Schoolio's Movie Corner

[whynotsmile99]

4 screenings? They (The American Cinematheque) screen it annually at the Egyptian and the Aero...i don't think sell out is likely, but better to get tickets if you know you're going for sure (just in case). It is really awesome on a big screen!

One thing that has already sold out is the 7:30pm screening of "All You Need is Cash" on March 17th. The Rutles will be there in person. A 10:30 screening has been added. The Rutles will introduce that screening.

wow the Rutles. Havent heard about them in ages.

[PotVsKtl]

Paranoid Park is the most surprising movie I've seen at least since All About Lily Chou-Chou. It's a masterpiece in every possible sense of the word.

[breakjaw]

So,because of his intriguing work on "Paris,Je Taime" I rented "Cube" by Vincenzo Natali,and I'm only halfway through but so far it's my kind of low budget horror flick.Not terrible acting,with some missteps in the script here and there,but constantly trying to prove itself,sorta like the first "Terminator" or "Miracle Mile"...

[PotVsKtl]

Cube is terrible.

[KungFuJoe]

Paranoid Park is the most surprising movie I've seen at least since All About Lily Chou-Chou. It's a masterpiece in every possible sense of the word.

where'd you see it? it doesn't look like it's playing anywhere in l.a.

[thestripe]

I watched Paranoid Park last night. It is easily my favorite Gus Van Sant film so far. I don't think there is a single negative thing I can say about this movie. The cinematography, soundtrack, acting and direction are all stellar.

[thestripe]

where'd you see it? it doesn't look like it's playing anywhere in l.a.

If you can't find it in any theaters, I think it's on IFC On-Demand

[noisemachine]

I just added it to my netflix queue, but it says the release date is unkown.

[atom heart]

Why? Why does Cube always come up when I thought I had forgotten it for good?


My friend still has not convinced me to watch Shortbus with her. I think I would die of awkwardness.

[Mr.Nipples]

Paranoid Park is the most surprising movie I've seen at least since All About Lily Chou-Chou. It's a masterpiece in every possible sense of the word.

Im really looking forward to this...

[whynotsmile99]

Why? Why does Cube always come up when I thought I had forgotten it for good?


My friend still has not convinced me to watch Shortbus with her. I think I would die of awkwardness.

use it as a chance to get with her

[wmgaretjax]

Be Kind Rewind was awful. Gondry is a hack.

[TomAz]

I bought a Coen Brothers DVD boxed set for $40 the other day. Fargo, Raising Arizona, Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink. I thought that was a cool deal. I've only seen Fargo and Raising Arizona. I'm excited.

[wmgaretjax]

damn, that is a good deal.

[PotVsKtl]

I liked Be Kind Rewind. Gondry recognized his strengths and wrapped a feature film around a series of clever videos. There's nothing particularly interesting about the actual plot but I don't think that was the idea.

[wmgaretjax]

I would have preferred to just have seen the shorts. The rest of it was entirely forgettable, and almost boring. He should have just thrown them up on youtube, that's what they all felt like. More than anything, I just didn't find it funny. I couldn't help be reminded of Cinema Paradiso in that last scene though...

[thelastgreatman]

I bought a Coen Brothers DVD boxed set for $40 the other day. Fargo, Raising Arizona, Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink. I thought that was a cool deal. I've only seen Fargo and Raising Arizona. I'm excited.

Blood Simple and Miller's Crossing are both great examples of their early talent and taste for classic noir in modern settings. Some would call it neo-noir, but I don't really feel it applies. It's true noir just filmed recently. They're both much more serious and dark stories than any of the flicks you've seen, but particularly in Blood Simple you can't help but be amazed at the genius they exhibit even in their very early work.

Barton Fink is--in my minority opinion--their worst work. I'd be interested to hear your reaction, Tom, since I think if anyone you'd probably resent the same things I do about it. Still worth checking out if only for the Coens' mastery of bizarre old-timey slang and banter dialogue.

[thelastgreatman]

Be Kind Rewind was awful. Gondry is a hack.

Gondry is a great music video director who has no business in story-based mediums, I'm sad to say. Rather along the same lines of how visual artists (painters) should have kept their big honkers out of motion pictures as well.

Sadly, music videos are deader than Dillenger. What else can we have the man do instead of subject us to nonsensical "dreamy" feature-length films?

[wmgaretjax]

Except that Be Kind, Rewind is neither nonsensical nor dreamy, but, I'm sure you haven't seen it and you're typing just to read yourself.

edit* I take it back, it is nonsensical, but in an acceptably understandable way, suspension of disbelief etc.

Yeah I agree. But it retained a lot of the qualities of Science of Sleep (which I also didn't care for, but I thought it was more interesting than this). He does some interesting stuff visually, but unfortunately he directs all his actors exactly the same way. And his own writing is pretty bad... I liked Eternal Sunshine though, but the credit there goes largely to someone else...

[wmgaretjax]

That was one of two parts I laughed out loud at. It would have made a great short film... But it made for a waste of time and money at 100 minutes...

[paulb]

I saw No Country For Old Men in the theaters last week....I really liked it, and was totally into the story...but can someone explain to me the ending? It felt very unsettled

[mountmccabe]

I saw No Country For Old Men in the theaters last week....I really liked it, and was totally into the story...but can someone explain to me the ending? It felt very unsettled

Don't read this. It is spoilers.

Ed Tom knew that Chigurh was hiding in that hotel room where Llewellen Moss was found dead. He knew and still walked away because he knew that he'd die if he did anything to try and stop Chirguh. A brutal car accident wasn't enough to stop Chirguh, he just got up and kept going; Ed Tom didn't have a chance.

He realized that the world has moved beyond him, that he can't keep up, that he's way too old to be doing this shit, as the cliche goes. But instead of just doing it anyway he retires and sits at home and talks about the past.

It is unsettling but it is also rather settled, Chirguh wins and Ed Tom has to accept that.

OK, continue with the normal thread, eh.

[paulb]

Ok, I was just hoping for a big fight scene between Moss and Chigurh, and instead we just see the aftermath.

[TomAz]

Don't read this. It is spoilers.

Ed Tom knew that Chigurh was hiding in that hotel room where Llewellen Moss was found dead. He knew and still walked away because he knew that he'd die if he did anything to try and stop Chirguh. A brutal car accident wasn't enough to stop Chirguh, he just got up and kept going; Ed Tom didn't have a chance.

He realized that the world has moved beyond him, that he can't keep up, that he's way too old to be doing this shit, as the cliche goes. But instead of just doing it anyway he retires and sits at home and talks about the past.

It is unsettling but it is also rather settled, Chirguh wins and Ed Tom has to accept that.

OK, continue with the normal thread, eh.

arguing spoilers

Why are you so certain Ed Tom knew Chigurh was in that room? He knew he had been in the room but couldn't know if he was still there. And he did go and check around the room (just not behind the door).

My take on the ending is: first, remember it's much later: Ed Tom is retired by then, and he knows Chigurh got Moss' wife; Ed Tom's just decided 'enough is enough' and quit the fight. The fact that he is having the conversation with his own wife is not an incidental coincidence, IMO.

Ok, I was just hoping for a big fight scene between Moss and Chigurh, and instead we just see the aftermath.

more spoilers..

well remember Moss was killed by the Mexicans, not Chigurh.

[bmack86]

Response to Tom with more spoils

The first time I saw it, I agreed with you. But, when I rewatched it, you can see that Ed Tom notices steam/smoke/dust rising out of the destroyed lock when he arrives. He knows the lock was just blown out, and when he sees that the case was pulled from the vent, he knows that Chigurh has gotten it (The mexicans ran off too quickly to have found that). They show him looking at the window in the bathroom with the open lock; I took that as him trying to justify not going after Chigurh, telling himself that he must have already fled, even though he knows that's not the case

[TomAz]

Response to Tom with more spoils

The first time I saw it, I agreed with you. But, when I rewatched it, you can see that Ed Tom notices steam/smoke/dust rising out of the destroyed lock when he arrives. He knows the lock was just blown out, and when he sees that the case was pulled from the vent, he knows that Chigurh has gotten it (The mexicans ran off too quickly to have found that). They show him looking at the window in the bathroom with the open lock; I took that as him trying to justify not going after Chigurh, telling himself that he must have already fled, even though he knows that's not the case

hmmmm. seen it twice and didn't notice that. Looks like I have an excuse to see it a third time. Oh it's out on DVD on Tuesday I believe. I think this is going to wind up being one of those movies like Apocalypse Now, one that I watch a dozen times.

[thestripe]

I think that Ed Tom knew that Chigurh was in the room too.

[thestripe]

I also think that Chigurh was caught off guard for the first time, and was actually vulnerable during this scene.

[wmgaretjax]

he saw him.

[whynotsmile99]

The international Speed Racer trailers are up.

Looks like a fun video game...but as a movie.....hmmmmm

dunno

http://www.darkhorizons.com/trailers.php

[thelastgreatman]

I don't know where any of you saw Tommy Lee seeing Chigurh. What it looked like to me is that Chigurh was hiding in an adjacent room. Tommy searches the room he sees the lock blown on pretty thoroughly. Also, this theory that Chigurh was caught off guard and afraid for once just makes no sense whatsoever. It goes against the character entirely, goes against the theme of the movie... it just doesn't fit at all. I'm gonna try to find a copy of the script now to figure this out for sure, but I just watched it again less than a week ago and as puzzling as that scene seemed, to the best I could figure Chigurh was in the room next to the one with the blown lock Tommy went in, but he knew that Tommy was not the man he wanted thus had no reason to bother killing him.

