The changing face of violence: Re-defined or just reflected By the Coen brothers
iView Author: Arthi V (Delhi, India)
Email: vasudevan.arthi [at] gmail [dot] com
——————————————————–
The changing face of violence: Re-defined or just reflected By the Coen brothers
——————————————————–
At times there are quite a few films you’ve seen, liked some of them, wanted to discuss about these with those around you but then once you try saying something about the film words simply fail. It happens to me. Comes a film that just spell binds me. Takes me into a zone where I can only feel it. I meet somebody soon after and say something coherent (or try to) but all that comes out is just a shake of my head with a “..nothing..just see the film. I guess I’ll kill it if I say anything about it”.
But I still want to express what I feel. I think it’s more to do with me getting it out of my system. Because the film goes beyond the customary 2 hours onscreen and spills into your head, making you think about it. For the right reasons or for the wrong reasons. I guess the latter is truer here.
Just some time back somebody on PFC wrote an article titled “No Country for Old Men”. That’s the film that has got me to this state. Somebody has already written about it. But I can’t help it. I have to continue.
It’s been months since I watched this movie but the fear that engulfs me when ever I think of Anton Chigurh is still very much there. Off and on I end up reading some snippet related to the Coen brothers or Javier Bardem or this film itself and then I get transported to that zone. (A lot of been written about the story and I don’t want to get into repeating the same. I will try steering away from doing this.) For me at one level, I wonder why this film was made. How does one come up with creating a character like AC? What is the reference point here? I ask this because this isn’t a fantasy film but one that is made to be very real. It’s like as though it portrays what violence means today. Or does it re-define it? Is this just the film-makers’ take on this? I’m not sure because the film seems to say otherwise. If it’s indeed the former then it’s quite discomforting and disturbing.
The first few minutes set the mood and tone of could be expected during the next two hours. Vast barren desert lands, sparsely populated, no visibility of regular town-life and an uneasy calm setting over the whole scene. The local sheriff’s voice over superbly introduces us to the changing face of crime in this desolate county.
This monologue, at the start of the film, in effect tells us what the film is all about but it took me a lot of afterthought and a friend’s insinuation about the meaning of the title to fully comprehend what the film is. The ending; which appears to be such a fizzle-off after a terrifying build-up of tension from frame one. It is the contrary. To think of it now, I get so bugged with myself for not understanding this at the first go without anyone having to guide me to it.
The film upsets me now big time. Because even though I do not live in such a deserted place nor am I even remotely acquainted with that kind of lifestyle I feel what if I come across somebody like AC? What if? The film made this seem so quite plausible.
A petty crime by Brolin’s character (Llewelyn Moss) should have directly landed him in the police’s net sooner or later. This would have led the trail to whereabouts of AC. May be there could have been a face off between him and the guy who is after the stolen stash. There could have been some typical movie style action, stunts thrown in before the grand finale. Grand and predictable.
I guess this would have happened in a normal world where somebody like AC did not exist. “Normal” as the Coens brothers define it or “normal” as it just is today? I am not so sure about this.
So we have a character called Anton Chigurh introduced to us. For me it was the very first murder at the police station that gave me a glimpse into AC’s psyche. Do you remember the expression on his face while strangling the officer? Such bestiality. Such hatred. Such a need to kill, to murder. Such a need to terrorize. Oh God. Am I making a mistake by seeing this? But my hand didn’t move towards the stop button. I was glued to my place just wondering what to expect next.
What came next was the killing of the old man on the road – point blank on his forehead with that machine of his (what was that?). Then the murder of the two old men at the scene of the drug deal. Anton Chirgurh doesn’t think before killing. If anyone disturbs him or causes the minutest of discomfort (even by asking a question) the price to be paid is his life. At times he is “benevolent” enough to leave the choice to the chosen one. How? By a mere toss of a coin. t seemed so crazy but never did it cross my mind that the character of Anton Chigurh is an exaggeration. I just didn’t. If that were the case then I wouldn’t have felt for the film. I would not have had a knot in my stomach every time Moss came close to AC or vice versa during the long cat and mouse chase. I can never forget the scene in the motel. AC is moving across in the corridor and Moss waiting with baited breath and the gun ready. That’s it. It was too much to handle. It was so real; so true.
What then do I make of such a film? The fate of Moss was already known when we knew who was after him. But the manner in which it was shown (or rather the opposite) was superb. So apt. After all he was just another regular guy who gave in to the temptation of getting super rich super fast. I guess this is the way it would have been if it happened. No not as in a film.
The fate of the local sheriff? Slowly losing his grip over the law and order situation in his county, he begins to sense that he is being outrun by something more serious than the crimes taking place. Something more dangerous. He realizes this when crimes committed are done so without any intent. AC is the embodiment of this changing nature of violence. His loss at finding a way out to reach Moss to save him, his inability to understand AC’s psyche leaves him so helpless that TLJ’s character starts questioning his very basic capability of being ahead in the game. Not his fault at all. And to realize this at the fag end of the career is so demoralizing. The way out of this, the sheriff realizes, is to move out. The last dialogue with his wife just depicts this predicament so well.
The fate of Anton Chigurh? This is what the Coen brothers leave for us, the audience. I still haven’t fully understood why there was the car crash at the end of the film. What happens after that could have happened before the car crash. That was the intention right? Then why the crash?
