No Country for Old Men, or Ecclesiastes in West Texas

Cormac McCarthy fascinates me. But it's a dread fascination. No living writer is as relentlessly despairing, and no living writer whom I've read is as capable of following in the grotesque footsteps of Flannery O'Connor. O'Connor used the grotesque to illustrate our inability to redeem ourselves, but at the end of her novels and stories, even The Violent Bear it Away, there is a sense where redemption is possible. Not so with McCarthy. Where O'Connor was hopelessly ensconced within a Catholic framework that attempts to make an inscrutable God good, McCarthy mixes pagan mythology with the God of the Bible to make God absent, when He's not just plain evil. In his Border Trilogy, McCarthy mixed epic and tragic heroes, the stories of Joseph and Job, and the mythic tales and ethos of the old and middle American West. I was watching No Country for Old Men last night with that as my backdrop.

As soon as the movie was over, the hot Crown-loving hairdresser wife, who was admittedly not operating at full faculty, said, "I have no idea what that was about." She went to bed, and I sat there for another hour thinking about what I'd just seen. It's unusual to see a Coen Brothers movie with no humor, but one can hardly blame them for failing to find humor in McCarthy's bleak landscapes and hopeless characters. One theme runs through all of McCarthy's books: no good deed goes unpunished. While the movie is, on the surface, a meditation on escalating violence in the cross-border drug trade in the 1980's and the growing awareness of old school sherriffs that they will be unable to compete with the relentless and heartless violence spawned by the drug trade, Javier Bardem's character seems to give away something else in his encounter with Woody Harrelson. **Spoiler alert** Just before he kills Harrelson, Bardem asks: "If you follow a rule and the rule has brought you to this point, what good is the rule?" I don't know if that's a line from the novel; I assume it is. If it is, McCarthy seems to be echoing the vanity of vanities from Ecclesiastes.

Bardem is the one character in the movie who manages to accept what comes. Injury? Patch it up, move on. Job? Do it with detached cruelty. Challenge? Find a creative way to destroy the problem. Betrayal? Vengeance, and move on. Loose ends? Tie 'em up. He is singular in his ability to deal with life because he has reached a level of acceptance with whatever comes. Tommy Lee Jones seems to recognize this when he tells the older sherriff that Chiguhr (Bardem's character) is not a lunatic. There is nothing insane about what Chiguhr does, although twice he's told he's crazy. Chiguhr seems to realize that there is nothing to answer for, no purpose in living other than to destroy, and no motivation other than what can be found within, and if that motivation is to live at the expense of others, so be it. In the final encounter with Brolin's wife, she tells him, "You don't have to do this." He smiles and tells her everyone always says that. He is more aware than his victims that he doesn't have to do anything. He does what he wants. Yes, he has a code, but it is a cipher, as is the code McCarthy's God seems to function under. This code is the rule Chiguhr lectured Harrelson about. Evaluate the rule, in the old sense of a way of ordering life, and see where it is taking you. For Harrelson, his rule brought him to a violent, bloody end. Only Chiguhr walks away clean in this movie, and it's because he follows his rule. It's difficult to say Tommy Lee Jones survives, although he does. His utter failure to confront the escalating violence is another form of vanity, as pointed out by his father, and it leaves him looking old, confused, and weak in retirement.

Chiguhr has conquered life, just as surely as he has conquered his enemies. People of faith will insist that there is a reckoning in another life, but that other life has seldom factored into McCarthy's novels. Redemption in another life can't match the suffering that McCarthy finds in this one: that point is painfully clear in The Crossing and The Road (Job and Revelation, if you will). A God who can't deliver his people from suffering in this life, who can't help us overcome Chiguhr, is hardly one worth betting the farm on. A brilliant film, beautifully shot, well-acted, great pacing, and overwhelmingly bleak. But as Ecclesiastes points out, except for that unfortunate emendation at the very end, even goodness is vanity.

