Screenwriting 101: all writing is rewriting
Many readers have written in to tell me that they would like to write and have plenty of ideas but can’t seem to complete any of them. They say they have all these little scraps of paper with notes scrawled on them but can’t seem to develop them into a full-length story/novel/comic/screenplay.
The bad news: the storytelling impulse is something you are born with. If you don’t have the urge and drive to tell stories, there’s not much you can do to get it.
The good news: every other part of the writing game is a skill and can be learned.
(When I was in college I fancied myself a short story writer, but my short stories were constantly being criticized by my professor for their lack of basic grammar. I dangled participles, split infinitives, misspelled key words, mixed tenses and had run-on sentences. I couldn’t keep all the rules straight — I didn’t have a head for them. However, my professor consistently praised my ear for realistic dialogue — I understood the way people talk. So instead of applying myself, learning about sentence structure and becoming better, I started writing stories that consisted almost entirely of long dialogue passages: “John met Mary at the restaurant. He sat down. He said…” and then the rest of the story would be what he and she said. My grades went up and I abandoned short stories for plays, where I wouldn’t need to remember all those goddamn rules.)
First thing you need to understand: all writing is rewriting.
Isn’t that a relief? You don’t need to “make stuff up,” you just have to be able to recognize good writing and have a mind for understanding how it works. If you have that talent, the rest is just putting other people’s writing into your own words, as your third-grade teacher used to say.
This means two things:
1. There is nothing new under the sun. Any idea you have for a story, it’s been done, a thousand times over, whether you know it or not. This should not be an impediment. One thing to do when you get an idea for a story is to read a whole big stack of stories similar to yours and see how those writers solved their narrative problems. Then you can copy them. Feel no guilt about this: those writers did the same thing when they were writing their stories. There’s the old quote: steal from one writer and it’s plagiarism, steal from everybody and it’s research. When I get a writing assignment I sit down and watch every movie I can find in the genre I’m looking at and note patterns, tropes, key moments, character beats, anything that makes the movie enjoyable. Then I sit down andwatch a bunch of movies in a completely different genre and note how the two genres connect and contrast, and think about how I can steal traits of one genre and apply them to another. This is what will keep my screenplay from being rote formula.
2. You must be able to look at your own writing as though it is someone else’s. You cannot become too attached to your work. You cannot fall in love with a chapter, a paragraph, a sentence, a line of dialogue or even a word merely because it happened to turn out nice. The fountain of creativity is unceasing, you cannot worry for one moment that you will “run out of ideas.” This means that the writer you will be rewriting the most is yourself. You must learn to love this aspect of creation — not just the initial spark, which is the fun part, but the heavy lifting of merciless revision and improvement, which is work. If you don’t love rewriting your own work, you’re dead in the water.
Let’s say you have the simplest possible idea for a movie: a good guy fights a bad guy, and wins. There! You’ve just written a hit movie! Now all you need to do is mercilessly re-write that idea until it’s a screenplay, and you can have the respect and admiration of Hollywood a great deal of money some money.
First, let’s take a look at that “good guy.” Probably, this “good guy” is your protagonist. Then we ask the question, yes, What Does The Protagonist Want? The answer, it may surprise you to learn, is not “to beat the bad guy.” “To beat the bad guy” is meaningless, the protagonist must have a reason for beating the bad guy. To Preserve His Honor, To Protect His Family, To Save The Farm, To Impress The Girl, To Save The World, any of these will do, it really does not matter. All that matters is that the Protagonist want the thing he or she wants with a passion sufficient to make the audience want that thing too.
(In Pee Wee’s Big Adventure the protagonist wants only To Recover His Stolen Bicycle. A bicycle may not seem like much of a maguffin to hang a narrative on, but all that matters is that the protagonist wants it badly enough, and in the case of Pee Wee he wants it badly enough that he cannot think of anything else. If that does not seem like high art, De Sica’s classic of Italian neo-realism, Bicycle Thieves, has the exact same premise, employed to greatly different ends. In this way, we could say that Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure is a re-write of Bicycle Thieves, although it was, understandably, not marketed as such.)
Now then: here’s where “stakes” comes in. The general rule is, the higher the stakes, the bigger the hit. If a good guy fights a bad guy in the privacy of his own home with nobody watching, that would be a “small movie.” If he fights the bad guy for the sake of protecting his family, that has the potential of being a a bigger movie, if he fights the bad guy for the sake of preserving his community or nation it could be a huge movie.
(And if he fights the bad guy to save the world or the galaxy, you have the potential of having the biggest movie of all, although this is also a tricky area, because “To Save The Galaxy” is a vague, uninteresting thing for a protagonist to want — a protagonist may fight for a nation, but who could possibly care about an entire galaxy? The two protagonists who leap to mind charged with saving the world/galaxy are Luke Skywalker and James Bond, and I would argue that “To Save The World/Galaxy” are secondary goals for them — Luke’s primary goal is To Win The Love of Leia and Bond’s goal is To Get Back to Drinking and Screwing.)
So let’s say our protagonist (good guy) has to fight an antagonist (bad guy) in order To Preserve His Community. This has the potential to become a huge, huge movie.
Now: what would raise the stakes for this protagonist? Well, we have to decide who our protagonist is. Is he a fine, upstanding, strong, utterly capable man, skilled in martial arts and a keen strategist? Maybe, but then the movie won’t be very interesting. No, what would make the story better is if the good guy who has to fight the bad guy is The Least Qualified Person In The Entire Community.