Tommy completes his arc by walking through that door. Throughout the movie he tries to avoid getting face-to-face with elements of this case as much as possible. He kicks in the door and faces the darkness--symbolic of this mysterious evil that he cannot wrap his mind around, the evil in these men that has been troubling him so. He looks around the room, and finds no man there to identify as the evil. Chigurh is kinda irrelevant to the scene--he's not a real character, he has no arc, he's a symbol--but Tommy's first act of bravery in the whole story is met with... nothing. No answers to these questions, for these are questons of old men and this country has no answers for old men.

Sorry to have to invoke the title, but the title and the final scene really explain everything about the story. Piece it back together from that, from the emotions, not the circumstances.

[thestripe]

You are probably right TLGM. I have only seen the film once, but I felt that at that particular scene both men felt afraid. Tom probably would have been the unlucky one thou. I need to watch it again.

[thelastgreatman]

I don't know why Chiburg would be afraid, or why anyone would get that impression. His total lack of fear is kinda jammed right down our fucking throats throughout his characterizations. He could have easily killed Tommy. Why would he be afraid?

[thestripe]

I said you are probably right. I need to watch it again. Now go fuck yourself.

[ivankay]

i saw The Bank Job. Cool movie. i liked it when it ended and am liking it more upn reflection. Great cast and the story is a.o.k.

[kroqken]

There Will Be Blood (Slightly) > No Country for Old Men.

[bmack86]

I would agree there.

[kroqken]

There Will be Blood should have won best picture. The final scene in There Will be Blood is one of the greatest scenes in movie history.

[noisemachine]

No Country For Old Men deserved its Best Picture win.

[kroqken]

No Country for Old Men was the second best movie nominated for best picture. I wonder what the vote breakdown was for the 5 nominees. I wish Control and Across the Universe were nominated for best picture.

[schoolofruckus]

2001 is playing at the Egyptian in Hollywood this weekend:

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY IN 70MM – LIMITED ENGAGEMENT

Join us for this special limited weekend-long engagement of maestro Stanley Kubrick’s mind-expanding 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, a senses-melting excursion into the far reaches of the universe and the unfathomable mysteries of time and space, in glorious 70mm.

Friday, March 7 – Sunday, March 9

70mm!

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, 1968, Warner Bros. Classics, 139 min. "I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that," murmurs supercomputer HAL 9000 as it attempts to eliminate bothersome human astronaut Keir Dullea in master filmmaker Stanley Kubrick’s mind-blowing meditation on the inherent dangers (and wonders) of technology, the limitless vistas of space, and the future of the human race itself. Based on a 1948 short story "The Sentinel" by Arthur C. Clarke, "2001" was reconceived by Kubrick himself, working with author Clarke to create the ultimate Journey Into the Unknown. But if you think you’ve seen "2001," think again – until a few years ago, the film was available only in a 35 mm version that reduced Kubrick’s legendary visuals (and the spectacular 6-track stereo sound) to a pale shadow of their true glory. Before his death, Kubrick oversaw a painstaking, frame-by-frame restoration of the film in 70mm, resulting in a version that looks and sounds as good as (if not better than) the original 1968 release! With Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester.

Friday, March 7 – 7:30 PM

Sat., March 8 – 2:00 PM & 7:30 PM

Sunday, March 9 –7:30 PM



If you have not seen this on a big screen and yhis is convenient for you, go.

I knew about this. But I didn't make it. Apparently it was not convenient for me.

[schoolofruckus]

Paranoid Park is the most surprising movie I've seen at least since All About Lily Chou-Chou. It's a masterpiece in every possible sense of the word.

YES YES YES YES YES

[wmgaretjax]

Paranoid Park was phenomenal. Everything about it was damn close to flawless. Definitely following up Elephant in a lot of ways, but taking more liberties stylistically (especially with the sound). Incredible film.

[thelastgreatman]

What fucking thread was the discussion of the ending of No Country going on in yesterday? That was actually interesting, I didn't get to see anyone else's reaction.

[whynotsmile99]

2001 was incredible last night. I'm glad I had the chance to experience it the way it was intended. The Egyptian did a great job presenting it. I certainly appreciate the film a lot more now than when I tried to watch it on a small, shitty tv years back. I forgot how mind melting the final act is. Amazing.

Egyptian presented with the intermission intact. Which was nice as my bladder was about to explode, but the intermission cuts in at a poor moment in the film, right as the tension with HAL was ranking up.

[Down Rodeo]

There Will Be Blood = One of the best films of the year

No Country for Old Men = One of the best films of the decade

[thelastgreatman]

Can't speak to There Will, but I'd say you're definitely on the money with that assessment of No Country. Probably a top ten slot, top twenty for sure.

[kroqken]

I think some of the best movies ever include Bob Roberts, Happiness, Storytelling, Natural Born Killers Directors Cut and Amazon Women on the Moon.

[PotVsKtl]

That's fascinating Kenneth.

[thelastgreatman]

Wow... Based on those two cases, I'm never named my child any form of Ken or Kenneth and will try to talk anyone who is out of it. That's just bad portent.

[KungFuJoe]

Based on the few suggestions here, I went ahead and rented Paranoid Park from IFC in Theaters on demand. I was disapointed that IFC did not present it in a widescreen format. As far as the film goes, it was good. Definately one of Van Sant's better films of late. Not sure I'd classify it as a masterpiece though. It was nice to see Mr Doyle get a role in the film, though I can't say I would've know he shot it if he wasn't credited. the style seemed rather plain compared to his other work. I enjoyed the music & mood of the pic however.

Also caught The Dead Girl on Sundance's on demand. Damn was that a depressing piece of film. What better way to spend time in bed while you're sick then to watch a film that makes you want to slit your wrists? Great film with powerful female performances, but ultimately one I'd probably never want to watch again.

[wmgaretjax]

Plain? Jesus no. It was insane. They were moving lights around constantly to make the film pulse with light for god sakes (sometimes obviously, sometimes not). It was still, but I don't think it was plain. Sometimes it was overwhelmingly stunning.

[ghettojournalist]

saw "The Hoax" today. wow. really good film. nice building pace with some of my favorite actors. the film is based on the true story of a man claiming he was writing an autobiography on Howard Hughes. problem was, Hughes had nothing to do with it. this film made me think of the recent Frey fiasco and i am amazed that anything resembling this type of scandal could have even happened in the modern day(what with all the info available to the public).

[mob roulette]

I'm gonna try to find a copy of the script now to figure this out for sure, but...

50 bucks.

[thelastgreatman]

50 bucks.

So here's the upshot of having gotten the script itself:

Chigurh is in the motel room behind the door--y'all were correct about that--and in the script Chigurh and the Sheriff are supposed to catch glimpses of each others' reflections in the metal cylindrical hole left where Chigurh blew the lock out. That I don't think got onto screen from what I can remember.

But, the problem that had initially caused me to say Chigurh might be in a different room entirely remains: he just disappears from the room when Sheriff kicks the door in. Poof. Which to me plays out nicely with the Chigurh as a symbol, a ghost, etc. theory, but still doesn't make any sense in the literal reality of the situation.

Saying Chigurh was afraid of that man, let alone any man, is just wrong. There must be meaning to that scene however you choose to find it, but that ain't it. Anyone read the book? Not that that will change my opinion of what the movie depicts.

[thestripe]

So here's the upshot of having gotten the script itself:

Chigurh is in the motel room behind the door--y'all were correct about that--and in the script Chigurh and the Sheriff are supposed to catch glimpses of each others' reflections in the metal cylindrical hole left where Chigurh blew the lock out. That I don't think got onto screen from what I can remember.

But, the problem that had initially caused me to say Chigurh might be in a different room entirely remains: he just disappears from the room when Sheriff kicks the door in. Poof. Which to me plays out nicely with the Chigurh as a symbol, a ghost, etc. theory, but still doesn't make any sense in the literal reality of the situation.

Saying Chigurh was afraid of that man, let alone any man, is just wrong. There must be meaning to that scene however you choose to find it, but that ain't it. Anyone read the book? Not that that will change my opinion of what the movie depicts.


I wasn't trying to say that Chigurh was afraid of Tom, but more afraid of the situation at hand. I think he was caught off guard, or he would have done what he did the entire movie and just waste the fucker. But again I'm probably wrong.

[thelastgreatman]

I'm not sure myself, really. It's a fascinating instance of slipping from reality in an otherwise ultra-realistic piece. The interpretations could go on forever. Someone find the Coens' explanation, dammit.

[Neutral Milk Hotel]

Chigurh wasn't afraid. Throughout the film, he seems to show a certain respect to people who stand their ground and don't cower in his presence. An example of this is the trailer park attendant who refuses to let Chigurh have the information about Moss, even though he repeatedly asks for it in an intimidating fashion. I tend to imagine that if Bell had walked up to the door, but decided not to enter the room out of fear (I haven't read the book, but it's my understanding that this feeling on Bell's part is related in the text), then maybe Chigurh would have killed him. However, since as sheriff was entering a crime scene despite the obvious danger, Chigurh probably saw no reason to take him out.

In other news, about a week ago I attended a screening of Rescue Dawn at my school, followed by a Q&A with Werner Herzog. The film was quite good, lighter and more vivacious than I would have expected, despite the inherent grimness of the story. Herzog was absolutely fascinating and strange. He talked about how it can be exhilirating to be shot, and how of the few movies he's seen in the past few years, the two that stand out to him are the King Kong remake, and, er, The Real Cancun (he said he liked the film because of how thoroughly devoted the characters and filmmakers were to the important goal of getting laid). He even answered one of my questions, about how he reconciles his search for a more personal truth in his filmmaking with his responsibility to real life figures like Dieter Dengler (subject of Rescue Dawn and an earlier Herzog doc) and Timothy Treadwell, of Grizzly Man. This Thursday, I'm going to another Q&A, a screening of Snow Angels with David Gordon Green at the Arclight. I saw George Washington for the first time not too long ago and loved it, it's brilliant.

