No Country for Old Men: Of Meanings Behind

The movie No Country for Old Men, directed by the Cohen brothers and filmed in 2007, is based on a novel written by Cormac McCarthy in 2005 (King, Wallach, and Welsh 86). For the most part, the movie portrays an art piece that is delivered as a form of social critique on the intricate methods of value systems in the troubling age of the modern world values of the United States in the 21st century. Aside from being a critique, No Country for Old Men is a portrayal of the social wrongs and maleficent development of the American ways that has led men astray in ethics, justice, and the very essence of American identity.

In essence, the film explores the cultural and moral conditions that have changed throughout the centuries, deeply embedded in the fabric of American identity in the 21st century. Issues confronting identity in 21st century America are the morphing of values, principles, and practices that deteriorates morality through globalized means of calculating life’s worth, yet dehumanizing fundamental ways in which the value of life is perceived. A new century brings forth newer and deeper issues with intricate complications of human life and crime, with ever-depreciating values of life, which drastically differs from those in the 20th century.

The historical backdrop of this movie is a time where alienation and phobias abound, including terrorism, Mexican border drug wars, illegal immigration, and a whole host of financial, social, and political predicaments in America (Cohen 2). The old West, as portrayed in most movies, has always been perceived as the source for delivering justice and bountiful victories for life. The gold rush and the great American symbols for liberty and life are essentially derived from these portrayals.

The storyline, on the other hand, takes place near the border of Texas that tales the lives of ever-expanding, dangerous marginal societies. The changes have occurred throughout the centuries which have turned the place from a previously peaceful environment into a land of hostilities, where “the state has become demonic, the source of [a] drug-related, gang-inspired,” and violence riddled gutter of a neighborhood (Cohen 2). Indeed, for all that has taken place in the 21st century along the border, and the alienation of undocumented residents, illegal immigrants, who have crossed the border, the United States has become a nation in arms for the defense of the homeland. It seems like everyone in the movie has been defending a sum of money that no one righteously owns, or earned, as it came from a line of misguided human weaknesses.

Yet, in the movie No Country for Old Men, the element of righteousness is mired in the fact that modern human issues, and the events that led up to these issues, can no longer be classified as simple determinations of what is wrong or right. Llewelyn, one of the central characters depicted in the movie, is symbolic of a bygone symbol. The protagonist is a retired welder, living on the brink of society – in a trailer home when he found much fortune as a result of a gang-related shootout that he did not participate in, but instead, had stumbled upon when out shooting. As a result, since it was primarily dirty money, his conscience could not settle down and led him to go back to the scene of the crime to give an injured man water; thus began his journey in a run for his life.

The original riches of the land have turned against its founders, and what was originally considered to be newfound riches now come from a filthy source of exchange, no longer innocent nor free of incrimination. Almost in a fateful twist, it compels the viewer to think that whatever comes in the way of this uneventful sum of money will take its toll on life. Money is no longer the means to an end but the end itself. Yet, the capitalistic approach towards the possession of such money, according to Joel and Ethan Coen, has its consequences. In particular, the greed, and a whole slew of human emotions that are drawn out of people in obtaining this money, is particularly telling of society’s opinion of dirty money, and what one stands to lose.

As the audience observes, the protagonist, Llewelyn, can be characterized as an average Texan, who has been struggling to make a living, much like the financial crises that have plagued America. As Caruthers noted, “Llewelyn was overconfident… a Vietnam veteran, and a modern day cowboy” in the great plains of Texas (n.p.). Therefore, when Llewelyn stumbled upon a bloodbath and found a deadly fortune, he did not consider that the money could lead him and his family into disarray. In taking the money, and the way that he had contemplated whether or not to take the money, is mostly dictated by his living conditions – his survival and livelihood as a welder could not sustain his life, and hence he was attracted by the great promise of the money.