(Back in the day, many people urged me to see Under Siege, which they said was a better-than-average variation on Die Hard. Imagine my sadness when it is revealed that the lowly cook who must defend the battleship from terrorists is, actually, the World’s Foremost Terrorist Fighter.)
Okay, so The Least Qualified Person In The Entire Community must fight the bad guy. And, conversely, the bad guy must be not merely “bad,” but bad in a way that directly imposes upon the protagonist’s weaknesses. That’s good. Now then, what would raise the stakes even higher? Well, what if the entire community hates the protagonist?
Okay, time to give the protagonist a job. Let’s make him a sheriff in a dusty down in the Old West. But let’s make him the new sheriff, the sheriff from Back East who doesn’t understand The Way Things Work in this community. So not only is there a bad guy threatening the community, the community hates this sheriff’s guts. So now the protagonist not only has to deal with the bad guy, he’s got to deal with the community who hates his guts. The stronger the forces arrayed against the protagonist, the higher the stakes, the bigger the movie.
Now we’re cooking with gas. There’s this sheriff, and everyone in town hates him because he’s the new guy, and then this bad guy comes to town. How bad is this bad guy? He’s really bad — he’s a psychopath, killing townsfolk off like crazy. He doesn’t even seem to be after anything, he’s just a stone killer. And the town panics, and they bring in an expert and a gunslinger to fight the bad guy and the expert is a snob and the gunslinger is a creep and nobody is listening to the sheriff, not even his own family, who are worried that maybe the townsfolk are right, that the sheriff is not qualified to deal with this bad guy.
What is this sheriff going to do? There’s an evil out there he can’t begin to understand, there are these experts and gunslingers who make him feel like an idiot, the townspeople dislike him, and even his own family is looking at him sideways. What the hell is he going to do?
(This is the “second-act low point.”)
What the sheriff must do, it seems to me, is figure out a way to befriend the gunslinger, get him to work together with the expert, and then the three of them go out into the desert to fight the bad guy.
Great! Now you’ve got a hit western. Except for one thing: it sounds a little cliched. It could work but it sounds a little cliched. People will feel they’ve seen this movie before. It needs one more rewrite.
Hey — what if the bad guy is a shark?
Yes. We make the bad guy a giant shark, and we don’t set the story in the Old West, we set it in the present day, and we set it in the exact opposite of a dusty western town — we set it on an island on the East Coast. Yes — a giant shark comes to town, and you know what? We’ll make the sheriff a man who is afraid of water! Everyone in town hates him because he’s not “one of them,” and this shark comes along and nobody listens to the Sheriff because he’s not One of Them, and the Expert is some snooty Rich Kid with a degree in Sharkology, and the Gunslinger is a crusty old Shark Hunter who’s really creepy. And the Hugely Underqualified Sheriff and the Expert and the Shark Hunter have to work together to go out into the ocean to kill this shark, because Nobody Else Will Do It.
So, there’s one example of how to write a big hit movie: take acliche from one genre and give it that one brilliant twist that makes it into another genre and makes an audience see it from a different point of view.
Now, I understand that Peter Benchley, when writing Jaws, did not start with “A Good Guy Fights A Bad Guy, And Wins.” He started with a “cool premise,” ie: What If A Giant Shark Showed Up Off The Coast Of Martha’s Vineyard? And that is, in fact, where most stories begin, with a “cool premise.” What If An Evil Robot Came From The Future To Kill Somebody, What If Aliens Were The Guiding Force In Evolution, What If A Man Fell In Love With A Teenage Girl. And we can get to that in a bit, but this for now is a good place to start.
Cute kids update — economics division
Sam (6) has discovered money, and the power of money, and the glory of money. Money, he has realized, can buy Star Wars toys, and a great deal of money can buy big Star Wars toys.
So Sam is willing to do just about anything at this point to get some money.
My wife, seizing upon this new capitalistic streak, has put him to work around the house, performing more-or-less useful tasks that pose no immediate threat to his health or to local property values.
Yesterday she puts him to work washing our patio doors (which, to be fair, need washing). For the performance of this task she offers him two dollars. The deal is accepted and he goes to work with a pail and sponge.
Enter Kit, kid sister (5). Kit sees Sam washing the windows and wonders how she ever felt fulfillment playing with Polly Pocket. She now wants to wash windows too — not for the money, but to be included, and for the sheer giddy joy of it.
In another time, in another story, Tom Sawyer once put the whole neighborhood to work whitewashing a fence because he was lazy and canny, and he knew it would make a good plot-point in a deathless novel. But in the year 2007, kids and household tasks have changed. Kit approached Sam and asked if she could help and Sam became hysterical. Cries of rage and dishonor echoed around the block. Sam was furious, not because Kit might be cutting in on his window-washing fun, but because he was worried that if Kit was willing to wash windows for nothing, the job could be done without Sam and Sam would be out his two dollars.
Just another example of skilled workers struggling to keep their jobs against a tide of newcomers willing to do the job for less — California economics in a nutshell. And the WGA strike too, I suppose.
Coen Bros: No Country For Old Men part 4
In which I chat about some of the things that occurred to me while watching the movie, in no particular order. Many spoilers within.
1. In the opening narration, Sheriff Bell talks about sending a boy to the electric chair. In the book, he sends him to the gas chamber. I assume the Coens made the change in order to link the criminal to Ed Crane and George Nelson, both of whom die in the electric chair in their movies (or perhaps to more accurately reflect the reality of Texas executions in 1980).
