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.
No Country For Old Men contest!

If you have seen No Country For Old Men, you know that it contains a virtual compendium of Coen moments — it’s practically a Coen’s Greatest Hits album, quoting at least once from every one of their previous movies. For instance:
*Raising Arizona: the examination of trailer-park life, as well as the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse, here resurrected as the dead-serious Anton Chigurh. (In Raising, the Lone Biker shoots at a lizard on a rock as he drives past, in No Country Chigurh shoots at a bird on a bridge as he drives past — and misses. The scene is straight from the book.) Also, the scene where the fugitive has a strange conversation with a gas-station attendant.
(There is another, funnier reference to Raising — in No Country, Sheriff Bell squats down to examine the dent in the wall made by Chigurh shooting out the lock — in Raising, the Lone Biker squats in the exact same attitude to examine the word “FART” scrawled on the wall.)
*Miller’s Crossing: the hotel ambush, characters leaping out the window to turn the tables on their pursuers, killers shooting through walls to nail would-be attackers. (The Coens altered and re-arranged the action of the ambush at the Eagle Hotel, which is significantly more complicated and less suspenseful in the book.)
*Barton Fink: The long hotel corridor, the lone tenant in the hotel listening for the thing that may be coming to kill him, calling downstairs for help that will not arrive.
*Hudsucker Proxy: this is harder to place, although I notice that the Coens saw fit to have a wise black man give advice to Moss as he hitch-hikes — another scene not in the book. Also there is, I think, a link between the designs of the Hudsucker boardroom and the strangely-designed office of The Man Who Hires Wells.
*Fargo: the simple, moral sheriff with the keen, intuitive detective skills, paired with a deputy whose skills aren’t quite as well-honed as his boss’s, and the final showdown between the sheriff and the psychopathic killer (which, in No Country almost takes place but then, crucially, does not). Also, the document case full of money — magically, the million dollars that fits into the case in Fargo has grown into over $2 million in No Country, but still fits in the same case. In No Country, Bell goes to a motel to corner a fugitive and checks to see if he’s climbed out the bathroom window, perhaps because that’s where the fugitive in Fargo, Jerry Lundergaard, was caught — the scene is not in the book.
*The Big Lebowski: characters whose life experience is filtered solely through their experiences in Vietnam (which is in the book).
*O Brother Where Art Thou: shooting animals and then commenting on it, another strange conversation between a fugitive and a store clerk. (Too bad Anton Chigurh doesn’t use pomade to style his hair.)
*The Man Who Wasn’t There: executions, specifically by electric chair (in the book, prisoners are executed in the gas chamber). And the main characters reluctance to speak very often.
*Intolerable Cruelty: the over-zealous, unstoppable attack dog (which does not exist in the book).
*The Ladykillers: dropping things off a bridge, Stephen Root as the man with the money, an orange cat as a harbinger of death. (And, the bird Chigurh shoots at on the bridge is a raven — as though the Coens are trying to kill their own poorly-received movie. In the book it’s a hawk.)
As a special bonus, there is a reference to The Shining (which, like No Country, is set in 1980), when Moss calls Carla Jean to tell her he’s coming to get her and make her safe. The shot is lifted directly from the scene where Scatman Crothers calls his snowmobile-renting pal from the airport in Denver. The pay-phone is the same model as the one used in The Shining, Moss is placed in the same place in the frame, and, well, the rescue operation turns out about as well for Moss as it did for Scatman.
I invite my readers to contribute their own observances here.
Bentfootes update
The first screening of The Bentfootes here in NYC was a howling success — there was a great turnout and the movie got huge laughs. Mr. James
‘s performance managed to get a response big enough to drown out some of the dialog.
There is one more screening tonight at 8:30 and if you happen to be in NYC, the Walter Reade Theater in Lincoln Center will be the place to be.
Regular blogging, including a massive, multi-part analysis of No Country For Old Men, will resume soon. I thank you for your patience.
Coen Bros: The Ladykillers

THE LITTLE MAN: Goldthwait Higginson Dorr is what you’d call a “character.” He dresses a century out of fashion, wears Colonel Sanders (or Robert Altman?) facial hair, has crooked fake teeth and a weird, perverse giggle. He’s a self-described “criminal mastermind” (although we hear nothing of his past escapades) and his goal in The Ladykillers is to steal a bunch of money from a riverboat casino.
The crew hired to back up this bizarre, only-in-the-movies protagonist had better be similarly detailed and idiosyncratic. Who do we have? We have Garth Pancake, an aging hippie explosives expert with a hidden capitalist streak, who seems interesting enough at first. We have The General, an ex-Vietcong tunneling expert who doesn’t say much but can keep a lit cigarette in his mouth for indefinite periods of time.