Other than that, the only thing I have seen theatrically was Semi-Pro. I don't get the terrible reviews, it wasn't great but it was easily better than the depressingly bland Blades of Glory. And the Woody Harrelson stuff with Maura Tierney was surprisingly excellent. Meh.

[wmgaretjax]

That I don't think got onto screen from what I can remember.


It did. It's subtle, but it's there. Comes out today.

[Neutral Milk Hotel]

Yeah. On IMDb, someone had taken a cap of that scene and lit it up (or whatever you would call it, I know little about photoshop), and you could pretty clearly see Chigurh standing there.

[thelastgreatman]

It did. It's subtle, but it's there. Comes out today.

Already downloaded it. Didn't catch that, but I'm sure I'll be watching again soon. So amazing that the Coens could top all their other films after such a long career already.

[ghettojournalist]

yeah, i just saw "Rescue Dawn" today. it is a damn fine film. some the shots of Steve Zahn were just haunting. also, was this film directly responsible for Jeremy Davies getting on Lost? i can see a lot of similarities in mannerisms and i like both roles for him.

[whynotsmile99]

Pootie Tang arrived from Netflix today.


Pootie Tang is one of my favorite "so bad it's great" movies, after Human Tornado, Red Dawn and Freddy Got Fingered

[thelastgreatman]

Pootie Tang is not bad. It's quite smart... for the first 40 minutes. Then they ran into some issues.

[Young blood]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/walle/trailer_large.html

The new WALL-E trailer. I dont care that im not an 6 year old, but Im looking so forward to this movie.

[noisemachine]

Already downloaded it. Didn't catch that, but I'm sure I'll be watching again soon. So amazing that the Coens could top all their other films after such a long career already.
Here is a discussion of it from the imdb FAQ:


Where was Chigurh when Bell went back to the El Paso motel room?
EditHistoryDelete

Chigurh was long gone when Bell arrived to the crime scene. Bell was assuming the worst would be waiting for him behind that door when he went into the room, hence Chigurh behind the door. However, when Bell opened the door, all he found was the air vent unscrewed by the dime...the same Chigurh unscrewed the vent earlier in the movie. Chigurh behind the door was Bell's imagination.

A Different Take: (Book Spoiler Alert) The movie doesn't show clearly whether or not Chigurh is in the room when Bell enters. It shows him there before Bell enters, but as said above, his presence could have just been in Bell's mind.

The novel actually has Chigurh waiting in his vehicle with the just-retrieved money next to him and a pistol in his lap as Bell pulls up to the motel crime scene in his cruiser. Once Bell enters the motel room, there is no further mention of Chigurh's presence in the motel parking lot. He could've driven away while Bell was checking the room out or after Bell left the motel scene and pulled his cruiser over to the side of the road, out of sight of the motel.

One thing worth noting is that in the book, Bell leaves the motel room and walks back to his cruiser firmly believing that Chigurh is out there in the parking lot and that he (Bell) might be killed at any moment.

So, in the book, Chigurh is in the parking lot when Bell is in the motel room, but we don't know if he's still there when Bell leaves the motel room with his gun drawn and the feeling that he's likely to be killed. However, in the movie, we are shown an image of Chigurh inside the motel room before Bell enters it, but we don't know if he's there after Bell enters with his gun drawn and the feeling he's likely to die.

In the movie, Bell's moment of truth comes when he enters the motel room. He has a strong feeling that Chigurh might be there waiting for him in the room. In the book, Bell's moment of truth comes when he exits the motel room and enters the parking lot. He has a strong feeling that Chigurh is watching him from somewhere in the parking lot.

From the point of view of the novel, if we assume that Chigurh left the parking lot while Bell was in the motel room, then from the point of view of the movie, there may be something to the idea that Chigurh had actually left the motel room before Bell entered it.

In fact, we can't say whether he was in the room or not. There are no direct facts to prove that he was actually in the room. There are neither any facts to prove that he was only a fragment of Bell's imagination. This is not supposed to be explained to us in the movie, it is for us to marvel and contemplate about. Just as the Coens wanted us to.

[TomAz]

I think the notion of it being a figment of Ed Tom's imagination is silly. Nowhere else in the movie do they go off into flights of fancy, no dream sequences, no flashbacks. It's a story told linearly and realistically; why would it suddenly be his imagination?

[thelastgreatman]

Chigurh isn't a real person. Think of him as much more evolved version of the motorcycle dude from Raising Arizona. It's not exactly imagination, it's imagery. Facing Chigurh and numerous other aspects of the case--such as the several offers to go see some bodies or other shit his deputy mentions and he shrugs off--are Tommy's conflict. This is the conflict that really centers the story. For the Coens to insert a few seconds of suggestion of something not exactly literally true that so greatly adds to the symbolism of the scene is not that far-fetched.

[amyzzz]

is this still all No Country for Old Men spoilers? Cuz I haven't seen it yet.

[TomAz]

Chigurh isn't a real person.

ummm, it's a work of fiction. None of the characters are real people.

[TomAz]

is this still all No Country for Old Men spoilers? Cuz I haven't seen it yet.

it came out on DVD yesterday amy

[thelastgreatman]

ummm, it's a work of fiction. None of the characters are real people.

Are you just pretending to not get my meaning to fuck with me or did it really not come across?

[TomAz]

I mean that I think you're overthinking it.

[amyzzz]

it came out on DVD yesterday amy
I know, but I haven't fucking seen it yet.

[Young blood]

goddammit another stupid movie I have to see

Lost Boys 2 trailer.

http://www.movieweb.com/video/V08C05flqwBDFN

[thelastgreatman]

I mean that I think you're overthinking it.

Tom, they go out of their way to make it pretty clear. "Chigurh is a ghost." He's a symbol. He's not a real character in the true sense of the word, as his motivations are practically indiscernable. He just represents the new, frightening world. He acts like The Fucking Terminator, dude. There's a reason.

[amyzzz]

hahahahha! It's got Corey Feldman!

[Young blood]

hahahahha! It's got Corey Feldman!

Thats what will make it worth seeing.

[whynotsmile99]

it does indeed. WOW

that looks bad. But at least its got Corey

[Young blood]

There is an interview on MTV.com too.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1583184/story.jhtml

[amyzzz]

Yeah. Otherwise, it looks kinda crappy.

[TomAz]

Tom, they go out of their way to make it pretty clear. "Chigurh is a ghost." He's a symbol. He's not a real character in the true sense of the word, as his motivations are practically indiscernable. He just represents the new, frightening world. He acts like The Fucking Terminator, dude. There's a reason.

calling chigurh a ghost is a metaphor the characters were using to describe how no one hardly ever sees him. It doesn't mean he's literally a ghost. Or a symbolic manifestation of Ed Tom's fears. or anything like that.

Let me ask you this: if he's supposed to be a ghost, or a symbol, or something, does that mean the people he killed aren't actually dead?

Hell maybe the whole plot is just a dream Ed Tom's having.

[PotVsKtl]

Stop talking about a movie I haven't seen.

[thelastgreatman]

Tom, stop taking ME so literal. I don't mean he's actually a fucking ghost. I mean that the character is not intended to represent a real person. He's a caricature. Again, we're talking about the same basic principle of the motorcyle riding cigar smoking badass from Raising Arizona. The Coens love this shit.

[TomAz]

I haven't seen Raising Arizona in so long I'm not getting what you're saying. Do you mean that he's like The Stranger in the Big Lebowski? cuz if you are, you're wrong.

[whynotsmile99]

if anyone wants to waste 15 bucks.....


Out on dvd now....


http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/nigel-tomm-presents-his-movie-hamlet



When I got an invitation to Nigel Tomm's new film presentation I was happily surprised. For me it is always a pleasure to see new adaptations of some classical dramas. So, I went to a new film adaptation of Shakespeare's 'Hamlet', directed by Nigel Tomm. I thought I'll watch this new version of Hamlet and after some chat with Nigel will go home. But I was wrong. I couldn't imagine where I was going.


When the movie started, everybody (Nigel Tomm's friends were invited) couldn't understand it had already started. It was a pure white screen: without titles, without sound, without images, without anything... It was just pure white screen, and it was new Nigel Tomm's 'Hamlet.' After the first three minutes people began to talk. After five minutes talks were getting louder and louder. After ten minutes the public began to walk away. After fifteen minutes almost all the people was gone. I stayed until the end (the movie last 63 minutes). Those who stayed till the end were happy, they were clapping, they were screaming: 'Bravo!'


To help you understand what the movie is about I'll give you a text from the back side of 'Hamlet' DVD:


This is 63 minutes and 1 second of pure white screen. Nothing less and nothing more. Just shocking new absurdism. Without compromise. Without compare. Nigel Tomm brings his own version of William Shakespeare's 'Hamlet.' Luminous. Sensuous. Iconic. From the moment you touch the play button, the experience begins. Visually stunning, emotionally precise, the extraordinary awaits you. Probably it is one of the most intense, the most radical, the most innovative manifestation of the freedom of thought, of expression and of creation. This is the new 'Hamlet' - the most majestic 'Hamlet' experience by Nigel Tomm.


What can I say about this new 'Hamlet'? It really shocks, it hits brains and makes you think: 'It's all in the head, isn't it?' Hamlet isn't a character inside the screen anymore, he lives inside of everyone of us - he's behind our brains, eyes or daily emotions, because he's a white screen, he's a background. Such would be my interpretation.

[wmgaretjax]

http://www.amazon.com/s/105-9146963-6594868?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=Nigel%20Tomm

minimalists that don't understand minimalism. and further, have the gall to call what they are doing "absurdism."