2. When Moss stumbles upon the suitcase full of money while trying to track down his wounded antelope, for some reason I was reminded of Jed Clampett. And it occurs to me that The Beverly Hillbillies would have been a better show if Jed was forced to flee his home to a number of dingy motels, outrunning ruthless killers every step of the way, in order to protect his family, before finally losing everything. Although obviously that would involve a title change. (It also occurs to me that There Will Be Blood, in its final 20 minutes, becomes a deadly serious take on The Beverly Hillbillies.)
3. I was impressed with Josh Brolin’s performance in No Country, as I’ve been impressed with his performances in Grindhouse and American Gangster this year as well. The kid’s come a long way since The Goonies.
4. The movie Carla Jean is watching when Moss comes in with the suitcase full of money is Flight to Tangier, a 1953 thriller about, yes, a bunch of people pursuing a large amount of missing cash. The movie was made in 3-D and three-strip Technicolor, but Carla Jean seems happy enough to watch it on her black-and-white TV — a comment on the diminished lives of the characters of No Country?
5. If I haven’t done so enough before, let me now again praise the Coens for the shooting style of No Country. For directors who know more about cool cinematic tricks than just about anyone else out there, the Coens pare back their vocabulary in No Country to the bare essentials, to match the spare, no-quotation-marks-please style of the novel. Most of No Country consists of uninflected shots of men performing simple tasks — picking up a shell casing, walking through the desert, sawing off a gun barrel, cutting the hook off a wire clothes hanger, driving a car, so forth. There is little narrative beyond the recording of physical activity (another thing No Country shares with There Will Be Blood). The Coens had faith that the story would contain enough novelty and suspense (I cannot see how it could contain more than it does) that they would not have to resort to flashy technique to “sell” it.
6. When Sheriff Bell goes to see his Uncle Ellis in order to get some perspective on this madness, Ellis reminds him that extreme, senseless violence has been with us since the country’s conception and counsels him against thinking he can stem the tide of blood. “You can’t stop what’s comin.’ It ain’t all waitin’ on you,” he says, “that’s vanity.” This line is not in the book, although it could have easily. And then I note that, in the very next scene, when Carla Jean comes into her bedroom to find Chigurh there, she says “I need to sit down.” In the book (and in the screenplay), she sits down on the bed, but in the movie she sits at, yes, the vanity.
7. Carla Jean, while fleeing her home with Moss, says “I’m used to lots of things — I work at Wal-Mart,” another reference to the “breakdown of mercantile ethics” that the movie sees as the central cause of the escalation of violence that informs its narrative.
8. For a movie about hunters and trackers all pursuing and eluding each other, its odd that no one in the movie seems concerned for a second about fingerprints. Moss leaves them all over the place at the crime scene (in the book he takes time to remove all his prints), and when Sheriff Bell sees that Chigurh has left a milk bottle sitting on Moss’s coffee table, he sees no reason not to pick it up and have a drink himself.
9. For a movie about a breakdown of mercantile ethics, there seem to be damn few customers around. The cafes, the stores, the shopping districts, they’re all hugely devoid of people. The sporting-goods store where Moss shops has a gun clerk and a camping-supply clerk, but no customers. Moss asks the clerk at the clothes store he patronizes (twice) if they get many customers without clothes, but he might as well ask if they get any customers at all.
10. In the book, when Chigurh shoots Moss during the fracas at the Eagle Hotel, Moss is shocked and wounded but still takes the time to stop, examine his wound and say “Damn, what a shot,” a marvelous character moment I am surprised didn’t make it into the movie.
11. It’s worth noting that, for a movie so bleakly, relentlessly violent, the Coens leave out a substantial number of killings that are in the book, a good twenty or thirty by my count. Think of that.
12. I see a thematic link between Moss’s body and the Dude’s car in Lebowski — each gets insulted and damaged repeatedly, in novel ways, until finally both are destroyed.
13. The Coens’ narratives often involve conflicts between talkers and non-talkers. No Country features a narrative between three non-talkers, all kind of challenging each other to a non-talk-off. The one talker, Wells, is insulted by Moss for talking so much even as he’s trying to save Moss’s life. This is, I’m guessing, why Wells has to die.
Alvin and the Chipmunks, by guest reviewer Rudy Giuliani
First of all, I’d like to thank
for the opportunity to discuss the comedy hit of the year, Alvin and the Chipmunks, a feel-good movie that certainly made me feel better than I felt on September 11, 2001. I was the mayor of New York City on that fateful day, September 11, when a group of dark-skinned, foreign jihadists rammed two commercial jets into the World Trade Center, destroying them and killing three thousand people. No one gets killed in the riotous Alvin and the Chipmunks, but the fact that we, as Americans, can produce this kind of strong-willed family entertainment, even after the devastating losses suffered on September 11, produces in me a sense of wonderment, the same kind of wonderment I felt as the nation, indeed the world, rallied around my fair city on September 11.
Alvin is a classic American archetype, a sassy, can-do optimist, a lot like the ordinary, everyday New Yorkers I met in the aftermath of September 11. At the beginning of the movie, we meet Alvin and his pals leading an innocent, carefree life in nature, just as many Americans led an innocent, carefree life prior to September 11. They sing songs in their sweet, sped-up voices, bringing to my face a smile I haven’t felt since I saw the hope and spirit that rose from the ashes of the World Trade Center in the months following September 11.