Comments

[Dallas Tim]

Greg, your ability to dissect and then discuss is rather amazing. You sound like a sage. It's 2am (don't ask!) but that was still a mesmorizing few paragraphs. Every artist can only hope to have people like you watch/read/hear their work. Have you ever thought about teaching film appreciation?

Anyway, I would say that Paul's comment that "we are more than overcomers..." and that death has lost it's "sting" would be my response to McCarthy's bleakness. I know it sounds like the ultimate cop-out, but what we have to look forward to is undescribably better than even the joy we experience here.

Could you please also do a similar critique for the movie "Airplane." I want my wife to read it and understand how deep and important a piece of art it truly is.

... and stop calling me Shirley.

[greg]

Tim,

I seriously thought about doing one like this based on Superbad.

[dr dobson]

DT--

While you did admit that your statement in quoting Paul was the "ultimate cop-out", you seem to miss Greg's point about that very issue--what is it worth to dream about God's paradise (whatever thay may be) if the same God who made this life is so oppressive (or at least perceived to be)?

Further, I disagree with your inference that Paul intended that statement to refer to the afterlife or that "overcoming" relates to what happens to the "insiders" when they die.

Could it be that Paul was referring to the establishment of the Kingdom of God here and now (for Paul's time, as well)? That such Kingdom of God would "overcome" the legalization of "right living" according to the old rule? Moreover, according to Paul, such Kingdom doesn't happen in a vacuum--it must be meted out by us.

Fire insurance theology never worked for me and I submit that it doesn't for anybody if they're truly honest with themselves and the text. Greg's last line "even goodness is vanity" is perfect--what good is "goodness" and that which you argue it leads to in the afterlife if you allow the world to crumble around you? What kind of God is that? Kick-Your-Ass-Godhulk is what that is and last time I thought about it, I saw a monster.

[Dallas Tim]

Dob,

I said "SOUNDS like the ultimate cop-out."

Is God oppressive? The issue here is not so much that we don't KNOW the answer, but that we don't LIKE it (and that's a fair distinction). Take Job - he seemed to be an upstanding guy, yet all hell broke loose in his life - all with God's permission. What? How could God do that? Job's friends, wife and even Job himself seemed to be a little curious at just exactly how that could have happened. What was God's response? "I made stars, what gives you the right to question what I allow/disallow?" So now we conclude that God must be cold and heartless.

You have two options 1) You don't like/accept that God and so you reject that version - or... 2)You realize that if it all made sense to you, then you'd be as smart as God and you know that ain't correct so you just accept Him and trust Him with the parts the don't make sense to you.

Our lives are to be "Overcoming" on Earth, I agree, but we're also, on more than one occasion and by more than one author, promised eternity with God after death. The Christian life should be the most joyous of all. We should be happier than the rest and if we're not it's not because God's not doing His part, it's more likely that we're not making right choices.

I know that someone will say that that's nice for me, but what about the genocide or tsunamis? Why won't God stop those? Well, how far would you like Him to go? Honestly - should he eliminate our need to eat so we won't be hungry? Does our facial hair quit growing so we don't have to shave. The idea of problems/difficulties/etc.. are different with different people. Do we eliminate death but not suffering? What forms of suffering do we eliminate? Does God just make our hands numb so that we never risk getting burned by a hot stove? Where does it end? We don't even know what we're really asking for do we? We just list one or two "biggies" without thinking that if God said "Ok - tell me how you want it" we'd be so unable to agree or choose that we'd end up killing each other just to get our way (much like we do already). When we really work out what we claim we'd prefer we find out that we really don't even know.

God on the other hand, has it all figured out and even though it doesn't always make sense to us - remmber - we're the ones who kill our own unborn children for convenience. God forbid we get to make the call regarding what's allowed or disallowed?

Hillary, Obama or McCain??? I'd rather have God take that 3am call than any of them.

