No Country for Old Men

[sunny]

I think the movie, which is very faithful to the book, is saying that this modern world has become brutal, and is devoid of honor, decency, and goodness and is no place for old men who cherish and live by these values. They are "overmatched" in a world with no rules.

Simplicity itself.

Okay. How does that have anything to do with o-hope's "secularism" analysis?

Like, sunny, please point me to a Golden Age in history that was not "brutal, and... devoid of honor, decency, and goodness and is no place for old men."

The Dark Ages? The Middle Ages? The era of militant Muslim expansion and subjugation? Cave-man times?

We are still growing as a human species. The mythological Golden Age never was. It has always been in the future. Now days, we call it "utopianism."

I'm offering my own analysis, not commenting on o-hope's.

There are elderly people still among us who remember a time when they went to bed and locking their doors did not even cross their minds.

Their children ran loose in the streets, or in the woods, or up and down country lanes and no one worried. Sure, things happened to kids, but not enough to paralyze people with fear.

People had accounts with the local grocer and paid when they had the money. (I could still do this in my hometown in the mid-eighties)

My grandmother regularly fed "hobos" who came off the railroad tracks during the depression. She never asked, but they always offered to do some little task in repayment. She never feared for her safety.

My grandfather once took in a "hobo", gave him a job at his lumber mill, and a room in his house to live in. This man's granddaughter still lives in my hometown.

If someone's house or barn burned down, or got blown away by a tornado, everybody got together and helped them rebuild.

People got together and provided elderly people who lived alone with firewood during the winter, brought them meals or invited them to dinner, gave them a ride to church, did their shopping for them, cut their grass..etc.

Honor, decency, goodness....It's still around, but as exceptions, not rules.

[FourthBase]

I think the movie, which is very faithful to the book, is saying that this modern world has become brutal, and is devoid of honor, decency, and goodness and is no place for old men who cherish and live by these values. They are "overmatched" in a world with no rules.

Simplicity itself.

That's exactly what it's about.

Sigurh is basically a zombie, devoid of conscience.
It's among the most nihilistic movies I've ever seen.

[theeKultleeder]

Thanks for the answer, sunny. I suspect there is more decency in the present world than you see.

People are still good. People want to do good.

Maybe I suffer from pronoia.

[sunny]

Thanks for the answer, sunny. I suspect there is more decency in the present world than you see.

People are still good. People want to do good.

Maybe I suffer from pronoia.

I see plenty of good as I actively seek it out. It's just harder to find than it once was and in addition, I/we have to constantly fight against the creeping cynicism toward our fellow humans that is both cultivated to keep us seperated, and justified to a degree by brutal world in which we live.

[Luposapien]

[nomo]

Interesting. Looks like it's all Clinton's fault...

[FourthBase]

The freakonomic theory is that would-be violent criminals were aborted.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Interesting. Looks like it's all Clinton's fault...

Notice the rise in violent crime starting in the early 1980s.

That's the Reagan-Casey-North-CIA cocaine tsunami turning America's cities into war zones to finance death squads in Central America.

Plus the post-Vietnam re-militarization of American culture by pumping up the media violence and cutting human services stressed out the social fabric even more.

BTW, this is a Coen brothers film
Their last five films have been loaded with psy-ops.

This one consists mostly of people shooting each other.
And you know what that does to the viewer.

Just look at the poster. What do you see?
Same thing as most movies, a young man with a weapon.


No, I haven't seen the movie. I read the detailed synopsis on wikipedia and read reviews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men_%28film%29

On November 21, the film opened in wide release in the United States...

November 21, man with a gun....obvious meme reinforcement.
(Hey, have you noticed how many movie characters now are "ex-marines?")

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/moviereviews/2007/071108/

The picture of human nature in No Country for Old Men is by contrast so bleak I wonder if it must provide for some a reassuring explanation for our defeatism and apathy in the face of atrocity. I admire the creativity and storytelling craft of the Coen brothers, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what use they think they’re putting that creativity and craft to. As I left the screening in Toronto, all I could think was, “America sure loves its mass murderers.” That conclusion was ratified by a line in the New York film festival’s blurb for the movie: “Wearing an unforgettably frightening pageboy and toting a cattle stun gun that’ll haunt your nightmares, Javier Bardem is Anton Chigurh, a psychopathic assassin of the highest order whose detachment is as shocking as the carnage photographed so gorgeously by DP Roger Deakins.”

Death worship in the guise of poignant recognition. No more nightmares, thanks.

[judasdisney]

I saw the movie. A highly skillful, "pretty violence" show (as in, violence that is pretty). Totally empty and devoid of theme or meaning except the Tommy Lee Jones commentary as a slapped-on sidenote to make it seem profound. The type of Serial Killer Arthouse Story that I wrote in High School Creative Writing class in 10th grade. But a highly watchable thriller.

As for "secularism," having been raised by radical Far-Right-Wing pseudo-Catholics who devoted a lot of energy to hating "secularism," I agree that the use of the term can only be code, whether it's used by Fundamentalist Muslims or Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians. Or Quetzalcoatlans.

Using the term "secularism" often identifies the user as a Fundamentalist who has a divided "self" (a divided identity or heart) that is insecure about modernism. Whether the user recognizes that or not.

