See it? Yes, but first understand what you’re getting into (keep reading).
I don’t know how movie trailers are made, but I envision a bunch of marketing types in suits sitting in a boardroom brainstorming on how a movie should be pitched to audiences. After a bunch of whiteboarding and a few lattes, guys half their age wearing tee shirts and headphones go off to their Macs to make the vision a reality. There are a few iterations until the suits are happy at which point the trailer gets shipped off. The end result is often a work of art in and of itself, even though it most likely has very little to do with the movie it’s supposed to be advertising. Trailers, after all, are marketing material designed to sell a movie. They are not designed to help viewers pick movies that are right for them. The purpose of trailer is to convince as many people as possible to see a movie as quickly as possible before word can spread about how crappy the movie actually is.
(If you have any doubts about the ability of a trailer to misrepresent a movie, just watch the preview for this wonderfully inspirational family film called Shining.)
My point is that No Country For Old Men is an excellent movie that, as its hart, is almost nothing like its trailer suggests. So misleading are the previews, in fact, that at least two people in the theater actually booed the ending. I admit to being somewhat confused by how the story ended myself (think Sopranos), however by the time I got to my car, it had sunk in enough that I thought I understood it. By the time I got home, I really liked it. And by the time I finished explaining the movie to my wife, I loved it and already wanted to watch it again.
I’ll start with the easy points. The writing is great. The dialog is simultaneously fun, colorful, and eerie. The monologue at the beginning masterfully written and delivered by Tommy Lee Jones. And the acting and characters are, without exception, nearly flawless.
Now for the plot (don’t worry — no spoilers yet). No Country For Old Men is essentially about a drug deal that somehow goes south, a man who mistakenly comes across the money (Llewelyn Moss), and the attempt of a psychopathic killer (Anton Chigurh) to hunt him down. On the periphery, you have an old Texas Sheriff (Tom Bell) who is more trying to make sense of the violence than actually solve the case, and a combination hit man and bounty hunter (Carson Wells) who is hired to intervene. But don’t confuse the plot with the meaning. As far as I can tell, there are no real heroes in No Country. There is no crescendo which builds up to a climax from which the good guys triumphantly walk away. In fact, I’m not entirely sure there are really any good guys. There is only misdirection and unpredictability, which I believe are the primary themes of the movie.
Now I think it’s only fair that I issue a spoiler alert as I have to give a few things away in order to delve further into the meaning of the movie. However, I guarantee that you’ll appreciate No Country far more with your expectations properly set.
The title of the movie clearly relates to the Sheriff, and to most of the other law enforcement officers in the story. Although Bell is certainly a sharp investigator, he is completely unprepared for the relentless violence of drug related crime. Not only are the Sheriff and his deputies outgunned, but the bad guys seem to be playing by an entirely different set of rules which allow them to stay one step ahead. Although you want the Sheriff to confront and defeat Chigurh, you never really feel like that’s a realistic scenario. The meaning of the title is contained in the opening monolog as the Sheriff says, "The crime you see now, it’s hard to even take its measure."
But there’s much more to the movie than an old man coming to terms with his retirement. To me, the movie felt like it was more about the unpredictable, unfair, and arbitrary nature of our lives, a theme that is both played out repeatedly, and even explicitly discussed. For instance, while Llewelyn hides out at a hotel in El Paso, a girl by the pool notices that he keeps looking out his window. She later has the opportunity to flirt with him, and asks him what he’s looking for. He tells her he’s just watching for what’s coming, at which point she casually responds that you never see what’s coming.
In another scene, the Sheriff is talking with Llewelyn’s wife in a diner, and tells her a story about a rancher who failed to kill a cow cleanly on his first attempt. He decides to put a bullet in the cows head to end it quickly, but since the cow is thrashing about, the rancher misses and the bullet glances the cows head, ricochets around the metal room, and lodges itself in the rancher’s arm. The Sheriff solemnly tells Llewelyn’s wife that even between man and cattle, nothing is certain.
Interestingly, during the same conversation, the Sheriff mentions that cattle are killed with a pneumatic rod now which is much more predictable. One of Chigurh favorite tools is a pneumatic cattle gun which he uses both for killing people, and for blowing locks. The Sheriff never makes the connection between his own story, and a recent murder caused by a deep head wound which was assumed to be from a gun until no bullet was found. It was as though the possibility of something so inhuman wouldn’t even register with him.
