Spurple Films

The Ending- No Country for Old Men

And then I woke up...

There has been a whole lot said about the ending to No Country for Old Men. More of less, there are two views on it. It is either a weak ending, they don't tie anything up, there are loose strings left all over the place, it basically cheats the audience out of a complete. Or, the ending is perfect. And not just like "Aw man, I love Die Hard. That movie is perfect," kind of perfect. I mean perfect perfect. The kind of perfect that, when you use a word like perfect, you feel you are short changing the whole thing.

I am here to convince that this ending is in fact perfect.

Now of course, you need to see the movie first. You need to have see, and you need to have thought about this film for a good long time before reading this.

Now the best way I can think to deal with this issue is to address some of the major problems people have with the ending, and show how stupid those problems are. Everyone, of course, gets the movie. Everyone. The people who hated the ending and thought it was pure shit, they get it. "No, trust me, I understood the whole thing, it was just bad." That shit pisses me off. Mainly, because I know for a fact you didn't get it. If you did, you would not have the kind of problems you have with the movie. If you got it, you would not be saying stupid questions like...

"They should have showed Moss getting killed. He was the main character, and they just abandon him like he was nothing."

For starters, I really don't think Moss was the main character. I don't think anyone in this film was the main character, but if someone had to be chosen, I'd have to say it was Anton Chigurh. Simply because nearly all the discussion on this film centers around him.

But that's irrelevant. If you really think they needed to show Moss getting killed, than the best thing I can say about you is that you are very, very immature. Why would you need to see this guy getting killed? How is you seeing him get shot as he enters his hotel room, and you knowing he is shot as he enters his hotel room going to change anything. There has already been plenty of violence and plenty of killings, why would you need to see something so trivial? Would you watching him open the door, then getting shot in the chest really change the movie that much for you?

That's why I can say, for a fact, that you didn't get the movie. If something like seeing Moss getting killed is going to change the quality of the film, then you had no clue what you were watching. You thought you were watching another, mindless, entertaining thriller, and that's not what No Country for Old Men is. There is some great thriller stuff going on, but it is much, much more than that. Filming his death the way they did should have sent off a lot of warning bells. It should have told you that, clearly, Moss really wasn't as important to the story and the theme as you thought. And if you are asking these kind of questions, than those warning bells clearly didn't go off for you, and you clearly didn't get the movie.

"What happens to the money?"

I know who has the money, and I'm not going to say. Why? Because it isn't important. Just like with Moss, asking something like that proves you did not understand the movie.

The money was a McGuffin. It meant nothing. If you truly understood the themes of this film, or even have a tiny grasp on a couple of them, whoever had the money in the end should make no difference. Literally, no difference. Picture it with Anton. Picture it with the Mexicans. Picture it with Carla Jean of Ed Tom Bell, it really shouldn't change a damn thing. This movie was not about the money. On the very surface it might seem like it is, since you got one character running with it, another character running after it, and another character running after the guy running after it, but the money really is irrelevant. Saying you didn't like the ending because you never found out who got the money is like saying you don't like Pulp Fiction because you don't know what's in the briefcase.

"Anton getting hit by the car was way too random."

More of less, you are exactly right. Now this is totally up for interpretation, but here's how I took it.

One of the reoccurring themes in this movie was about chance and or fate. Anton flipping the coin, whether you got heads or tails, in his mind, seemed to be about fate. You were either destined to live, or destined to die. Other people, most likely the Gas Station Clerk and Carla Jean, thought that getting the coin toss right was totally about chance. It had nothing to do with whether or not they deserve to live or die. It was just a stupid thing for Anton to do before killing an innocent person.

Now you can go back and forth on whether or not it is fate or chance, and the car crash is one of the best ways to show it. All throughout the movie, if anyone was in charge, it was Anton Chigurh. He seemed to be in complete, or at least in most, control. But then, at the end, he gets hit by another car.

Maybe it was chance. Showing that even someone as powerful and seemingly unstoppable as Anton Chigurh is just as susceptible to chance as the rest of us.

Or maybe it was fate. Right before the crash he has a meeting with Carla Jean, and she is technically the first person to beat him. She might have been killed, but she refused to call it, refused to play by his rules, and for the first time in the film he is truly beaten. No matter what he does, and he knows it, she wins. And immediately after this defeat, he is hit by a car. Perhaps it is fate, that his winning streak, his ability to always come out on top, has finally come to an end.

The car crash random? Most definitely. Pointless? Not in the slightest bit.

"There were too many loose ends."

