… “And then I woke up.”

SPOILER ALERT **

About the ending of No Country for Old Men:

The Coen Brothers’ No Country for Old Men is that atypical, mostly-mainstream film that defies a Hollywood-style conventional ending. I’ve been asked several times what I make of that ending and while I realize that I’m not sure that I fully "get it," or that I’m completely meant to, I do have a few observations to make about it …

Similar in tone and content to Ingmar Bergman’s classic 1957 film The Seventh Seal, No Country for Old Men plays like a very contemporary American allegory on the omniscience of death—or more precisely, here: random violent death. In this sense Javier Bardem’s Chirugh is no more a flesh & blood character than that of the overt personification of Death in the Bergman movie. Both have a shared otherworldly relentlessness & indestructibility; both play cruel games of chance with their victims; they even have similar dialogue. And like Bergman’s hooded, black-draped figure, Chirugh dispenses death where ever he goes—not across the medieval landscape of plague-infested Europe, though, but through the bleak, desiccated barrens, motels and strip malls of 1980 Texas.

** Somewhat notoriously by now, the film ends very abruptly with Tommy Lee Jones’ Sheriff Bell relating an ostensibly comforting dream—a dream perhaps of the afterlife—in which he catches up to his dead father in a safe, secure spot—only to awaken from the falsity/optimism of that dream (it’s ambiguous) with the matter-of-fact words:
"...and then I woke up."

Cut to end credits.

There are a number of potential ways of reading this …

Morally, I think it may be a way of undercutting our conventional movie-going expectations—even desire for some sort of violent movie conclusion in which the "bad guy"—Chirugh, the figure of "Death"—gets his due. The Coens will not allow us this "pleasure" more typical of highly-dubious, videogame-style films like 300.

Allegorically, of course, "Death" never gets its due …. "death," "random violence," "evil," what have you, will always be with us. They never die.

Narratively, Sheriff Bell’s dream is a premonition of death—perhaps death at the hands of Chirugh.

Structurally, most of us expect a comforting conclusion to the movies that we watch—but the Coens—all credit to them—won’t give it to us. The film itself ends abruptly—just as one’s life might end through an act of random violence. In this sense, the ending of No Country for Old Men gives perfect form to the content of what is depicted within it. It’s as if Chirugh has suddenly terminated the lives of the Coens! Like the deaths of so many characters, the ending, in that sense, is just as "pointless."

Finally, a word on why I think the film has such contemporary relevance:

Sheriff Bell, who mostly operates on the periphery of the movie, makes several earlier direct references to the level of generalized violence depicted within the overall narrative of the film: especially to the drug trade across the Mexican border, which has brought with it a greater level of savagery than ever before. This is why the film is called No Country for Old Men. For weary old Bell it’s time to give up and retire. He’s not equipped—emotionally or otherwise to deal with this type of violence.

But I think this is also why the film resonates so deeply with audiences today because the level of violence we experience, however indirectly, through the movies, on the news, etc. seems more savage, more plentiful, more random than ever before: Iraq, suicide bombers, serial killers, school shootings, etc. Like Sheriff Bell, we are worn out by it.

quel surprise

"The academy has long been accused of a provincialism woven with leaden taste, but its members proved this year that they will vote for what they perceive to be great work, regardless of its lineage or commercial impact." A.O. Scott, New York Times


Well, it was an interesting show …. Oscar seems to be moving a little out of the American mainstream—by becoming increasingly more international (or at least less "provincial")—and that may account in some part for the low ratings received by the show (the lowest since 1953). Perhaps fewer & fewer of us are watching the Oscars because it is rewarding films fewer & fewer of us want to see. Many of the winners were non-American. Indeed, for the first time since 1964, all the acting awards went to non-Americans: Daniel Day-Lewis from Ireland; Tilda Swinton from Scotland (I think, or is that England); Marion Cotillard (quel surprise!) from France; and Javier Bardem from Spain. Situated in New York—and like Woody Allen before them—the Coen Bros. too, I’m sure, see themselves as firmly outside the Hollywood mainstream—indeed, they looked a little embarrassed to be there. That their relatively daring film No Country for Old Men is the face of new Hollywood is a delicious irony to be savoured by hardcore film buffs and critics who have despaired of the Oscars or long ago written them off as little more than a crass commercial for "the industry." But in the words of David Carr, also writing in the New York Times, The Oscars are now in danger of becoming a way for industry types to demonstrate refinement and cultural ambition that doesn’t yield an economic dividend for the companies that finance them. It’s the kind of good taste that could leave a bad taste if they don’t watch out.

2008 Academy Award Predictions: Part 1

The Oscars are going to happen!

