No. What was her place in the book?

he picks her up (she is 15 yr old run away and she gets killed with him (off camera) at the motel shortly after attempting to seduce him.

something like "he came out with a gun but then he held a gun to the young girl's head so he dropped his gun and he shot them both".

In the film she's not a hitchhiker, but already staying at the motel. She's sitting by the pool as he walks in, and offers him a beer in what's essentially a reversed version of the scene where he goes to her room to offer her a beer in the book.

I'm not sure why the reversal, as in the book the relationship with her, albeit brief, is essentially the point he falls off the wagon, and the reversal at best obscures the point.

In the book there's a suggestion that just as his wife betrays Moss by telling the sheriff where he is (allowing the bad guys, who are tapping the sheriff's phone, to find him), Moss betrays her by consorting with another woman. Perhaps that betrayal is mitigated by there being no (explicit) consummation, just as her betrayal is mitigated by the fact she was thinking she was helping Moss out by sending him someone to help, but still, they're both betrayals, nice and symmetrical. And, of course, as soon as each of them cease to be loyal and true, the sticky end isn't far behind.

Perhaps they felt like they didn't have time to develop that relationship in the movie, but as it stands there's only the most tenuous insinuation that Moss wasn't being a stand-up guy here, and even less of a reason why the character wouldn't be so.

In the book, it's still pretty tenuous, but it's definitely implied (the way he picks her up on the turnpike is reminiscent of the way he picked Carla Jean up at the store she worked in; the relationship is more developed, and he's shown being worn down by her constant come-ons; in the end he goes to her room, even if it's just with a beer), and serves to pound home the essence of every morality tale - stop being a good guy, and bad things will happen to you.

A couple of key scenes from the book were cut down like this in the film - the scene where Sheriff Bell goes back to the motel is the other big one, and probably the one I'm most annoyed by, because it's the one that embodies the theme I most appreciate - but I think this one is the one that's most changed.

i havent seen the film yet. watched the preview and its uncomfortable because i have such a strong imagine of the characters in my mind and have such an indepth understanding of who they are that to now tell me, "Tommy Lee is Bell" makes me angry/annoyed etc, although he might do a good job with the role, its pretty hard to believe a movie can ever do a book justice.

just saw this yesterday. I'm glad I read this thread today to fill in some of the missing misses- particularly maltaille's explanation of Brolin's betrayal with the pool girl. It's the kind of movie that people are going to love or hate and certainly there are different interpretations of the themes, which always points to cinematic genius.

Tommy Lee was great, and Josh Brolin did a really good job. I always like Woody in a film, but was disappointed in this character. Especially when he followed Anton up the stairs. I liked the way the killing of Carla Jean was handled- by Anton looking at his boots. I really, really wanted Anton to die in the car crash though. I thought it would completely wrap up the theme of fate much better.

I saw this movie, and was riveted for most of it, but the last half hour left too much of the action to the imagination. I didn't much care for the ending where Anton walks away after getting into a car wreck and the Sheriff retires. I would have much preferred an alternate ending where Tommy Lee Jones pulls over a vehicle for a random traffic violation (like the deputy in the beginning) and sees the air tank in the front seat and you know that he knows he found the killer and then cut to credits. It would have had a much deeper message to me that way and would have still been semi-ambiguous.

disagree. that would be way too Hollywood. The end was perfect. It took me a few weeks to get it, but it was gold.

I've watched this movie three times now, and one unexpected aspect of repeat viewings is that it becomes hilarious. All the local characters - the "mind ridin bitch?" guy, the "pick the room goes with the applicable rate" hotel woman, the "no sir, it's unusual" gun store guy - they all have great quirks, and once you've figured out the plot intricacies, you can just sit back and enjoy. Not to mention the three main performances, and all their great nonverbal stuff.

meh i don't like when people say this.

movies are movies. books are books. when i watch a movie, i don't expect to have the same feeling or enjoyment as i do when reading a book, even if it's the same story. the goal of a movie based on a book should be to be a good movie, not to "do a book justice." likely there's some overlap, but definitely not 100%.