They meet Dave (My Name Is Earl‘s Jason Lee), a down-on-his-luck songwriter, and proceed to turn his life upside-down, just as a team of murderous Islamic fascists turned America’s fortunes upside-down on September 11. Dave, charmed by their singing talents, writes them a Christmas song, a song everyone falls in love with, although I doubt any of the plotters of the attacks on September 11 would enjoy it. Their success is then hijacked by a mean music-industry record-producer (Arrested Development‘s David Cross), much like the two commercial jets that slammed into the World Trade Center, generating orange fireballs and enormous black clouds of religious hatred, were also hijacked on September 11.
I laughed until tears rolled down my cheeks, a sharp contrast to the tears I shed in mourning on September 11, as Alvin and the gang upend the mean record-producer’s plans. In the end, Alvin shows that he cannot be intimidated by a callous music industry, just as America showed that they could not be intimated by the evil forces of Islamic Jihadism in the bloody conflicts that followed the attacks on September 11.
I greatly enjoyed Alvin and the Chipmunks, and hope that they don’t wait until there is another catastrophe on the scale of the unwarranted attacks we as a nation experienced on September 11 before they release a sequel. It’s toe-tapping fun for the whole family, and I recommend it to anyone who was not brutally murdered on September 11.
Coen Bros: No Country For Old Men part 3
Two sides of the same coin?
Again, as this excellent movie is still in general release (and not in release at all in other parts of the world), I beseech the reader to see it before reading the below, where I discuss the personality of the movie’s enigmatic bad guy, Anton Chigurh.
A suitcase full of money, no matter what the amount, is always a symbol of transformation in American movies, a chance to start your life over again, escape the bonds of your class, your birth, your family, your job, whatever is keeping you down. Traditionally, in the course of American movies featuring suitcases full of money, the expected transformation does not happen — instead, a world of pain is visited upon the receiver until they finally have to give up the money or lose it or give it to charity. A suitcase full of money is a shortcut, a way around the forces of the American system, where People With Money have all the power and People Without Money have none. An appreciable amount of money falling into the hands of People Without Money upsets the system and the system, in one way or another, always retaliates. In America, the movies keep telling you that Money Cannot Buy You Happiness, while the rest of the culture tells you every minute of every day that Money Can Buy You Happiness Beyond Your Wildest Dreams. The system asserts its prerogative: there are no short cuts to improving your life (“There are no clean getaways” is how No Country‘s poster puts it), only hard work and, occasionally, dumb luck. Just look at the Coens’ other movies — whether it’s gangsters, car salesmen or trailer trash families, their movies are full of poor saps struggling to overcome their circumstances, and resorting to crime to do so — and ultimately failing to accomplish anything.
(When Moss finds the case in the novel, he looks inside and author Cormac McCarthy notes: “His whole life was sitting there in front of him. Day after day from dawn till dark until he was dead. All of it cooked down to forty pounds of paper in a satchel.” I’m tellin’ ya, the guy can write.)
So Chigurh, we could say, is all about the money. It cannot be a coincidence that, in addition to killing anyone who impedes his progress toward the suitcase full of money, he decides innocents’ fates with the flip of a quarter and uses a dime to unscrew the vent covers where Moss has hidden the case.
(Incidentally, here is another argument for Chigurh being in the room with Bell when Bell shows up to look for him — Bell looks down and sees the vent cover sitting on the floor with the screws and a dime sitting next to it. It seems Bell interrupted Chigurh at the precise moment of his retrieval of the case — otherwise why would the otherwise lack-of-evidence mad Chigurh leave a trace of his being there?)
(And let me add here one more layer of coolness to “that one scene:” Sheriff Bell enters the room and stands in the doorway, and he sees his shadow on the opposite wall, turned into two shadows by the headlights of his cruiser. I think that Chigurh is that “second shadow,” one of a number of visual cues [the both of them gazing into the blank TV set in Moss’s trailer is another] meant to connect Bell and Chigurh visually. If Chigurh is Bell’s second shadow, then perhaps that is how he can be in the same room with him but undetected. Or, more interestingly, what if, Donald Kaufman-like, Chigurh and Bell are the same guy? Maybe that’s what
meant by the scene being “Lynchian.”)
(However, the screenplay, for what it’s worth, seems to state pretty clearly that Chigurh is in the room when Bell gets there, hiding behind the door, then scrambles to hide somewhere when Bell enters, then goes out the door when Bell is in the bathroom. Just saying.)
ABOUT THAT QUARTER: Is Cormac McCarthy aware that Chigurh is imitating Batman villain Two-Face in deciding innocents’ fates with the flip of a coin? If even my wife, a non-comics-reader, refers to the habit as “Chigurh’s Two-Face Routine,” how could he not?
(Gasp! Two-Face was played in Batman Forever by — omigod! Tommy Lee Jones! And while I’m here, I should remind the reader that the Coens were offered the job of making the 1989 Batman before Tim Burton landed the job. Wheels within wheels!)
The great thing about how the Coens have written the character and how Javier Bardem plays him is that he manages to be both weirdly unplaceable and recognizably human. Take the scene where he walks into the gas station and does his Two-Face Routine with the attendant: he threatens the man’s life with his menacing tone, then suggests that the poor guy’s life, which he doesn’t seem to have given a moment’s thought, is a series of choices that have irrevocably led him to this moment in time, where his fate will be decided by the flip of a coin. When the man wins the coin toss, Chigurh warns him not to put the coin in his pocket, because it’s a special coin, the coin that marked a change in his life. Then, just before he leaves, he gives the man a half-smile and says that it’s an ordinary coin after all. This last line achieves two things. First, it suggests that Chigurh never intended to kill the guy and was just messin’ with him, then it suggests that any ordinary object can be the tool that decides your fate.