[whynotsmile99]

http://www.amazon.com/s/105-9146963-6594868?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=Nigel%20Tomm

minimalists that don't understand minimalism. and further, have the gall to call what they are doing "absurdism."

I like that quote. Whose it by? And this guy is a supreme douche a la mode

[mountmccabe]

I think the notion of it being a figment of Ed Tom's imagination is silly. Nowhere else in the movie do they go off into flights of fancy, no dream sequences, no flashbacks. It's a story told linearly and realistically; why would it suddenly be his imagination?

This really is the only response I need to the idea that Chigurh isn't actually behind the door. It wouldn't make sense within the context of the movie; it wouldn't fit.

I haven't seen Blood Simple or Miller's Crossing (I think I need to buy that boxed set that Tom bought to correct this shameful situation) but if y'all come back and say that each of those (the Coens style-specific precedents for this film) had one bizarre fantasy bit that stuck out like a sore thumb... then maybe. Like, say time stopping in Hudsucker. But not that because Hudsucker isn't noir.

Otherwise, yeah, I get that Chigurh isn't a particularly naturalistic character but he still fits in the movie because he is played with restraint, his actions and the way he is treated obeys physical and natural laws even if his psychology is unnatural. He is, for the characters in the film, a real and physical threat even if to us his meaning is more symbolic and metaphoric.

[wmgaretjax]

did you see his book? you can download it for free on amazon. 700+ pages of: I blah blah blah blah roses blah blah blah went blah blah blah not bah blah...

He is proclaiming it as the longest sentence ever...

[whynotsmile99]

did you see his book? you can download it for free on amazon. 700+ pages of: I blah blah blah blah roses blah blah blah went blah blah blah not bah blah...

He is proclaiming it as the longest sentence ever...

Here’s an excerpt (the first page of The Blah Story, Volume 8):

Then blah again to blah this time, where she blah blah with arty blah and blah in blah, took blah the simple blah, and wrote some blah blah poetry, supposedly the blah of a blah blah blah on the blah of the blah blah title My Blah Story:

Blah me. Blame you.
Blah you. About you. You blame me. Blah you.

I blah as you or blah by blah,
You know. You blah. You blah it out of blah.
Blah blah. Blah blah.

Blah blah, a blah,
Blah in blah.
Discovers blah and circles
Into blah. ‘My eyes,’ I scream.

And blah. There is. A blah blah blah.
On other blah. I see a blah.
Too blah, too blah blah blah.
As everything is blah.
Except my blah.

She blah.
I blah. I cannot blah.
‘Stop blah,’ he blah
And something changes,
Snaps into blah.
Back into blah. I lock the blah.

In locked blah,
Blah locked blah.
Forms changing other blah.
My blah. It blah blah sharply.
Blah themselves in empty busses
Phones are blah. They are.
Too fixed. Too blah.

Amazing stuff. I wish I wasn't so lazy. I don't see a Wikipedia page for him. Would love to start one

[Yablonowitz]

I think the notion of it being a figment of Ed Tom's imagination is silly. Nowhere else in the movie do they go off into flights of fancy, no dream sequences, no flashbacks. It's a story told linearly and realistically; why would it suddenly be his imagination?

Bradley Dorkfish sent me a nice little article analyzing the movie - the main premise was that Sugarbaby was "death." And there is a running theme with the concept of seeing him. In the PI office after Sugar kills Milton and the other guy standing there asks him if he's going to kill him too, Sugar says, 'That depends. Did you see me?' And then when he gets hit by the car and has the kid give him his shirt for his arm, he give him a $100 and says, "you didn't see me." This, it claims, is why Bell doesn't see Sugar - he chose not to face his death when he got there. That's what it says anyway.

It was explained better than that. Interesting.

I just like the mystery of it. Purposeful ambiguity that leaves interpretation to the viewer is part of what I think makes for great art.

[wmgaretjax]

I just like the mystery of it. Purposeful ambiguity that leaves interpretation to the viewer is part of what I think makes for great art.

There is a great book by William Empson called "Seven Types of Ambiguity." From the early 30s... Essentially spawned a new wave of literary thought. Worth the read...

[TomAz]

Purposeful ambiguity that leaves interpretation to the viewer is part of what I think makes for great art.

I agree with this conceptually. I still don't get how it applies here.

[mountmccabe]

I agree with this conceptually. I still don't get how it applies here.

Greg was trying for great art with his explanation.

[thelastgreatman]

Alright Tom, gimme a shot and pretend it's not me talking right now for a minute:

What Chigurh represents to Tommy Lee is what stands behind that door--whether he is really standing there, whether it is Tommy's imagination, whether we are just seeing brief flashbacks of Chigurh waiting behind that door at a different point in time, whether it is a complete fake-out by the Coens building up to this most dramatic moment when our kind Sheriff will unwittingly walk through the door into certain doom by this man who is walking doom--and then only finding an empty motel room instead...

There are a great number of ways to think of the filmmakers' rationalization for what happened in that scene within the internal logic of the film. But I suppose my argument is that it's so effective just taken as a visual representation of Tommy Lee facing up to his fears of this new world and the horrible men that seem to have taken it over... well, it's just not important what the literal reality for the film's characters is.

It communicates all the subtext, emotion, and psychology necessary and puts the audience into the same state of bewilderment that the anecdote that closes the movie hits on.

[Hannahrain]

Man, sore thumbs get such a bad rap.

[Yablonowitz]

DON'T READ AMY OR POT. SPOILERS.



I don't really know what the overall disagreement is here or what part of the discussion I fall on is, but my point is that, regardless of what the script even says, the Coens quite purposefully do not make it clear where exactly Sigor Ros is in the room, nor whether or not he is in the same room as TLJ nor whether or not the could see each other if he was. They also make it possible for you to draw the conclusion that they were both in a position to see each other and it seems likely that SEEGOR could see TLJ and either TLJ couldn't see SEEGOR OR he chose not to recognize him. It's quite possible to come to a conclusion that it was physically impossible for them not to see each other and the reason they didn't went beyond natural realism. I don't think that's a stretch. Both characters were more symbolic than actual anyway and it seems in step with the progression of the movie to suggest that when they meet, they can't see each other. Simply because it's out of line with the rest of the movie in terms of hard and fast realism doesn't strike me as a valid criticism.

I do disagree with the notion, though, that Javier Bardem's character is this projection of the "new bad" that TLJ is fearing. My interpretation was that he was a force that transcended time and place. And the movie, I think, kind of leans to that conclusion at the end. In the conversation with his brother, he tells him about the death of his uncle many years ago, back in the days when supposedly the lawmen didn't carry guns. And he was shot in cold blood. I think the idea is that there's something in the nature of the country (and it could be country like "nation" or country like the physical landscape) that perpetuates violence and crime, that it was just as prevalent in the old days than it is now. I think that's the conclusion TLJ makes when he retires and is part of the meaning of his dream.

I'm sure this viewpoint has holes, but it's my current one anyway.

[thelastgreatman]

Chigurh can be pointed out to symbolize a lot of things: mortality primarily; fate; I see him as TLJ's nightmare of what has become of the world based on the voiceover in the beginning, waxing nostalgic about the old days of Sheriffs, when they didn't even always carry guns.

That, the scene with TLJ and his old boss or father or whatever with the week old coffee and the very last scene more or less convey where the subtext is supposed to be pointed--for me. Not saying they have to for anybody else, but that's where I see it and it seems clear.

I just did a little Googling and people brought up a couple good points: one, when Chigurh found what'shisface in the other hotel he got a room right next door, did he not? Could've been behind that door, if you're even believing he was still there.

Another big argument in favor of Chigurh being in the room is that he is shown in close up with a circle beam of yellow light cast on his face. http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/2007/12/more-no-country.html
It looks a lot like light projected through the blown bolt TLJ is himself looking at. Of course, that creates the problem of Chigurh getting hit with the door when TLJ walk in. Why isn't it equally possible he was watching from another room?

Chigurh has already been to the room, blown the lock, and gotten the money out of the vent (he pays the kid a crisp hundred). There's no reason for him to stay.

[mountmccabe]

Alright Tom, gimme a shot and pretend it's not me talking right now for a minute:

What Chigurh represents to Tommy Lee is what stands behind that door--whether he is really standing there, whether it is Tommy's imagination, whether we are just seeing brief flashbacks of Chigurh waiting behind that door at a different point in time, whether it is a complete fake-out by the Coens building up to this most dramatic moment when our kind Sheriff will unwittingly walk through the door into certain doom by this man who is walking doom--and then only finding an empty motel room instead...

There are a great number of ways to think of the filmmakers' rationalization for what happened in that scene within the internal logic of the film. But I suppose my argument is that it's so effective just taken as a visual representation of Tommy Lee facing up to his fears of this new world and the horrible men that seem to have taken it over... well, it's just not important what the literal reality for the film's characters is.

It communicates all the subtext, emotion, and psychology necessary and puts the audience into the same state of bewilderment that the anecdote that closes the movie hits on.

So your position isn't that Chigurh wasn't in the motel room but rather that it doesn't matter whether he was in the motel room or not?

I could almost buy that. It fits some with the internal logic of the film, what with it taking a right turn away from Moss and to Ed Tom and the lazy afternoon feel of Ed Tom quitting. At any rate it is certainly less stupid than insisting that Chigurh wasn't in the room.

But it still doesn't work. If Chigurh's physical existence no longer matters then why show the car crash?


Chigurh is, within the story, a real character, a real danger. That is necessary for it to be a compelling, believable story. And, I mean, fuck, of course he's also a symbol of death and the glimpse of him in the hotel room is a great visual representation of Ed Tom's fears and what the world is... those layers are what makes No Country for Old Men a great film, a work worth discussing.