Not unlike the 'Raising Arizona' locals.

I will be watching NCFOM again soon. So far I'll only say it's stayed with me longer than the other Best Picture nominees I've seen (Juno, Michael Clayton).

this thread needs more discussion on the dream at the end of the movie, imo. Mostly because I'm stupid, and while I loved this movie, I didn't understand the dream. I've read the posts in this thread about it, but would love to read more.

Like, this "essay" is exactly what I want to read :P, whaddya say GTL?

The movie both begins and ends with monologues by Sheriff Bell, so when thinking about the his dream at the end I think it's also important to remember the beginning.

Beginning:
"I was sheriff of this county when I was twenty-five. Hard to believe. Grandfather was a lawman. Father too. Me and him was sheriff at the same time, him in Plano and me here. I think he was pretty proud of that. I know I was. Some of the old-time sheriffs never even wore a gun. A lot of folks find that hard to believe... The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it... But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. You can say it's my job to fight it but I don't know what it is anymore... More than that, I don't want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard... He would have to say, ok, I'll be part of this world."

End:
"Both had my father. It's peculiar. I'm older now'n he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense he's the younger man. Anyway, first one I don't remember so well but it was about money and I think I lost it. The second one, it was like we was both back in older times and I was on horseback goin through the mountains of a night, goin through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and snowin, hard ridin. Hard country. He rode past me and kept on goin. Never said nothin goin by. He just rode on past and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down, and when he rode past I seen he was carryin fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. About the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin on ahead and that he was fixin to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. Out there up ahead. And then I woke up."

What jumps out at me:
1. In the beginning, Sheriff Bell is apprehensive about venturing into an unfamiliar 'new' world. In the end, he is in a similar situation, but is this time led by the fire from his father's horn.
Potentially pertinent info:
- Bell's lone return to the hotel in a last-ditch effort to find Chigurh
- Bell's idea when younger that God would come into his life at a later date
- Bell's first dream involves a loss (should the second then involve a gain?)
- Bell wakes up

Currently, my interpretation of the ending is a somewhat depressing one. I definitely think there's an element of common experience, but I see that experience as a rather dim one. The dream is just another case of Bell expecting something that turns out to be false. He expects God to come into his life-- doesn't happen. He expects his father to be out ahead waiting for him-- he wakes up. Each generation expects to be led by those previous, only to find out that they are alone. I think we all often share the expectation that things will be different in the future (for better or worse), and the realization that we're just another link in the chain is, for me, not a happy one.

Also, I don't think there's a objectively correct interpretation to the end. I think there's a lot of things at play, and that different things will jump out and appeal to different people.

I saw this movie for second time the other day (still trying to decide if I like this or TWBB better for Best Picture), but I finally figured out who Javier Bardem reminded me of...






Creeper, a villain from Scooby Doo. And it turned out I wasn't the first person make the connection...

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/51308/

Call it, freindo.

I have read this whole thread and still dont understand that whole scene with Anton and the Sheriff in the hotel room. How the F did he escape without a confrontation? Was he really there etc.

According to the thread: We don't know for sure the answers to your questions, but we think it's possible to understand "what it's about" without understanding "what happened."

Either: he was in the other room, or he was hiding, or he was in Bell's imagination.

The point is, this is the scene where Bell gives up. Anton doesn't kill him because he knows that Bell is not a threat, that he won't come after him, and Anton's ethics don't let him kill senselessly. It's like the accountant - who asks "are you going to kill me?" and gets as a response, "that depends - do you see me?" Well, Bell doesn't see him, because he doesn't want to. He's tired and afraid.

There is probably more to it than that (the locked window, etc), but I don't think it changes the meaning drastically.

I see it as a visual representation of Bell fearing that Anton, the guy he should be wanting to capture, is right behind the door. That fear, and wish that Anton wasn't there, leads him to decide to quit being a lawman.

