was nominated for The Assassination of Jesse James, not Gone Baby Gone. Either way, I definitely feel that Bardem was most deserving.
Haven’t read the book but I just might now. I thought the movie, on the other hand, was great until the last twenty minutes. Bardem was good but not Oscar good. He definitely didn’t deserve the Oscar that year.
“We know Chigurh by the trail of dead, ”
Hip Reference Alert!
Thanks Aiden my mistake
Thanks for the review…based on it, I grabbed the book for a couple of flights I had yesterday.
A couple quick thoughts:
1. The movie stays pretty true to the book, with only minimal scenes and dialogue left out.
2. I had the same feeling after reading the book as I did when I saw the movie, summed up in one partial word, eh.
Loved the movie. Javier Bardem I think at least deserved the nomination, but he definitely benefited from some outstanding editing and direction.