Excellent op-ed piece by philosophy prof Tom Dodd Todd May in the New York Times ("Happy Ending") about the ending of "No Country For Old Men":
The harm of death goes to the heart of who we are as human beings. We are, in essence, forward-looking creatures. We create our lives prospectively. We build relationships, careers, and projects that are not solely of the moment but that have a future in our vision of them. One of the reasons Eastern philosophies have developed techniques to train us to be in the moment is that that is not our natural state. We are pulled toward the future, and see the meaning of what we do now in its light.
Death extinguishes that light. And because we know that we will die, and yet we don't know when, the darkness that is ultimately ahead of each of us is with us at every moment. There is, we might say, a tunnel at the end of this light. And since we are creatures of the future, the darkness of death offends us in our very being. We may come to terms with it when we grow old, but unless our lives have become a burden to us coming to terms is the best we can hope for.
OK, it's not explicitly about "NCFOM," but it is quite clearly about what "NCFOM" is about: living life with a vision of the past and a "pre-visioning" of "what's coming," the only certainty being the knowledge of certain death. Where or when or how, we don't know. Just that it's out there, where the old-timers have gone before us, in all that cold and all that dark.
Retired sherrif Ed Tom Bell, sitting with his wife one morning in his pretty kitchen, surrounded by acres of hard country and facing the prospect of the day ahead, recounts two dreams from the night before. The only other sound is the ticking of a clock:
Both had my father. It's peculiar. I'm older now'n he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense he's the younger man. Anyway, first one I don't remember so well but it was about money and I think I lost it.
The second one, it was like we was both back in older times and I was on horseback goin through the mountains of a night, goin through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and snowin, hard ridin. Hard country. He rode past me and kept on goin. Never said nothin goin by. He just rode on past and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down, and when he rode past I seen he was carryin fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. About the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin on ahead and that he was fixin to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. Out there up ahead.
And then I woke up.
Dodd writes:
I prefer to think that the paradox of death is the source not of despair but instead of the limited hope that is allotted to us as human beings. We cannot live forever, to be sure, but neither would we want to. We ought not to mind the fact that we will die, although we really would rather that it not be today. Probably not tomorrow either. But it is precisely because we cannot control when we will die, and know only that we will, that we can look upon our lives with the seriousness they merit. Death takes away from us no more than it has conferred: lives whose significance lies in the fact they are not always with us.
Our happiness lies in being able to inhabit that fact.
18 Comments
Man, when you read that article it really is hard not to think No Country. It truly speaks to the some of the more metaphysical themes at the heart of the movie.
"But it is precisely because we cannot control when we will die, and know only that we will, that we can look upon our lives with the seriousness they merit." I think the illusion of control is an idea that NCFOM obviously explores. Anton offers (some) of his victims the chance to call a coin toss that will determine their fate. What is he really giving these people though? Ultimately it comes down to the same forces of randomness and chance that dictate to all of us whether we live or die. The chances of any of us dying on a given day are roughly 50-50. Either we will or we won't. The illusion of control is seductive. No doubt anyone who played Anton's coin game and lived to tell about it, may have felt that they escaped death. But have they? Of course, they haven't. Tomorrow comes with the same potental for ending in death.
There are those, like Carla Jean, who recognize this fact. Calling head or tails is a useless and futile gesture. Anton's coin toss ritual is nothing more than a game that follows the golden rule of casino gambling: in the long run, the house always wins.
The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death – however mutable man may be able to make them – our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.
Whoops, hit submit before I added quotes and an attribution to Kubrick. Oh well, probably a lot of people would've recognized it anyway.
Remember what Bell says at the beginning of the movie: "It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He'd have to say, "O.K., I'll be part of this world."
Jim, have you seen or written about A Serious Man yet? I can't recall or find anything mentioning it here. As someone who is cool on No Country, cool on everything BUT the ending actually, and pretty much the Coen Brothers entire ouvre (save Lebowski), I was astonished by how moved I was by their latest picture. I'm genuienly in love with it, something I can't say of anything else they've done. It's one of the two or three best films I've seen this year, and talk about an ending there.
50-50? Man, math is hard.
The universality of experience in the key to this story.
"What you've got ain't nothing new," is the key line of the movie, I feel, and speaks to the film remarkable success in addressing the cultural climate into which it was released.
Set in 1980, Sheriff Bell feels the country's getting worse, & is unrecognizable to him. His friend reminds him that older men have often felt this way, as much of the audience in 2007 likely felt. But this is nothing new. It's only human to feel there is darkness at the end of this road. But older men (you know, the wiser ones, long gone, from a better time) have walked this road successfully and are waiting for us. This is comforting.
Paul Tillich has some interesting things to say about this. I think he kind of brought Einstein over the religious side somewhat. So I guess I'm saying religion would be the way to go--regarding the final statement of the entry.
When I read something like this (and by the way, I find Dodd's passing off his pathetic philosophy for a general truth, using 'we' to express sentiments that are very much his own, very annoying), I think of Epictetus, who wisely said, "If you want to kill yourself, kill yourself; but if you stay, stop whining."