Just saw the movie again. My new thoughts on the ending:

Chigurh represents evil in its purest form. He kills people as if they are farm animals, which is obviously fitting given one of his weapons of choice. Realizing that he is overmatched by Chigurh, Sheriff Bell retires. He initially attributes his failure to the new kind of evil that Chigurh represents, only to realize that the evil is nothing new. It is ever persistent and impossible to stop. In the dream sequence, Sheriff Bell's father passes him and leaves him behind on the mountain trail. Similarly, Sheriff Bell was left behind when his father died. And, just as his father died, Sheriff Bell will too. As evidenced by his failure to stop Chigurh, his lack of a relationship with God, etc., there is nothing left for him to do but die.

edited to add that this interpretation is reinforced by Carson Wells' complete failure to stop Chigurh

I don't agree with this.

If you think of Chigurh as just a man, not an idea, everything fits just as well. He beats Wells because he's slightly more expert and a lot less emotionally invested. When he does corner Wells, Chigurh talks to him as if they are equals - he's concerned with Wells's "dignity" and he asks "if the rule you followed brought you this, of what use was the rule?" almost as if they are discussing strategies.

But Chigurh makes mistakes. Killing Wells slowed him down a lot, because Chigurh was wrong when he thought he could get the satchel without him. Every time he and Moss meet, it's a stalemate and neither man wins. The Mexicans are the ones who find and kill Moss, and they do it in a way that Chigurh could never do (charming the mother-in-law into revealing the location).

I understand that it's possible to see him as Death or Evil or Chaos, but it's definitely not the only way to see him, imo. That's what makes the character great - he works as a man and as an idea.

You guys are agreeing with each other. Obviously, Chigurh is a real person. A man who has worked hard to gain the skills necessary to kill almost at will, and to get away with it. At the same time, he represents something more. This is what makes novels and movies so much fun.

I guess we all three agree with each other, then. I just object to calling him "evil in its purest form" or whatever, because I think that makes the story less complex and less interesting. It's the way Bell sees it, but it doesn't have to be the way we see it.

I just quickly wrote "in it's purest form," and I agree that that's not the way I should have put it. However, the massive emphasis toward the end of the film that the 'new' violence is not so new shows that Chigurh is nothing special. Instead, he's just one among many evil people in every generation. His personhood gives us something tangible to hate and fear, but the point is that he's not particularly unique.


To tell someone that you are about to kill to, in essence, "take it like a man" is not a sign of respect. Moreover, the use of the word rule suggests to me a much broader idea than a strategy for finding people. A rule would be "do good" or something along those lines. If each man's 'rule', or way of life, brought them there, it is clear that Wells' more principled (in the way we typically understand) approach was of no present worth. Again, evil triumphs over good.


Chigurh gets the satchel at the end. The vent inside the hotel room is opened with a coin, just as before in the hotel in Del Rio. Killing Wells is also necessary because Wells got in his way. The money is a secondary concern.

Wells moonlights as a hitman. For fun. He's brilliant, but he's the least "principled" person in the movie. And he got caught off guard because he was distracted by thoughts of the money, by hubris, etc., while Anton stayed emotionally uninvolved.

I understand that; I'm just saying that he could have gotten it a lot earlier. (Now that I think about it, maybe he just wanted to get Wells out of the way because Wells was his most worthy adversary.)

This is weird because I think we agree on the big picture, but I like the movie enough that I enjoy arguing about the little things.

Finally got a chance to see this this weekend. Overall I liked it - acting was great, so was the cinematography and sound design, editing, etc. It had a bunch of great set pieces, as all Coen Bros. movies do.

But the ending left me cold. First off, I really thought it was a big mistake to

Also, I though the car crash scene was weird and felt tacked on.

All in all a very good film but TWBB is still my pick for best film of the year.

Also, wanted to add that I've read a few interesting speculations that

Any thoughts?