with the exception of Slumdog and maybe Hurt Locker.
I just feel like the films that have won the last couple years where just in the right place at the right time, not outstanding like No Country is.
I thought 12 Years A Slave was very impressive and deserved the award.
shareit was a good film, and showed some important history that everyone needs to know about.
But come on, it wasn't No Country for Old Men was it.
No, there are marked differences between the two. First, there's that of genre. Then, one is complete fiction, the other is based on a true story.
I think it's noteworthy they have the exact same rating on this site.
Sounds like NC spoke to you on a deeper level than the other film. Categories don't matter, like genre or whether the source is based on historical events or not.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
If they don't matter , then why did you indulge in categorizing as opposed to seeing a more complete picture, as I pointed out previously in NCFOM ? Especially ludicrous argument considering the awards are categorized. Ever the blatantly hypocritical, definitive, authoritarian! Which is why I also said previously," yadda, yadda, yadda, blather on. "
shareThe correct answer is the Departed. 12 years a slave my ass. (.) We are in the Golden age of the white American male. Bye bye Barack. Bye bye Hillary. Bye bye Michelle. Hello Donald Paul and mitch. We will we will rock you.
shareI frequently thought you were a complete idiot; now I'm convinced!
And this is one instance where labeling someone as racist is completely accurate and appropriate.
[deleted]
Like hell you didn't! And when you claim "we" speak only of yourself. You're not representative. Also, throwing someone under the bus implies treachery, betrayal. Why am I not surprised you couldn't grasp that?
I represent 60 million Americans. The forgotten people. The hammer is a bit of a buzz kill.
To be fair I didn't see 12 slaves. I might like it. I saw Quinton's movie about slaves. It was very good. I am a fan of Denzel movies as well.
I kind of enjoy raining on a one-man-parade.
shareIt's not a one man parade. It's a huge parade in January down Pennsylvania Avenue. Millions will watch on TV.
shareThe current political climate has very little if anything to do with the topic. I can see you're well on your way toward derailing yet another thread.
shareInterestingly enough no country is a very political movie. It's about the US in Iraq during the Bush years. When bell talks about losing your soul to defeat the enemy he's talking about water boarding.
With Obama no country lost its relevance since he is pretty much an anti war type. Now that trump is in no country may come back since trump is in favor of water boarding.
Ellis is against almost all us wars including ww1. He doesn't say anything bad about ww2 however. I wonder if Cormac and the coens will equate isis with the nazis and give trump a pass if he takes dramatic action.
With Obama no country lost its relevance since he is pretty much an anti war type
LOL. You don't know what you're talking about.
This is the guy who advocated for a trillion dollar investment in U.S. nuclear weapons. The idea is to make smaller ones, which makes using them that much more thinkable.
Obama took his foreigh policy right from Bush second-term, as Condoleezza Rice predicted he would. For instance, he followed up on Bush by breaking an election vow and boosting forces in Afghanistan, including increased bombing within and across the border into Pakistan, indiscriminately killing civilians, etc. Then there was his approval of Gen. Petraeus' idea for a huge expansion of secret military activity throughout the world that doesn't need the president's approval or regular reports to Congress.
Under Obama the U.S. has quadrupled military expenditures in Eastern Europe, doing maneuvers right on the Russian border, with near collisions as the Russians have responded by boosting their forces there. Imagine Russia doing that on the US/Mexican border. He's increased the threat of a catastrophe; there've been many near-collisions. Former defense secretary William Perry, also a nuclear expert, has spoken out that the risk of war with Russia now is even greater than in 80s. Obama has also been provoking confrontations with the Chinese in the South China Sea.
"Anti war type." Dmaria lives in a dreamland.
Edited to add:
https://www.veteransforpeace.org
"Veterans For Peace calls for all of our members and those who believe peace is possible to remember that peace is not found in elections, it is found in the work we do to create it. This election season has been one of the darkest and disappointing in recent history. Peace was missing from all the debates. Now that we know who will be the next president, we have a lot of work to do and it begins now!
The peace movement must stand strong against policies that call for more violence and war. We must resist all forms of hate and xenophobia. We must stand in solidarity with domestic struggles that move forward women’s rights, immigration reform and all forms of racial, economic and social justice. With our allies across all struggles, we must build a full spectrum movement to create peace at home and abroad."
