Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, No Country for Old Men, Tommy Lee Jones
Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, No Country for Old Men, Tommy Lee Jones

The Men Of "No Country For Old Men" Discuss Hit Film

AP   |  Jake Coyle   |   January 23, 2008 05:57 PM


stumbleupon :The Men Of "No Country For Old Men" Discuss Hit Film   digg: The Men Of "No Country For Old Men" Discuss Hit Film   reddit: The Men Of "No Country For Old Men" Discuss Hit Film   del.icio.us: The Men Of "No Country For Old Men" Discuss Hit Film

The men of "No Country for Old Men" are having a smoke.

Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin each light up while, all dressed in dark suits, they gather in a back room at Manhattan restaurant Cipriani's for the National Board of Review Awards.

While Jones fiddles with the matches, Brolin rolls his eyes and alludes to Jones' Ivy League education: "Harvard," he says in disbelief.

The NBR Awards, which named the film the year's best picture, are just one of many to honor the Coen brothers' movie, adapted from Cormac McCarthy's novel. On Tuesday, "No Country" was nominated for eight Oscars, including best picture and best supporting actor for Bardem. Jones was also nominated for best actor for his performance in "In the Valley of Elah."

"No Country" has grossed more than any previous Coen film, an unlikely financial success for a violent, somber allegory of a movie.


Each character is symbolic. Bardem's Anton Chigurh is a prophet of destruction with the hair of Prince Valiant. Brolin's Llewlyn Moss is greed; he attempts to take a found suitcase of money for himself. And Jones' Sheriff Ed Tom Bell is justice; a wise, old man trying to make sense of a new violence.

Similarly, in person, they appear archetypes of masculinity. Among the trio, Brolin is the wry jokester; Bardem is the affable, sensitive one; and Jones is the dour, sarcastic elder statesman.

___

AP: Though Joel Coen has said this is a film about three men, you're never seen together on screen. In fact, any two of you hardly appear together.

JONES: Not once.

BROLIN: Or once, but without any dialogue.

JONES: But we're a terrific ensemble, as you can see. (all laugh)

AP: Did you have that sense that you were an ensemble when making it, even if you didn't have dialogue together?

JONES: Albuquerque is a really hard place to work. It's very noisy. There are crows there, planes, trucks, people working on their cars. It's just a noisy place to shoot. It's a little quieter in West Texas. That's about all we dealt with, is trying to do the best we could and work around the noise of Albuquerque and the topographical features of West Texas. I suppose that made us an ensemble, but it's not as if we walked around a drawing room exchanging witticisms.

AP: It's ironic that it was noisy while making it, considering the film is exceptionally quiet, with barely any music at all. When did you know that there would essentially be no music?

BROLIN: Not until we saw it. We had no idea.

JONES: There was no music? (all laugh)

BROLIN: There's a bit. There's ambiance. And it's kind of good; I don't know of any movie that's done that -- kind of accentuated the ambiance of the wind, the footsteps, the rustling. So it kind of has a natural soundtrack, but a soundtrack nonetheless.

AP: Is that nerve-racking to hear that there isn't music? Maybe you're more naked on screen that way?

BROLIN: Well, we didn't know beforehand. I think if we had been told that there was going to be nothing on the screen but your breathing, at a certain point we probably would have imploded.

BARDEM: I was really hoping for them to cover my whole voice, my terrible English, with some tension, some music. But they didn't.

BROLIN: Heavy metal or something.

AP: It's been interesting to see how ongoing the discussion is about this film. Critics and moviegoers seem to still be turning over the ending, the hair, the meaning of Chigurh.

JONES: That's good. It's a good thing if it causes conversations.

BROLIN: I know that some of these critics have seen the movie more than once, and from what I've heard, up to four times. ... It's not your typical structure of film. You rape the audience of a protagonist, and suddenly they go, `We don't like that.' But of course you don't like that because you're not supposed to like that.

AP: Javier, your character is the instigator of these questions. How do you prepare for a character like this, who's less a normal person and more an embodiment of violence?

BARDEM: The only difference that I had in approaching the character is not really worrying about the backstory of the character: where he's coming from, if his mommy fed him well when he was 10. It was about how to bring this iconic and symbolic idea of what violence represents into human fear -- which was a difficult task because it's very easy to get lost in the machine, in the Terminator side of it.

AP: Many have also been unsure of how to react to the ending (a scene in which Jones' character gives a long soliloquy). How did you approach that scene?

JONES: I worked at it every day, several times a day, because it was poetic and you wanted to get the rhythms right and try to embody in the performance all that it might imply as a work of literature and hopefully cinema. And worked at it real hard. Are you asking me what it meant?

AP: No.

