So who killed Brolin?

At least larks finally admits she is wrong. She used to say bell showed relief when he sat on the bed. Now she concedes he showed what she calls discouragement.

I have no need to look at a replay of that scene. I understand the flow of the movie perfectly. Larks has no need to do so because if she re-watched it a 100 times she still wouldn't get it.

Larks must be tired. She's mixing her metaphors. She says Pavlov is in a flap but that only applies when she calls me mother goose.

Pavlov misinterprets the post as an admission of error. A few posts back I said the process started at the motel. But there was no sign of Bell deciding to quit, and no expression of disgust that would motivate the decision right then.

The one emotion Bell shows from the time he returns from the bathroom to the moment he sees the grate is relief. Then surprise to see the grate and open vent.

Pavlov doesn't want to review the scene because of course he would not see what he claims is there.

The flow of the movie doesn't require that Bell show disgust, or indicate he decides to quit right then and there in the scene. It only requires that the catalyst be understood, so viewers can deduce the process that happened in the time between then and his visit to Ellis.

That's actually a much more impactful way to do it. Pavlov has fantasized the on-the-beak Mother Goose strategy.

I have a couple of nicks for Dmaria, each a metaphor for a particular quality. Mixing them is okay, for Pavlov is The Goose.

Larks is saying at the moment bell understands that his life long quest is a failure he feels relief. That relief causes him to quit.

Larks reminds me of a song lyric. It goes She knows not if it's dark outside or light. It fits larks so perfectly she must have known the song writer. I wish larks would tell us about her experiences with him instead of gumming up no country.

Pavlov has misinterpreted again, for that is not what I'm saying.

Larks doesn't even understand what she is saying.

Pavlov is bold with his misinterpretations. Being of generous nature, I give him points even for that.

According to larks if a team is in the Super Bowl trailing all the way and at the end they have one pass that would put them ahead but it's incomplete their reaction is to feel relief. Maybe that's true in larks mixed up muddled up world.

In Pavlov's world, if you repeat a misinterpretation it feels more valid. Everyone in Pavlov's world is always blissed out due to the intensity of ignorance.

Larks is smart to make personal attacks and call me names instead of discussing the issue.

When a person's life long hopes and dreams go up in smoke like they did for bell in the motel room larks absurd conclusion that bell's reaction is relief is laughable.

When Pavlov is ready to show where Bell shows disgust in that scene, I'm most willing to take a look at it. I prevision he won't ever, because he knows it's not there. He'll fuss about that, but it's true.

Misinterpretation is the main issue with Pavlov's claims. You say to him this is the catalyst that starts the process of Bell's discouragement and decision to quit, and he gets in a flap. This is another example of Pavlov having no access to ordinary human psychology. He doesn't understand that there is a progression to Bell's state of mind, that it doesn't suddenly jump to disgust and the decision to quit.

Bell doesn't show disgust or his decision to quit right then and there because he doesn't see the open vent when he sits on the bed. He naturally assumes his hunch was mistaken, and feels relief. Then upon seeing the vent he registers surprise and dawning awareness of its meaning. The Coens cut away from him at that point.

As I say, he may experience disgust and decide to quit just after the cut while still in the room, or after some reflection later at home. But he doesn't indicate either of these things in the scene itself.

All that is obvious but because Pavlov has no access to ordinary psychology he needs to see the scene in on-the-beak Mother Goose terms. He imagines them showing Bell's disgust and decision. However, the way the Coens do it is much more satisfying and impactful for everyone else. Sometimes not showing is more powerful than showing.

It is larks who doesn't understand bell's character. This is no surprise she doesn't understand any character in the movie. Larks thinks by calling me silly names it will bolster her weak argument. How pathetic.

Bell says he's not afraid to die. He is in total denial. He is not going to show relief when he fails to save moss then fails to catch sugar. In his mind the character feels he's a failure he is disgusted with himself.

I previsioned that Pavlov wouldn't risk trying to show where Bell shows disgust in the scene as he claims. Every time he avoids it, he supports my case. That works for me.

I think fear of dying hasn't nearly the grip on Bell that another fear has.

Bell's reaction to failing to save Moss was shown in his visit to the mortuary. After that he's not so bad in the company of Sheriff Roscoe.