I wasn't replying to you, Angry Man. That's your "definite, hypocritical" mistake, not mine. I would recommend counting to five whenever you're eager to lash out. It will save you some embarrassment.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
It appears that you were addressing me indirectly. A mistake, in this case, an oversight, isn't indicative of hypocrisy. I think I would be embarrassed if someone discovered I couldn't spell cannon.
shareAh, there it is. The usual rationalization for hypocrisy: It's just an "oversight." LOL. Right out of the Trump playbook.
No one need be embarrassed by a spelling mistake. People who hammer at spelling advertise their own pettiness, and the failure of their own line of reasoning. It hasn't stood up to scrutiny, so they resort to attacking spelling errors.
The hypocricy is hurling epithets that actually describe your own post, which originated from your own mistake.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
An oversight is a simple mistake, as I clearly said. Your inability to comprehend accurately is showing again. Rationalizing? This coming from someone who is so fond of that in an attempt to justify the glaring inconsistencies in her rhetoric? Now, that is hypocrisy! It appears you're attempting to abet mariat in the derailing of this thread by injecting politics. Not surprising.
I didn't hammer it.I simply pointed out how hilarious it was for someone who constantly tries to come across as so intellectually superior being unable to spell such a common word. No different than your fondness for pointing out perceived character flaws.
More rationalizations for hurling epithets that actually describe your own post, which was founded on your own mistake. After hammering away at a misspelling you're now trying to rationalize that pettiness. It's all about trying to save face.
For your own sake, and that of productive discussion, I would encourage you to return to chatting about the movie, particularly the OP's thoughts about it. Thank you in advance.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Twice, simply pointing out an observation, could hardly be considered " hammering away." You're obviously the one indulging in more face saving.
For your own sake, I encourage you to avoid taking snide shots in lieu of a logical response. You clearly can't deal with the consequences. I was trying to do that by responding to the question the OP had directed at me.
The claim of "simply pointing out" doesn't jibe with the admission that you'd "pointed out how hilarious it was." That's not "simply" doing, it's mockery over a spelling error. Not mocking anything substantive, note; just mocking a triviality. As I say, that only advertises pettiness.
Let's return to the thread topic. I've started that process with a separate post. I hope you will follow in the same spirit.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
The attempt at ridicule and hence pettiness, originated with you. Ever see the movie First Blood ? " They drew first blood, sir...they drew first blood. " That's a justification for retaliation, not a rationalization. Just thought that's a highly appropriate analogy since it's Veteran's Day. Not to mention that you and mariat have essentially steered this thread toward politics and war.
shareNow you reveal that Rambo is your guide to ethical behaviour, LOL. Retaliation is a common rationalization for poor behaviour - in this case without even identifying what you're supposedly retaliating against. Regardless, admitting to retaliation effectively discredits any claim of moral superiority. Not too impressive.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
I clearly identified it, both on this thread and mine where your "poor behavior" initiated this conflict. I see where you edited your post where you attempted to confuse my use of the words "mistake" and "oversight" which validates I hit a bull's eye there! You've consistently indulged in the most childish version of tit for tat. There was never any claim of moral superiority on my part. Looks to me like you're the one lecturing about ethics. But I'm well aware that " muddy waters" is where bottom feeders prefer to dwell.
shareSo a guy tells me Rambo guides his behaviour. On Veteran's Day.
Oy vey. Stranger than fiction, as they say.
This coming from someone who has consistently displayed a disdain for men in general and then expressed wonderment when I suspected her of misandry? Not long ago I had to deal with another pseudo-intellectual pretending to be proficient at yiddish, cockney and mandarin dialects, no less. He exited my life with his totally humiliated tail between his legs.
shareWhatlarks, you've consistently displayed your disdain for men??
Tsk. I should pay more attention.
Well Harry, it takes a special kind of attention, I give him points for that.
Armed and Hammered, as I've fondly come to know him, had observed that I'd spoken of influential character flaws in Messrs. Moss and Bell.
"'This awareness thing' is something you created. I kept seeing the word reappearing in your posts in a manner intending to demean and discredit Moss, so, I decided to finally address it. I remember another thread where you attempted to ridicule and discredit Bell's professionalism in a similar manner. Are you by chance a misandrist?...As in the case of taking life advice from the movie Rambo, it beggars belief, as they say.
Oh, 'character flaws.' Now you're indulging in another favorite fallacy, that of 'the moral high road.'"
[deleted]
You failed to mention the implication you made in my thread of men in general being guilty of " big talk, " somewhat of another tell in my book.
And I've made it clear, it was only a suspicion, not the equivalency you tried to make it appear to be.