But to take away or deny the relevance of the reality underneath is to brush the film off into arty or absurdist directions, into, basically, another film.

I can imagine situations where such flights could serve a movie right well... but all of that is greatly divorced from this plainly told, straightforward tale.

[mountmccabe]

Damn I not only missed Greg's reply to the post I was replying to but also Randy's response to that. Stupid laundry and roommate's computer issues and careful thought and general slowness.

[thelastgreatman]

So your position isn't that Chigurh wasn't in the motel room but rather that it doesn't matter whether he was in the motel room or not?

I could almost buy that. It fits some with the internal logic of the film, what with it taking a right turn away from Moss and to Ed Tom and the lazy afternoon feel of Ed Tom quitting. At any rate it is certainly less stupid than insisting that Chigurh wasn't in the room.

But it still doesn't work. If Chigurh's physical existence no longer matters then why show the car crash?


Chigurh is, within the story, a real character, a real danger. That is necessary for it to be a compelling, believable story. And, I mean, fuck, of course he's also a symbol of death and the glimpse of him in the hotel room is a great visual representation of Ed Tom's fears and what the world is... those layers are what makes No Country for Old Men a great film, a work worth discussing.

But to take away or deny the relevance of the reality underneath is to brush the film off into arty or absurdist directions, into, basically, another film.

I can imagine situations where such flights could serve a movie right well... but all of that is greatly divorced from this plainly told, straightforward tale.

Okay, I don't want to provoke the wrath of the anti-structural definitions people, but for being one of the three main characters of the film he is by most of the criteria of character development and design... it's hard to find the right word for it, but he's not a "character" in the ways that he should be with such a large role.

He constantly defies any identification of true motive. We don't know who the fuck he works for, if he works for anyone, he has no past, he never shows anything resembling fear, or even malice. He's a serial murderer and wholly indifferent to it, and all of his speech and logic and explanation either just go further into crytic psychopathy OR emphasize that he is not like men. That he cannot be stopped. That things are predestined to turn out the way he will have them. He uses coin flips, again with no explanation of background, motive, or anything that such a characterization would usually be employed to trigger exposition.

There is no exposition with Chigurh, and there's absolutely no change in him whatsoever throughout the movie. That's why the car accident happens in the end. Because even when he finally gets something other than this fate that he's been pleasantly fulfilling the whole movie he suffers a serious injury... and expresses what might as well be no pain while a bone sticks out of his arm, getting right the fuck up and walking away.

It's not like this is a new concept. Again, fuck, Raising Arizona dudes: lgLVpampOMQ

Why must things stay completely literal to be effective? I like the suitcase in Pulp. The toilet dive in Trainspotting. The numerous absurdities in Apocalypse Now. The list goes on.

[roberto73]

Catching up on this whole discussion makes me wonder if it's even worth having if we're not going to seriously bring Cormac McCarthy's novel into it. The character started with him, after all, even if it's the Coens' and Javier Bardem's interpretation of it that we're seeing onscreen.

This isn't exactly a criticism. I mean, have at it if you really want to talk about it. But it does seem like a crucial component is missing.

[thelastgreatman]

Have you read it? If so, help fill it in some.

But, for the record, that won't change what the movie may or may not be trying to tell.

[roberto73]

Have you read it? If so, help fill it in some.

But, for the record, that won't change what the movie may or may not be trying to tell.

I know, and I'm a firm believer that movies don't have to be faithful to the books they're adapted from. It's been a couple years since I read it, which is why I invited someone else to bring it up. The only thing I can say – which isn't much – is that I never got the feeling while reading it that Chigurh is anything but a 100% human killing machine. I think we can read whatever symbolism into him that we want – that he's death, that he's the epitome of the new age that Ed Tom is unable to cope with – but that symbolism will always be rooted in the reality of his character. I guess I resist the notion that Chigurh is only (or primarily) a caricature or a symbolic representation of something larger, because that makes him less frightening. I know that mainly reflects my own personal preference, but I think the ambiguity is one of the best things about this movie.

[mountmccabe]

It's not like this is a new concept. Again, fuck, Raising Arizona dudes: lgLVpampOMQ

Why must things stay completely literal to be effective? I like the suitcase in Pulp. The toilet dive in Trainspotting. The numerous absurdities in Apocalypse Now. The list goes on.

Raising Arizona was full of Hi's dreams and hilarity and absurdity. Having the external danger in that film be a complete caricature makes sense. And the purpose of Smalls is not real danger; he's not the true antagonist of the Hi's story, Hi himself is.

I don't even know what you're talking about with Apocalypse Now.

I don't like the toilet dive in Trainspotting but I mean that on a personal level; it is fine within the context of the film. The bit being utterly revolting is beside the point. And damn, that movie was about all kinds of irreality. And, importantly, if you asked me if Renton actually went into the toilet I'd say no. Of course he didn't, the depiction was entirely symbolic.

With the Pulp Fiction situation while it matters that there is, in fact, something in that briefcase it doesn't matter what it is. Who cares if it is gold or Marsellus' soul or whatever. We know the people that see the contents find it entrancing... that's all that matters.


No Country for Old Men isn't an absurdist comedy, it isn't about altered states and, finally, it fucking matters that Ed Tom sees Chigurh. Ed Tom walked in and saw death and mustered his courage... to turn tail and leave. And realizes that he's too old for this shit; that he has no place, no chance fighting in this world anymore.

If Ed Tom was just imagining or thinking of Chigurh then we gotta think he's quite specifically either going nuts or getting soft. Those are both part of the story but neither is enough all alone. He's old.

[mountmccabe]

I guess I resist the notion that Chigurh is only (or primarily) a caricature or a symbolic representation of something larger, because that makes him less frightening.

QFT

The whole thing was good but that there is the key I was dancing around cause I wasn't sure how to say it.

I haven't read the book, btw.

[roberto73]

Last weekend, due to circumstances beyond my control, I saw 10,000 B.C. I am not proud of this fact. Here is my review.

To try to recount everything that’s wrong with the movie would take more time than I have here. It involves an incoherent prophecy (something about blue eyes and people dying and true love … I think), prehistoric men with surprisingly good teeth hunting woolly mammoths, spooky killer ostriches, clean and efficient human sacrifice (because messy human sacrifice couldn’t be PG-13), compassionate slavery, daring rescue performed by a rainbow coalition of prehistoric tribes that would make Jesse Jackson drool with envy, bad guys with beautiful boats, deformed messiahs (you know he’s deformed because he’s freakishly tall and swathed with multi-colored veils that make him look like something out of the Bed, Bath & Beyond catalog), unintentional homoeroticism, woolly mammoths turning killer woolly mammoths to save a civilization, an old woman with a nosebleed, and lots of oiled-up abs. And all of it is accompanied by stentorian narration courtesy of Omar Sharif, who explains everything that’s happening onscreen ... which is frightening because even with a play-by-play account, the movie still makes no sense.

Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay: Which is the greater threat to humanity?

[PotVsKtl]

Start a fucking NCFOM thread scalebags.

[PotVsKtl]

Also, The Mist could have been a classic horror film if the characters weren't so busy being willfully stupid. Everything every single one of them did was a cartoonish failure. I felt like I was watching a bus of downs kids thrown into a circa 97 lasertag arena.

[breakjaw]

I just watched The Mist,after watching the original John Carpenter's The Fog not too long ago.
My conclusion?
The Mist would kick the Fog's ass! It wouldn't even be close.Fuckin' Ginormous spiders could take leper pirates any day.
And also Adrienne Barbeau > Marcia Gay Harden.

[thestripe]

Bradley Dorkfish sent me a nice little article analyzing the movie - the main premise was that Sugarbaby was "death." And there is a running theme with the concept of seeing him. In the PI office after Sugar kills Milton and the other guy standing there asks him if he's going to kill him too, Sugar says, 'That depends. Did you see me?' And then when he gets hit by the car and has the kid give him his shirt for his arm, he give him a $100 and says, "you didn't see me." This, it claims, is why Bell doesn't see Sugar - he chose not to face his death when he got there. That's what it says anyway.

It was explained better than that. Interesting.

I just like the mystery of it. Purposeful ambiguity that leaves interpretation to the viewer is part of what I think makes for great art.

I think this is the best interpretation so far.

[thelastgreatman]

I know, and I'm a firm believer that movies don't have to be faithful to the books they're adapted from. It's been a couple years since I read it, which is why I invited someone else to bring it up. The only thing I can say – which isn't much – is that I never got the feeling while reading it that Chigurh is anything but a 100% human killing machine. I think we can read whatever symbolism into him that we want – that he's death, that he's the epitome of the new age that Ed Tom is unable to cope with – but that symbolism will always be rooted in the reality of his character. I guess I resist the notion that Chigurh is only (or primarily) a caricature or a symbolic representation of something larger, because that makes him less frightening. I know that mainly reflects my own personal preference, but I think the ambiguity is one of the best things about this movie.

Okay Roberto, I'm confused how you're agreeing and disagreeing with the same thing. Is he only a caricature? I don't see why the "only" is what you take umbrage with. He has fascinating characterizations--but characterization and character are two different things in film terms. I'm not going to get into regurgitating how we draw the distinctions, nobody likes script theory in here anyway, but Chigurh's behavior is that of an almost supernatural being. His menacing abilities are never explained. They don't need explanation, because he IS primarily symbolic when you're discussing the actual emotional content of the story.

Raising Arizona was full of Hi's dreams and hilarity and absurdity. Having the external danger in that film be a complete caricature makes sense. And the purpose of Smalls is not real danger; he's not the true antagonist of the Hi's story, Hi himself is.

I don't even know what you're talking about with Apocalypse Now.