Was it ever likely that Hollywood, which lost a reported 1 billion dollars over the course of the writers strike, would forego its biggest collective advertisement for itself in favour of the ungainly sight of a televised press conference? The tentative agreement reached on Saturday has spared us this (unlike with the Golden Globes) or a scaled-down version of it usual over-the-top extravaganza. And who would wish to miss that!

As with last year’s nominees, this year’s batch is a diverse blend of somewhat bleak, somewhat redemptive critical hits with a few box office smashes scattered amongst them. Usually, Oscar-nominated films have only the most casual relationship with quality, but this year both There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men were nos.1 & 3 on Indie Wire’s authoritative year-end poll of North American film critics (http://www.indiewire.com/critics2007/). Each also came in at nos. 1 & 2 in a similar poll conducted by Film Comment (http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/poll/2007pollcritics.html). And both films lead the Oscar field with a surprising (to me at least) eight nominations each. This is a good sign. But since they are both extremely dark, unapologetically weird, and watch-through-your-fingers violent—at least by Academy standards—it’s possible they may end up splitting the vote for Best Picture, allowing the one conventional, feel-good contender, Juno,to sneak up and win the big category.

What follows is my completely objective, totally unbiased prognosis for what is likely to unfold on Oscar night:

Best Picture:
The nominees: “Atonement,” “Michael Clayton,” “No Country for Old Men,” “There Will Be Blood,” “Juno”

Atonement won the Golden Globe award for Best Drama but its musty, old-fashioned Englishness seems somewhat at odds with the spirit of contemporary Hollywood. And, as with last year’s Golden Globe winner, Babel,this is not necessarily an indication of how the Academy will vote. Also, no film has won Best Picture without a single lead actor / lead actress / director nomination. The ‘70s-style paranoia-thriller “Michael Clayton” is good, but there’s not much buzz behind it, and it feels somewhat anonymous alongside the contemporary, in-your-face immediacy of There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. I predict victory for No Country for Old Men,the slightly less eccentric of the duo, though I’m tempted to go for the dark horse, Juno,which is this year’s Little Miss Sunshine,but which probably won’t win because it lacks the requisite Oscar-worthy ‘gravitas’. But then the Academy may want to select a resolutely upbeat crowd pleaser after last year’s downer, The Departed,so it’s a tough call …

Conventional Wisdom: Atonement
Dark Horse: Juno
What Deserves to Win: No Country for Old Men … or There Will Be Blood
What Will Win: No Country for Old Men

Best Actor
The nominees: George Clooney (“Michael Clayton”), Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”), Johnny Depp (“Sweeny Todd”), Tommy Lee Jones (“In the Valley of Elah”), Viggo Mortensen (“Eastern Promises”)

The smart money is on Daniel Day-Lewis, here. The Academy likes to reward actors who change their physical appearance and are seen to be A-C-T-I-N-G in the most theatrical, Lionel Barrymore sense of the word. And while this truism adheres to at least three of this year’s nominees (including Depp & Mortensen), it is Daniel Day-Lewis who supplies the necessary gravitas as the larger-than-life American oil tycoon in There Will Be Blood. George Clooney provides a characteristically intelligent performance in Michael Clayton,but he remains, well … George Clooney. (We should all be so lucky!) Johnny Depp has turned out several form-shifting performances over the years and will be recognized with an Oscar someday, but not yet. Tommy Lee Jones is widely respected, but In the Valley of Elah died at the box office. And with the overrated Eastern Promises,Viggo Mortensen is probably just happy to be nominated. This year it’s all about Daniel Day-Lewis.

Conventional Wisdom: Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”)
Dark Horse: Johnny Depp (“Sweeny Todd”)
Who Deserves to Win: Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”)
Who Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”)

Best Actress
The nominees: Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth: The Golden Age”), Julie Christie (“Away From Her”), Marion Cotillard (“La Vie en Rose”), Ellen Page (“Juno”), Laura Linney (“The Savages”)

It’s a lock: Julie Christie. These awards are often as much given for a career’s work as for the ostensible reason for nominating a particular performance. She’s already taken the prize at several earlier awards shows. And here she plays a woman suffering from Alzheimer’s, so what could be more Oscar-worthy? Despite mostly stellar performances all over in this category, it's not likely that most of the others have the buzz to challenge her. Ellen Page, who does have it, is probably too …young, to win. And the awesome Aussie Cate Blanchett is less likely to win here than in the Best Supporting Actress category for I’m Not There(and besides, Elizabeth: the Golden Age is awful). Marion Cotillard chews up all the available scenery in the overblown La Vie en Rose,but is unlikely to win. Disappointment, delusion, death--Laura Linney is superb in the highly-unsentimental The Savages,as a failed playwright grappling with the dementia and Parkinson's disease of her estranged father, but probably has no chance of winning. Quel dommage …