(He goes on quite a bit more in the book: “Dont put it in your pocket. You wont know which one it is,” he says, then adds: “Anything canbe an instrument. Small things. Things you wouldnt even notice. They pass from hand to hand. People dont pay attention. And then one day there’s an accounting. And after that nothing is the same. Well, you say, it’s just a coin. For instance. Nothing special there. What could that be an instrument of? You see the problem. To separate the act from the thing. As if the parts of some moment in history might be interchangeable with the parts of some other moment. How could that be? Well, it’s just a coin. Yes. That’s true. Is it?”)
(Chigurh seems disgusted with people in general, but he saves an unusual level of contempt for the gas station guy, perhaps for not paying attention to his life enough. In the book he goes so far as to call him a “cracker,” a word I have a hard time imagining coming from the Chigurh as played by Javier Bardem. What riles him so about the attendant? I think it’s that he married into his job — just like both Ed Crane and Big Dave did in The Man Who Wasn’t There — and is therefore less than a man. He didn’t seek out his fate, he just kind of let it happen to him without thinking about it.)
Now then: Chigurh in the book ends up in a totally different place. He kills everyone in his way to get the money, and then he returns it to its rightful owner, much to the owner’s bafflement, as the owner did not hire Chigurh and has no idea how he found him. Chigurh in the book wants to set things right, to return the life-changing suitcase full of money to its rightful owner (that is, Capital) and preserve what he sees as his natural function, quite literally a capitalist tool. A well-paid tool, but a tool nonetheless. Perhaps Chigurh understands, like Mose the Magic Clock-keeper in Hudsucker, that capitalism is the thing that keeps this old Earth a-turnin’, and by keeping the money for himself he would be upsetting the gears of that unstoppable machine. Chigurh is not swayed by the promise of the suitcase full of money — he “knows his place” and, ultimately, is a “good boy” who restores economic equilibrium to his world.
Chigurh, in the movie, is a man (a deeply insane man, but still a man) who embodies a more savage and cutthroat image of capitalism. The Man Who Hires Wells refers to him as a “loose cannon,” that character most reviled by The System, the lowly tool who Goes Into Business For Himself. In the movie he has what we screenwriters call a Bright Idea: he’s going to kill everybody and run off with the money. He’s a “maverick,” he’s going to rip everybody off and live happily ever after, chuckling to himself about how much smarter he is than everyone.
But, as Mamet would put it, There Was One Thing He Forgot. Chigurh does his Two-Face Routine with the attendant and with Carla Jean, Moss’s wife, emphasizing the effect of chance on the lives of innocents. The attendant, one of the working stiff sheep that wander through Coen movies without a clue, obeys Chigurh’s commands, but Carla Jean calls him on his bullshit. Chigurh says the coin, chance, will decide his victims’ fate, but Carla Jean recognizes that even the decision to leave someone’s life up to the toss of a coin is still a decision — in a heartbreaking act of bravery, she refuses to play his game — and it is a game. Chigurh likes to think of himself as a god, but he’s something sadder and more pathetic — he’s a man who likes to go around pretending he’s a god. So Carla Jean refuses to play his game and Chigurh kills her anyway, and then goes outside and gets creamed by a station-wagon in a totally random accident. The man who teases others with his pretensions to chance gets laid low by the genuine article. Of course, he walks away from his random accident (his money buys the silence of the boys who see him) but that’s another story. As far as the movie is concerned, Chigurh may have beaten The System, but the Universe has other ideas.
(This all plays out slightly differently in the novel. Carla Jean protests his Two-Face Routine, but ultimately calls the coin-toss — and loses. Chigurh is then hit not by an anonymous station-wagon but a carload of drug-addled teenagers. The book seems to want to say that Chigurh is hit by the ultimate product of his trade [drug-addled teenagers], but the movie turns the accident into a Message From God. Both work on different levels, and the movie does an excellent job of taking the plot-points of the novel and, through canny compression and subtle changes, turning those plot-points into the soul of the book, the spirit between the lines, and is reason enough to call No Country one of the great adaptations of all time.)
NEXT, I will gas about generally cool stuff in the movie
Coen Bros: No Country For Old Men part 2
I repeat: this movie is quite excellent and I strongly recommend it. What’s more, I strongly recommend you see it before reading the rest of this entry, where much will be spoiled. Besides which you probably won’t be able know what I’m talking about for the most part.
WHERE’S THE MONEY, LLEWELYN? The Coens’ movies rarely have anything good to say about capitalism, but there is nothing in their oeuvre that is quite as scorched-earth in its criticism as No Country. And you could say “Well, it’s just a movie about a drug deal gone wrong, let’s not read too much into it” but Cormac McCarthy’s novel makes the criticism of capitalism explicit; Sheriff Bell describes the rising tide of drug-related violence as “a breakdown in mercantile ethics that leaves people settin around out in the desert dead in their vehicles.”
