Before I start I feel there are some issues I have with the artistry of No Country for Old Men that I find necessary to address before delving into the substance of this review. These are issues which are less about a single movie and more about the purpose of cinema in general. While adaptations of literature are always going to be both controversial and rampant throughout the mainstream, the reasoning behind the adapting often proves itself elusive. When Robert Altman made The Long Goodbye he wasn't concerned with capturing the essence of the novel, but rather transforming its story into a more contemporary and identifiable narrative which utilized the strengths of the cinema to their full potential. On the other side of the spectrum, we have Joel and Ethan Coen who are content (as is their right) to simply adapt a great work of literature, to see its characters made real by the dimensions of film. These can be treacherous waters to navigate, especially when the directors hold the source material in such regard that they blind themselves to the differences between mediums.
And this is where I believe the Coens failed in adapting No Country for Old Men. Literature as an art is a much more functional medium for the illustration of abstract concepts, symbolism and exposition. Small portions of sentences can pass by unnoticed by the majority of its readership, only to have those same portions become of greater importance later in the narrative. The reason for this technique's effectiveness lies in the readers ability to reread passages over and over and over in order to discern their importance. However, film is a much more literal artform and relies on the usage of physical objects, characters and actions to represent these abstract concepts. As dialogue is the only way of conveying the subtle nuances of a character's interior motivations and characterization, exposition can encroach upon didacticism if not used with great care and economy. What No Country for Old Men does well it does by sparing us the usual obvious exposition out of respect for the audience's intelligence; what it does not do well involves the absence of narrative conclusion in the hopes that this will equate with artistry. Sadly, it does not.
Watching No Country for Old Men again reminded me of just what got under my skin the first time around, namely, the sudden disrespect for the audience's time and emotional investment. I may recognize the importance of Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) as the core of the thematic material, this significance is not mirrored by the appropriate screentime. Instead, the Coens place Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) and Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) at the forefront. These two characters are inseparable from the onset of the film's central drama, yet the Coens feel it necessary to echo the source material's dismissal of a conclusion for Llewelyn's conflict. While this presumably works in the novel, it's delivery in the film is an awkward and retroactively reductive affair. What the mainstream press steadfastly believes is a skewing of convention in favor of narrative demands is, in actuality, the misplaced conclusion to the emotional arc of the protagonist. This does not give the film added depth, but instead reveals its shallow nature.
Article comments