Does it Live Up to the Hype?
No Country for Old Men
By Sadie McCrary
The screen goes dark and the houselights go up as the credits start to roll. I remain in my seat, completely affected by the movie I’ve just seen. I am trying to grasp the meaning of the complicated final scene when I hear an obnoxious voice behind me say, “That was absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen. What kind of ending was that? What a piece of crap!” I’m floored. Were we just watching the same film? Did this guy fall asleep somewhere in the middle? I was baffled.
The movie was “No Country for Old Men.” I saw the film in November 2007 when it opened to rave reviews. Reading articles that included phrases like, “an instant classic” and “a nail-biting masterpiece” made this film pretty hard for me to ignore. Added to that, I have been a big fan of writers/directors Ethan and Joel Coen since I saw “Raising Arizona” many years ago. So, like any good “Coenhead,” I purchased a ticket at my local Cinemark and settled down to be dazzled by the Coen brothers once again.
An instant classic? Most definitely. “No Country for Old Men” told in graphic detail a poignant story of man’s ability to ignore the worst evils in the world. It kept you firmly on the side of “good” while constantly reminding us that, in the real world, good doesn’t always triumph over evil. The acting, writing, directing, cinematography, everything about the movie was incredibly well done. It was, for me, a truly remarkable film that consumed my thoughts for days after I’d seen it.
Obviously I wasn’t disappointed. But clearly the irate gentleman at my Cinemark was. So which of us was right? I decided to find out.
My search began at IMDB.com, an Internet movie database where you can find anything you’ve ever wanted to know about your favorite films and the actors in them. IMDB also hosts message boards that give moviegoers a space to praise or annihilate the film of their choosing. Therefore, I figured this was the perfect place to cut through the media hype and properly gauge the pulse of the average consumer, like myself.
Oddly enough, the message boards for “No Country for Old Men” mirrored my experience in the movie theater. There were those that were in awe of the film and those that absolutely hated it. “It sucked” was the phrase used most often by the haters – a far cry from the critic’s “instant classic.” And again, similarly to the Cinemark hater, it seems the general consensus from the rest of the haters was the ending.
I could see why. “No Country for Old Men” does not have the old-fashioned Hollywood ending. The storylines are not tied up neatly in the end, and that’s hard for an audience to accept. Let’s face it, the average Joe Moviegoer expects a nice ending. Even at the end of “Titanic” the audience, happily, is treated to a sugary scene where Rose and Jack are reunited to the cheers of the delighted – albeit deceased – crew members. It rather sweetly helps us forget, that 15 minutes earlier, we witnessed more than 1,500 people sent violently to a watery grave – including one of the main characters. But, because we are treated to that final romantic scene, we are okay with it. We’ve gotten closure.
But, with “No Country for Old Men,” the audience is not given that luxury. After the movie ends, we are left feeling extremely uncomfortable and a bit angry that the Coens would just leave it that way. Eventually this feeling causes the film to fester inside the audience, making us rehash the final scenes over and over in our heads, until we’ve become obsessed. Then we retreat into the haters group or become a Coenhead like me. But, no matter which side you’re on, the movie definitely affects you. You have to voice your opinion, be it positive or negative – which leads me to the second stop on my journey: the critics.
After leaving the inarticulate world of the IMDB message board, I decided to see if there were any critics that could voice criticism of the movie without using the terms “suck” and “crappy.” I wanted to find an argument that was well conceived and articulated. It is here where my search was stymied. First, it was extremely difficult to find a critic that didn’t like the movie. So, my search took me to Rottentomatoes.com, a Web site that compiles all published film reviews and gives them a percentage based on the amount of positive-versus-negative reviews. “No Country for Old Men” had a 94 percent rating according to Rotten Tomatoes. But from there I was able to find two reviewers that were haters.
Two reputable publications were represented in my search – the Washington Post and the New York Observer. Imagine my surprise when the critics’ views were not far removed from that of the other haters. One complained that the ending left him feeling “empty inside,” and the other couldn’t pinpoint what he didn’t like about the movie so instead, he theorized why others didn’t – namely that the ending wasn’t satisfying. Needless to say, the haters need for a cookie-cutter ending served to validate my feelings for this movie. My decision to remain a Coenhead was completely justified.
A more tangible nod to the brilliance of “No Country for Old Men” occurred at the Academy Awards in February. The film was graced with four Academy Awards including Best Motion Picture of the Year. Not only that, but “No Country for Old Men” also took home top Oscars for Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role (Javier Bardem), Best Achievement in Directing (Ethan and Joel Coen) and Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published (the Coens).
After the Oscars, everyone agreed it was “No Country for Old Men’s” night. Did it live up to the hype? Of course. Well, at least for me and all the other Coenheads. But the haters can console themselves by re-watching their copies of “Titanic.” I hear that film won Best Motion Picture, too.
E-mail the author: Sadie McCrary