At the motel, Pavlov thinks Bell should instantly show disgust and a decision to quit, but Bell's natural first reaction is relief because after being so keyed-up he realizes there's no imminent threat. That's the first stage.

Then he sees the open vent, and the Coens show surprise and dawning awareness of its meaning, then cut away. The process of discouragement and his decision to quit starts then, but it's not shown. I like the way they did that, not taking the on-the-beak Mother Goose flight path.

I'm glad larks previsioned my logical response. Bell shows disgust when he sits on the bed and puts his head in his hands. It is far too subtle for larks. She wants bell to bang his head against the wall to show disgust.

Larks tells us how she would react not bell. Larks cannot grasp bell's mind set.

I've actually coaxed Pavlov into trying to support his intepretation. An unexpected but welcome event, because he can never support what he claims.

In this case, Bell rubs his forehead and eyes, a common gesture indicating stress relief, not disgust. This is reinforced by the sound cue, when Bell exhales, releasing his tension.

And when Bell looks up there isn't a trace of disgust on his face. In fact his expression is notably composed and open. This makes perfect sense for someone who has realized he's not in imminent danger and has just let go of his terror.

All of this is obvious to people with access to ordinary human psychology. But Pavlov misses all these signals. He just has no access to the story, to character, to other human beings. Another goose egg for him.

Larks still doesn't get it. Bell's only important goal since he was young is to live up to the old timers. When he sees that moss is dead and then in the motel room realizes sugar has got away and he will never fulfill his life long goal his reaction is not relief.

Pavlov still can't show where Bell expresses disgust. It's not when he puts his hand to his face. It's not when he looks up. It's not even there when he sees the open vent. Pavlov should direct his complaint to the Coens not me because they're the ones who directed Jones to show relief.

As I say it's sometimes really effective strategy to show the catalyst moment, the dawning awareness of its meaning, but put the big reaction off screen. When the viewer's imagination is engaged, you don't need to show everything - in fact it can be more powerful not to. Then you show the aftermath. This is a clear example of the strategy.

Larks must have the big book of human reactions. What larks calls relief can just as easily be called disgust. When in doubt go to the character that has been established throughout the movie which I have done.

Larks has all these elaborate theories she read in some book about movies. The term that applies to larks is the term KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. Larks constantly violates that rule.

Pavlov talks about being in doubt. That's true for him, but what Bell expresses in the scene is clear, so there's no need to go off on his wild goose chase to invent something that isn't there.

An expression of relief doesn't look anything like an expression of disgust. You see how completely alienated Pavlov is from other human beings and ordinary psychology.

Pavlov thinks the idea of not showing everything is an elaborate idea. I suppose when you're at the Mother Goose level it would seem so, because the strategy there is a little different.

To understand how the KISS principle applies you first have to understand the situation. Pavlov is currently juggling three KISS violations: the idea that Moss didn't go back to the desert due to conscience; the idea that Chigurh wasn't irritated by having CJ undercut his rationalization for murder but was actually near tears having to kill her; and the idea that Bell didn't express relief after discovering the bad guy wasn't about to blow his head off.

You have to laugh at such a goober. One wonders if he's figured out how to use the door handle.

The key is larks saying I am cut off from ordinary psychology. Exactly! Cormac and the coens don't write about ordinary psychology. If they did it would be a boring movie at the level of the larkses.

Pavlov thinks it is somehow extraordinary that the character's first response is to experience relief when his extreme fear subsides. This is a good example of how natural responses are alien to Pavlov. His impediment shuts him out from accessing what's going on. It forces him to invent things, violating the KISS principle, and believe in them more than what is actually put in front of him. That's certainly not an ordinary condition.

I heard that larks steals your idea from the previous post. I mentioned the KISS concept and she hijacked it in her next post. That's Plagiarism pure and simple. Larks doesn't even know what KISS means. KEEP It Simple Stupid. Larks violates this constantly.

Instead of keeping it simple larks is always coming up with elaborate theories that completely miss the mark.

Pavlov made a complaint and now blames me for addressing it. He's been reduced to that, which is the natural order of things. How could I not be content to agree to disagree at this point?

That is great news that larks is agreeing to disagree with my posts. I will make no such agreement with hers. I will continue to show how larks violates the KISS principle-Keep It Simple Stupid with her elaborate nonsense theories.

I applaud larks who in the future will leave decent people like me alone.

