Instead of the conventional high-wire tension of the final, cathartic shoot-out between good guy and bad, in a dramatic, often ‘epic’ setting, the villain is still alive and Sheriff Bell sits, sad and weary, in the small, domestic space of his kitchen - talking. In one almost completely static shot, he delivers a lengthy monologue about the dreams he has dreamt.

It is the quietest, most intimate of scenes. And it is the final one. Anti-climactic, anti-dramatic. Five simple words, before the screen goes back. ‘And then I woke up’.

Faced with a story that takes us out of our comfort zone into the unfathomable and then leaves us there, is disturbing.

You could call No Country For Old Men’s ending a cruel joke - playing with the audience’s feelings. And it is cruel.

We’ve been denied the catharsis of watching a David slay Goliath. And if we don’t like it, tough.

That there is no consoling denouement in the movie is perhaps the most terrifying aspect of the experience.

The movie holds up a mirror to a world in terminal moral decline and refuses to soften the dark, apocalyptic nightmare for us.

In keeping with the uncompromizing moral theme, it’s an uncompromoizing ending that refuses to give us an ending.

It may leave us in the bleak wilderness, confronting our most profound fears. But to stay truthful to the moral theme of the story, could it really have ended any other way?

Winston: I think you’re onto something here, but not sure I entirely agree. Yes, you’re right that Sheriff Bell is in many ways the focal point of the movie. But I don’t think it’s because he’s the protagonist; it’s because he’s the narrator.

No Country is essentially a story told by Sheriff Bell. It’s the story he’s telling to justify his retirement. He doesn’t really have much of an impact on the Llewelyn Moss/Anton Chigurh conflict at all; he’s mostly an outside observer. So I think it’s really a case of Sheriff Bell choosing to tell a story about the American Dream, as I discussed above, for reasons you outline.

The Coens have done this postmodern narrator thing before. You remember that Big Lebowski is narrated by the nameless cowboy, and Hudsucker Proxy is narrated by the black guy in the clock tower. You’re right that this framing gives the stories an extra level of depth that the standard suitcase-full-of-money story doesn’t have.

And btw, that last scene with Sheriff Bell talking to his wife always makes me cry like a baby. It’s a man at the end of his life trying desperately to measure up to his father’s standards, unsure if he can. Hell, I’m tearing up right now just thinking about it.

As for Fargo: Yes, I think you’re right in part that it’s largely Marge Gundersen’s story. But again, like No Country, it’s in some sense a framing device. Marge observing someone else’s story for the purpose of reflecting on her own life. A more complicated case, structurally speaking.

1. Appear first on screen
2. Appears last on screen
3. Carries the premise, the moral themes.
4. Goes on a journey ( changes his world view, his belief system etc more than any other character)
5. Is the one whose life is being made difficult.
6. Does not die ( other than in horror movies and tragedies, but even so not before he/she has learnt something)

Picking the wrong protagonist, gives a totally incorrect slant to “What the story is about” and whose eyes we see it through/ Peter Dunne’s great book ” Emotional Structure” clearly distinguishes, PLOT ( the intellectual and physical journey) , and STORY (the metaphysical, emotional journey).

What lifts NCFOM from the other plain old “character finds a suitcase full of money stories” is Sheriff Bell who embodies the inherent horror in “The American dream is becoming a nightmare” premise. Take out Sherriff Bell and its a nothing movie.

All of this is underlined at film’s end, when Sheriff Bell tells his wife of a dream turning into a nightmare and his last line ( the last line of the film) is “And then I woke up”. A beautiful irony cos unfortunately, in America today, we might wish we could, but cannot just wake up and breathe a sigh of relief that’s its all over.

Beware the charismatic antagonist. Its tempting in films like this to lean towards more charismatic characters as whom the story is about. Chigurh and Llewelyn dominate screen time, but their function is to make Sheriff Bell’s life difficult and test his character to its core. They are functional characters in that sense, doing what they know how to do, without self revelation or epiphany.

btw Jerry Lundegard is not the protagonist in Fargo either. Think about it.

I heart the Coens. Except “The Big Lebowski”. Never saw the humor in that one…

The first movie my wife and I saw as a couple was ‘From Dusk Till Dawn’ - her idea. Our last date night movie was ‘The Mist’.

She’s cool like that.

I view the problem as one of perception rather than reality. Most people in this country have a distorted view of the ‘American Dream,’ and that is the essence of the problem.

Good point. Thanks for the comment.

I’ve got this on my ‘must see on the next date night’ list.

As long as your date doesn’t mind seeing innocent people’s brains blown out by a cattle gun.

Thanks!

I view the problem as one of perception rather than reality. Most people in this country have a distorted view of the ‘American Dream,’ and that is the essence of the problem. People want to SPEND money, not accumulate it steadily over time. How many times have you heard friends or associates say “if only I had a bigger house, new car, etc.” If only indeed.

Read “The Millionaire Next Door” if you want examples of people who didn’t have to extort, steal or murder to acquire their wealth. They aren’t obnoxious like Donald Trump, either. They work hard, live below their means, and (usually) run an unglamorous business that meets a customer need.

***FARGO SPOILER ALERT***FARGO SPOILER ALERT***

Furthermore, I think that everyone in Fargo (with the exception of the poor wife) got what they deserved. To me, the movie had a happy ending.