Then we have Lump, who’s a big dumb guy. How will the Coens, those most original, interesting writers, make Lump fresh and new? Well, they decide to make him bigger and dumber than humanly possible, a wheezing mouth-breather incapable of forming a sentence. Which isn’t very interesting, but at least it’s a solid choice.
(The Coens perhaps sensed that they had dropped the ball with Gawain — he’s the only character who gets a flashback sequence, a move which, I think, is meant to give him three dimensions, but succeeds only in giving him two, because his flashback scene is actually just another cliche.)
(I know that Gawain’s lack ofinteresting characteristics is not the fault of Marlon Wayans, because Wayans can be a wonderful actor — his performance in Requiem For a Dream is revelatory.)
Facing this motley crew is antagonist Marva Munson, who, although a stock character her own self, is brought to vivid life by Irma P. Hall, who is smashing in the role and the number 1 reason for watching it. Reviewers for some reason never mention Hall, who gives, I think, one of the handful of great Coen performances. I think because she so perfectly embodies the part people consider her some kind of a found object, but for my money Irma Hall in The Ladykillers is as good a match between actor and role as Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski and Tommy Lee Jones in No Country For Old Men.
MUSIC: The Ladykillers is, in some ways, almost a sequel to O Brother Where Art Thou. You can hear the pitch meeting, where the Coens tell the Disney executives “This movie will do for gospel music what O Brother did for folk! And that movie didn’t even have a plot!” It’s set in the same state, sixty or so years later, and in many ways it’s as though the Coens said “Let’s check in with that location of O Brother and see how those folks turned out, after the flood and the modernization and whatnot.” Or, rather, as some here have pointed out, maybe the Coens, looking at O Brother, realized that they left out a huge chunk of story in their portrait of the Deep South (namely, black people) and decided to set forth to correct that imbalance.
Gospel music is almost a second antagonist in The Ladykillers — it is music we associate with Marva, but also music we associate with the garbage heap in the middle of the Mississippi river, where most of the movie’s main characters end up. The garbage heap represents Death (the Coens underline the symbolism by having not just a raven on the bridge, and not just a gargoyle in the form of a reaper, but a raven perched on a reaper — as though they thought, for the sake of a studio picture, they had to triple-underline their symbols).
And yet the river below the bridge does not seem to lead to hell, exactly. The garbage island in the river glows with divine light in the title sequence, and all the bridge sequences are scored with the most lovely, powerful gospel music. The garbage island is, I’d say, something else — divine retribution. The God of The Ladykillers, in spite of being Baptist, is a very Old Testament kind of God, a God of vengeance and righteous anger. This God does not forgive, he attacks (he “smotes,” in the words of the Baptist minister, an authoritative, electrifying performance by George Anthony Bell). It’s not just Marva who’s against Goldthwait, it’s God. And his music.
The antithesis to the gospel music in The Ladykillers is what Marva calls “hippety-hop,” music seen by Marva to be profane, soul-degrading music. I think this is why Gawain is given so much emphasis in the movie — “his” music is the antithesis to Marva’s music, and thus they are natural enemies. And yet Gawain is not the protagonist, Goldthwait is — and he listens to Renaissance music (although he doesn’t really — he just spouts a bunch of long-winded gibberish about it and sounds authoritative — more on which later).
The idea of pitting Gospel against “hippety-hop” is a good one, in fact I’d say it’s the strongest one in the movie. But then why not make Gawain the protagonist (and interesting)? This is one of a number of places The Ladykillers presents a good idea and then fails to develop it, a relative anomaly in the Coen world.
(It occurs to me that perhaps Gawain was, at one point, the protagonist of the movie, an idea far stronger than having Goldthwait be the protagonist. I wonder if that was their original concept, and then the studio people told them they could get Tom Hanks to play “the Alec Guiness part,” and also get themselves a budget of $70 million?)
Sociological,economic, racial and educational disparity among the characters gives the weight to all the conflicts in The Ladykillers, and the movie seems to be saying that, no matter who you are, no matter where you’re from or what your politics are, no matter what is the color of your skin or your level of intellect, everyone ends up on the same garbage island.
But wait, that’s not quite it either — it is only the heathen criminals who end up on the garbage island — specifically because they would, literally, rather die than attend a church service. This seems to support the idea of a New Testament God with a strict fundamentalist attitude — you must be a “good Christian” to avoid the garbage heap (The General, the movie explicitly states, is a Buddhist — so he must die). I find this facile, moralistic aspect of The Ladykillers interesting but unconvincing — like a lot of the movie, it doesn’t feel like it’s been thought all the way through.
(It is a sign of how fallen our world is that the garbage barges that service the island seem to run non-stop on a 24-hour basis, transporting corrupt souls to the afterworld.)