Little bit of sour grapes there from Pavlov as we wrap up, but at least we're both content with the way things have worked out.

I thought larks agreed to disagree but she still keeps rambling on. Larks fatal flaw is becoming evident. Larks doesn't understand the various characters. Her mistake is trying to apply ordinary psychology to a work of fiction.

She doesn't realize it is out of moss' character to go back with the water and therefore a plot hole. It is out of bell's character to react to failure with relief. It is out of sugar's character to be upset when CJ doesn't call the coin toss. If you follow the scene closely his reaction is when she says you don't have to do this. His reply is that's what they all say. CJ is in no way unique to him.

Agreeing to disagree doesn't mean one should not respond to anything further the other says. That's only fair.

None of the actions described are out of character, but Pavlov has no access to character so he can't make an accurate judgement. For example it's natural for Bell to feel relief first, then when he sees the open vent, to shift to a different awareness and associated emotion. He feels both things. The later one is not shown, left for viewers to discover -- the more impactful strategy.

Moss acts on conscience for the reasons made evident in the movie. It's hard to beleive anyone could doubt it, and violate the KISS principle so badly to concoct another motivation.

For Pavlov, Bell must only and instantly show disgust and decide to quit, even though there is no sign of either in the scene. Pavlov's experience is impoverished; he can't see that Bell is modeled on a human being, not a robot, so he feels more than one thing as the context most influencing him changes.

Pavlov misses that Chigurh is noticeably irritated by CJ's refusal. He also misses that the refusal is her uniqueness. It's not in her saying Chigurh doesn't have to do it. He also hasn't been able to show where Chigurh is "near tears." This is another example of Pavlov's lack of access to the story, characters, and meaning. His goose eggs are scrambled.

Did anyone think that larks would stick to agreeing to disagree?

Larks concocts her typical elaborate theory to explain why moss went back with the water completely against character. She cannot fathom that the coens put the scene in simply to move the whole rest of the film forward.

Larks thinks based on ordinary psychology bell felt relief after failing. She can't think out of the box. Cormac and the coens can.

What sugar reacts to in the scene is CJ saying you don't have to do this. When she refused to call the toss about 5 seconds later sugar says I came here the same way the coin did and kills her.

Larks is desperately trying to make this pitiful creature CJ who weakly gives up look like a strong woman. A truly strong woman would fight like a tiger for her life.

Pavlov says the Coens put the scene in but it would be more accurate to say they kept what McCarthy put in.

He thinks this was against character but Moss shows conscience later when Wells explains that Chigurh will turn his attention to CJ. Pavlov thinks people and characters are robots so if a quality is inconsistent and takes special circumstances to become activated he assumes it's false. To Pavlov, a character is either one thing or not, there is no complexity, no gray area.

He also advertises lack of access to different contexts in a story. So for example Moss's conscience has influence in two places, either when he has time to reflect or is made to reflect. What is in character for him is the need for certain conditions to be present for his conscience to be activated.

The plot's progression is a function of character influence through natural tendencies. Moss's conscience takes extraordinary conditions to be activated, but once activated it's a strong source of energy. It's also unfiltered, primal, unrefined by careful consideration.

Pavlov's comment about Bell is empty, so there's no need to take it seriously. He still can't point to where Bell shows disgust or a decision to quit then and there. Nor can he refute that Bell's expression indicates relief. The best he could do is say that disgust looks like relief, which was another advertisement of his alienation from human beings.

Pavlov misses that Chigurh says more than once for her to play the coin toss. He's insistent. He's irritated. Like with the Bell scene in the motel, Pavlov is a sloppy viewer. He misses the most important things.

CJ is both strong and weak. This is another example of Pavlov thinking of human beings and characters as robots, only capable of one thing. This is why he is called Mother Goose, because his access is restricted to that simplistic level.

Larks is at it again. She is very vague about moss' 2nd act of conscience because she knows I would tear it to pieces.

What I recall is when sugar turns his attention to CJ he offers moss a deal. Sugar says moss cannot be saved but if he surrenders to sugar he will not kill CJ. Moss thinks of all the aggravation and dangerous situations he has put his wife in and with his vaunted conscience says no thanks if she dies at 21 she dies. That's what passes for conscience in larks world.

Maybe this is a class I'm giving at the PhD level like Scott gave to hem but larks is no Hemingway. Maybe the anti Hemingway. But I digress.

