No Country for Old Men is known as an intriguingly titled, western-looking movie with plenty of gunplay advertised in the trailer, as well as one of the first books by the American author Cormac McCarthy. The story - loosely summarized - features southwestern everyman (Josh Brolin) who stumbles onto an apparent drug deal gone wrong in the desert. He finds dead bodies, a pile of cocaine, and a suitcase full of cash. He runs with the money, only to be pursued by the terrifying hitman Anton Chigurh (an Oscar winning performance by Javier Bardem) who tracks him across the country.
The central theme of No Country for Old Men is that the world changes for different generations and the older generation finds itself unequal to the problems of the younger one. In this story, however, the problems of the new generation seem to be portrayed as excessively violent, motivated by greed or misplaced chivalry, or just plain old psychotic. The young or even middle aged people of the story are frequently portrayed as brutal, immoral, moved by human suffering but too corrupt to deal with it appropriately.
The Movie
Like other films based on McCarthy's works, it's very difficult to tell this story in only 122 minutes.
No Country for Old Men was advertised as a modern western movie; the Rio Grande, Mexico and the southwestern United States were the primary setting. The film's marketing focused on the action, violence, gunplay and urban warfare that takes place during the struggles of the protagonist, Llewelyn Moss, as he tries to escape the remorseless, brutal hitman Chigurh sent by the drug cartels to recover their stolen money.
As with most of McCarthy's writing, the violence takes place either as the unavoidable consequence of the events of the story, or as a backdrop to showcase the nature of our world as objective, indifferent, practical and self-preserving. The action scenes are brief for the most part, and they are not necessarily far between but I would by no means call this an action movie (or novel), and the violence is not really the point of the story.
Ultimately, the movies of McCarthy's works are caught somewhere between a production that wants to be a gritty action movie and a drama dealing with serious existential questions. It's simply too much depth and not enough action to be an entertaining two-hour action feature. It's more of a drama with action thrown into the mix. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it makes the dramatic elements rushed, and most viewers (in my experience) don't pay enough attention to the story to make it make sense because they are just waiting for the next shootout.
The characters in the movie also feel kind of dwarfed, for the most part, by Anton Chigirh. Chigurh represents everything negative McCarthy about the younger generation. He is the primary antagonist and he is supposed to be a daunting, terrifying figure of death. That said his presence in the film reminded me of the Joker's presence in The Dark Knight. Simply put, other characters pale in comparison.
The scenes where Chigurh speaks to his victims on his personal philosophy are dramatic and striking and it led me to believe there was more meaning to them than just a psychopathic murderer spouting garbage.
The film beautifully captured the tension and symmetry between McCarthy's characters. During their game of cat-and-mouse Llewelyn and Anton both display incredible slow, steady patience and an almost mechanical attention to detail. The tension and suspense are managed marvelously, the viewer always feels just a half step behind the combatants as they try to outsmart each other.
The scenes with any kind of conflict are incredibly well adapted to the screen.
The Book
Ultimately, the novel doesn't tell a richer story than the film. The plot is basically the same and no extra explanation is given by McCarthy for the motives or emotions of his characters. For those of you looking for more explanation in the ending or just a different ending, it's not there; they end exactly the same.
The themes are the same as well. The ending monologue by one of the main characters provides the clearest insight into the central ideas of the novel.
The main advantage I found in reading the book - after I had seen the movie multiple times and still had trouble figuring it all out - was the pacing. Films like this are always advertised as action films, which they are not, and almost all the action sequences are always packed into a short but kick-ass trailer that gives you that expectation. The novel strips all that away leaving you with a well-paced and action-packed drama that is much easier to digest over the course of a few hundred pages. T
o really do a McCarthy story justice would take at least three hours, and that's cutting it short. If you're having problems following the film, read the book. It's the same story, at a much more digestible pace.
Cormac McCarthy might make a great screenwriter because of his originality, his willingness to simultaneously embrace the mundane, the violent and the old-fashioned style of southwestern America. However that does not mean his novels are easily turned into great movies.
Overall I'd suggest both reading the novel and seeing the film. They are both versions of a great story. The movie has some strong visuals that add to the experience.
In the end though I really got the most out of the book, which isn't plagued by asymmetrical character development, inappropriately placed dramatic dialogue, or any other kind of the excess that McCarthy trims out of his written work.
Terry Petano - Welcome to my writer profile, I'm a college graduate with a major in Biology and a minor in Math. I work in the biotechnology industry, ...