RACE: The racism of Mississippi that O Brother glided over is examined more closely in The Ladykillers, to intriguing but ultimately confusing ends. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s hangs over the movie like a ghost — Pancake lords it over Gawain because he fought Bull Connor and says that Gawain has a duty to improve himself since white liberals like Pancake fought so hard for his freedoms. The General comes from another area of the 60s, of course, Vietnam, and Lump is too stupid to stand for much of anything. Perhaps it’s symbolic that Goldthwait dresses like a plantation owner and quotes Edgar Allan Poe — Poe was the son of a slave-trader and, during his stint as a soldier, manned Fort Moultrie in South Carolina — the way-station for all incoming slave ships.
Does Goldthwait, with his weird clothes, backward ways and romantic manner of speech, represent some sort of ghost of the antebellum south? If so, why does he treat Marva with such respect and kindness? (It is not his idea to kill her in Act III, it’s The General’s — and Goldthwait never comes anywhere near to killing her himself.) Midway through Act III, he tries to corrupt Marva, talk her into taking a portion of the stolen money and donating it to charity — is that his function in the story? His he an antebellum ghost-devil sent to tempt Marva into a life of crime?
EDUCATION: Goldthwait puts Gawain in his place by saying he has a Ph.D. Gawain responds by saying he has a G.E.D. Education, who has it, who lacks it, and who has done what with it is a vital concern to The Ladykillers. Marva is, herself, uneducated, but she believes strongly in education, so much so that she donates money to Bob Jones university.
Now then: what is Bob Jones University? Funny you should ask. The movie never talks about it, but Bob Jones University was founded by, yes, Bob Jones, a fundamentalist Christian evangelist — and a straight-up racist, who helped put Ku Klux Klan members in high political offices and campaigned for segregation until the day he died.
Why does Marva support Bob Jones University? Because it’s a Christian evangelist school. She has no sense of history, she has only a pie-in-the-sky vision of divinity. The ugly little joke at the center of The Ladykillers seems to be that nice, sweet, saintly Marva Munson is, at the end of the day, just another ignorant southern black woman, too stupid to know what’s best for her. A fortune in stolen money lands in her lap, and she goes and turns it over to a racist institution. I have no idea what to make of this plot point, but it leaves a bitter, non-Coenesque aftertaste that I dislike.
(Is Goldthwait’s function, in fact, to manipulate events so that Marva ends up supporting a racist institution? Is that why he appears as an antebellum ghost?)
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: Law-enforcement personnel in The Ladykillers are lazy, cheerful and unhelpful. The fact that the sheriff is black and played by an actor named George Wallace has got to be some kind of cosmic joke.
I HAVE A QUESTION: It’s unclear when The Ladykillers takes place. There’s no overwhelming reason it can’t be taking place in 2004, except that the movie begins with Marva complaining to the sheriff about a neighbor who’s bought himself a “blaster,” that is, one of these. It’s not impossible, but it seems highly unlikely to me that any self-respecting young man would be listening to hip-hop or any other music on a ghetto-blaster in 2004. Especially when the song he plays over and over is “I Left My Wallet in El Segundo” a 1990 song by A Tribe Called Quest. It makes perfect sense that a young man would purchase a ghetto blaster to listen to A Tribe Called Quest on in 1990, the year hip-hop exploded, but then, midway through the movie Gawain makes a pointed reference to Lorena Bobbitt, who cut off her husband’s penis in 1993.
If, then, The Ladykillers takes place in 1993 or 1994, Bob Jones University would still be prohibiting interracial dating on their campus, a practice they continued until 2000. It is possible that, if the movie is set in 2004, that Marva has been won over by the new dawn of racial tolerance at Bob Jones University — but I doubt it. Partly because it is a rarity for a Coen movie to take place in the present day, and partly because no one has any cell phones.
(Marva also refers to the current day as “The Age of Montel” — Montel Williams‘s career was just breaking in 1991.)
THE MELTING POT: Goldthwait is a white southerner, Pancake is a white northerner. The General is, as mentioned, Vietnamese (who has no love for black people), Lump is white but very, very stupid, and Gawain is an uneducated, working-class black man. The sheriff’s department has two employees, one black and one white, both of whom seem nice enough. Marva is, of course, black, and so are all her friends.
Where are the Jews? Only one is mentioned by ethnicity — the “Jew with a guitar” who sang at Marva’s church during the 1960s (another reference to fellow Minnesotan Bob Dylan?). But of course another Jew exerts his influence over The Ladykillers — Jesus, whom Marva loves dearly, but whose teachings are given a definite Old Testament sting (the Baptist minister goes out of his way to discuss the Israelites and God “smoting” them).