Larks misunderstands complexity of character. It is not where someone acts completely out of character in one instance. It is where a character has two opposite sides to him and he acts on both sides throughout the film. Can larks not know this basic concept?

Larks can't understand how bell's character wouldn't show relief at failing big time.

Larks demonstrates how stupid she is when she says mother goose stories which have been around for a few hundred years are simplistic.

A major source of Pavlov's self-tearing apart logic is found in his words "his vaunted conscience." If you say that Moss's conscience takes extraordinary conditions to be activated, he inteprets that as celebratory.

Pavlov also thinks that if you talk about the nature of a character, you must be advocating for it. So for example if I point out the nature of Moss's conscience, Pavlov thinks I'm giving it an approving pass. Pavlov can't read plain English, let alone see plain images. He's a very compromised individual.

Pavlov has a naive idea about complexity of character. He thinks it means a rough balance of contrary traits, but of course the proportional influence can be anything the author sees fit. In this case, Moss is seen acting according to conscience twice, both times with ironically negative results. The reason is because Moss is dominated by impulse, not reason. He's a reactor, not a thinker, and that causes problems.

Pavlov's comment about Bell's scene is again empty, so it can be set aside. He still can't show where Bell expresses disgust.

Pavlov's last comment really doesn't serve him well. Both Mother Goose and Shakespeare's stories have both been around for hundreds of years. They are designed for different levels of ability. Mother Goose stories are simplistic in order to reach immature minds, just as more complex stories are designed to reach more advanced ones. Pavlov shows what happens when you skip from Mother Goose straight to Cormac McCarthy.

I don't know if Cormac will be here in 200 years. I tend to doubt it. He and the coens will be in the dust can of history. I think a bout de souffle will be here. It is the best movie of a generation. Still to be fair to Cormac he is on the top of his era. After all Godard's country had some serious colonialistic difficulties but still isn't the US. Ho Chi Minh beat both their asses. Can you say Dien bien phu? Talk about David v. Goliath. I know most of you are prejudiced but can you imagine a guy from a tiny third world country beating 2 superpowers.

Perhaps my last post was a little obscure. My point is that Ho could have beaten sugar easily.

Is larks saying the refusal of moss to make a deal with sugar to save CJ's life is an act of conscience? Larks has a bizarre definition of conscience.

Larks employs an interesting technique. She takes a scene like moss going back to the CGF in the middle of the night knowing there is a good chance to be killed leaving CJ to be tortured by the cartel to bring water to a drug runner who he didn't cause the injuries. Instead of looking at it critically larks tries to think up an elaborate theory to defend it. She does that with all the scenes. I wonder if she does it on purpose as a mental exercise?

Thinking perhaps with nostalgia larks answers all my posts. We could be fast Internet friends. Too bad she's such a moron. Maybe she will get better. Larks would call it an act of conscience.

I see I've touched a nerve with Dmaria. It hasn't gone well for him and he can't let it go.

He honks on about Hồ Chí Minh vs. Chigurh, lol. Then he asks a question and criticizes his fantasized answer. Then he confuses observing behaviour with defending it. Not too impressive.

I count it as a blessing when larks doesn't respond to my posts. Her responses are utter nonsense. Does anyone want to bet their house she will respond to me as usual?

I agree with larks that Sugar when he says I got here the same as the coin is relying on the same rationalization.

If I recall this is the only scene in the movie where sugar refers to events previous to the movie. CJ says you don't have to do this. Sugar laughs. His reply is that's what everyone says. It is by no means the first time he has heard it. Others like CJ have said you are not controlled by some cosmic force. You are responsible.

After he laughs he kills her like I assume he killed the other who said it.

And there it is: from the list he chose to repeat himself again. Thus my original point stands, and Dmaria's falls. He does my work for me.

What can I say? The pathetic larks has shat the bed again. The pathetic CJ couldn't be roused out of her stupor to call a coin toss. She only said what others have said to sugar on many occasions. I don't make it a habit to root for the bad guy but Cormac and the coens have made sugar such a nuanced character it's hard not to.

What can I say?

Nothing of consequence. Dmaria has hitched his argument to the wrong CJ line.

Ava puts it well. If someone wants you to call it, Just call it. I

That was a good joke by Ava.