The reason this is true: In the endgame for "anti-secularists," all things must be "anti-secular" or "religious." In practice, there is no end to "weeding-out" secularism, because tying your shoes or using the toilet could be either secular or religious, and therefore policing "secularism" is an excuse for identity politics that always ends up as tribal and totalitarian.

If my parents (who are long dead, but I'd happily enjoy beheading them if they had not died) had succeeded in weeding-out my secularism, I'd have succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome as they intrusively monitored and policed every aspect of my waking and sleeping life, in the name of Jesus (or, more precisely, since they believed in The Devil much moreso than they believed in Jesus, in the name of saving me from Hell).

Secularism is a strawman and/or a reactionary device. Just as both waking life and sleep co-exist in our dual nature as human beings, so too secularism and spirituality co-exist. Christ slept (Matthew 8:24) and did not try to weed-out his human nature, but rather, He co-existed with it and redeemed it.

True religion is not about what you are against but what you are for. The use of the term "secular" in the modern political climate strictly identifies the user as Born Against.

[FourthBase]

The picture of human nature in No Country for Old Men is by contrast so bleak I wonder if it must provide for some a reassuring explanation for our defeatism and apathy in the face of atrocity. I admire the creativity and storytelling craft of the Coen brothers, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what use they think they’re putting that creativity and craft to. As I left the screening in Toronto, all I could think was, “America sure loves its mass murderers.” That conclusion was ratified by a line in the New York film festival’s blurb for the movie: “Wearing an unforgettably frightening pageboy and toting a cattle stun gun that’ll haunt your nightmares, Javier Bardem is Anton Chigurh, a psychopathic assassin of the highest order whose detachment is as shocking as the carnage photographed so gorgeously by DP Roger Deakins.”

Exactly.

Death worship in the guise of poignant recognition. No more nightmares, thanks.

That is also exactly what the movie is about.
It's why I ultimately hated it.

I saw the movie. A highly skillful, "pretty violence" show (as in, violence that is pretty). Totally empty and devoid of theme or meaning except the Tommy Lee Jones commentary as a slapped-on sidenote to make it seem profound. The type of Serial Killer Arthouse Story that I wrote in High School Creative Writing class in 10th grade. But a highly watchable thriller.

Another exactly.

And this wretched fucking movie is going to get Oscar nominations.

[orz]

Sounds great, can't wait to see it.

Luposapien, I see your


and raise you

[theeKultleeder]

I saw the movie. A highly skillful, "pretty violence" show (as in, violence that is pretty). Totally empty and devoid of theme or meaning except the Tommy Lee Jones commentary as a slapped-on sidenote to make it seem profound. The type of Serial Killer Arthouse Story that I wrote in High School Creative Writing class in 10th grade. But a highly watchable thriller.

As for "secularism," having been raised by radical Far-Right-Wing pseudo-Catholics who devoted a lot of energy to hating "secularism," I agree that the use of the term can only be code, whether it's used by Fundamentalist Muslims or Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians. Or Quetzalcoatlans.

Using the term "secularism" often identifies the user as a Fundamentalist who has a divided "self" (a divided identity or heart) that is insecure about modernism. Whether the user recognizes that or not.

The reason this is true: In the endgame for "anti-secularists," all things must be "anti-secular" or "religious." In practice, there is no end to "weeding-out" secularism, because tying your shoes or using the toilet could be either secular or religious, and therefore policing "secularism" is an excuse for identity politics that always ends up as tribal and totalitarian.

If my parents (who are long dead, but I'd happily enjoy beheading them if they had not died) had succeeded in weeding-out my secularism, I'd have succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome as they intrusively monitored and policed every aspect of my waking and sleeping life, in the name of Jesus (or, more precisely, since they believed in The Devil much moreso than they believed in Jesus, in the name of saving me from Hell).

Secularism is a strawman and/or a reactionary device. Just as both waking life and sleep co-exist in our dual nature as human beings, so too secularism and spirituality co-exist. Christ slept (Matthew 8:24) and did not try to weed-out his human nature, but rather, He co-existed with it and redeemed it.

True religion is not about what you are against but what you are for. The use of the term "secular" in the modern political climate strictly identifies the user as Born Against.

Super. So articulate.

God bless you.

[ninakat]

I think the movie, which is very faithful to the book, is saying that this modern world has become brutal, and is devoid of honor, decency, and goodness and is no place for old men who cherish and live by these values. They are "overmatched" in a world with no rules.

Simplicity itself.

Nice. I didn't read the book, but I agree with your interpretation of what the movie was about, having just seen it last night.

I don't like what the extreme violence does to me though -- numbs me down. I did look away from the screen a few times. Call me a wimp, but when it gets really graphic, I look away not just because I'm squeamish, but because I don't like the visual assault and its lasting impact.

[ninakat]

I sat through all the credits just so I could listen to that fascinating music. There was hardly ANY music during the film, so that was refreshing.

Anybody know who made the music during the credits?

[FourthBase]

I don't like what the extreme violence does to me though -- numbs me down. I did look away from the screen a few times. Call me a wimp, but when it gets really graphic, I look away not just because I'm squeamish, but because I don't like the visual assault and its lasting impact.

We watched it the same way, and for the same reason.