Cinematography as a form of art is multi-faceted, as it serves several purposes that engage the viewer’s senses and feelings. In addition to being entertaining, certain films to be though-provoking and even philosophical. Some of them attempt to transcend the familiar boundaries of the genre, allowing the creators to create new vision of the format. In this scenario, the viewer is deeply engaged by the thrilling indeterminacy of the plot, making the climax unpredictable and impressive. A recent rewatch of the 2007 crime thriller No County for Old Men has evoked similar feelings, highlighting new layers of meaning that may be elusive during the first encounter with the film. This work by the Coen brothers breaks the traditional concepts of the genre by introducing an ensemble of controversial characters with a fresh perspective on a familiar plot. The absence of a clear “hero” of the story, combined with the unpredictably grim outcome, is the key reason why No Country for Old Men was received with such warmth by both critics and viewers.
The core idea behind the plot does appear original at first sight, as the main effect is achieved through execution. No Country for Old Men tells the stories of several key characters involved in a criminal affair, during which drug-traffickers’ money becomes stolen. A professional hitman called Anton Chigurh is hired to track the thief, which commences a violent sequence, as he leaves a trail of blood behind him (No Country for Old Men). The directors gave this concept a new image by portraying most characters in all shades of grey.
There is not a clear protagonist with pure intentions and the ability to end the violence. Most of the screentime is devoted to Llewelyn Moss who is not an honest man by any means, for which he pays with his life. Moreover, people around him become caught in crossfire as collateral victims to the conflict over stolen money. Interestingly, the only “clean” character is Sheriff Bell, and his storyline is that of a helpless bystander who can only follow the path of the murderer, being unable to affect the outcome. At first sight, this aspect of the film, including the ambiguity and the grim tone, appeared to be a questionable choice. This part reveals its value upon a subsequent rewatch, symbolizing the meaning that is embedded in the title of the film, which is enjoyable for attentive viewers. Sheriff Bell is the titular old man who no longer belongs in the new reality where the paradigm of values has shifted.
Another point that I like is that the central conflict of the film extends beyond the confrontation between Chigurh and the law enforcement or Llewelyn Moss. In fact, it is the clash of the old world and the new reality, which applies to all main characters in some capacity. Moss acted out of greed and paid for it with his life. Chigurh is another “old man” who finds it more difficult to evade justice as the new age arrives. The intentional ambiguity of the script may find a negative response from the audience, especially the first time. Yes, Chigurh escapes at the end, but his time is almost over, as the new generation of rivals and law enforcement is on its way.
Ultimately, No Country for Old Men is a profound, multi-layered work of cinematographic art. One of its defining characteristics is the true-to-life nature of the story, in which there are no heroes and the conflict is not magically resolved by the timely arrival of the “cavalry”. It is intentionally ambiguous and somewhat dark, prompting the viewer to speculate about the hidden details of the plot. Evidently, such portrayal of the events will have mixed reactions from the audience, but the film is unlikely to leave its viewer indifferent.
Work Cited
No Country for Old Men. Directed by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen. Miramax Films, 2007.