[Dallas Tim]

Oh and one more thing

[Leighton]

And once again, Tim demonstrates that fundamentalists have a stunted capacity for human empathy. Whereas most people see natural disasters and think "How can I help?", only these kinds of Christians seem to decide that the proper response is to rail against the imagined petulance and immaturity of people who dare to think that maybe, just maybe, these things are bad and ought to be countered in whatever small ways we can.

Way to paint God as a sociopath, Tim. Or is that just projecting your attributes onto him?

[cheek]

G-d excusing massive suffering in the world he created by saying, "I made stars," is a lot like multi-national corporations telling the people in undeveloped nations that they have literally raped of autonomy and natural resources, "It's ok, we invented the Big Mac." There are many many more choices than the two you list.

[dr dobson]

DT--

Your points about the God of your examples are perfect . . . but only if you impose the Wizard of Oz or the Grand Chess Master upon such God, which I do not.

I don't believe that "all things happen for a reason" or that "God is in control of all things" or any other platitude assigned to describing such belief. I can easily see how we would love for that to be the case (if only to feel better about ourselves and our earnest decisions we make that we hope and pray are correct), thus we read those attributes into the text (don't go there, please) when they simply aren't there.

Greg

On a completely unrelated note, I'm curious to hear your take on the ethics debacle that has now become the (former) darling of not just the Democratic party but all of prosecutorial efforts in New York: Spitzer and his minions. My how the mighty can fall quicker than it took for the used condom to hit the floor . . .

[Dallas Tim]

Leighton,

Christians are arguably the most charitable group of people in the world. Many if not most of the major early US hospitals and charities were Christian in origin.

Christian organizations have gone to help with virtually ever major world disater (if they're permitted) in recent memory. They give and give in places and for causes that other haven't or simply won't. Don't equate a view of Scripture that admits our plans make less sense than God's even though we can't quite make sense of it all with a view that refuses to offer assistance in overwhelming fashion.

Christians are told it's not their's to say "Well they deserved it." We are told to have compassion and sacrifice for those who are suffering (for whatever reason) and we are actively doing that all over the world. You're typically more intelligent than to extrapolate with such reckless abandon.

I could make a list of Christian charities and groups world-wide that would dwarf any non-Christian list and I think you know that.

Cheek,

I referenced one example (Job). I could have also used Jonah where God told ask a whining Jonah "Don't you know how many children are in Nineveh, not to mention the animals who would die if I destroyed the city?" God seems, on one hand, ready to destroy people with little provocation and on the other hand appears hesitant to bring His wrath down on even animals. Does that makes perfect sense to me? Not really.

Dob,

All things happen because that's what God allows. If you choose a god who isn't powerful enough to stop them, then that's just as big a problem as, according to you, the god who is big enough, but doesn't care. What IS your view of God?

[greg]

Tim,

That means God "allows" child rape. Nice. You might want to rethink your options and your theology.

[Kristen]

Greg, you crazy bastard- I love hearing/reading your thoughts on books and film. As I have said before, I think you grasp things that most people (even the "professionals") miss. I still want to talk to you about 3:10 to Yuma over a beer. Probably the beer I will have to buy you after you watch Darjeeling.

[cheek]

Tim, I'm aware of the many examples you could have used, but they all seem to fall short of answering the gut test. You've chosen a paradigm in which you abandon that instinct for fairness as invalid because of ubiquitous corruption in our race. That's fine, but there is a word for a being who acts nice one minute and then smites you the next: capricious. Not a value I consider worthy of worship.

As for the your-g-d-isn't-all-powerful-therefore-not-worth-the-nickel-for-postage argument, you assume that power is a virtue. It most certainly is not. The most powerful people in the history of our race have typically morphed into monster's as their power grew. Goodness is the only virtue; power is merely a tool, amoral in its nature, that can be made good or evil in its use.

[greg]

cheek,

Love that.

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

Can your God prevent it?