Yet, by taking the money, he gets into trouble and ultimately dies, not only as a result of his greed but also as dictated by his inability to put aside his self-interest and think about his family. As Caruthers noted, Llewelyn “was greedy,” but also stubborn because he puts self-interest above everything else, even his wife. When Chigurh offered him a chance to spare the life of Llewelyn’s wife, should he give up the money, he rejected the opportunity (Caruthers, n.p.).

On the other hand, the audience sympathizes with Llewelyn as we understand his predicament, his financial troubles, and the way he is tempted by greed because he is living on the edge and wants a better future. Sometimes it even seems that it is unfortunate luck that gave him the opportunity to find the money, regardless of whether taking the money is ethical or not. If the audience questions the ethics and morality of taking money that does not belong to him, they would surely judge him to be unethical and immoral; yet we still side with him and hope, to some extent, that he will come out of the movie alive. This movie shows that as an audience, we are susceptible to the argument of human weakness, and understand the parameters of how it can change ethics and morality due to circumstances.

Human weaknesses, such as greed and a sense of entitlement, led Llewelyn to begin the run for his life. The movie is consistent in the way that each character is after money they have not inherited or earned and is willing to kill to get it. This twist in modern mentality, of protecting and defending a sum of money that they do not righteously own, creates a paradigm that twists human nature. Through these conflicts, the value of human life is constantly being diminished as the movie portrays the killing of one person after another, whether innocent or not; life becomes a senseless undertaking.

The movie then draws parallels with war, whether the Vietnam War, the war against terror in the 21st century, or the drug war, as it dehumanizes the value of life, and as such behaviors are associated with remorseless killings and justifications for such killings, acceptable in war. In a post 9/11 apocalyptic society, the United States in the 21st century has become a warring nation that declared war against countries and groups of people who dared challenge its worldwide superpower status. In the engagement of war, human life, value, and property are lost. Such is synonymous, also, with the war on drugs and the drug cartels that dominate the border between the United States and Mexico. The action in No Country for Old Men started with the drug war that created the shootout and led to more killings. It is said that the act of war, a free reign in killing innocent people, abortion, and state-sanctioned death penalties, further exacerbates this condition of devaluing human life, first in the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century. The archetype of a monster killer, such as Chigurh, is the tragic byproduct of a twisted society.

As Smith pointed out, the archetypal “harbinger of unchecked killings” antagonist, Chigurh, underlines the truth that “killing leads to more killing,” is the natural byproduct of a “culture of death” that is prominent in the United States during this time (Smith n.p.). Yet the sacrifices of war lead to more deaths and suffering, and further devaluation of human life, which cannot itself justify this new age, one that is unfit for the older generation. No Country for Old Men tries to draw on parallels which “the three central characters, Ed Tom Bell, Llewelyn Moss, and Anton Chigurh” represent, that of “remnants of the Old West,” caught up in the values of the modern world as observers and justice responders, victims of greed and the outlaw grim reaper, respectively (Smith n.p.). The sheriff and Chigurh both carried out their own form of perceived justice, whether effective or not.

As mentioned by King, Wallach, and Welson, “each man represents a watered-down version of a familiar Western character” a “local lawman who maintains order and dispenses justice,” an “opportunistic, but basically solid citizen who succumbs to temptation,” and an “outlaw who lives by his gun” (86). The movie tells the story of a murky distinction between the good and bad and presents its “audience with characters who imperfectly represent both” and an outlier who tells the tale of a modern American citizen willing to sacrifice his principles in order to get his share of the “American Dream” (King, Wallach, and Welsh 87). Indeed, it is also a tale about how the new age and the old collides, with the new becoming triumphant with its lack of ethics and morality.

No Country for Old Men has several motifs, one of the most prominent about the values of the new world confronting that of the old West, such as the juxtaposition of time in which the movie was produced versus the time which the movie actually takes place. Where these “contemporary western characters have faded into the shadows of their original form” and morphed into the contemporary vagueness that identifies the 21st century (King, Wallach, and Welsh 86). Such comparisons between the actual time of production and the past leave the audience mystified and at a loss. Indeed, the movie portrays and was produced in an age of desperation, of moral corruption, with its inability to progress. The whole movie portrays a violent process of stillness, of uneasiness that cannot be confronted by the audience.