Conventional Wisdom: Julie Christie (“Away From Her”)
Dark Horse: Ellen Page (“Juno”)
Who Deserves to Win: Laura Linney (“The Savages”)
Who Will Win: Julie Christie (“Away From Her”)

Best Director
The nominees: Julian Schnabel (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”), Jason Reitman (“Juno”), Tony Gilroy (“Michael Clayton”), the Coen Brothers (“No Country for Old Men”), PT Anderson (“There Will Be Blood”)

It’s a truism that film directors who score nominations for themselves but not for their films in the Best Picture category, can never win this award. That probably rules out the richly-deserving Julian Schnabel for his excellent “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.” If I were suddenly granted the power to make a winner of any of the nominees it would be him. Since Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance dominates There Will Be Blood, much like the proverbial colossus bestriding Rome, I think that the also very-deserving PT Anderson will be overlooked for his work. Jason Reitman, of Juno,and the first-time director, Tony Gilroy, of Michael Clayton,probably are just happy to be nominated. That leaves the traditionally Academy-unfriendly Coen Brothers who may win not just for their strangely zeitgeist-tapping No Country for Old Men,but for their many earlier, no-less-accomplished films that were often just a little ahead of their times. They also won the Director’s Guild Award last month and are apparently better known in Hollywood than most of the other nominees.

Conventional Wisdom: The Coen Brothers (“No Country for Old Men”)
Dark Horse: Julian Schnabel (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”)
Who Deserves to Win: Julian Schnabel (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”)
Who Will Win: The Coen Brothers (“No Country for Old Men”)

Best Supporting Actor
The nominees: Casey Affleck (“The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”), Javier Bardem (“No Country for Old Men”), Philip Seymour Hoffman (“Charlie Wilson’s War”), Hal Holbrook (“Into the Wild”), Tom Wilkinson (“Michael Clayton”)

The Academy likes to reward veteran actors / actresses in the Supporting categories. That bodes well for Hal Holbrook, for Into the Wild.(And also for Ruby Dee, see below.) But it’s Javier Bardem that everyone is talking about, and who has already won about a hundred awards for his performance as the other-worldly psycho-killer (with that weird haircut) in No Country for Old Men. Everyone else in this category—as wonderful as they are—seem somewhat overshadowed by him—especially for that creepy / terrifying scene with the gas station attendant. He’s a filmic, twenty-first century symbol of ineluctable death. Casey Affleck’s character of Robert Ford, in my favourite Hollywood film of the year, The Assassination of Jesse James, is less allegorical, more multi-dimensional than that of Bardem’s killer--much more a complex, well-rounded creation. His whiny, ingratiating naivety and disillusioned visions of cheap paperback glory left an indelible impression upon me.

Conventional Wisdom: Javier Bardem (“No Country for Old Men”)
Dark Horse: Hal Holbrook (“Into the Wild”)
Who Deserves to Win: Casey Affleck (“The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”)
Who Will Win: Javier Bardem (“No Country for Old Men”)

Best Supporting Actress
The nominees: Cate Blanchett “I’m Not There”, Ruby Dee “American Gangster” , Saoirse Ronan “Atonement” , Amy Ryan, “Gone Baby Gone” , Tilda Swinton, “Michael Clayton”

Perhaps the closest race in any of these major categories is the one for Best Supporting Actress. Everyone seems to be talking about Cate Blanchett to win for her talismanic mid-60s figure of Bob Dylan in I'm Not There. But while she is very funny and spot-on in capturing something of Dylan’s weird, self-conscious relation to his own fame, her role is arguably not so much a fleshed-out performance than an esoteric impersonation of a popular icon. If the venerable Ruby Dee wins, it’ll be less for American Gangster and more for her career work. In addition to picking up the Golden Globe she also won the Screen Actors’ Guild award in this category. Amy Ryan has the most Oscar-friendly role as the mother of a missing child in Gone Baby Gone, and it’s possible she may score an upset victory here. Both first-time nominees Tilda Swinton and Saorise Ronan gave fine performances, but they’re definite also-rans.

Conventional Wisdom: Ruby Dee “American Gangster”
Dark Horse: Amy Ryan, “Gone Baby Gone”
Who Deserves to Win: Cate Blanchett “I’m Not There”
Who Will Win: Amy Ryan, “Gone Baby Gone”

Coming soon: 2008 Oscar Predictions – Part 2