I just got home from the movies; there was a pre-opening show of No Country for Old Men. Brilliant film, but hardly happy. What got me pecking at my keyboard here were the reviews I was reading. A lot of buzz has been generated about the film, and I felt I had to put my two cents in.
After seeing a movie, I like to find out more about it, as well as what other folks think about it. Not to gain support for my opinion, but to compare and see where we agree and disagree, and why. Sometimes it'll change my opinion: "Oh, why didn't I think of that while I was watching it?" Other times not: "Oh, come on now!"
I knew this was an extraordinary film from the get-go, and that sense stayed with me after leaving the theater. And it was no surprise that the reviews were almost all laudatory - gushing, waxing poetic about it. Since they agreed on almost all the same points, I went looking for the negative reviews. Lucky for me, rottentomatoes.com makes the hunting easy.
So why would anybody diss this flick? I wasn't convinced by the reasons given. Rather than nitpick (which I sure could do), let me just spout my opinion. Anyone who really cares who I'm ranting against can ask, and I'll gladly go into more detail.
Everyone who's seen this film knows it's a tour de force. Everyone knows it. The production is simply fantastic, top notch. Where negative points came up, as I said, the reasons generally don't seem convincing to me. Frankly, I think they were looking for dirt. After all, they are critics, and an enthusiastic thumbs-up doesn't sound very critical. (Maybe my next post will say something on this point.)
One thing that's bugged some is its allegedly nihilistic or pessimistic tone. It is not a feel-good movie, and certainly not a happy one. But I don't believe it stands up to the charge of nihilism or pessimism. Here's why I think it's more affirmative than it might first appear:
There is a strong moral sense in all the Coen brothers' films. Not a moral agenda, a moral sense: they couldn't do such good work by resorting to condescension. No Country for Old Men is no exception. What makes it a bit more complicated is the fact that they're adapting Cormac McCarthy's novel - which I haven't read), so it's hard for me to say what's McCarthy's and what's not. So I'll just refer to the film.
The irony is that many of the critiques of NCFOM are examples of points the film is making. Case in point: one reviewer complains that Ed Tom's "cracker-barrel philosophizing" undoes everything the movie sets out to do. Let's listen in on Ed Tom...in one scene he's reading the paper, tells his deputy about the managers of an old folks' home killing old people for their Social Security checks. Nobody did anything, he says, until a guy ran out of the place naked. It took something like that to get anybody's attention. Har, we in the audience say. But a film can't attract some people's attention unless there's shit blowing up. And Hollywood knows it. The Coen brothers do, and they use it to all its double-edge potential.
This is just one of several ironies in the reviews. Which brings me to my point - and I'm about to let out the secret to the movie: it all depends on watching the whole thing, not just the most obvious parts. Where it's loudest, enjoy the ride. Where it speaks softest, listen up.
And not just to Ed Tom.
I will say no more - no spoilers here. Let me just say I don't see NCFOM falling to the negative floor with a thud so much as I find it hitting the floor, bouncing up, and hovering in the air. Where it goes from there...
(Image desperately abducted from http://www.cinemastrikesback.com/?cat=315)
No comments:
Post a Comment