Standing on Principle
As long as I’m playing entertainment critic, I might as well throw in my review of the latest Coen brothers movie, “No Country for Old Men,” which I saw last night at the Bridge Theater here in SF. I give the film two very enthusiastic thumbs up. I have two thumbs, so I’m allowed to do that.
I tend to choose my movies based on “Critics Picks” from the New York Times, and this was no exception. There was, however, a local San Francisco journalist (Mick LaSalle) whose review was particularly titillating. In the end, however, my interpretation differed from LaSalle’s in that he saw the film as a meditation on the basic existential conundrum, whereas I saw it as a provacative commentary on a focused component of personal morality; namely, the role of principle in one’s life.
Don’t worry, I won’t put in any spoilers here — I think of them as a form of theft — but I will expound on my assessment as to the meaning of the film. I agree with other reviewers’ assertions that “No Country” starts out as nothing more than a crime story. And like other reviewers, I concur that somewhere along the way it becomes much, much more than just another ‘cops and robbers’ flick. Where I differ is my assessment of the underlying meaning of the film.
The three primary characters are the prototypical Good Guy, Bad Guy, and what I’ll call a Neutral Guy. The Good Guy is very good — he’s the local yokel sheriff, and we’re certain of his moral certitude and character. The Bad Guy is very, very bad — he goes around killing people, so there can be no doubt as to his moral compass. Then there’s Neutral Guy, an average workaday fellow whose personal canon of ethics is partially motivated by principle, but also determined by circumstance and opportunity. It’s this trichotomy that sets the stage for a really wonderful treatment of the ambiguous value of principle in our lives: Bad Guy is very, very principled in every circumstance, despite being sinister and evil. Good Guy is principled at the beginning, but he’s getting old and the effects of age cause him to consider walking away from what’s important to him. Neutral Guy has his principles, but sometimes those darned ol’ circumstances tempt him into compromising a little.
Who’s better off at the end of the day? The beauty of this film is that it doesn’t go for the cheap answers, and it left me truly questioning the issue. Again, no spoilers here, but I will say there are some dramatic “conclusions” for some of the characters, as well as some decidedly un-dramatic ones. But it’s not easy to say which of the primary players is truly the “better person” in the abstract. For example, are you better off losing all your worldy goods for the sake of principle, or hanging on to your possessions but compromising your integrity? There’s no universally ‘right’ answer to questions like these, and “No Country for Old Men” poses them masterfully.
Afterwards, we debated the film at Mel’s Diner, an SF institution if ever there was one. My friend Brian said it was the first place he ate after moving to SF from Bakersfield, so it was a trip down memory lane for him. Our waitress was sharp-witted and sassy, which was perfect for the ambience and the food. It’s great place for late-night disco fries and milkshakes (my god, the calories!), because it’s a bit out of the way, thereby lessening the probability of being caught in the act by anyone you know.
Thanks to pbo31 and photmato for the pics!
Posted on December 2nd, 2007 by Thomas
Filed under: San Francisco, movies
Brilliant description–your comparison of values and morality as I understood you makes perfect sense in the context of the story and outside of it, I think. Both Christ and Hitler were arguably acting according to principles, and yet the philosophical underpinnings of their perspectives and the social value thereof seem clearly to be at odds.
While I haven’t gotten to see the film, I can’t think of a more odd pairing than the Coen brothers and Cormac McCarthy; and yet I’m hopeful given your review and others having enjoyed all three of them immensely in the past.
On reading No Country, I thought McCarthy might be softening. I missed the shot-to-the-head, heart-rending, heartache-laced vitriol characteristic of his ouvre and was sure he was recanting in a come-to-Jesus sort of way; “sinister high hokum”, as Walter Kirn of The New York Times Book Review put it (in a turn smacking itself of the same but without the critical characteristics of sinister- and high-ness; but descriptive nonetheless).
Having recently read The Road (published since No Country), I think ripening would be a better description–his sensibilities have mellowed like a Trappist ale until all that’s left is the crystalline insight of a Buddha-like nature. Done fighting, done arguing, McCarthy has come to express himself in his usual tell-it-like-it-is manner–that rare approach Hemingway so admired–but without the debauched puffery of his earlier efforts. I look forward very much to the Coen brothers’ interpretation of this critical if risky lead-in to a great author’s best work yet.
Cheers for the look-see.
I’ve been reluctant to go and see this movie despite it’s rave reviews because of the violence the trailers allude to it having. How would you rate the violence in it? I’m not opposed to violence in the films I see, but I don’t want to have to throw up because of too much.
Btw- great review!