The hit man Carson Wells is another device the movie uses to demonstrate unpredictability. Carson comes across as a hotshot who isn’t the least bit intimidated by Chigurh, and manages to track down Llewelyn in a matter of hours. Just when it looks like the dynamic of the hunt is about to change, Chigurh happens to get the drop on Carson, and removes him from the story as suddenly as he was introduced. The audience is sure that Carson can’t be killed so quickly, and that his impact on the story can’t possibly be so minimal, yet he is instantly and unapologetically executed as Chigurh casually reaches for a ringing phone.
And then as if to demonstrate the point literally, there’s Chigurh’s technique of sometimes deciding whether to let someone live based solely on a coin toss. A gas station owner, who is unaware of the extent to which he is in danger, wins the toss after which Chigurh tells him keep the quarter. He tells the man who has narrowly escaped being brutally murdered to put his lucky quarter someplace special. Don’t mix it in with the rest of the change in his pocket, Chigurh warns, even though in reality, it’s just another quarter. From this scene comes one of the eeriest lines of the entire movie: "What’s the most you ever lost on a coin toss."
Throughout the entire movie, Chigurh seems to be the only one who is in control. In fact, he comes across as the master of everyone’s fate. He is eerily calm and in control whether he is strangling a deputy with handcuffs, stitching up his own gun wounds, or slaughtering people with his cattle gun or silenced twelve gauge. But in one final demonstration of the randomness of the universe, while driving down a completely calm and quiet suburban street, Chigurh is T-boned at an intersection and sustains serious injuries, including a compound fracture of his arm. He tries to gather the strength to flee the scene, but as the sirens rapidly close in, you get the distinct feeling that even the one man who seemed to control everything couldn’t see what was coming.
Living Digitally 
p.s. why throw in a jerk comment like that at the end.
and I felt quite “unsatisfied” with the plot-coming-togetherness of “No Country”
I think it warrants a second watching, and is far from a bad movie. I still prefer Fargo =)
LikeLike
Apologies for the ‘jerk’ comment.. I certainly could have phrased it better. Just frustration boiling over when encountering a hard-to-read solid ‘block’ of text I guess.
Also, I should add that even though I wrote that I haven’t come across an interpretation that was fully satisfying for me.. the one proffered by this blog certainly comes the closest to gleaning _sensible meaning_ from the film. Just good old, grounded, solid analysis that was not ‘over-theorized’ – which I very much appreciated.
LikeLike
Actually Frank, my comment had to do with the money, the suitcase it came in, and the transponder – not whether Sheriff Bell was killed or not.
I know people like to interpet various parts to a movie like this, and so they should, but my area of contention has to do with the plausibility of any person who comes upon a suitcase full of money not dumping it out somewhere,counting it, and transferring it to some other suitcase, box or bag of some kind. If they did, they would have found the transponder – and a very convenient dramatic cinematic device would have been useless in being used as it was.
Call me crazy, but I think if any film student would have left the transponder in the script as long as they did in this movie, their instructor would have drawn a big red circle around this part of the script – and told the student to rewrite it – and use some other dramatic devise to keep the story moving forward – and with the intensity that the transponder built up along the way. Cheers.
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
I thought this was a phenominal movie and I love most of the comments here. A few major points and vignettes have not been discussed enough I think.
I refuse to believe that Anton Chigur and Ed Tom Bell were given similar sounding names for no reason. When most of the characters say Ed Tom, it almost sounds like “Anton.” They even have similar behaviors. This is evident by their behavior at Llewellyn’s house. They both sit, drink milk and stare at a blank TV screen. Such an obvious parallel must have some meaning. I wonder if Chirgur is a figment of Ed Tom’s imagination, a ghost that he is chasing in order to give some meaning to his life.
Ed Tom and Anton are foils, like two sides to the same coin. In that respect, Llewellyn is no different than the gas station opperator. Both are waiting to see which “side” of the coin turns up, life (Ed Tom/Heads) or death (Anton/Tails).