I don't like the toilet dive in Trainspotting but I mean that on a personal level; it is fine within the context of the film. The bit being utterly revolting is beside the point. And damn, that movie was about all kinds of irreality. And, importantly, if you asked me if Renton actually went into the toilet I'd say no. Of course he didn't, the depiction was entirely symbolic.

With the Pulp Fiction situation while it matters that there is, in fact, something in that briefcase it doesn't matter what it is. Who cares if it is gold or Marsellus' soul or whatever. We know the people that see the contents find it entrancing... that's all that matters.


No Country for Old Men isn't an absurdist comedy, it isn't about altered states and, finally, it fucking matters that Ed Tom sees Chigurh. Ed Tom walked in and saw death and mustered his courage... to turn tail and leave. And realizes that he's too old for this shit; that he has no place, no chance fighting in this world anymore.

If Ed Tom was just imagining or thinking of Chigurh then we gotta think he's quite specifically either going nuts or getting soft. Those are both part of the story but neither is enough all alone. He's old.

The stills don't show this reflection of Chigurh that everyone keeps talking about. He never saw the man--seeing Chigurh would mean nothing to Ed Tom anyway since he had no idea what this person looked like. He saw the LOCK. The lock is the only sign of Chigurh he could recognize, except perhaps a glass of milk.

The Coens have never made a 100 percent realistic film, and they love to employ characters of menace and evil that defy reality at least a little bit.

[thelastgreatman]

Start a fucking NCFOM thread scalebags.

Go buy the DVD--what the fuck is wrong with you that you haven't seen this yet? Was The Mist just too attractive of an alternative?

[thestripe]

Okay Roberto, I'm confused how you're agreeing and disagreeing with the same thing. Is he only a caricature? I don't see why the "only" is what you take umbrage with. He has fascinating characterizations--but characterization and character are two different things in film terms. I'm not going to get into regurgitating how we draw the distinctions, nobody likes script theory in here anyway, but Chigurh's behavior is that of an almost supernatural being. His menacing abilities are never explained. They don't need explanation, because he IS primarily symbolic when you're discussing the actual emotional content of the story.



The stills don't show this reflection of Chigurh that everyone keeps talking about. He never saw the man--seeing Chigurh would mean nothing to Ed Tom anyway since he had no idea what this person looked like. He saw the LOCK. The lock is the only sign of Chigurh he could recognize, except perhaps a glass of milk.

The Coens have never made a 100 percent realistic film, and they love to employ characters of menace and evil that defy reality at least a little bit.


Ed Tom had a feeling or sense that Chigurh was in the room. I don't know if he actually saw him, but he was definitely scared and knew that if he tried to confront Chirgurh in anyway it would be his end. Why Chigurh didn't kill him is the interesting part.

[TomAz]

seeing Chigurh would mean nothing to Ed Tom anyway since he had no idea what this person looked like.

right fact, wrong conclusion. the room is a crime scene. seeing anyone in there would have led Ed Tom to react. the fact that he walked in, poked around and left just means he never saw Chigurh behind the door.

Chigurh is not a myth, he's not a symbolic character, he's not like that other stuff you cite, Randy. McCarthy (& then the Coens) make that clear with the car wreck. He's flesh and blood just like anyone else. That's the whole point of the car wreck, I think, and it's an important point, at least I think it was to McCarthy. The Coens seemed to respect McCarthy & his work so I'm assuming it's important to them as well, though it may be possible they see it differently.

McCarthy's novels like to explore the boundaries and interaction between order and chaos, peace and violence, civilization and barbarity, whatever you wanna call it. His stories (to me, anyway) like to emphasize the reality of the duality, its existence in something a lot more concrete than abstract words. It's all rooted in reality, in physical being.

[TomAz]

I think what I mean by that is I've always seen McCarthy's works as attempting to poke holes in postmodernist relativism. I see him as essentially a conservative writer, old fashioned at heart.

this is just my own impression, some of you english lit folks can probably tell me i'm full of shit.

[Yablonowitz]

right fact, wrong conclusion. the room is a crime scene. seeing anyone in there would have led Ed Tom to react. the fact that he walked in, poked around and left just means he never saw Chigurh behind the door.

Chigurh is not a myth, he's not a symbolic character, he's not like that other stuff you cite, Randy. McCarthy (& then the Coens) make that clear with the car wreck. He's flesh and blood just like anyone else. That's the whole point of the car wreck, I think, and it's an important point, at least I think it was to McCarthy. The Coens seemed to respect McCarthy & his work so I'm assuming it's important to them as well, though it may be possible they see it differently.

McCarthy's novels like to explore the boundaries and interaction between order and chaos, peace and violence, civilization and barbarity, whatever you wanna call it. His stories (to me, anyway) like to emphasize the reality of the duality, its existence in something a lot more concrete than abstract words. It's all rooted in reality, in physical being.

Pot - stop reading this and go rent the movie for crissake.


What McCarthy intended or envisioned with Chigurh when he wrote the book is not in the least bit relevant to the movie. The Coens loved the book and wanted to adapt it to the film, they got McCarthy's approval but did not once seek consultation with him about how to approach the film.

And the same goes for what the script reads. Even if it says that he's in the room, the movie itself does not make that clear. So at some point, the Coens decided to leave that up in the air. I don't begrudge anyone the viewpoint that TLJ didn't/couldn't/or refused to see Chigurh in the room when he went in there. He could very well have been in a different room, but the link that Randy posted that shows screen shots of Chigiurh, do seem to hint that he's in the room, there is a small goldenish circular light off in the distance from his face, in keeing with the light that would have been created from blowing out the lock.

Also - the Coen's themselves had said that they intentionally removed a lot of dialogue from Chigurh that was in the book because they wanted to elevate every word that he did say and they wanted to add to the concept of him as a mysterious force.

One element that hasn't been mentioned and is something I think is crucial in the movie is when he confronts Brolin's wife. Her flat out refusal to call-it was clearly disturbing to Chigurh, she forced him to take responsibility for his actions, that it wasn't up to the coin, that he was in charge of what happened and that there is no "fate" that he can rely on to distance himself from his own actions.

Lastly, I don't see any repudiation of moral relativism or postmodernism in the movie, can't say for the book. Not sure where you're coming from with that, tom-o.

[TomAz]

there's good guys and bad guys in his books. he draws a bright line between them. Postmodernistic relativism says there's no such thing as good and bad.

[thelastgreatman]

right fact, wrong conclusion. the room is a crime scene. seeing anyone in there would have led Ed Tom to react. the fact that he walked in, poked around and left just means he never saw Chigurh behind the door.

Chigurh is not a myth, he's not a symbolic character, he's not like that other stuff you cite, Randy. McCarthy (& then the Coens) make that clear with the car wreck. He's flesh and blood just like anyone else. That's the whole point of the car wreck, I think, and it's an important point, at least I think it was to McCarthy. The Coens seemed to respect McCarthy & his work so I'm assuming it's important to them as well, though it may be possible they see it differently.

Sure, anyone at the crime scene would be suspicious, but the blown lock specifically let him know EXACTLY who might be behind that door.

I never said he was a myth. If you don't think he's a symbolic character I don't know what else to say. Any good character is a symbolic character. Chigurh is an inhuman psychopath given no background or explanation. If you don't see that as a symbolic element given the theme, fuck it, we have nowhere else to go.

[TomAz]

well Randy this brings us back to what I said before. It's a work of fiction, they're all symbolic characters. Chigurh, Ed Tom, Llewellan, all of them.

[thelastgreatman]

Very true. Chigurh more so, which you can debate if you want but look at how one-dimensional he is. And I don't mean that in a bad way. But he's not even fitting with the usual form of a villain. Villains are built on the strength of the conviction that causes them to do their evil. They way the Coens (at least, I can't speak to the book) portrayed him, he can't really be comprehended or understood in any way. They keep him like that all the way to the end. Even he doesn't seem to know--or care--why he is the way he is, why he feels justified in doing these things.

This intentional and thorough inscrutable nature of Chigurh is why he sticks out (from a structure perspective) as symbolic.

[Yablonowitz]

there's good guys and bad guys in his books. he draws a bright line between them. Postmodernistic relativism says there's no such thing as good and bad.

Ahhh. Interesting, especially considering the Coens strike me as post-modernist filmmakers. "Miller's Crossing" itself was a meditation on situational ethics and the problems inherent in living with a defined moral code.

[downingthief]

Pot - stop reading this and go rent the movie for crissake.


What McCarthy intended or envisioned with Chigurh when he wrote the book is not in the least bit relevant to the movie. The Coens loved the book and wanted to adapt it to the film, they got McCarthy's approval but did not once seek consultation with him about how to approach the film.

And the same goes for what the script reads. Even if it says that he's in the room, the movie itself does not make that clear. So at some point, the Coens decided to leave that up in the air. I don't begrudge anyone the viewpoint that TLJ didn't/couldn't/or refused to see Chigurh in the room when he went in there. He could very well have been in a different room, but the link that Randy posted that shows screen shots of Chigiurh, do seem to hint that he's in the room, there is a small goldenish circular light off in the distance from his face, in keeing with the light that would have been created from blowing out the lock.

Also - the Coen's themselves had said that they intentionally removed a lot of dialogue from Chigurh that was in the book because they wanted to elevate every word that he did say and they wanted to add to the concept of him as a mysterious force.

One element that hasn't been mentioned and is something I think is crucial in the movie is when he confronts Brolin's wife. Her flat out refusal to call-it was clearly disturbing to Chigurh, she forced him to take responsibility for his actions, that it wasn't up to the coin, that he was in charge of what happened and that there is no "fate" that he can rely on to distance himself from his own actions.

Lastly, I don't see any repudiation of moral relativism or postmodernism in the movie, can't say for the book. Not sure where you're coming from with that, tom-o.