Cheek,

It's not like we haven't already had this discussion before, right? Your definition of the word means you understand why one would do seemingly conflicting things, and therefore can call into question the motives and then criticize them. The problem with that is the fact that you have no clue about all of the things that are involved when God "makes a decision." You can't fault Him when you can only look on the finite level. Of course everyone's response will be that saying "God is above us" is the easy way out. That, on the other hand, does not eliminate the fact that this might be very well the case. The attitude that "If God doesn't make it all make sense to me then I'm going to reject it" does not in and of itself, make your rejection of Him valid. You are assuming that your assesment makes the most sense when in reality, you are going on limited information.

The God of the Bible doesn't aspire to power (like everyone else) He, according to Scripture, is the embodiement of power. In other words, it's not His choice, He just is. That means the idea of it being a "virtue" is beside the point. If God isn't really all-powerful, then He's not God
(at least the God of the Bible).

This all goes back to one's understanding of Scripture. We've, as I mentioned, been through this before and as far I've seen, no one's said anything new. I don't mind the discussion but I can sense Greg is already beginning to roll his eyes and I know Leighton is probably preparing another response full of words that are way above my vocabulary level.

I guess I shouldn't be complaining. I could be arguing with teenagers.

[Jared Rader]

I hate to sound like a naive dumbass, but I will anyways. This talk of God allowing/not allowing and whatnot reminds me of the theme in Bruce Almighty. After Bruce has single-handedly torn the city down after giving everyone what they wanted, and learns his lesson from it, Morgan Freeman-God tells him this: "If you really want to see a miracle, BE the miracle." Sounds cliche, I know, but I think there's wisdom to that statement. What use would free will be or life at all if there was no fight in it? If God did everything for us, it'd seem pretty pointless.

Also, the common thing I see among everyone's comments is that if God exists, then it is God allowing this all to happen. What about Satan? I know some of you don't believe in hell or the devil, but it's pretty clear evil exists. I don't think it's God so much allowing things to happen as it is there being two forces at work in our everyday lives. Good and evil. People sin and make bad decisions and it affects everyone, even those who live righteously. Within all the God talk, it seems you leave evil out, and focus on God being just the mean one who doesn't do anything about pain or suffering. Take from this what you will.

[Jared Rader]

And I forgot to say, great review of the film, Greg. I absolutely loved the movie, and it's one of my favorites.

[greg]

No, Tim, my god can't prevent it because I don't "have" a god. I simply observe what happens in the world and make assumptions based on that. For example: children are raped. If there is a God, he would prevent that, because I, being a supposedly less moral creature than the Judeo-Christian God, would not stand by while my daughter was raped because I have some plan I can't explain to her at that moment. It's monstrous to even posit such a god. If I believe in God at all, it's the god of the theists. He's apparently too busy to give a shit, or has left us to our own devices. You have to say God allows these things because you're trying to make the horrific things that happen in the world fit into a concept of God you've been taught to believe is true. It never seems to occur to theists that I don't need God to spare me the pain of shaving, but since he's seen fit to prevent me from flying, maybe he could make it physiologically impossible to rape as well. That wouldn't impinge on that delightful idol of the theists--human freedom--since I don't rail about not being able to fly being an intervention into my freewill, and it would prevent children from being raped.

[cheek]

We have talked about it before, and we've all said a lot of the same things we're saying now, but for the most part, I think we're all still trying to make sense of what everyone else is saying. If I'm right about that, then I'm not sure the merry-go-round is as completely futile as it is in places like politics where everyone has decided what to think beforehand and they're all just looking for the best media strategy to make their ideological opponents look bad. That said, I'm not sure what you're saying when you suggest a being without unlimited power would "be God." Do you mean only that that being would not match up to the formulation of g-d you take from the Hebrew scriptures, or that there is some inherent meaning in the word 'god' that implies omnipotence? (This is a serious question, not just a rhetorical tactic.)

Jared, the problem with saying, "It's not g-d, it's the devil," is that even if you do believe in personified evil, the Christian faith claims that evil is utterly subordinate to g-d. So even if it is the devil, g-d would still be allowing it to happen, and that, as Greg's example makes so strikingly clear, is morally reprehensible.