But it is this end that in effect opens the doors to what new meaning has the word violence has taken to be today. The perpetrators too. Are the law-enforcers able to understand this? Not quite going by TLJ’s character and his newbie deputy struggle to gain a grip on the situation. Forever. Till the end. That is forbidding. I could not stop thinking about this for days after I had seen the film. Even now at times. How real is this? I seriously feel that there is a strong possibility of a maniac like AC to exist today. A maniac who kills because he wants to. Nothing more. Nothing less. And it is this feeling that truly intimidates me.
I don’t like the movie for this reason. But it is precisely because of this story that the movie has become what it is today. It deserves to be so. I really liked the film for this.
The day I saw this film I was the only one in my flat. It was late night and I just couldn’t move from my bed to even get a glass of water. I just couldn’t. At times I feel that if I had seen it with my friends would this effect have been diluted? Or may be just the way it should have been taken. I guess not. It is a film that hits hard as it just throws the conventional story out of the window and welcomes us to a new world. A world where nothing good can be guaranteed even if you’ve spent a lifetime hoping for the same. And it is a treat for the audience because it makes the mind walk that extra mile.
This is what NCFOM offered me. And I just had to take it. No way out.
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Great post there Aarthi, i think after Dr.Hannibal Lecter, Anton Chigurh, is the most scariest villian to haunt you. And what makes AC, more scary is that he is disturbingly real. Heath Ledger’s joker is scary, but at the end of the day, you know that he is a comic character, and makes you feel relieved. And so does Hannibal Lecter, for all his malevolence, he is somewhat distant. But Anton Chigurh, is some very close to you, he could be the average guy just lounging around, and thats what makes him terrifying. Fabulous performance by Javier Bardem.
Arthi!!
once again a good writeup!!
Why is it a ‘No country for Old men’?
grotesque as it may sound, AC is just a pure personification of the violent spirit in the human society that has been seemingly tied down by civilization and the rule of law. However at the slightest circumstance, human mind takes the most violent form – as causeless it might seem, it is not AC’s acts that perturb the old sheriff – It is what he says to his deputy – the incident about a couple who kill and bury old men and women to keep collecting their social security benefits – that is what is more scary. AC atleast gives a 50% chance to his victims – the real ones are much scarier and more irrational and strange. And come to think of it – AC is a character who had been etched in the earlier Coen bros. masterpiece ‘Oh Brother Where Art Thou’ as the US marshall who simply wants to execute the erstwhile runaways from prison and is relentless and faceless – much like AC who has to kill Moss’ wife simply because he had told Moss so. – A man of his word – someone whom we would like to slip occassionally in his truthfulness at least once!!
Ratnakar,
Have you ever been to K-Circle Hyderabad?
Arthi! sorry for the hijack
@ Santosh
Yeah i did, though not one of the regulars there, it was from 2001-02. Do remember some of the guys JK,Ram Kiran, Suresh. Been quite a long time.
Watch ‘Blood Simple’,'Miller’s Crossing’ and ‘Fargo’.Im sure you will love those films too.
Nice Post.
For all the violence, its absurdity and insanity, the film still manages to stylize, sanitize, and intellectually glorify it.
Personally I struggle with the name. There has got to be more to it than one man’s viewpoint. Still struggling with it. May be a title cannot summarize everything such a film communicates.
I had started writing a post on NCFOM and your post has inspired me to finish it. Thx.
@ Ratnakar, Jaiganesh, Deep Blue Lotus : Thank you.
@Jaiganesh: About the old couple, the US marshall in ‘Oh Bro…’ there was a purpose to the killings. It wasn’t a mindless rampage to kill anyone. For no rhyme or reason at all.
In the beginning monologue remember TLJ’s character saying that he put a young guy to the electric chair because he murdered a 14 year old girl. His reason : Nothing in
particular. I just wanted to kill someone for as long as I remember. Now that is scary. This something the sheriff couldn’t understand. What kind of a mindset a person has who just wants to kill for the heck of it? What happens then? The role of the sheriff changes then. But to change one has to understand what is happening. And here is where the sheriff is stumped. Naturally so. Hence the title, Hence the story. Hence the questions it raises.
This film captured that superbly. (I am not able to call this a film actually. It has crossed the line in a way. May be I am wrong.)
So true when you say that AC is just a pure personification of the violent spirit in the human society, I felt it too. And this thought is terrifying. Its only a specific few who actually feel tied down by civilization and rule of law.
It always has been and hence crime was always there. But when the nature of crime becomes thus it gets too too complicated then. Is AC is giving chances by the toss of
the coin? I don’t think so. No guarantee that he’d let him go alive. One wrong word used, one trivial thing that irks AC and ..finish. End of chapter. What does one say
to that then? AC is the real irrational strange psycho.
AC will slip may be because of his own doing rather than the arm of law catching up with him. Thats what the film seems to be saying. This raises the questions then.
Damn. Is this why there was this accident at the end? Because of his own doings. He could have died / he could have lived. But nothing because of the sheriff and team.
Is this it? Thanks Jaiganesh. Again someone had to lead e to understanding this. If ever this is on the right track. :-)
I wrote what came to my mind now. I may have missed something or misread what you’ve written. Please do clarify it then. Thanks for your thoughts again.
@ Krishna: I will catch up with the others too. Thanks. But Im not at all talking @ the other Coen Bros films here. NCFOM is at another level and brought a few thoughts
on my head. I’ve put that down. May be other films too. Thanks for this.
@ Deep Blue Lotus: I guess the title conveys what the story is about. A title does summarize what the film-maker wanted to say through the film. What the person watching it takes homes or what he /he comes up with could be very different too. I struggled with this title, the end and TLJ’s charac for quite some time.
Do write your take too DBL. You’d also have some things to say we could have missed out on.