HOW’S THE MOVIE? Despite its flaws, I find much intriguing and worthwhile in The Ladykillers. In some ways I find it to be a more successful movie than Intolerable Cruelty, or at least a more “Coenesque” movie. There are a lot of interesting ideas that are evoked and examined. The trouble is, they aren’t developed in satisfying ways and they are saddled with some physical comedy I find quite lame in both concept and execution. I have little patience for Pancake’s Irritable Bowel Syndrome, the dead-husband’s-changing portrait is way too cute, and The General’s cigarette-hiding trick grows old fast.
Finally, I’ve got to say, I find the architecture of Act III of The Ladykillers woefully uninspired. Just as the movie is supposed to be charging toward a satisfying climax, it backs off and presents a bunch of lame, repetitive set pieces. It’s like the Coens set up a perfectly workable situation, then got to the end of Act II and ran out of steam.
JOEL: So they decide to kill the lady. And then what happens?
ETHAN: And then, I don’t know, I guess they all kill each other.
JOEL: How?
ETHAN: They, they, I don’t know man, they kill each other. We’ll think of something. We’re the Coen Brothers, man, we’re the greatest screenwriters working.
Movie Night With Urbaniak: Army of Shadows
I’m in the middle of writing a script, so my movie-renting rate has plummeted in the past few months. Several times I’ve thought about canceling my membership at Cinefile and the other day I walked into the store intending to do so (after returning my copy of Heaven’s Gate, which I’d had for a month). But they had a copy of Jean-Pierre Melville’s 1969 French Resistance thriller Army of Shadows available, so I thought “Well, let’s hold off on canceling the membership for the moment.”
(What you have to understand about Cinefile is that, as the only decent video store on the west side, all the good stuff is always out. Their copy of Vanishing Point was checked out last Easter and has never returned.)
I’ve seen a couple of Melville’s movies before, Bob le Flambeur and Le Cercle Rouge, both of which I watched in my research on heist movies. There is something of Melville in Tarantino I find, with his emphasis on emotional intensity and subverting genre expectations, and his de-emphasis on plot mechanics. Although Melville’s characters don’t sit around yakking about pop-culture phenomena of the 70s.
Which is entirely apt. We’ve got a bunch of guys in a situation. The director just drops us right in, tells us nothing about what’s going on, tells us nothing about who is who, where they are going, what are the stakes, who’s against who, just drops us into the situation and lets the emotional stakes of the scene carry the drama. And the American screenwriter in the audience is racking his brain trying to figure out who is who and where are they going and who is trying to kill who and who can the protagonist trust, and it takes him a little while before he figures out that he’s working against the intent of the filmmaker. The whole point of Army of Shadows is, it turns out, putting the viewer into the same situation as the protagonist (who is a high-level Resistance member). The protagonist doesn’t know who he can trust, so neither does the viewer. The protagonist doesn’t know what’s going to be waiting for him in the next room and neither does the viewer. The protagonist doesn’t know if he can trust the guy sitting next to him, the barber shaving his neck, the man driving the car, and neither does the viewer. The result is electrifying cinema, a movie that dares you to breathe as its characters move through a shadowy twilit world of betrayals and heroism, toward an ill-defined goal and with no reward in sight.
So it turns out, not only do you not have to know much about the French Resistance to watch Army of Shadows, it’s actually a benefit. The movie has very little plot, it’s more of a series of long set pieces describing a chain of physical experiences. This is what it’s like to make friends in a concentration camp, this is what it’s like to have to kill an informer for the first time, this is what it’s like to escape from a Gestapo interrogation, this is what it’s like to bust a guy out of prison, this is what it’s like to be shoved out of a British airplane, with no preparation, in the middle of the night, over what landscape who knows. Every scene, every gesture, every noise on the soundtrack is filled with possibilities. Is there going to be a bomb in this box, or just a shirt? Is the antique dealer going to turn out to be a spy? Is it enough to get through the Gestapo at the train station, or will there be Vichy gendarmes at the Metro station as well?
Melville creates and sustains an absurd level of suspense and intrigue for a movie lasting over 2 hours, which is astonishing when you consider that the movie has very little plot and absolutely no overselling. The shooting style is as declarative and understated as possible; as Urbaniak kept noting, it’s just: “This is what it was like.” The movie doesn’t grab you by the lapels, it doesn’t show off its brilliant technique, it doesn’t dazzle you with clever writing or breathtaking visuals — it doesn’t need to. The situations are so intensely dramatic all by themselves, any more emphasis would be gilding the lily.
Another sterling transfer of a wonderful new print by the ever-reliable folks at Criterion. And for a wonderful essay on the history and background of the movie, look no further.