If it's crap... We'll tell you
On Coens and endings (includes spoilers)
It was just under two years ago that people started to complain about No Country For Old Men's lack of an ending. It was also around that time that I started to pull my hair out in frustration for people's stubborn-ness when they're wrong. Of course No Country For Old Men has an ending! It's right here!
I'm not saying there's no reason to complain. There is. Three quarters of the way through the film, a major development takes place off-screen (heard but not seen), and I understand why so many people found it so unsatisfying. I feel the same way about the off-screen kidnappings of Dent and Dawes, which I may compare in more detail in the future. In any case, I don't want to open that particular Pandora's Box.
The discussions on No Country's ending (or lack thereof) has already been had, and I don't want to open old wounds. I bring it up because I wonder if it might have marked the last time the Coens ever bothered to end one of their films.
I just returned from the latest Coen brothers film, A Serious Man, a film which might've offered me some retribution toward those critics, had I not also fallen victim to it. This is the film that proves you wrong by demonstrating how a film looks when it truly has no ending.
What's worse: I think that may have been their intention. I think back now to Burn After Reading, which cut its action off to matter-of-factly state how everything resolved. It was an interesting way to end an uninteresting film, almost a parody of No Country's climax. All the important developments take place off-screen, but it's still plainly understood what happened. A Serious Man, on the other hand, cuts itself off to roll the credits. It gets to the point where something big seems about to happen, and then stops.
Think back to No Country For Old Men, to the sequence in which Ed Tom comes upon the hotel. He hears gunshots, sees a car skid its way out of the parking lot. Ed Tom looks on in horror, fearing he might be too late.
If No Country For Old Men had ended this way, the effect would've been comparable to A Serious Man.
By providing the audience no resolution to the conclusion of the film, the Coens seem to be comparing themselves to the god who continues to punish Larry, the film's protagonist, but refuses to offer any answers. Like the film's rabbi Rabbi Nachtman, who tells elaborate and engaging stories. He, too, doesn't end them, and Larry is frustrated by his lack of help.
"Why does Hashem give us these questions when he holds the answers out of our reach?" he asks.
The rabbi responds, "He hasn't told me."
I suppose there is a connection, and I'm a huge fan of ambiguous endings. While I do have to give the film credit for ending on an astonishing image, it doesn't work. Our questions at the end of the film aren't about the nature of existence or god's plan. They're practical questions with answers that the characters are about to learn. Some of the questions are fine left open. Others are not.
I dunno. Maybe there will be a sequel.
I'm not saying there's no reason to complain. There is. Three quarters of the way through the film, a major development takes place off-screen (heard but not seen), and I understand why so many people found it so unsatisfying. I feel the same way about the off-screen kidnappings of Dent and Dawes, which I may compare in more detail in the future. In any case, I don't want to open that particular Pandora's Box.
The discussions on No Country's ending (or lack thereof) has already been had, and I don't want to open old wounds. I bring it up because I wonder if it might have marked the last time the Coens ever bothered to end one of their films.
I just returned from the latest Coen brothers film, A Serious Man, a film which might've offered me some retribution toward those critics, had I not also fallen victim to it. This is the film that proves you wrong by demonstrating how a film looks when it truly has no ending.
What's worse: I think that may have been their intention. I think back now to Burn After Reading, which cut its action off to matter-of-factly state how everything resolved. It was an interesting way to end an uninteresting film, almost a parody of No Country's climax. All the important developments take place off-screen, but it's still plainly understood what happened. A Serious Man, on the other hand, cuts itself off to roll the credits. It gets to the point where something big seems about to happen, and then stops.
Think back to No Country For Old Men, to the sequence in which Ed Tom comes upon the hotel. He hears gunshots, sees a car skid its way out of the parking lot. Ed Tom looks on in horror, fearing he might be too late.
If No Country For Old Men had ended this way, the effect would've been comparable to A Serious Man.
By providing the audience no resolution to the conclusion of the film, the Coens seem to be comparing themselves to the god who continues to punish Larry, the film's protagonist, but refuses to offer any answers. Like the film's rabbi Rabbi Nachtman, who tells elaborate and engaging stories. He, too, doesn't end them, and Larry is frustrated by his lack of help.
"Why does Hashem give us these questions when he holds the answers out of our reach?" he asks.
The rabbi responds, "He hasn't told me."