Let’s review the plot of No Country from the point of view of The Man Who Hires Wells. The Man Who Hires Wells (Stephen Root) is a Texas businessman involved in a dope deal with some Mexican drug suppliers. He sends some men down to the Rio Grande to give $2.4 million to the suppliers in exchange for a truckload of brown heroin. The deal goes bad and everyone winds up dead. The suppliers send some men to recover the heroin. Those men happen upon Moss as he’s trying to give one of their dying compadres some water. They try to kill him but fail and Moss gets away. The Man Who Hires Wells hires Chigurh to recover the money. Two of his associates take Chigurh down to the “colossal goatfuck in the desert” to show him around and give him a tracker to trace the location of the money, which has a transponder hidden in it. So far, so good.
Chigurh takes the tracker and kills the associates, then takes off after the money himself. This is what is called The Entrepreneurial Spirit; Chigurh is, seemingly, going into business for himself. This makes The Man Who Hires Wells very angry and he, um hires Wells, a bounty hunter, to find Chigurh and kill him, and also recover his $2.4 million.
Chigurh finds the money, but it turns out that there is a second team of people looking for it, Mexicans who are not as skilled as Chigurh but who are far more numerous. That is to say, The Man Who Hires Wells has also hired a small army of unskilled laborers to compete with his expensive specialist. No doubt, it is his hope that his cheap laborers will kill his expensive specialist and save him a healthy chunk of cash.
There is a scene later on where Bell’s deputy says that the dead men in the Regal Motel “were Mexicans” and Bell asks if there is some question as to when they stopped being Mexicans. At first I thought this was some kind of morbid joke on the part of Bell, but when you look at it from the point of view of The Man Who Hires Wells, there is a political aspect to his decision to hire cheap laborers to compete with his cold-blooded assassin. Did The Man Who Hires Wells promise citizenship to his army of Mexicans, or were they already Americans? When did they “stop being Mexicans?” Or were they Mexicans up until the end of their lives, merely an example of management trying to replace American workers with cheap foreign labor?
In any case, Chigurh has to kill the Mexicans in order to eliminate his competition. (In the book, there are a whole lot more Mexicans that complicate the plot — they show up at the Eagle Hotel, tap Carla Jean’s phone line and show up at the Desert Sands Motel to kill Moss.)
Chigurh finds Moss, who, it turns out, is unwilling to part with the money. In addition, it turns out that, to Chigurh’s surprise, Moss is a pretty skilled laborer himself, trained by his country to kill (in the book we learn that Moss was a sniper in Special Forces in Vietnam). Moss wounds Chigurh and Chigurh, after healing up, kills Carson Wells as well. Then he travels to the city where The Man Who Hires Wells works, goes to his office and shoots him in the face.
(In the book, as the man lies dying on the floor of his office, Chigurh explains that he used birdshot to shoot him in the face because he was concerned about breaking the window behind him. How appropriate that our own Vice President, Dick “Chigurh” Cheney also used birdshot to shoot a man in the face, even though the man hadn’t double-crossed him in a drug deal.)
Why does Chigurh kill The Man Who Hires Wells? Because he disapproves of his hiring cheap foreign labor to compete with skilled experts for domestic jobs. “You pick the one right tool” is the way he puts it to The Man Who Hires Wells’s Accountant.
(When Chigurh has Carson Wells in his sights, Wells says “You don’t have to do this — I’m just a day trader,” an attempt to place himself in a different job category from Chigurh, a distinction Chigurh sees as irrelevant.)
After killing The Man Who Hires Wells, Chigurh travels to El Paso to get what he now considers his money. More Mexicans (subordinate to someone named “Acosta” in the screenplay, a name not found in the book) have already killed Moss, but they have failed to recover the money, leaving Chigurh to waltz into the Desert Aire Motel and fetch the money where Moss has hidden it.
After getting his money, and after an appreciable interval of time, Chigurh travels to Odessa to kill Moss’s wife Carla Jean. Why? He has his money, she has done nothing to him. He does it out principle — he had promised Moss that he would kill Carla Jean and feels honor-bound to follow through. Money is money, and that’s all nice and all, but to Chigurh there are things beyond money. There is his craft, and his word, which no amount of money can satisfy. In this way, Chigurh finally escapes the snare of capitalism and regains his honor. For his reward, he is creamed by a station-wagon in a freak accident.
(It is worth noting that, in the book, the car that hits Chigurh is being driven by a bunch of intoxicated Mexican teenagers — that is, Chigurh, a high-level drug dealer’s goon, is laid low by the ultimate product of his business — a carload of inebriated teenagers, and foreigners to boot. This was, apparently, a level of irony too leaden for the Coens to include.)
Here’s a question: why did The Man Who Hires Wells put a transponder in the money? The thing that comes to my mind is that The Man Who Hires Wells intended, from the very beginning, to get the heroin, hand over the money, then send people to go get the money back. In fact, it would not surprise me to learn (the book does not make it clear) that Chigurh, from the very beginning, was hired to recover the money long before Moss ever stumbled across it. In fact, I would be willing to wager that that is why Chigurh is in the area when the drug deal goes down — he was, I’d guess, on his way to the job when he got pulled over by the deputy at the beginning of the movie. (In the book, Chigurh deliberately gets himself arrested just to see if he can extricate himself by an act of will.) If that’s the case, it explains why Chigurh kills the managerial types — he disapproves of their immoral business code, the “breakdown of mercantile ethics that leaves people settin around in the desert dead in their vehicles.” In his own demented way, Chigurh is a moralist, an strict enforcer of sound business practices. You don’t build a business by ripping off your suppliers — that’s just wrong.