"big talk, " somewhat of another tell in my book
I made no "implication" but in fact overtly stated that "Wells is like Moss blurting that once CJ's out of the way he can sure touch Chigurh. As CJ would say, these guys are all big talk."
Wells and Moss are indeed full of bravado. There is no lack of evidence for this view. It's not controversial to anyone with functioning eyes and ears. They happen to be male characters. The movie makes this character trait blatant in both of them. To equate taking note of it with misandry "tells" of idiocy.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
You're a despicable, incorrigible time suck !
shareBravo hammer. You put it so poetically!
shareNo, just succinctly once again.
shareMy friends call me Dmar. There is always something in no country that you can retort with. The hammer says I have steered the thread to politics and war.
It recalls when sugar says you married into it. The GSO replies if that is how you want to put it. Sugar says I have no way of putting it that is how it is. Same way with no country being about politics and war. I have no way of putting it that's how it is.
Friendly advice to the hammer. If you quibble about minutiae with larks she'll clean your clock. If you stick to a discussion of what no country is about you'll win every time.
Amiri17, if you're still checking in, maybe you could say a little more about why you specifically feel NC is outstanding relative to recent winners, including 12 Years. What are the qualities that led you to that judgement - qualities that, in your view, the other movies have either lacked, or haven't exploited as effectively?
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
I just think its of a higher standard of film-making. I find NC almost hypnotic.
Technically though, fascinating likable characters, superb dialogue,(very funny in places)
Great cast, gripping story, cinematography, locations and an unconventional ending that keeps you thinking after you've seen it.
Also, for a film that has so little score, I find myself wanting to study how it manages to be so engrossing.
If you take Spotlight or Argo. Both good films. But both dont hold a candle to NC in any of those departments.
Yeah, that hypnotic aspect - I feel it too. It does cross over into a dream-like vision. The way a dream has both a sense of inevitablity and randommness about it. There's an element, mainly because of Chigurh, that is clearly abnormal, yet you find yourelf tugged along with what feels like a natural pull. So there are these contrary feelings that somehow work together. Very unusual.
Although it has only 16 minutes of score, 5 of which are the end credits, the score itself and the overall sound design I think are key to creating that surreal, slightly unnerving feeling. The sound design of the movie was quite influential among filmmakers.
The sound designer commented on how they suddenly got requests to do sound like NC for other movies, except #1 it's not appropriate for every kind of film, and #2 the process began very early because the Coens hugely value sound and got the sound people working before production, whereas too many filmmakers only think of sound late in the process. By then it's too late with not enough time to do such a detailed custom job.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
In response to your opinion of the characters, I thought Tommy Lee Jones was perfectly cast, with his haggard, chiseled features, as the world-weary sheriff. During the ending, he conveys the blend of confidence and self-loathing peculiar to his character with aplomb. He's a superb actor. I've seen so many of his films. I remember when I first discovered him in the role of Loretta Lynn's husband in Coal Miner's Daughter.
shareWhere during the ending does he convey confidence?
I don't think confidence is at all part of what's "peculiar to his character." In fact I think the story conveys the exact opposite.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
[deleted]
His self-loathing is obvious. But "throughout the movie" showing confidence in performing his duty as a lawman?
Right from the start - when the character overtly states it - the movie strongly implies that what he feels is anxiety and uncertainty precisely about performing his duty as he sees it. Specifically, he believes that duty means making the difference strictly as an individual, as he assumes the old timers did.
He is confronted by the biggest test of that notion of duty. He tells us explicitly how he feels, so we are oriented to this attitude throughout the movie. He says that we can say it's his job to fight crime, but he finds it so extreme he can't understand it - and furthermore he tells us flat out that he doesn't want to know.
He makes clear that "knowing" would mean "going out to meet" this crime - i.e., risking intimate exposure. So here is a guy stuck between two mutually exclusive values: duty to the job as he sees it vs. not doing that in order to preserve his soul.
What makes the character multifaceted doesn't include showing confidence "throughout the movie" in performing his duty as a lawman. If that were the case the character's unique ordeal wouldn't exist, and the movie wouldn't spotlight the misguided and destructive ideal he embodies, losing much of its meaning.
The world of the movie includes no reference to the character's war experience, and so it exerts no influence on him.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
[deleted]
I wasn't particularly a fan of either Slumdog (haven't seen in a while so I should watch again) or The Hurt Locker. I did like The King's Speech though and feel it was deserving of the award. You're right about the rest though, for sure.
share