Project #6 Film Review

The Role of the Reader
(Subjective Reader-Response Theory)

The theory of reader-response criticism is based on the understanding that a work of art's meaning to an individual has more to do with the individual than the work of art. The reader or audience member is actually a key player in the performance because of what they bring to the table. Everything in their background and make-up as a person shapes how they view and understand the art, and therefore what the meaning/value/interpretation of that art is. Where this critical lens gets really interesting is when a work of art is so ambiguous that different individuals come to startlingly different conclusions about the work in whole or in part, and what unconscious truths those conclusions reveal about ourselves and one another. The film version of 'No Country for Old Men' is one such work of art. Though the plot is that of a crime thriller, for me the interest lies more in the characters, their natures and the forces that drive them. But as I watch the film I am conscious that my own memories, feelings, and experiences, or symbolization, shape my interpretation. I desire to reconcile the film to my personal knowledge. The impression I am left with is composed greatly by my own life.

Unlike many conventional dialog centered movies and novels, where the characters tell you up front everything they are thinking and feeling, McCarthy's characters are dramatically more subtle and mysterious, qualities that the Coen brothers capture brilliantly with their style of filming. There is very little dialog in the film, the story is presented primarily throught both dramatic and subtle imagery, which leaves much room for interpretation, specifically about what each character is thinking. The most interesting character, Anton Chigurh, has relatively little dialog, but he makes quite an impression. His distinctive moptop haircut, his careful mannerisms, his methodology, and the calcuatled ideology expressed in his actions all speak louder than words. But people's reastions to Chigurh still vary widely. To me he embodies pure evil, but some people have gone so far as to see him as a kind of hero. Having discussed the film in academic settings, I know that some fans of the movie view Chigurh's commitment to his ideology, the ideology that "causes" him to commit murder, as a sort of morality, a nobleness that he is dedicated to. When Chigurh does speak he explains that the people he kills have died because it was their fate to die at that time, he is just a bringer of fate. He would have you believe that he has nothing to do with the decision and he's not responsible for it. In fact he even allows some victims a coin toss to see fi chance will save their lives, and whatever the outcome of the coin flip Chigurh will honor it because he lives by a code. This commitment to his "honor" code allows some people to idealize the murderer. And while I understand that, I will never feel that way, because of who I am and my aesthetic relationship with the film.

The major themes of the film are chance and free will. But how each viewer identifies with those themes affects how they feel about the movie at the end. My response is one of hope really, even though Moss and his wife died they did not give up in the face of unstoppable evil and incalculable injustice. They made their own choices to the end and never allowed Chigurh or fate to control the outcome. For me there is hope in that defiance. Other audience members felt a range of emotions from outrage, sadness, confusion, excitement (mostly boys who liked the actions scenes), indifference, acceptance, and much more. There were as many different reactions to the movie as there were audience members who viewed it, because each person's unique perspective affected them.
'No Country for Old Men' is a complicated movie that defies classification into a single genre. Because of that fact the people who saw it came from many varied backgrounds and classes, and their thoughts towards the film have made it what it is. Cormac McCarthy is never an author to come out and tell people what to think, he doesn't explain his novels, they are what they are. This made his novel an ideal candidate to be made into a movie by the Coen brothers, who use their considerable skill to create art that is thought provoking and relevant. But the final peice of the puzzle in this work of art has been the millions of viewers whose reactions to the film cannot be separated from our understanding of the film. Their individual understandings of the film make it what it is.