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

Take a deep breath...

As I mentioned, a god who's left us to our own devices is one option. Jesus seemed pretty convinced that wasn't the case and since His grave is empty, I think His version of things is worth checking into. He was willing to be killed and yet still pushed us towards a God who was interested in us and who was capable of working everything out despite our confusion. When someone else walks on water let me know, I'll might have to listen to them too.

Cheek,

My view is that God (in the Bible) claims to be all-powerful. No, he can't make a rock so big He can't lift it, but He created the sun and the rest of the Universe so there's no room for argument really. These are statements made by the very God who Jesus reaffirmed in the N.T. - Jesus could have been very clear by eliminating that version, but He only repeated it. Again, this all goes back to your view of Scripture, but if the God of the OT states that one of His attributes is such, then He's either lying or true. Yes you can say He never said it, but after hearing Jesus and the rest of His followers, I'm inclined to believe.

He's not God just because He's omnipotent, He's Omnipotent because He's God. That's the Bible's version and the one I (based on an enormous amount of credible evidence supporting the Bible and it's testimony, despite the misspellings and errant punctuation here and there) that I believe. It's ok that you may not agree. I'm simply responding with how I see it.

Thanks.

[greg]

Tim,

We're not talking about Jesus; we're talking about child rape. Introducing Jesus' sacrifice or walking on water into this conversation is a red herring. You can't justify everything with an appeal to an unrelated event. I'd appreciate if you would address our obvious "god-imposed" limitations in reference to the non-imposed limitations of child rape. Why not simply make us incapable of it? I'm afraid you still think I'm reacting to a Hebrew YHWH, so you're using a biblical defense to respond. Since I don't believe in the Bible's version of God, I'm asking you to respond using the reasoning "god gave you" to answer the question. Would you stand by and watch your children be raped and then tell them there is a plan and that you didn't want to interfere with the rapist's freedom to choose? If you admit that is a monstrous choice, you are sort of obligated to rethink god.

[Dallas Tim]

No one would stand-by. The Bible nowhere says "Sit back and watch evil happen." We can (and should) intervene if possible.

[cheek]

I'm not prepared to argue that your understanding of the Bible is wrong. An education in literary study has taught me that responses to literature are highly personal, and so long as people don't go out their way to subvert the text, most are legitimate to varying degrees. The reason I asked my question is that I wanted to make sure we're talking about the same things. I'm using the actual world in which we live and my own understanding to try to wrestle with this issue. The Bible gives a useful framework for discussing these and many other issues, but I don't see it as authoritative metaphysically the way you do. I would be interested to understand how you reconcile your own obligation to act in the instance Greg posed and g-d's lack of such an obligation. I realize you don't think we have all the necessary information, but do you at least admit there is an apparent contradiction?

[awall]

I saw No Country last night. I've got to disagree with Greg only on a small point in his movie review. It's not clear to me at all that "he does what he wants." I think he's portrayed as constrained beyond his will by these rules he sets for himself and from which he does not (cannot?) deviate.

I think so largely because of his encounter with Brolin's wife at the end, which was clear in its contrariness to his encounter with the gas-station owner. The old man asks why he should call it [heads or tails], and Chiguhr tells him that everything rides on it and finally forces the man to call. Brolin's wife, however, does not call and Chiguhr gets obstinate with her. He tells her "its the best I can do." As I see it, he attempts not to make a choice because he doesn't see it as his choice to make. She is a clear foil for his view of the world both because she forced him to choose and because she followed no vain rule throughout the movie. She was simply the victim of Chiguhr's principles (who then laid the blame on her husband.) We don't see how that confrontation ends, and I don't think the movie could have made sense out of it without turning her into some martyr. The audience only sees Chiguhr checking his boots; I'm assuming for blood. I think that in Chiguhr's encounter with the wife, he was forced to deviate, or improvise in the face of someone who wasn't cooperative with his rule of pursuing violence. Harrelson's character was cooperative and it killed him. Brolin's was cooperative and it killed him (again anticlimactically). Jones's character was cooperative until his retirement. But the wife never cooperated. Assuming she never did, I'm led to view Chiguhr's character as seeing her as the lunatic (contrasting everyone who referred to him as a lunatic). So, I think he probably killed her, and his character couldn't make sense of her because everyone else would have simply hoped for the best from the coin-toss. She forced him into an outstanding position and I think his obstinance reflected that position.