The uneasiness derived from border wars, with its psychopathic and senseless killings, leaves the old holding still in a time of new realities. The disconnection between the new world and the old world continuing in a state of holding still, without any intersection, paralyzes the old world from moving forth. In one particular scene, Chigurh initially asked the elderly man to hold still, only to senselessly kill him with the oxygen tank and tube, and steal the vehicle. During the killing, his exact words were “hold still.” In the very next scene, we see Llewelyn, targeting a deer, also whisper “hold still,” as he shoots the deer, only to track it down in the next scene.

If taken quite literally, we see how this parallels the slaughtering of the innocent and reinforces the idea that there is no room for the old world to keep up, or continue surviving, the new. The elderly gentleman, reminiscent that of an older and more docile time, did not hesitate to follow the instructions of Chigurh, as it never entered his mind, that man could sink to such depths as to kill for car theft. Hence, the audience can understand that older souls are alienated from change in the modern world.

Bell, the lawman representing the older times, yearned for the past, where things were easier, due to his incomprehension and lack of coping mechanisms for the new age. As recounted in the story, Bell sees himself and the bygone age as “an aged man [that] is but a paltry thing, a tattered coat upon a stick,” where the aged see themselves as a nuisance, a non-matter, in the new age (King, Wallach, and Welsh 87). Bell explains this quote as the old being a part of an ancient tradition who do not understand the new mannerisms that come to dominate the criminal elements in the new age (King, Wallach, and Welsh 87). As evidenced by Bell, the lawman’s, confession in the next few scenes, shares through his stories that he “does not understand modern violence and brutality” and that it has grown worse over the years than “it once was” (King, Wallach, and Welsh 87). As Bell becomes more aware of the presence of crime, and the twisted human nature that he has come to witness in performing his job functions, he expresses confusion over the modern outlaw. In one scene, he said, the outlaws “tortured them for a while [before killing them]; don’t know why … maybe the television set was broke” (King, Wallach, and Welsh 87).

Incomprehension leads to inactivity, which ultimately leads the subjects into a state of continual paralysis, with the inability to either contend or make changes in the future. Bell was at a loss to understand the make-up of the criminal in modern times, and how violence could grow to such an extent that he felt “overmatched by them” (King, Wallach, and Welsh 87). In an effort to hang on to the skirts of his sanity, Bell “carries a biblical subtext, prophetic of the end of the world,” in an effort to find god, as the future has come to appear as end of the world for him (King, Wallach, and Welsh 88). Yet in the end, Bell concluded that there was no god, as Moss, Llewelyn’s wife, had concluded as well.

Justice, on the other hand, is always one step behind, and in the process is slowly mutated into self-serving mechanisms. In the first few scenes, Chigurh kills a police officer in cold blood, straining his wrists with the handcuffs, even hurting himself. In a crude sense, it almost seems like Chigurh is trying to replace justice and brandish his own form of justice to those that he deemed to have violated his worldly rules. He then uses the police vehicle to pull over an older gentleman. Chigurh does not act like he’s a criminal, but a police officer, when he asked the elderly gentleman to “sir, please step out of the vehicle.” While this may appear sadistic to the audience, it also gives the onlookers a chance to peer into the mentality of Chigurh and understand what exactly Chigurh is, a sophisticated criminal psychopath who roams freely in the rustic yet coarse landscape of Texas.

Hence, throughout the storyline, justice as represented by Bell in the bygone age, could not have risen nor caught up to the senseless killings of Chigurh. Bell tried, at the beginning of the storyline, to understand the mentality of Chigurh as he sat down on the couch inside Llewelyn’s trailer, where Chigurh also sat and drank milk. Yet, Bell could not understand – he was incapable of preventing the death of Llewelyn due to his age-old mentality. Always being one step behind left Bell exasperated, and he retreated to the role of narrating stories instead of working toward prevention. Like the new world has determined, he is a responder and not a preventer.