The use of coins, and circle imagery was amazing. At the end, Ed Tom and Anton are looking at each other through a circular blown lock. They are on opposite sides of the circle (coin?). Then the best part, when Ed Tom enters what does he see on the ground? A coin. The one Anton used to open the vent and take the suitcase. More importantly, the coin is heads up… the side that lets the gas station attendant live, it also let Ed Tom live.
I realize that since the mexican’s killed Llewellyn this may be a bit off. But the Ed Tom/Anton dichotomy represents ordered, organized life-death cycles. The fact that Llewellyn was killed by the mexicans speaks to the unpredicatbility in life and that fact that it is not always black and white.
I also think the bleakness of the film speaks to some of its more philosophical aspects and this may be a Cohen brothers insert, rather than an aspect of the novel. But there is a dichotomy between rules and free choice. Ed Tom is a man who lives by and lives for the rules. Anton is the exact opposite, he believes there are no rules, simply choices. As Anton stated, “if the rule you live by has brought you to this point, what good is the rule?” Llewellyn is a man who used to live by the decisions he made (Vietnam), then returned to a society where there are rules only to go back to making choices. Not dissimilar from Walter Soapchek’s cry in Big Lebowski, “This isn’t Vietnam, there are rules.” Perhaps the dichotomy can be muddied into a statement on how Rules, Free Choice and Fate all interact at once. I think the Cohen brothers are telling us, that there are rules, some choose to follow them but regardless of those decisions, sometimes fate intervienes.
I have enjoyed this discussion folks, keep it up!
LikeLike
Folks, I’m really enjoying this discussion but there are some points and supporting scenes that I consider important that have not been discussed.
I refuse to believe that it is a coincidence that “Anton” Chirgur and “Ed Tom” Bell have extremely similar sounding names. I think this is intentional and that these two men are foils for each other, yin and yang. For example look at the scene where they both sit with the milk staring at a blank TV set. I wonder if they are actually two sides to the same coin. Or if to some extend Anton is a made up figment of Ed Tom’s imagination, a ghost that he is hunting. He is an image that gives the sherrif meaning in his life.
The use of coins, and circle imagery was amazing. In the end scene, Ed Tom and Anton are looking at each other through a circular blown lock. They are on opposite sides of the circle (coin?). Then the best part, when Ed Tom enters what does he see on the ground? A coin. The one Anton used to open the vent and take the suitcase. More importantly, the coin is heads up… the side that lets the gas station attendant live, it also let Ed Tom live.
In keeping with the coin imagry, Llewellyn is no different than the gas station attendant. He is caught up in a giant coin toss and which side will show up first, Ed Tom, heads and life or Anton, tails and death. Llewellyn, like his wife kept running from the coin toss, and like his wife, fate eventually caught up with him.
If Ed Tom is one side of the coin, he represents rules. Anton is the opposite of rules, as he stated to Woody Haroldson, “If living your live by the rule has brought you here, what good is the rule?” Anton is about free choice. But he sees himself as fate itself. He thinks choice is an illusion and that rules are irrelevant, there is only fate. Ed Tom, the personification of rules is irrelevant, we question whether choice (Anton) really exists and all we are left with is the inescabableness of fate.
Obviously there is a lot to this movie and there is no one right answer. But this has been enjoyable, keep it up.
LikeLike
Fantastic movie! Gets better with each viewing (going on number 11 or 12 by now…)
If you didn’t like it, watch it again. You soon will change your mind.
“You can’t stop what’s coming.”
LikeLike
I’m interested to find out how you all felt about the ‘black comedy’ element. A few people in the cinema at my time of watching it, were laughing out loud.
To me it was quite the opposite.
Is it because the film, in some ways, challenges our knowledge of the Coen’s humour and the way we all can react to violence in film??
LikeLike
The major theme is GREED and its consequences (”there are no clean getaways”) and fighting with our conscience. It is NOT about death finding us. This is the point of the movie – move away from obsessing about death and instead look at the real root of all evil: GREED. Are you greedy? Do you fight with greed (Anton) in your mind?
Read the reasons below, rewatch the movie and everything will become clear!!! This is the one and only explanation of the movie.