NOW THEN: Chigurh’s ultimate destiny, economically speaking, is quite different in the book. Yes he kills all those people to get to the money, yes he kills his immediate superiors, yes he kills The Man Who Hires Wells. But in the book, once all those people are dead and the money is in his possession, Chigurh takes considerable pains to locate The Man Who Hires Wells’s boss, a mysterious businessman who put up the $2.4 million for the heroin deal in the first place. Chigurh doesn’t kill this man — rather, he returns the money to him and they discuss forming a partnership. Chigurh in the book ultimately does not mind being an employee, but he can’t stand all these middlemen who gum up the works and screw up the job through their greed and double-dealing. Apparently to Chigurh,the smart businessman doesn’t just pick the one right tool, he picks the one right tool and then throws out all his other tools.
In other Coen news
If you are fan of analysis of The Big Lebowski (if you are reading this I assume you are) I advise you to get thee hence to The Big Lebowski, a new volume in the authoritative BFI Film Classics line, by J.M. Tyree and Ben Walters.
In addition to a comprehensive overview of Lebowski‘s place in the noir tradition, the essay by Tyree and Walters does an excellent job of rooting out and exposing some of the more baffling layers of meaning in the movie and includes thoughtful, revealing passages on the sexual politics of the Coens’ movies (where men are always trying to “act like men,” and failing, as women succeed by acting like women), Walter’s fetish for strict adherence to rules (his military life gave him meaning, meaning he hasn’t found since), the familial aspects of the Dude/Walter/Donny team, and the significance of Jesus’s relationship to Walter (Jesus representing Christ, Walter representing the Pharisees, men who observe the trappings of Judaism while caring nothing about it), and much much more.
Coen Bros: No Country For Old Men part 1
HOW’S THE MOVIE? Let me say right up front, No Country For Old Men is, by a wide margin, the Coen Bros’ best movie so far. How good is it? This is how good it is: every movie they’ve done up until now, including startling masterworks like Fargo, The Big Lebowski and O Brother Where Art Thou, feel like student films in comparison. No Country For Old Men brings a brand new level of seriousness, a far subtler touch, an unexpected depth and a broad, expansive sense of humanity to the Coen universe. In adapting Cormac McCarthy’s novel, they scaled their visual vocabulary way back to match his bare-bones prose. No Country has little of the visual kinetics of movies like Raising Arizona or The Hudsucker Proxy. It tells its dramatic, extraordinary story mostly in simple, uninflected shots and has sequences of a suffocating level of suspense that Hitchcock himself could not have executed better. It has more respect and compassion for its characters than any other Coen movie and successfully brings an eerie, weary vision of human frailty to the screen.
So, yeah, if you haven’t seen it, I strongly suggest you go and see it. If you have seen it, feel free to peruse the following. I warn you: many key plot points, revelations and reversals are revealed within.
WHAT DOES THE PROTAGONIST WANT? Many people are confused by the structure of No Country For Old Men. They expect the narrative to culminate in some kind of three-way showdown between the characters of Moss (the guy who finds themoney), Chigurh (the guy who’s looking for the money) and Bell (the sheriff). When that showdown does not happen, and the movie goes on for another half-hour, they get upset and feel cheated — as though the Coens have, out of sheer perversity, deprived them of their action-movie money shot, the release they require after 90 minutes of constantly-ratcheting suspense.
These people feel this way, I think, for two reasons:
1. They believe that Moss is the protagonist of the movie and therefore deserves more narrative consideration. But No Country, like Blood Simple and Fargo before it, has no protagonist — only characters we like and characters we don’t.
2. They are used to movies with three acts, and No Country has four.
The Coens knew that by revealing, 90 minutes into their 2-hour movie, that Moss is not a protagonist would be a major stumbling block for an audience, and they also knew that a movie with four acts is a riskier commercial prospect than one with three, and writers as skilled as the Coens could have easily tailored their adaptation to address these problems. The result would have been 100% more commercially successful, and cinema would have been given a cracking-good diversion instead of a sad, harrowing masterpiece.
(As it is, things turned out okay after all. No Country, with its budget of $25 million, is turning out to be the Coens’ biggest grosser so far, and that’s not counting international box office, where it should do quite well, considering the fact that it has probably less dialog than any Coen movie so far.)
STRUCTURE: The four acts of No Country go like this:
Act I: 0:00 to 29:00 — Introduction of Chigurh, Moss finds the money, goes back to the scene of the crime to give a dying man some water, gets caught by some people who have come to get their heroin, is chased into the Rio Grande. Chigurh is hired to retrieve the money, and promptly kills his superiors.
Act II: 29:00 to 1:09:00 — Introduction of Bell. Bell investigates the “colossal goatfuck” in the desert. Chigurh pursues the money. Moss packs his wife Carla Jean off to Odessa to stay with her mother while he deals with whoever is coming for their money. Three-way showdown in the Regal Motel between Chigurh, Moss and some Mexicans hired, unbeknownst to Chigurh, to also recover the money. Carson Wells, a bounty hunter, is hired by the Man Who Hires Wells (that’s his character’s name) to kill Chigurh and recover the money. Moss retrieves the money and proceeds to the Eagle Hotel, where he has a second showdown with Chigurh, in which both men are wounded. Moss, in bad shape, repairs to a hospital in Mexico.