JONES: Good. (all laugh) Because it means what it means. It says what it says. It's pretty straightforward.

AP: Is it something that you believe? Once we're no longer saying "sir" and "ma'am" is all lost?

JONES: No, not all is lost. What I think is the book and the movie, in general, is a contemplation of morality. And the character of Ed Tom feels somewhat overwhelmed by a new character of evil and says so to his wiser and older uncle, and his uncle tells him that that's vanity, that evil doesn't change and that you, Ed Tom, do not live in the center of the universe. You can't be overwhelmed. It's the same old deal. Then he tells the story about these Indians who ride up to another uncle's house maybe a hundred years ago, kill him on his front porch. And when he recounts the story, if you look at it on the face of it, it seems like a recounting of a scene from a grade-B Western, but somehow you get the feeling that if you were there on that day, you would have seen real evil. And it would have impressed you; it would have been real. And I think that's important to this movie's outlook. No matter how overwhelmed you might feel, it's not about you. ... And like all considerations of Cormac, the questions are far more important than the answers. The question that arises there is that wonderful dream of riding ahead and reuniting with your father in the warm fire place in the cold, in the dark, hostile country. And if it is a dream, does the dream have any efficacy at all? If you wake up from a dream, what have you woken up from? Have you woken up from reality? So these get to be pretty sophisticated questions and I really appreciate the Coen brothers' careful reading of Cormac's moral thinking. Finally we're left with the really good questions, which are better than any simple answers. Did that make any sense?

BARDEM & BROLIN: Mm-hmm. (applauding)

Comments for this post are now closed


 

Comments
20
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:

Let's get to the nut cutting and see some titles from those of you who think this film is shit.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 AM on 01/26/2008

This movie is based on a fantasy so dearly held, the Human Killing Machine. Here he comes. Methodical. Scarey. Inevitable. Leaving a trail of corpses in his wake. Frequently played by guys named Arnold or Sylvester. But even they make more of an effort to make him believable. For example Chigurh kills the deputy when he's handcuffed in the back by passing the handcuffs under his legs so they're in the front. Try it. Pretend your hands are cuffed behind you. Now pass your hands underneath your legs without moving them apart. Add to that Chigurh is a huge man. Add to that he supposedly does it silently and in a few seconds. Such hooey. Another thing. Chigurh gets shot in the leg and removes the bullet himself. Later he breaks his arm so badly the bone is sticking out. You or I would be screaming in agony. Trust me. Agony. Not only is Chigurh not screaming in agony, the expression on his face never changes. In fact the expression on his face rarely changes. Except when he's making nihilistic chit chat with someone he's about to kill. A little smile flickers. All your human killing machines love to make the nihilistic chit chat with their victims. "Let's toss this coin to see whether or not I kill you" Ha Ha. Funny stuff. "Why don't you just admit I'm about to slaughter you. There would be more dignity in it" No buddy, that's a little ego stroke for you. And the local yokels are so stupid they practically hold the gun steady for him. "Hey stand still when I'm about to shoot you" "Sure thing mister. Do you mind if I wait to get killed with an idiotic expression on my face" Another thing. He walks around like the Angel of Death with this huge rifle or that air killing thingie at his side. He strolls in and out of public places whenever he pleases. Nobody ever stops him. Nobody ever questions him. No security guards around or witnesses or security cameras. Just easy killing

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 AM on 01/25/2008

Javier Bardem is one of the most astounding and profound actors in film today. I saw this movie and he was certainly very good but my favorite Bardem performances are "El Mar Adentro" (The Sea Inside)folloed by "Before Night Falls".

I think Schnabell (who coincidentally did before night Falls) must have lookd at El mar Adentro for his current Movie the butterfly and the Bell Jar....anyhow javier plays a man completely paralyzed from the neck down, and bedridden and still engaged in life..it is nothing short of perfect and his performance is powerful and moving.

Before Night falls is astounding; Cuba, writers, exile, AIDS, gays,....and NYC a tough movie and johnny Depp has a several great roles in it.

Both are true stories/bio-pics.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 01/24/2008

So, if it doesn't have remarkable sex scenes or frat-tastic explosions, people won't like it. People need movies to spell it out for them. God forbid we think for ourselves once in awhile. God forbid we appreciate the art of simplicity, something Hollywood has failed to deploy in ages. Finally, a movie comes out that annihilates most movies that have been ralphing-up chunks on theater floors everywhere and nobody gets it. "I didn't get it." "What's with the ending?" "It just ended." "I didn't like it because it was stupid." Maybe they should say, "I didn't like it b/c I'm stupid." Then at least my ears wouldn't hemorrhage from such infantile comments. Just sit back, use that thingamajig that's protected by the dense skull you were born with and try to pay attention. I know it's hard when the plot is so intrinsic and the dialogue is so foreign, but try to keep up. There is meaning behind the words they say. It's called symbolism. Study it. Get to know it. You might come to enjoy other flicks that carry on the same themes. Shit writing? Are you kidding me? Do me a favor, get out a pencil and paper and write me a story that contains a plot. Character tension. And an actual meaning. Something that will make the audience walk away and think. And I know what you're going to say: This movie didn't have a plot. The characters lacked any form of tension and the only thinking I did was when I asked myself why I paid $10 to watch that. And I understand your confusion. You're simple people who need simple answers.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 PM on 01/24/2008