There are two layers to this movie, the real part and the sub-conscious part:
Real Layer/Story: Moss finds some money beside dead Mexican drug dealers. He goes back to bring a dying Mexican some water but other Mexicans spot him (see his face/car) but lose him. However, they now know who he is via his rego plates – they go to his trailer park but he is not there so they track his wife around via the phone number of her mother (there is no tracking device (see below)). They find out where he is staying via his mother in law (helping her with her bags). When they do eventually find him they kill him in the hotel but do not find the money. Bell finds the money at the crime scene by checking the vents but he turns it in to the authorities (not shown but implied – see below). Carla Moss kills herself in grief after her husband’s funeral. Bell retires because he cannot make sense of all the greed and evil in the world (a good man like Moss dies because of it), he cannot seem to stop it (“There are no laws left”). In the dream he and his father try to bring ‘light to the darkness’ but in the end he ‘wakes up’ to reality.
Conscience Layer (see below for more explanation): Moss does not meet Anton for awhile into the movie. He initially has a cleanish conscience (i.e. going back to give the dying Mexican water). When Moss decides to run from the Mexicans instead of just leaving the money in his trailer for them to find and leave him alone, Anton (greed) focuses his attention on Moss and begins tracking him. There is no tracking device. The tracking device in Anton’s possession symbolizes Anton (greed) getting closer and closer from Moss’ sub-conscience to Moss’ conscience. Moss begins to understand that his wife will be in danger , he sees/realizes Anton/his greed, finding the phone list (which is actually the Mexicans finding the list in reality). He then discovers the tracking device at which point he meets Anton (greed) in his conscience. The next scenes are him fighting with greed in his conscience. He wounds greed (Anton) but does not kill him. Since greed is wounded you then see him talking to Carson Wells (his reasoning conscience) who says he might be able to help him and his wife if he just hands over the money (give up his greed). The hotel room across the street is Moss’ mind. There Anton (greed) kills Wells (his reasoning conscience). We then see Moss having a direct argument with his greed (Anton) and Anton says that it is Moss’ fault that his wife will now die – it was his choice (in his sub-conscious he thinks that the Mexicans will find her). Moss is then killed by the Mexicans but they do not find the money. Bell is not possessed by greed (you see him mirrored by Anton(greed) in the tv). Bell goes into the hotel room where greed (Anton) is potentially ‘waiting’ as the $2 million has not been found. He goes in there and sees the vent, he knows there is $2 million in there but he knows he won’t take it (the heads on the coin symbolizes he made the right choice) so he does not see greed (Anton) – presumably he turns the money in. Carla kills herself (meeting Anton (death/greed) was her husband’s fault). With his work done Anton finds some new ‘victims’ for greed when spots the kids on the bikes. He is wounded by the car crash so greed is wounded but then as he heals himself they begin fighting over the $100 bill (which in reality they probably found on the street – the cycle of greed begins again). Bell retires because he cannot make sense of the greed and death (we know he does not know greed), him and his father tried to shed light in the evil of the world but he ‘wakes up’ to reality that it will always be there (You can’t stop what’s coming).
Who is Anton?:
Anton is greed conscience. He is a ghost. He is not real. “Can you see me?” We have a choice to succome to greed (coin toss). He wears black/dark clothes.
Movie Poster Titles:
“You can’t stop what’s coming” (Anton). He survives the car accident and bullets but you can wound/slow him down.
“There are no laws left” (greed/Anton can’t be controlled by laws/by Bell it is up to the person).
“There are no clean Getaways” (greed/Anton eventually wins – greed has dire consequences)
Who is Carson Wells and what is the Business Office?
Carson Wells is the good/reasoning conscience of Moss. The meeting in the office is the reasoning part of Moss’ mind (the high rise office symbolizes his mind – the top of the building). The man behind the desk is Moss’ sub-conscience saying that he wants his good conscience (Wells) to stop his bad conscience (Anton). Wells (good conscience) names a date, 28th November last year, when he last met Anton (bad conscience) – possibly this was a time that Moss had conflict in his conscious before. Wells says he knows Anton “every which way”.
Moss talks to Carla on the phone and could end everything but instead insists on keeping the money. He says he has to find ‘him’ and she says “Find who?” She asks about the safety of her mother and Moss says she’ll be alright (he knows the Mexicans will find his Mother in Law). At this point Anton (greed) bursts into the office (Moss’ mind) and kills Moss’ reasoning part of his mind. The other character, accounting, is just another part of Moss’ mind probably accounting for his money. Moss knows in his mind that the Mexicans will find his wife (says the Mexicans were given a tracking device).