Ok, so I am late in on this...

But, that scene with the wife is by far my favorite in the movie. You bring up exactly the reason why, Greg. He needs to choose, on his own. Which also shows he is human, and responsible for his actions. Extremely powerful scene.

I agree that you really can't compare books to movies. Two entirely different art forms. They need to be judged on their own merit. Hard to do at times though because so often, a movie interprets a book terribly.

As far as the room debate, I personally think he is in the room. Why he doesn't take him out is one of the great moments of the film. I personally enjoy movies that are open to interpretation. There is no right or wrong conclusion.

[TomAz]

Hey Randy, question for you.

In that scene at the end of Animal House, when Belushi is driving the car and it has "EAT ME" painted on the sign.. what do you think "EAT ME" symbolizes?

[TomAz]

Ahhh. Interesting, especially considering the Coens strike me as post-modernist filmmakers. "Miller's Crossing" itself was a meditation on situational ethics and the problems inherent in living with a defined moral code.

that is an interesting contrast, cuz I think much of McCarthy's work points out the problems of living without one.

[downingthief]

that is an interesting contrast, cuz I think much of McCarthy's work points out the problems of living without one.

Which books have you read?

[TomAz]

everything since Suttree.

[Yablonowitz]

Hey Randy, question for you.

In that scene at the end of Animal House, when Belushi is driving the car and it has "EAT ME" painted on the sign.. what do you think "EAT ME" symbolizes?

Now you're being silly. SILLY TOM!

I don't think Randy's theories are overreaching.

[thelastgreatman]

Hey Randy, question for you.

In that scene at the end of Animal House, when Belushi is driving the car and it has "EAT ME" painted on the sign.. what do you think "EAT ME" symbolizes?

This is more of that really mature and sly wit you possess that I need to learn more of, yes?

Are you just not interested in the concept that there's subtext and symbolism in art in general or what? Any movies where you do see characters that are symbolic, and if so which?

[TomAz]

Not all art is symbolic, Randy.

[wmgaretjax]

that is an interesting contrast, cuz I think much of McCarthy's work points out the problems of living without one.

And I think that's why the movie worked so well. It capitalized on the ambiguity that these two kinds of writing/filmmaking and moral perspectives generate when they collide.

[thelastgreatman]

Not all art is symbolic, Randy.

All good art has some symbolism in it. I think you're using a rather peculiar definition of the term.

[TomAz]

now who's being silly, randy

[thelastgreatman]

I have no idea. You're either being facetious, which would be funny if you didn't seem to really believe the no symbolism thing, or you're serious in which case you boggle me yet again.

[TomAz]

"All good art has symbolism in it" is a silly statement.

Chigurh is no more or less symbolic than Ed Tom or Llewellyn are. Yes, he's more mysterious. Yes, he's more intriguing. Yes, he's a bigger badass. but symbolic? meh.

[thelastgreatman]

Saying not all art is symbolic is a silly statement too. Isn't symbolism kinda fucking inherent in "art" in any form? If you'd care to provide an example, I'd like to hear it. Anything fictional is symbolic naturally, that's for fucking sure.

Really don't see how you can think that about Chigurh vs. Ed Tom or Llewellyn, but okay.

[TomAz]

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/michelangelo-1.jpg

[thelastgreatman]

... again, are you being funny or not?

[TomAz]

not in the least.

[thelastgreatman]

Really. Okay... so you're saying that that physical formation of stone isn't a representation of anything?

[thelastgreatman]

Michelangelo's David, sculpted from 1501 to 1504, is a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture and one of Michelangelo's two greatest works of sculpture, along with the Pietà. It is the statue of the young Israelite king David alone that almost certainly holds the title of the most recognizable stone sculpture in the history of art. It has become regarded as a symbol both of strength and youthful human beauty. The 5.17 meter (17 ft)[1] marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude, at the moment that he decides to do battle with Goliath. It came to symbolize the defense of civic liberties embodied in the Florentine Republic, an independent city state threatened on all sides by more powerful rival states and by the hegemony of the Medici themselves. This interpretation was also encouraged by the original setting of the sculpture outside the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government in Florence. The completed sculpture was unveiled on 8 September 1504.

[TomAz]

the text you quote cites the use of David as a symbol, after its having been finished.

not symbolism inherent in the art itself

[thelastgreatman]

But that mass of stone is a representation of something that is not just a mass of stone, right?

[thelastgreatman]

Right. It's a person. A specific person. That statue is a symbolic representation of the person David who slayed Goliath. RIGHT?

[wmgaretjax]

I think in this context there is a difference between a representation and a symbol.

However, David was symbolic of the ideal man, it was intended to represent a form that we all sought to embody.

EDIT: Oh, and by "we" I mean MEN. For you WOMEN, it was the ideal form you were supposed to worship.

[thelastgreatman]

sym·bol (smbl)
n.

Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible.

[wmgaretjax]

sym·bol (smbl)
n.

Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible.

"context"

So the symbol is the object, the manifestation of a representation. I'm on your side Randy, let's not quibble.

[thelastgreatman]

Since Michelangelo's David differs from previous representations of the subject in that David is not depicted with the slain Goliath (as he is in Donatello's and Verrocchio's versions, produced earlier), a common interpretation is that David is depicted before his battle with Goliath. Instead of being shown victorious over a foe much larger than he, David looks tense and ready for combat. His veins bulge out of his lowered right hand and the twist of his body effectively conveys to the viewer the feeling that he is in motion. The statue is meant to show David after he has made the decision to fight Goliath but before the battle has actually taken place. It is a representation of the moment between conscious choice and conscious action.[citation needed] However, other experts (including Giuseppe Andreani, the current director of Accademia Gallery) consider the depiction to represent the moment immediately after battle, as David serenely contemplates his victory.

[thestripe]

Since Michelangelo's David differs from previous representations of the subject in that David is not depicted with the slain Goliath (as he is in Donatello's and Verrocchio's versions, produced earlier), a common interpretation is that David is depicted before his battle with Goliath. Instead of being shown victorious over a foe much larger than he, David looks tense and ready for combat. His veins bulge out of his lowered right hand and the twist of his body effectively conveys to the viewer the feeling that he is in motion. The statue is meant to show David after he has made the decision to fight Goliath but before the battle has actually taken place. It is a representation of the moment between conscious choice and conscious action.[citation needed] However, other experts (including Giuseppe Andreani, the current director of Accademia Gallery) consider the depiction to represent the moment immediately after battle, as David serenely contemplates his victory.

Take this shit to another thread.

[thelastgreatman]

I like the symbolic use of "shit" in that sentence.

[TomAz]

Randy, you're listening with your mouth.

[thelastgreatman]

Alright, whatever, let's drop it. I'm done for the day in less than an hour, and I don't get you. I claim you're suffering for cognitive dissonance and personal motivations clouding your otherwise seeming intelligence, and you believe I'm a number of idiotic things, so let's just leave it at that.

[TomAz]

zumtimes a zeegar is just a zeegar

[jackstraw94086]

Right. It's a person. A specific person. That statue is a symbolic representation of the person David who slayed Goliath. RIGHT?

I don't see how Tom's point isn't clear. You're misusing the term. A symbol is an abstraction. The statue of David is not symbolic of David. It's just David. If someone wants to consider the statue of David symbolic of some sort of concept or notion (i.e. triumph over oppression or whatever) that's fine. But there's no symbolism of David in the simple fact that you're looking at David.

Would you consider a photograph of your dick to be a symbol of your dick? No. Maybe the picture has something to do with your hatred of women or perhaps your need to exert dominance. But it's still a picture of a dick, not a symbol of one. If it's symbolic then it's a symbol of something other than a dick.

[jackstraw94086]

This is the movie to end all movies. This thread can die now.

aadu5ctkieM

[thelastgreatman]

I don't see how Tom's point isn't clear. You're misusing the term. A symbol is an abstraction. The statue of David is not symbolic of David. It's just David. If someone wants to consider the statue of David symbolic of some sort of concept or notion (i.e. triumph over oppression or whatever) that's fine. But there's no symbolism of David in the simple fact that you're looking at David.

Would you consider a photograph of your dick to be a symbol of your dick? No. Maybe the picture has something to do with your hatred of women or perhaps your need to exert dominance. But it's still a picture of a dick, not a symbol of one. If it's symbolic then it's a symbol of something other than a dick.

Actually, there is symbolism of David in the simple fact that you're looking at David. Is the statue recognizably King David? Would anyone know who the statue is supposed to be? It is a stone formation of a nude male form, out of proportion in some places as well--an indication that it was crafted to communicate certain aspects to the audience that are not exactly David i.e. symbolic choices in creation.

But besides the fact that no matter what an artist intending to create art IS somehow employing symbols, sculpture is about the worst fucking choice you could go with to try and prove your case. Is The Thinker not symbolic too just because a human man could theoretically have been in exactly that form at some point, thereby making it just a recreation? No. The artist crafts whatever they're crafting to achieve certain effects--he wanted to portray David in that pose for a reason, to give a particular feeling to onlookers. You can debate whether or not the interpretations that followed are true to ol' Mike's intentions, but a stone carving of a historical figure is undeniably--just on a fucking grammatical level--a symbolic representation of that man.

I shouldn't have to argue this. You're both literate. You ought to be able to process how that's unavoidable. And yes, Jack, a picture of my dick IS a symbol of my dick. How the fuck is it not?

[jackstraw94086]

Actually, there is symbolism of David in the simple fact that you're looking at David. Is the statue recognizably King David? Would anyone know who the statue is supposed to be? It is a stone formation of a nude male form, out of proportion in some places as well--an indication that it was crafted to communicate certain aspects to the audience that are not exactly David i.e. symbolic choices in creation.