1. Think about the freakin title. I'll give you a minute. Or a few days. "No Country for Old Men." Say it with me now. Now, think about what Tommy Lee Jones said in the interview and how it relates to how we as humans are self-centered and stuck in our generational gaps. How we always think our generation is the one with the most violence, the most technology, the most this, the most that. The movie is about more than a stolen briefcase full of money. If you just don't like what the true meaning of the story is, then say so, but don't call it "shit writing" or "vacuous."

2. I'm sorry, but when Bardem's character and Brolin's are finally in the same scene together, combined with the way Bardem finds access to people and murders them, it doesn't get tenser than that. We're used to rooting for someone. Having an obvious hero to bite our fingernails for. You're unsure who it is here, and I understand that. But again, the movie isn't about cheering for Brolin. Plus, even though Tommy Lee Jones plays the same character he usually does, he still manages to give the character personality beyond which is shown on screen. You"re watching human nature unfold before your eyes and you still can"t see past your own blind judgments.

3. Meaning is being spat at you like a spit ball in home room. The movie is saturated in meaning. It"s marinating in meaning. Every freakin word has some form of meaning. Every action, reaction, consequence¦it all has meaning that we should all be able to relate to. If not, your favorite show is probably "American Idol." And the end. The icing on the cake that everyone calls stale, leaving you starving for an answer, is actually chock-full of information. The culmination of the entire movie. It can"t have a definite ending because the meaning continues. It will always continue until man dies out.

Maybe we should rename the movie: "No Movies for Dumb Men."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 PM on 01/24/2008

plutorage says...and a straight face?

"This movie is ok if you don't mind nihilism drenched in ostentation but the vacuous promotion of it is the biggest put-on in the history of Hollywood."

Now THAT'S....both ostentatious...and...vacuous.

Good lord...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 01/24/2008

....The source material was unreadable. Seriously?? I find it incredible that any sort of author/film maker/artist in general is reduced to being called "shit" or "a put on" when they don't make middle of the road, broad, or obvious work. When did working like that get us any where? McCarthy's language is as stark and dry as the landscapes in which the stories reside. I have to actually think when I read it but then again it isn't set in a courtroom and Grisham didn't write it.
For my money this is the best movie the Coens have done since Blood Simple. I'm going back for my fourth viewing before it leaves the theaters.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 PM on 01/24/2008

.......but this experiment lacked what any self-respecting moviegoer should demand: entertainment.
Thanks burtisburt for putting me wise. Now go play with your rubber duck.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:39 AM on 01/24/2008

Not surprised at the lack of comments here. I am a huge Coen brothers fan, and I appreciate the true art of film-making, but this experiment lacked what any self-respecting moviegoer should demand: entertainment. And all this critical acclaim with no real analysis will befuddle and alienate the majority of those that decide to take a chance on this film. Unfortunately most of them will leave scarred and will never again stray from the comfort of tried and true Mainstream Hollywood crap. Too bad, the Coens certainly do have a legacy of true masterpieces: Raising Arizona, The Hudsucker Proxy, Fargo, The Man Who Wasn't There, O Brother Where Art Thou, and The Big Lebowski.
Or maybe I just don't get it.....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 PM on 01/23/2008


this is the most empty interview I have ever read. These people have nothing to say about this film because there isn't anything to say.

BTW, the claim that there is no protagonist?

Proto from the greek "first" and agonist - you can guess what that is, translate it literally - points directly at Brolin, a character who finds $2 million in a suitcase next to drug dealers and tries to make off with it. The rest of the movie is everybody basically after Brolin with a suitcase full of money. Sounds like a protagonist to me.

This critic says of the characters in the movie: Brolin is greed, Bardem is "prophet of destruction" , and Jones is Justice. Well, you could say that about three characters in just about any movie ever made. Jones plays a sheriff who wears a badge and I need a critic to tell me he is "Justice"?

This movie is ok if you don't mind nihilism drenched in ostentation but the vacuous promotion of it is the biggest put-on in the history of Hollywood.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:47 PM on 01/23/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 

 

 Site  Web ask.com