And there are many many more parts in the movie that support all this. Now watch the movie again and you’ll be going “Of course!” “Oh, that line makes sense!”
THE DEBATE ENDS HERE!
LikeLike
Chigurh refers to himself as having been brought to the store by the same forces as brought the quarter.
Hamish MacD you were soo close to the meaning behing the film if you had stuck to this. The theme is GREED. Chigurh and Wells and the office are in Moss’ mind. Chigurh is greed, Wells is Moss’ good conscience.
LikeLike
Matty that was an intence and intriguing interpretation,real Lynchian analysis,( as in David Lynch).Of course to speak in terms of “summing” up and ending debate seems beside the point of artistic expression.But the logical cohesion of your theory is provocative.We all view the world through the prism of our own values….I for instance found it hard to think of Moss as ‘greedy’ and probably would have behaved the same with even less success than he. Well it will be interesting to hear what the Coen’s aims were because structuraly your ideas are interesting on first read.
LikeLike
Hmmmm! I might yet change my mind! That was stellar analysis Matty and IS LOGICALLY AND MEANINGFULLY SATISFYING. That is what I meant by “an interpretation I can hang my coat on” – still no Oscars for this film because of its difficulty of interpretation and metaphysical, almost Lynchian obscurity… but if your explanation is correct, then this is not a bad film at all!
LikeLike
Matty,
While many of your points are valid, I don’t think its fair of you to say “this is the one and only explanation of the movie”. The movie is left for interpretation. There is no definite answer. However, I would like to hear more on your theory that Ed Tom wound up with the money and turned it in.
LikeLike
I really think that the movie drives to the point of not knowing what’s coming next. But, we also got to see that even though we are not certain what’s coming next we can be a bit certain that what’s coming next to our lives can be decided by others.
At the ending, the retired sheriff is already done from chasing crime (DEATH) but still uncertain on what pain (DEATH) is ahead of him. This is signified by the HORN and FIRE riding on a dark road. Thanks.
LikeLike
I realize that this discussion is primarily to discuss the film, but my questions are posed to those who have read the book.
I recently read this fascinating book; unfortunately I was tired when I read the last 10 pages, and I had to return the book soon after. Thus, I wasn’t prepared for the ending and need some assistance interpreting a few things.
1. Moss was not killed by Anton, correct? Did Anton recover the money, or Moss’s killer?
2. Who was the Mexican executed in Bell’s narrative at the end? Surely this wasn’t Anton? And did Anton set the car on fire? Never could figure out what that had to do with anything.
Please help, this is driving me insane!
P.S. I haven’t seen the film, but I suspect that if someone is disappointed in the ending of the film (or the book), then they’ve missed the meaning that McCarthy intended to convey. In fact, were Moss or Bell to “come out on top,” then much of the book would be meaningless.
LikeLike
Frankly the theory that the sherrif ended up with the money and turned it in isn’t held up anywhere in the film. One of the 1rst things Lewellen’s wife said to Chigurh was that she didn’t know what happened to the money. If 2million dollars had been dicovered at the scene of a homicide by an officer of the law who then proceeded to turn it in she would have. Second, she arrived at the motel at night with her mother in tow.They would have spent the night.Lewellen would have rented 2 rooms,(expecting them at night), prefferably adjacent.Now you go back and look at that scene ,(after the murder), of the sherrif at the motel and it looks and great deal like the adjacent rooms lock is blown off as well.And mightn’t Lewellen have hidden the money in the old ladies room?