I really want to discuss this one, but I have no fucking clue what people are talking about when they say this. They never really explain what they mean, and if they ever do they say stupid fucking things that are easily answered (like the two things I've talked about above.) The fates of all the characters seemed pretty clearly drawn out to me. The biggest "loose end" you could argue about is what happens to Chigurh after the car crash, but again, why does it matter? Does him getting caught by the cops, or him getting away with it, really change anything?

In case you are pondering that question, No, it does not.

And finally, the last scene, monologue, and fade to black.

This gets the biggest moans and groans of everything about the film. I've seen the movie twice in theaters, and both times I heard people complaining, and both times I wanted to punch them in the face.

I really don't know what I can say about this, other than there is not a single better way for this movie to have ended. The scene between Ed Tom Bell and Uncle Ellis may sum up the whole point of the movie better, but this is definitely the best conclusion you can get.

Honestly, I have written so much about this film already, but I just don't know what can be said about the ending. It fits perfectly. Bell tells about a dream he had, where he and his father are riding horseback through hard weather. His father is carrying fire, and goes up ahead, so far ahead that Bell can no longer see him. He doesn't know where he is, but knows that he is waiting for him. That, if he just keeps on riding, he will reach his father and the fire. That, even though he has admitted defeat by retiring, that he has said the world has become too much for him, to evil to handle, he knows that if he just sticks it out, he will eventually reach the fire, or the good in life.

Or, if you want to be pessimistic about the whole thing, you can look at the very last line. "And then I woke up." Maybe that's Bell realizing that his whole dream, vision about his father and the fire camping out up ahead, was just a dream. That there is no good to life, and the best thing you can do is just ride through it.

Either way, that ending is anything but weak. It is deeper and better than most other endings, and I give endless thanks to the Coen's for having the balls to end the movie exactly as it needed to be ended.

If you liked the movie and the ending, well now that is purely opinion. But to say it was a bad film, or a poorly made ending, well that is just fucking wrong.

2008-01-12 19:46:16 GMT

Comments (1 total)

Author:Anonymous

I interpreted it as knowing his father was waiting for him in the afterlife, and he'll have to one day wonder if he did his job well enough to impress his father. That's why it's not a country for old men, because an older man has to constantly wonder if he did everything he was able to do.

2008-08-11 20:50:22 GMT

Site Home


		All the shit I've ever wanted to say about movies...