I suppose there is a connection, and I'm a huge fan of ambiguous endings. While I do have to give the film credit for ending on an astonishing image, it doesn't work. Our questions at the end of the film aren't about the nature of existence or god's plan. They're practical questions with answers that the characters are about to learn. Some of the questions are fine left open. Others are not.
I dunno. Maybe there will be a sequel.
Comment
-
Comment by Sav-vy-bag on October 4, 2009 at 11:37pm -
Lol,
I visualize him in a slaughterhouse usin' that rad bolt pistol of his.
-
Comment by The Eyeball Kid on October 4, 2009 at 8:33pm
- Fair point. It would be interesting if Chigurh retired after that car crash and got a job as a computer programmer or something.
-
Comment by Sav-vy-bag on October 4, 2009 at 7:01pm
- Well, I haven't seen 'A Serious Man'...I still think my idea is purty solid....>_>
-
-
Sav-vy-bag - I was talking about the Coens' latest film, A Serious Man, which gets to a point where some huge things are about to happen, then drops the film all together.
Betabug - The only thing that people don't understand is the difference between the ending and a climax. If the ending of No Country For Old Men doesn't work for you, that's fine. I get it. I even defended you in the post, but if you claim that the ending doesn't exist, like many have, then you are wrong. A Serious Man demonstrates just how wrong you are by showing you how a film without an ending really plays out.
Dr. Lightning - Carlyle raises a good point (although I don't see how he applies it applies to Fargo). Like he says: He gets it, he just doesn't like it, and he's sick if people explaining to him what he already gets. Read Betabug's post again. "Carlyle [...] described this issue so well, I won't even try to do it better." He's not suggesting that his word is law, just that he explains it well. My only contention is that this point really doesn't have anything to do with what I describe in the post.
-
Comment by Doctor Lightning on October 4, 2009 at 12:10pm -
I can answer Betabug/Caryle's quote very easily:
If that's jerking off, then call me Mary Palm and her Five Sisters.
I wouldn't always take everything Carlyle says to heart - this is the guy that gave thumbs up to The Collector, The Day the Earth Stood Still (remake), Eli Roth's movies (including Hostel 2), and Bamboozled. I also don't like that he starts off his quote with "you don't understand." What's understanding? Maybe I understand it a certain way, and he does another. What, is his word the word of law? fuck no. He's an AICN dude who writes well and has an incredibly mixed-bag-taste of movies. Period.
-
Comment by Betabug on October 4, 2009 at 11:05am -
okay I may now quote Carlyle who described this issue so well, I won't even try to do it better. Here it comes from his blog http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/about-the-coen-talk-in-this
”You don’t understand. It’s like a Raymond Chandler novel, except that NOTHING ties together rather than everything tying together. Isn’t that great?” No. When someone gives me information to process and hints that it means something, only to later tell me that everything I just saw meant nothing, then I don’t think it is all that great. I think they were jerking me off. ”Okay, have you ever read a Raymond Chandler novel?” Yes. ”Well, it’s like that, only you know how there are always two unrelated cases that are really related? Well here, they’re actually completely unrelated. Nothing’s related! Get it?” Yes. "So why don’t you like it?" Because that is just jerking off. "Okay let me try this again…"
-
Comment by Sav-vy-bag on October 4, 2009 at 5:18am
-
I enjoyed the film's conclusion and loathed Spill's review of it.
Imagine if they were to create a sequel and it would open up with Llewelyn Moss and Anton Chigurh goin' head to head, which would lead to Moss's demise, then cut to Chigurh currently, and there ya go...a boy can dream, can't he...?
Follow Spill on Twitter!
Latest Activity
Like the Angry Video Game Nerd? Like That Guy with the Glasses? This is the group for you.
A Group for the Fans of the series Futurama.
for those who love dark knight so FUCK YOU HATERS I'm talking to you MDS you twlight lovin motherfucker its a movie of course some shit doesnt make sense and fuck Vegaobscura u wannabe power ranger BIG UPS TO CHIG CHAMPA LONG LIVE THE LEAGUE IM OUT
This 1978 movie about a group of American deviant prisoner soldiers who are put to the job of stopping the whole Nazi regime is one hell of a movie. Go check it out.
Now, for the real review....
Inglourious Basterds. Another Tarantino film. I h…
Music
© 2009 Created by The Spill Crew
You need to be a member of The Spill.com Movie Community to add comments!
Join this Ning Network