The modern age is captivating in its sights and wonders, such as Chigurh’s attempt to make his killing ritualistic and captivating, but it leaves those from older times perplexed. For an old soul like Bell, he can only subconsciously understand that “this new breed of criminal simply sees its own handiwork as entertainment, a sort of violent reality show” (King, Wallach, and Welsh 88). Yet, there is always a sense that the old is trying to understand through classification, even when there is nothing to be classified. “What you got ain’t new,” as Ellis explains, “this country is hard ... and crazy” on people, it’s got “the devil in it, yer folks never seemed to hold it to an account” (King, Wallach, and Welsh 88). Crazily enough, in one of the scenes during the film, Chigurh’s behavior testifies to the new breed of criminal behavior that has outlaws in the 21st century.

As explained by Cutchins, Chigurh’s criminal behavior is chilling due to the fact that “he apparently is prepared to kill the man for no other reason than the fact that the two of them were standing together in the store” (King, Wallach, and Welsh 158). By using a simple coin-toss to determine the life or death of the store clerk, it shows the modern criminal’s mentality about life and the triviality of it all. While he tells the store clerk to treasure the coin by putting it “anywhere but [his] pocket,” he seems to be following a ritualistic route of killing – a practice which he seems to have developed for himself, not conforming to the world.

In the end, it seems as though evil is the predominant factor that led Chigurh to become the sole victor in the movie. As Caruthers pointed out, “Chigurh’s principles and adherence to his moral code” allowed him to keep on going, representing the continuity of “pervasive evil in the society” (Caruthers n.p.). Yet Chigurh is also the one character that is, in a basic sense, the most disciplined hunter with principles. The discipline and his principles allowed him to continue and gave him a reason for living. In one of the ending scenes, Llewelyn’s wife, confronting Chigurh in the bedroom, asked what is the reason that he had to kill her. Chigurh responded, “I gave him my word.” Sadistic as though it may appear, Chigurh followed his own protocols and developed his own moral sense of righteousness, which is the source of power that has kept him going.

The film is complex yet revealing of new world issues that cannot be denied to have participated in the formation of national identity. As can be clearly seen from the movie, the intentional silence and the effective use of the camera lens in discovering the mentality of each character no longer allows the audience to judge the characters from afar but reveals a close-up and new perspective and depth of each of the character’s motives, behaviors, and propensity for imagination. The film does not allow you to look from afar, as it challenges the traditional notions of film-making whereby the audience comes face to face with their own morality and thinking. The audience not only engages in the mindless viewing of a movie but also generates a range of coping mechanisms for a world gone astray, to forming conclusions on issues unresolved in the film. It also teaches the audience that the experiences and events which the characters have undergone lead one to conclude that nothing can be perceived as black and white anymore, but rather a slew of grays and in-betweens. In the end, it is up to the audience and the viewers to confront the issue of defining the value of human life and the consequences of an imperfect world that ends with an imperfect ending. Such is the reality that new world citizens are facing. No Country for Old Men is just preparing us and revealing the new world elements to viewers for helping determine what their life and moral values are in modern society.

Works Cited

Caruthers, A. D. "Analysis of Joel and Ethan Coen's ‘No Country for Old Men’." Yahoo Contributor Network. Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com, 7 July 2010. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.

Cohen, David. "No Country for Old Men." The Editorial Note. n.p., 2012. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.

King, Lynnea C., Rick Wallach, and Jim Welsh. No Country for Old Men: From Novel to Film. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, 2009. Print.

No Country for Old Men. Dir. Ethan Coen, and Joel Coen. Perf. Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin. 2007. Film.

Smith, Kyle. "Is ‘No Country for Old Men’ About the Culture of Death?" Commentary: Contention. Commentary Magazine, 1 Apr. 2008. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.