MovieChat Forums > No Country for Old Men (2007) Discussion > "Newbie" question.

"Newbie" question.

posted 8 years ago by UncleRob
19 replies | jump to latest

I saw this film years ago, and since I was already a huge Coen Bros fan (starting with "Blood Simple"), I decided to watch it again. I remembered that I liked it, but was tremendously confused by a few points. Actually, a LOT of points, but the main one is:
Who wound up with the money? I read a lot of suppositions/assumptions on this board, but none made complete sense to me, no offense.

The AC duct in the 114 room was too small to contain that huge bag. Yes, there scrape marks there, but that had to have been the Coens *beep* with us. Moss didn't have the bag when he was walking to the hotel. The Mexicans running away had no bag. Anton was never shown with the bag, so I'm totally lost.

Movies like this should to be enjoyed for the characterizations, the plotting, and mostly, the atmosphere, IMHO. If you try to scrutinize them too much, some of the fun can be lost, as is happening here, with me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU ... WILL ... ATONE!

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

The duct wasn't big enough, whereas the space between the grate and the duct was. The camera position/angle makes it look too small, but when you take a closer look it's ok.

Moss didn't have the bag when he was walking to the motel because this wasn't his first arrival there. He'd already secured it. He was returning from picking up a new rifle. Recall that he'd lost his gun in the shootout in Eagle Pass.

Chigurh got the bag. This is indicated when Bell looks over and catches the grate, screws, coin, and open vent lying on the carpet. This is meant to recall Chigurh unscrewing the vent grate with a coin in Moss's previous motel in Del Rio.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] UncleRob 8 years ago

That space DID look too small, but there were the scrape marks, so I guess I can live with that. Thanks.

It's the type of movie you have to watch about a dozen times, yes? And maybe read the book. But I've never been a zealot for any movie. Too much work.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU ... WILL ... ATONE!

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

I understand. Everybody's got different levels of interest and enthusiasm depending on the subject.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] armhammer 8 years ago

It looked too small because it was.

And your response sounds as if you've resigned yourself to another answer you're not entirely satisfied with.

Imagine the cubic capacity of a typical microwave oven, times 2. That would roughly be the volume needed to store that amount of money, minus the heavy duty bag. And that's supposed to fit in the space between the grate and the duct?

Your best answer can be found on the title page's FAQ's and even that ends on an ambiguous note.

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

This is the point where idiosyncratic nitpicking gets mistaken for a standard of significance. The filmmakers show the track marks quite plainly, and that really should be enough to allow people to accept the implication. And we're done, the implied meaning is there, and we can continue to enjoy the narrative.

If a few are still concerned, a closer look at the image shows the space between grate and duct as enough fit the satchel snugly. The very few still not satisfied are what Hitchcock called the Plausibles. They're inevitable with any movie.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] UncleRob 8 years ago

Agree.

The audience should understand and accept that any project will have flaws and just try to enjoy the overall presentation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU ... WILL ... ATONE!

[–] armhammer 8 years ago

High ranking Navy officials were so alarmed by the technical accuracy of prolific author Tom Clancy's groundbreaking novel, 'The Hunt for Red October,' they didn't want it published.

I enjoyed that movie so much, I've watched it several times.

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

A not-quite exception that proves the rule that dramas are about emotional truth, not literal,factual accuracy. If the technical accuracy of HFRO were less, only an insignificant few would notice and care. It would have made little difference to enjoying the narrative, and the popularity of the story.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] armhammer 8 years ago

It's precisely because of Clancy's uncanny technical accuracy that his stories are so wildly popular. He's considered to be the master of a new genre, the "techno-thriller." His type of phenomenal literary success isn't attained with "only an insignificant few " fans.

And besides, I was addressing the OP, not you.

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Don't be silly, this is a public board so anyone can reply to anyone with total legitimacy. You may have an urge to censor, but you must honour the democratic nature of this chat site.

Point being, Clancy could have skimmed a few details to relieve those high-ranking wankers and very few would have cared. The reason is because you can't have a thriller, techno or otherwise, unless the primary concern is the characters. That's what made the movie work, not the techno.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] armhammer 8 years ago

Actually, he had to meet with them and reassure them that his sources of information were available to any diligent researcher.

And his penchant for detail extended into the development of his characters. In order to get into the mind of a submarine officer, he met with one for several hours one day and listened to his " sea stories. "

What makes his stories work is that he's a gifted writer, period!

Let me put it this way then. I prefer that you not reply to my comments any longer. I think I've made it very obvious that I just don't like the grandiose, haughty, know-it-all way you come across.

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

As mentioned, it's about character more than tech. All things being equal, go for character, the tech doesn't have a story to tell. Clancy knows that.

I noted that you choose not to use IMDb's Ignore function, even though you whine about me. What you mean by "prefer" is for me to do what you haven't got the backbone to do. Well, that's your problem, not mine.

I'll continue to respond to the content of your posts when it suits me. They won't necessarily be replies to you in particular, since this is a public board and comments are for general consumption.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] armhammer 8 years ago

Now you're the one who " can't see the forest for the trees, " just like when you cherry picked Zinsser's book, which I introduced you to, in an attempt to trump me.And you're also presuming to know how Clancy thinks? Your arrogance knows no bounds. At least my opinions are based on a very insightful profile I read.

I'm well aware of the ignore feature and I consider it useless since it wouldn't block you the way I would like. I can ignore you of my own volition. " Prefer" was about civility ( my last attempt ), not lack of backbone. And it's going to be your problem when it comes back to bite you, you know where, if you insist. And by the way, " snarky backtalk " sure came across as whining to me.

If you want to incessantly harp about " character flaws, " why don't you take a good, hard, look at yours? Maybe then you could develop some self awareness of your own.

[–] dmariat55 8 years ago

You gotta like the hammer. Like they say in True grit he has sand.

[–] armhammer 8 years ago

Thanks, guy!

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

So much for "volition." You clearly don't have the backbone to ignore.

You introduced Zinsser and got him wrong. Talk about ostentatious. What a blowhard.

If you don't think Clancy values characterization then you should join Dmaria and take up Mother Goose.

Pointing out character flaws in movie characters is perfectly ordinary. You need to settle down. Take a couple of breaths. Get some perspective.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] armhammer 8 years ago

Nope, you insisted on engaging me even after I politely urged you to back off.

I got Zinsser exactly right. You were indulging in contextomy.

I emphasized that Clancy values characterization with the anecdote of the submariner.

Pointing out a glaring technical error in a movie is " perfectly ordinary. " You're the one that comes across as seething.

I knew that labeling you as a pseudo-intellectual instead of as a troll would be more effective and I was right! 

[–] armhammer 8 years ago

Larks wants to preach about the importance of characterization in a story, then indulges in character assassination, and then follows that up with a lecture about " emotional truth." Go figure, " as they say. " 