But besides the fact that no matter what an artist intending to create art IS somehow employing symbols, sculpture is about the worst fucking choice you could go with to try and prove your case. Is The Thinker not symbolic too just because a human man could theoretically have been in exactly that form at some point, thereby making it just a recreation? No. The artist crafts whatever they're crafting to achieve certain effects--he wanted to portray David in that pose for a reason, to give a particular feeling to onlookers. You can debate whether or not the interpretations that followed are true to ol' Mike's intentions, but a stone carving of a historical figure is undeniably--just on a fucking grammatical level--a symbolic representation of that man.

I shouldn't have to argue this. You're both literate. You ought to be able to process how that's unavoidable. And yes, Jack, a picture of my dick IS a symbol of my dick. How the fuck is it not?

Dude are you serious? He named the fucking statue "David". It's not a fucking "symbol" of david, it's just a fucking statue of david. You keep saying "symbolic representation". In the context of this discussion that's a fricking oxymoron. Yes, the statue is a representation of David, but the symbolism (if any) is of what David represents.

A picture of your dick is absolutely not a symbol of your dick. A symbol of a dick would be something like the universal male symbol (circle with the arrow to the lower left) or the washington monument or some shit. That's what a symbol is, an object that refers to something other than what it is at face value. A picture of something is just a picture of something, it's not symbolism refering to the object itself. This concept is so obvious I can't imagine how else to help you grasp this. Jesus christ we're just speaking English here. I'm done with this argument. You should have been done before you started.

[thelastgreatman]

I'm done as well. And you're right about how this is a remarkable inability to process the English language, but not on my part. Perhaps you should stick to making dance music. No worries of depth there to create these terrible quagmires.

Oh, and I posted the fucking definition only last page. Jesus.

[thestripe]

Into the Wild was great.

Good, I just received it in the mail.

[TomAz]

Dude are you serious? He named the fucking statue "David". It's not a fucking "symbol" of david, it's just a fucking statue of david. You keep saying "symbolic representation". In the context of this discussion that's a fricking oxymoron. Yes, the statue is a representation of David, but the symbolism (if any) is of what David represents.

A picture of your dick is absolutely not a symbol of your dick. A symbol of a dick would be something like the universal male symbol (circle with the arrow to the lower left) or the washington monument or some shit. That's what a symbol is, an object that refers to something other than what it is at face value. A picture of something is just a picture of something, it's not symbolism refering to the object itself. This concept is so obvious I can't imagine how else to help you grasp this. Jesus christ we're just speaking English here. I'm done with this argument. You should have been done before you started.


thank you jack. you've said this very well. this was what I was getting at with the picture but when he didn't immediately grasp it as obvious i lost interest in debating him.

[thelastgreatman]

Suppose I draw my dick? Is that a symbol? Suppose it's kinda a shitty drawing and you didn't immediately recognize it? Suppose you didn't know the statue was named David? Does it start or stop being a symbolic representation of the man? Suppose King David is a mythical story, never actually existed, just more bullshit in The Bible. Is it a symbol then? Or not?

... definition posted right back thataway.

[jackstraw94086]

sym·bol (smbl)
n.

Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible.

...

[thelastgreatman]

Nopers. If Sean Penn is at the helm, I stay far, far away.

[thelastgreatman]

...

Jack, you can't just highlight the especially section and one of the three conditions of the definition. It is still accurate as "something that represents something else by resemblance."

I say it again--what if it wasn't named David? Ignoring the fact that it's a big block of stone intended to be a recreation of a man that we don't really know what he fucking looked like--ALTHOUGH I REALLY WISH WE DIDN'T HAVE TO IGNORE SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUS.

What if I draw my dick? Is it a symbol for my dick?

[Hannahrain]

What if I draw my dick? Is it a symbol for my dick?

I imagine this depends on how good of an artist you are.

[jackstraw94086]

Jack, you can't just highlight the especially section and one of the three conditions of the definition. It is still accurate as "something that represents something else by resemblance."

I say it again--what if it wasn't named David? Ignoring the fact that it's a big block of stone intended to be a recreation of a man that we don't really know what he fucking looked like--ALTHOUGH I REALLY WISH WE DIDN'T HAVE TO IGNORE SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUS.

What if I draw my dick? Is it a symbol for my dick?

Are you fucking breathing? I didn't not delete anything from your definition. I just highlighted the point.

Did you read what you yourself just wrote? "something that represents something else"

How the hell does this not make sense?

Here's Webster's definition (with the relevant definition bolded. I defy you to somehow warp one of the other definitions to suit your ill fated argument.)

1: an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine : creed
2: something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible <the lion is a symbol of courage>3: an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities, elements, relations, or qualities
4: an object or act representing something in the unconscious mind that has been repressed <phallic symbols>
5: an act, sound, or object having cultural significance and the capacity to excite or objectify a response

[jackstraw94086]

What if I draw my dick? Is it a symbol for my dick?

Jesus zombie bastard christ, for the last time, NO.

If you intend to create a picture of your dick then it's not a symbol regardless of how skilled an artist you are.

If you are intending to create some sort of other object isn't supposed to directly resemble a dick but imply one then it could be a symbol.

[TomAz]

Jack, you can't just highlight the especially section and one of the three conditions of the definition. It is still accurate as "something that represents something else by resemblance."

I say it again--what if it wasn't named David? Ignoring the fact that it's a big block of stone intended to be a recreation of a man that we don't really know what he fucking looked like--ALTHOUGH I REALLY WISH WE DIDN'T HAVE TO IGNORE SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUS.

What if I draw my dick? Is it a symbol for my dick?

Under your definition of symbol, then yes all art that is not mere nothingness contains symbolism. That's a tautology. A true but trivial statement. Under your definition, the picture of the actor portraying Chigurh that showed up on the film stock is not merely a picture of Chigurh but a symbol of Chigurh, since it's not the actual physical being of the actor-cum-character himself. One could even extend this logic to say all acting is a symbolic protrayal of people real or imagined. You could say that, yes, but then you'd've watered the definition of symbol down so far as to be meaningless.

Take a breath and think for a moment before you respond, because my guess is you won't be able to grasp this obvious statement in one go.

[thelastgreatman]

"Something that represents something else by resemblance" was what I wrote, Jack. And that is actually what we're talking about. But let's go through some elements of your definition:

suggests something else by reason of relationship--little tricky, how we interpret relationship there. I'd say being a sculpture of a man is a relationship.

suggests something else by reason of association--again, David qualifies. I don't see why you can't admit that a lifelike sculpture is not still only a suggestion of a man. It is not a man. It is an attempt to convey a man through stone.

an act, sound, or object having cultural significance--do I really need to defend this one at all?

[TomAz]

by claiming mere representation to be symbolism you've taken all the guts out of the meaing of 'symbol'. You've used a semantic game to attempt to prove your point, which was wrong to start with and which you've come to recognize, which is why you've resorted to semantics, which you are also bad at.

[thelastgreatman]

I imagine this depends on how good of an artist you are.

Exactly why the argument is null. Jack, Tom, you're basically saying that if it looks just like the thing it's an imitation of, that makes it not a symbol. But, if you make it too unrealistic to be instantly recognizable, then it is. Except that David isn't recognizable as David unless you know it's named David and you know who David was.

Jesus zombie bastard christ, for the last time, NO.

If you intend to create a picture of your dick then it's not a symbol regardless of how skilled an artist you are.

If you are intending to create some sort of other object isn't supposed to directly resemble a dick but imply one then it could be a symbol.

This is just fucking ridiculous. We have to know what the artist intended? How do you propose we do that?

[thelastgreatman]

Under your definition of symbol, then yes all art that is not mere nothingness contains symbolism. That's a tautology. A true but trivial statement. Under your definition, the picture of the actor portraying Chigurh that showed up on the film stock is not merely a picture of Chigurh but a symbol of Chigurh, since it's not the actual physical being of the actor-cum-character himself. One could even extend this logic to say all acting is symbolic protrayals of people real or imagined. You could say that, yes, but then you'd've watered the definition of symbol down so far as to be meaningless.

Take a breath and think for a moment before you respond, because my guess is you won't be able to grasp this obvious statement in one go.

OF COURSE ALL ART IS SYMBOLIC. Yes. That's what makes it fucking art. Communicating the impression of something other than what it is. That is what makes art art. You draw a flower. It's not a flower. Our ability to conjure the concept of something real with a fake version of it is the essence of art.

And yes, in our argument about Chigurh there are two levels of symbolism, because there are two levels on which it processes: one, as picture and sound that we absord and interpret and imagine as real things even though they're fictional; and two, there is an internal reality within the film. When something that defies what our brain is processing as a representation of reality on that first level, it is another level of symbolism.

by claiming mere representation to be symbolism you've taken all the guts out of the meaing of 'symbol'. You've used a semantic game to attempt to prove your point, which was wrong to start with and which you've come to recognize, which is why you've resorted to semantics, which you are also bad at.

Please. You've never been right about a fucking grammatical issue with me. Ever. It's just annoying. I don't even understand how this is a semantic game. Except that you assholes can't help yourselves, and cognitive dissonance, and etc.


I can't do this again today, I'm fucking wasting my life arguing with grown men about things that shouldn't even be debatable. Fuck this thread.

[TomAz]

I guessed right.

[thelastgreatman]

Also, you don't know what "tautology" means either. It has nothing to do with being trivial. It refers to either repetition or in the way you tried to use it an inherently true statement, like "you are either right or you are not."

Please, I beg of you cunts to buy a goddamn dictionary before you accuse me of arguing semantics, because it's just annoying to hear someone who don't know how to use the language properly dismiss arguments as semantic.