		The Ending- No Country for Old Men And then I woke up... There has been a whole lot said about the ending to No Country for Old Men. More of less, there are two views on it. It is either a weak ending, they don't tie anything up, there are loose strings left all over the place, it basically cheats the audience out of a complete. Or, the ending is perfect. And not just like "Aw man, I love Die Hard. That movie is perfect," kind of perfect. I mean perfect perfect. The kind of perfect that, when you use a word like perfect, you feel you are short changing the whole thing. I am here to convince that this ending is in fact perfect. Now of course, you need to see the movie first. You need to have see, and you need to have thought about this film for a good long time before reading this. Now the best way I can think to deal with this issue is to address some of the major problems people have with the ending, and show how stupid those problems are. Everyone, of course, gets the movie. Everyone. The people who hated the ending and thought it was pure shit, they get it. "No, trust me, I understood the whole thing, it was just bad." That shit pisses me off. Mainly, because I know for a fact you didn't get it. If you did, you would not have the kind of problems you have with the movie. If you got it, you would not be saying stupid questions like... "They should have showed Moss getting killed. He was the main character, and they just abandon him like he was nothing." For starters, I really don't think Moss was the main character. I don't think anyone in this film was the main character, but if someone had to be chosen, I'd have to say it was Anton Chigurh. Simply because nearly all the discussion on this film centers around him. But that's irrelevant. If you really think they needed to show Moss getting killed, than the best thing I can say about you is that you are very, very immature. Why would you need to see this guy getting killed? How is you seeing him get shot as he enters his hotel room, and you knowing he is shot as he enters his hotel room going to change anything. There has already been plenty of violence and plenty of killings, why would you need to see something so trivial? Would you watching him open the door, then getting shot in the chest really change the movie that much for you? That's why I can say, for a fact, that you didn't get the movie. If something like seeing Moss getting killed is going to change the quality of the film, then you had no clue what you were watching. You thought you were watching another, mindless, entertaining thriller, and that's not what No Country for Old Men is. There is some great thriller stuff going on, but it is much, much more than that. Filming his death the way they did should have sent off a lot of warning bells. It should have told you that, clearly, Moss really wasn't as important to the story and the theme as you thought. And if you are asking these kind of questions, than those warning bells clearly didn't go off for you, and you clearly didn't get the movie. "What happens to the money?" I know who has the money, and I'm not going to say. Why? Because it isn't important. Just like with Moss, asking something like that proves you did not understand the movie. The money was a McGuffin. It meant nothing. If you truly understood the themes of this film, or even have a tiny grasp on a couple of them, whoever had the money in the end should make no difference. Literally, no difference. Picture it with Anton. Picture it with the Mexicans. Picture it with Carla Jean of Ed Tom Bell, it really shouldn't change a damn thing. This movie was not about the money. On the very surface it might seem like it is, since you got one character running with it, another character running after it, and another character running after the guy running after it, but the money really is irrelevant. Saying you didn't like the ending because you never found out who got the money is like saying you don't like Pulp Fiction because you don't know what's in the briefcase. "Anton getting hit by the car was way too random." More of less, you are exactly right. Now this is totally up for interpretation, but here's how I took it. One of the reoccurring themes in this movie was about chance and or fate. Anton flipping the coin, whether you got heads or tails, in his mind, seemed to be about fate. You were either destined to live, or destined to die. Other people, most likely the Gas Station Clerk and Carla Jean, thought that getting the coin toss right was totally about chance. It had nothing to do with whether or not they deserve to live or die. It was just a stupid thing for Anton to do before killing an innocent person. Now you can go back and forth on whether or not it is fate or chance, and the car crash is one of the best ways to show it. All throughout the movie, if anyone was in charge, it was Anton Chigurh. He seemed to be in complete, or at least in most, control. But then, at the end, he gets hit by another car. Maybe it was chance. Showing that even someone as powerful and seemingly unstoppable as Anton Chigurh is just as susceptible to chance as the rest of us. Or maybe it was fate. Right before the crash he has a meeting with Carla Jean, and she is technically the first person to beat him. She might have been killed, but she refused to call it, refused to play by his rules, and for the first time in the film he is truly beaten. No matter what he does, and he knows it, she wins. And immediately after this defeat, he is hit by a car. Perhaps it is fate, that his winning streak, his ability to always come out on top, has finally come to an end. The car crash random? Most definitely. Pointless? Not in the slightest bit. "There were too many loose ends." I really want to discuss this one, but I have no fucking clue what people are talking about when they say this. They never really explain what they mean, and if they ever do they say stupid fucking things that are easily answered (like the two things I've talked about above.) The fates of all the characters seemed pretty clearly drawn out to me. The biggest "loose end" you could argue about is what happens to Chigurh after the car crash, but again, why does it matter? Does him getting caught by the cops, or him getting away with it, really change anything? In case you are pondering that question, No, it does not. And finally, the last scene, monologue, and fade to black. This gets the biggest moans and groans of everything about the film. I've seen the movie twice in theaters, and both times I heard people complaining, and both times I wanted to punch them in the face. I really don't know what I can say about this, other than there is not a single better way for this movie to have ended. The scene between Ed Tom Bell and Uncle Ellis may sum up the whole point of the movie better, but this is definitely the best conclusion you can get. Honestly, I have written so much about this film already, but I just don't know what can be said about the ending. It fits perfectly. Bell tells about a dream he had, where he and his father are riding horseback through hard weather. His father is carrying fire, and goes up ahead, so far ahead that Bell can no longer see him. He doesn't know where he is, but knows that he is waiting for him. That, if he just keeps on riding, he will reach his father and the fire. That, even though he has admitted defeat by retiring, that he has said the world has become too much for him, to evil to handle, he knows that if he just sticks it out, he will eventually reach the fire, or the good in life. Or, if you want to be pessimistic about the whole thing, you can look at the very last line. "And then I woke up." Maybe that's Bell realizing that his whole dream, vision about his father and the fire camping out up ahead, was just a dream. That there is no good to life, and the best thing you can do is just ride through it. Either way, that ending is anything but weak. It is deeper and better than most other endings, and I give endless thanks to the Coen's for having the balls to end the movie exactly as it needed to be ended. If you liked the movie and the ending, well now that is purely opinion. But to say it was a bad film, or a poorly made ending, well that is just fucking wrong. 2008-01-12 19:46:16 GMT Comments (1 total) Author:Anonymous I interpreted it as knowing his father was waiting for him in the afterlife, and he'll have to one day wonder if he did his job well enough to impress his father. That's why it's not a country for old men, because an older man has to constantly wonder if he did everything he was able to do. 2008-08-11 20:50:22 GMT Site Home