Quote:
Originally Posted by MoriartyL
I just watched No Country For Old Men. I loved the craft behind it, and the chase scenes were fantastic. But I don't really understand what the movie was trying to say, so I didn't like it so much.
|
"Life sucks, and then you die." But seriously, I don't think there was a one simple message the film was trying to put across. Rather, it tried to evoke a feeling of radical pessimism/nihilism (I
know they are different things, despite the common misuse of the latter word, but either of them, or both, could be argued to apply to NCfOM) about the state of the world.
That said, it was a film which I thought worked exactly as well when you are trying to decipher its "message" as when you're disregarding it and just go with the flow. The craft, as you say, the stylish look, the sound design, the precise script that doesn't underestimate audience's intelligence, and actors that are universally at the top of their form, make it a touchstone of (bleak) thrillers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squinky
Again, I still haven't seen the movie, but must those two concepts be mutually exclusive?
|
Saying that something is rather X than Y doesn't imply that X and Y are mutually exclusive.
A much more fitting question to Giligan would be why having a moral message is an "odd thing".