With everything else, I think I'm in agreement. For Llewelyn, we don't see his death, I think, because we weren't supposed to see his own special "project" of coming after Chiguhr as leading up to a meaningful action-packed climax. I thought that was a great part of the movie. After seeing There Will Be Blood twice I can see how No Country can win the Oscar. Although, my on proclivities leaned toward Anderson over the Coens.

[greg]

awall,

Good stuff. I think I saw the coin toss as a departure--Chiguhr not wanting to follow through with the rule because of some decision he'd made regarding these two. I like your take on the choice/violence ethos though. I tended to see Chiguhr through a Nietzchean lens (super man), and so it made sense to me that he could abandon his rule arbitrarily; after all, for the super man, all ethics are ad hoc and self-invented, so why not let the "innocent" bystander slide sometimes?

[Dallas Tim]

Cheek,

Absolutely. God even (it appears) knows that His actions often baffle us and that's why there are numerous passages in response to our lack of understanding.

I appreciate your honesty and willingness to hear me out without too much criticism. We may differ in opinion, but sometimes the ability to disagree (especially on something like religion) and still remian cordial is more encouraging than if we agreed.

The conflict of how I'm to react with the fact the God often doesn't is not an easy one to answer. The things with me is that there are things that I realize that I'm not going to understand. My approach is that I have to weigh the evidence for God, the testimony of Jesus and His followers and then decide if I can trust their words. I feel that I can and therefore realize that one of the "hard" things that I have to accept is that for some reason God (sometimes with an explanation, sometimes without) lets things happen that I wish/pray/beg that He would not. That answer won't suffice for many I know, but if I could explain God fully so that He made complete sense to everyone, then He wouldn't be that big a deal.

[Leighton]

That answer won't suffice for many

Painting you as a sociopath without a scrap of honesty or human empathy goes a little further than "not sufficing," Tim. I'm surprised you haven't realized that by now.

[Leighton]

Tim,

I apologize for my last comment. These discussions are bringing up memories of my behavior when I was a Christian, of which I'm deeply and profoundly ashamed; it's wrong to project that existential disgust at myself onto you.

[Dallas Tim]

Leighton,

All's well.

Enjoy the weekend...

[JonXlin]

I thought the movie was rife with dark humor. I couldn't stop laughing during the gas station scene. Maybe I didn't get it?

[greg]

Jon,

You're right. I did chuckle a little during the gas station scene. I think that was it though.

[Aaron]

Chigur leads his life according to fate, nothing else. As he tells that guy's wife at the end of the movie, "I got here just the same way the coin got here," and, "Flipping a coin is all I can do for you." The coin represents his inability to change, his faith in fate. Basically, in a way, it serves as his excuse to say, "If I'm going to be a ruthless heartless killer, than that's what I'm going to be." He does not recognize the choices that he has, instead he forges on, believing that he is who he is, because fate has dealt him this hand. This is why he shows no hesitation in his actions, or worries about where he goes. He is confident that fate will lead the way.

[Aaron]

I guess you could say that if McArthy is considered an existential nihilist, as in this link:

http://www.mrrena.com/misc/cormac.shtml

then Chigur could represent the reocurring "bad faith" or the belief that you have no control of your life in the world. One of existentialism's main tenants is that you ALWAYS have a choice. ALWAYS.

I'm going to have to agree with awall.