Act III: 1:09:00 to 1:35:00 — Moss and Chigurh repair their wounds and prepare for another round. Wells tries to get Moss to listen to reason. Moss hangs tough at first but then realizes he needs all the help he can get, and calls Wells — too late, as he has just been killed by Chigurh for interfering with his plans. Moss gets out of the hospital, recovers the money again and makes plans to meet his wife and mother-in-law in El Paso. Chigurh figures out Moss’s plan and proceeds to El Paso on his own, but not before stopping off to murder the Man Who Hires Wells. Bell meets with Moss’s wife Carla Jean and tries to enlist her help in saving Moss. Moss arrives at the Del Rio Motel in El Paso and flirts with a woman at poolside.
This is No Country‘s most daring move — the Coens put a fade-out in the middle of a non-resolving scene, deliberately frustrating audience expectations of the big shoot-out and, unannounced, completely change the focus of their narrative with 27 minutes left to go in their movie.
Act IV: 1:35:00 to 2:02:00 — Bell arrives at the Del Rio Motel seconds too late to save Moss, who is gunned down by some Mexicans looking for the money. Carla Jean arrives at the motel just in time for Bell to tell her her husband is dead. Bell and a colleague commiserate about the state of things these days. Bell goes back to the motel to have a showdown with Chigurh, but does not, for reasons discussed below. Later, Bell visits his wheelchair-bound uncle, who reminds him that the violence that Bell has been cowed by is not new, it is endemic to the American experience and especially West Texas. Meanwhile, Chigurh goes to visit Carla Jean in Odessa, despite the fact that he has recovered the money and Carla Jean has done nothing to him. He kills her and feels pretty good about himself, but is then hit by a car in a totally random event. Still later, Bell retires, unable to face the escalating violence in the society he thought he loved. He relates two dreams to his wife.
THAT ONE SCENE: Many people are confused by a crucial scene in Act IV. Bell goes back to the Del Rio Motel to have a showdown with Chigurh. He goes to the door of Moss’s room and sees that the lock has been punched out by Chigurh’s cattlegun — so he knows that Chigurh has been there. He studies the empty lock cylinder and sees movement within the room, so he knows that Chigurh is inside the room. And indeed, we see Chigurh is inside the room, with his shotgun, pressed against the wall, studying that same empty lock cylinder, where he sees movement from outside. So he knows Bell is outside and about to come in. So Bell knows that Chigurh is inside the room and Chigurh knows that Bell is outside the room.
Bell comes into the room and looks around. No sign of Chigurh, who could be hiding behind the door, but Bell does not look there. Instead he goes into the bathroom, where he notes that the window is closed and locked. So Chigurh must still be in the room, hiding behind the door. Bell sits down on the bed and sighs and sees that the air-conditioning duct cover has been removed and there are tracks in the dust within. This tells him, and us, that Chigurh has been here and found the money.
I believe that Chigurh is, at that point, still in the room with Bell, hiding, even now, behind the door. Why does he not come out and kill Bell? My wife had the answer for that — Bell has not seen Chigurh, who only kills people who have seen him (for what it’s worth, Chigurh’s phobia of being seen is not so pronounced in the book — it is largely an invention of the movie). What’s more, I think that Bell knows that Chigurh is in the room with him, and chooses not to face him, something hinted at from the very beginning of the movie, where Bell’s main preoccupation is whether or not he’s willing to put his life on the line to face “something I don’t understand” — meaning, Chigurh’s irrational, brutal psychopathology. Either that, or Bell cases the room, finds that Chigurh is not there, and breathes a sigh of relief that he’s gone and that means maybe he doesn’t have to face him.
There is another possibility, one which touches on yet another Coen mainstay, magic. In the scene where Bell commiserates with his sheriff pal, he mentions that he thinks Chigurh is a ghost, that he possesses some kind of supernatural powers. And in fact, in a sixth viewing, I noticed that Chigurh is not visible in the motel room, up against the wall, when Bell comes in, where we saw him just a few seconds earlier. It’s possible that Chigurh is hiding elsewhere in the room at that moment, but perhaps the Coens are suggesting that, under certain circumstances, Chigurh is able to summon the supernatural powers he pretends to have in other circumstances.
The book, for what it’s worth, makes it clear. Chigurh goes to the motel, finds the money, and goes out to his truck. As he’s getting ready to leave, Bell pulls up in his cruiser and checks out the room as Chigurh sits in his truck and thinks about whether or not to kill Bell, and finally decides not to. The Coens, in compressing the physical proximity of the characters, create a much more suspenseful scene (something they do repeatedly in this masterful adaptation) and add a layer of beguiling mystery.
Next, I will discuss the economic politics of No Country and gush over its many triumphs.
Bentfootes at Lincoln Center: photographic proof!
A vast audience is held in rapt silence as the creators of The Bentfootes expound upon the mysteries of the creative process. Photos courtesy of
.
A splendid time was had by all at the final screening of The Bentfootes Sunday evening. After the show, your humble correspondent retired to the welcoming environs of P.J. Clarkes with his co-director Kriota Willberg, cartoonist
, frequent What Does the Protagonist Want commenter The Editor, frequent
consort The Primatologist, a Friend of
whose name I beg him to supply if he reads this, and Venture Bros creator
. We all got mildly drunk and talked about mostly movies and cartooning. At the close of the evening Mr. Publick presented me with an ultra-cool new VB shirt/jacket/wetsuit/thing that will look stunning on me as I unzip it to reveal my white dinner jacket and bowtie underneath.