Life and death are not problems to be solved. And the universe is not indifferent to us, it's a little beyond interest and indifference, thankyouverymuch. The mistake is in conceiving of yourself as separate from it.
While I recognize and appreciate the themes under question, I'm afraid I have to disagree with some of Dodd's core assertions. Finiteness does not confer meaning, nor does infiniteness. If life lacks intrinsic meaning, then the quantity of life does not change that fact. I believe that Dodd could benefit from a re-examination of Sartre. One should not try to speak of values before their etiology is understood.
That being said, No Country for Old Men was a terrific film for addressing such issues. Anton Chigurh is the personification of death, and the way he is used makes NCFOM a relative of such pictures as The Seventh Seal. I find this sort of character very interesting. They are consistent to the point of opacity and therefore it isn't really possible to speak of their motivations. In a way, such a character has to be left undeveloped in order to function effectively. They are a phenomenon, a tribulation to be dealt with by the other characters and therefore more of a tool for showing us the emotional intricacies of these other characters than a character in their own right.
Just as an issue of narrative structure, it strikes me as odd. It seems to conflict with the normal rules of character development. Of course, we've also seen this type of character put to a very peculiar use recently. Inglourious Basterds had him working for the allies as Lt. Aldo Raine. The more I think about, the more peculiar it seems to be that such a character could be used in such a role.
No I think the universe is pretty much indifferent. It didn't seem to mind the first 13 billion years or however long it's been since it began that we weren't here.
I don't think that he would ever have let her live even if she won the coin toss. The moment her husband refused to give himself up, she forfeited her life. Yes, Anton was offering her the coin toss, but I think he would have killed her anyway. Unfair? Absolutely. But that's the essence of death; it's inevitable and not always fair. At the store, with the shopkeeper, I think it was purely about chance, but that was because he was not obligated to kill the shopkeeper. He had to kill Carla Jean; his code of ethics wouldn't have allowed him not to.
The blogger's name is not Tom Dodd, its Todd May. I think that a little funny too, because Todd means death in German, and Mr. Emerson was avoiding Todd by renaming it/him.
JE: Ach, mein kopf ist tot!
@H Yes, I realize considering the chances of anything to be 50-50 because either they will happen or they won't is employing a bit of flawed logic. I just think that Anton's coin toss is meant to represent the uncertainty of life or death on the most micro of scales. It's also meant to represent reality of powerlessness we have over our fates. We can call heads or tails and think we're exerting control but ultimately it's the cosmic randomness of the universe that determines the final outcome.
It's Professor Todd May, not Tom Dodd.
JE: Fixed! Thanks. I always get you two confused.
"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent ..." - from one of your reader comments.
If there is anything that was a fact and was terrifying there would be at least one piece of evidence suggesting that the universe was in fact not indifferent.
On another note, I am thankful for the inevitability of death. The prospect of one day ceasing to exist is our only refuge from our doubts and torments. Though it appears that the irony lies in as to what is 'refuge' when that time comes.
Jim,
The article actually reminded me of the last moments of the Sopranos. The final scene represented the most visceral, emotionally engaging, and downright horrifying death scene in cinema history. The sad thing is, most people don't know it, which is probably a failure on the part of David Chase. The POV sequence is pure Kubrick, which the author of the below piece goes into in the last part.
Those astonishing final 10 seconds of silent black screen represent the POV of a dead man. His life suddenly interrupted by death. It's unfair, and always soon than we expect. "It's all a big nothing" as Tony often says, and Chase believed that too. It's a nihilistic sensibility that's right in line with NCFOM. That film is mentioned somewhere in the 400 comments posted on the site. "You can't stop what's coming" sounds a lot like "You never hear it when it happens."
I think it's time David Chase got some credit. Read this amazing analyis. Part II is particularly rewarding for the die hard fans.
http://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-sopranos-definitive-explanation-of-the-end/
JE: I need to write about the ending of "The Sopranos." The understated Christmas-tableau ending of the penultimate half-season is also one of the great moments in TV/movies (and is echoed in the third-season finale of "Mad Men"). But I feel strongly that the MOST important thing about the ending of "The Sopranos" is that it is not explicitly resolved for you. You can read it several ways, and you can choose one or the other, but (like the ending of "A Simple Man," too) the essence of it is that you must hold several alternatives in your head at the same time -- and the filmmakers are not going to insist on making a decision for you. You're left with what's there.
Jim,
I did share your opinion on the end, but after reading that piece I can't come to any other conclusion other than Tony's death. Just read it when you get a chance (it's very long). Part II in particular is a moving elegy to David Chase's masterpiece.
All though the film is about a series of killings, it somehow does not take the extinction of life as lightly as many others.The ghastliness of the act of killing comes through sharply. Why is murder so foul? Life, so laboriously nursed and nurtured with pain and sacrifice, is a journey, an unwritten odyssey, a bundle of infinite possibility. To tear off the pages of the book of life mid way is a sad deed indeed.
Leave a comment