LikeLike
That coin tossing stuff is really really mad. To have your ‘rules and principles’ based on heads or tails is pretty far gone. And it appears so normal and natural to Anton making him come across as totally nuts (which of course he is). Javier Bardem is Death Himself. The Coens were extremely successful with their deployment of this death character. Death in reality is a bit mad and follows ‘rules and principles’ that are alien to us and without prejudice and unfeeling. The ending as far as the story of the chase is quite uncomfortable and polarises audiences because the bewildering nature of death is there and totally in your face. And quite heavy really. A lot of folk hated the ending to NCFOM but to me the outcome was the same as the soldier dying (off camera) in ‘The Seventh Seal’. Mad mad mad but INEVITABLE. Life isn’t a neat bundle and death certainly isn’t. I haven’t read the book so am unable to compare but would be willing to stand corrected. He really comes across as a scythe-man and he certainly aint going to lose. The interaction and gunshots and broken bones to me are no different from chess playing in the Bergman masterpiece (and not massively important). The Moss character ‘saw him as he was’ and as far as Anton (and hindsight) is concerned his fate is over. i don’t even think it mattered if he didn’t blow him away while wearing black clothes and the gas cylinder for killing animals. He was a goner.
The whole of No Country For Old Men is awash with death imagery. Appreciating this aspect of the film took it from the good and into the great category for me. Stuff like the Black River and Anubis and the border crossings and plague carts and ravens. i’d like to sit down with Mccarthy and the Coens to get what’s what but enough is there for me to be convinced. The Coens style is quite suggestive rather than ‘this means this’ here and also their other films too like Barton Fink or Oh Brother Where Art Thou. They are also very very aware of the audience and like to have a bit of fun with that so the whole experience of a Coen brothers film goes beyond the surface and is usually thought provoking.
The Tommy Lee Jones character fits in nicely with all this as an older man reviewing his life. He certainly can’t stop whats coming and at the point of retirement it is not just looking back but also ahead. This movie is mainly about DEATH: our friendo who may or may not visit us tonight as we sleep.
LikeLike
did anyone notice that the crippled deputy referred to ‘daddy’ and ‘uncle’ when recounting his story? we know the crippled deputy was a vehicle (literally) offering encouragement to fight the bad guys until the end. but did he really have a daddy who was also a dead sheriff? pretty deliberate coincidence, no? too deliberate. he, was the piece of ed tom’s mind (we know this when he gave us the clue about dead daddy)that wasn’t going to give up the fight. even if it killed him, which i believe it did.remember when ed tom’s wife asked him when the county was going to pay for the rental on his horse? the answer in so many words was never. why was this written in? in the final scene at the kitchen table, ed tom asks if she wants come riding with him. she say no, i’m not retired. is ed tom retired from work, or is ed tom retired from life? listen to the dreams. the first dream actually tells us two things. first, that he lost the money. so we know that ed tom never took the money from the hotel room. it also tells us that he feels his incompetence let his father down. in the second dream, his father forgives him, leading the way on horseback (there’s that horse again), providing the light (the fire) for ed tom’s awaited arrival.
LikeLike
THE LAST COUPLE OF SCENES WITH YHE SHERRIF WERE FLASH BACKS. COMMING TO TERMS WITH THE WAY HE WILL DIE ONE DAY. HE BOUGHT IT IN THE MOTEL ROOM HE REVISITED
LikeLike
Chris, care to ellaborate on that one? i’ve not read the book but you seem quite confident. Yes, some of the killing was done off-camera but the sherrif actually being dead at the end did not occur to me. must watch it again some time. Off the top of my head the scenes at the end were post-retiral so i would need convincing…
LikeLike
I agree with Nancy’s theory on the last scene, and on the entire movie as a whole. I believe that the entire film was all a bad dream for the sheriff, with all of his worst thoughts and fears as a sheriff being brought out. Trying to find this lunatic murderer, and the growing problem of the fight against drug trafficking and weapons in his county, combined with him being out of his prime and coming close to retirement, kind of made me think that his sub-conscience was telling him that he wasn’t ready or able enough to combat all of these bad elements that were shown throughout the whole film. An amazing film.
LikeLike
Hey! This was just another blood and gore movie. Everyone is reading way too much into it. The holes in the movie are big enough to drive a chicken truck through. First off the Evil Dude gets arrested by a rookie cop??? He had his air gun, why didn’t he use it? We all know what happens when law enforcement looses one of their own. Where was the posse? And about the money, I agree with an earlier poster, you would have counted it and probably hiden it in several different locations.
New paragrah, sorry. This is just another higher tech slasher movie left open at the end to bring back “Freddie”, “Jason”, or in this case Anton!
LikeLike
Reading the different perspectives and interpretations on this comment board were very interesting until I saw Matty Bede’s post. Now, I’m not usually one to attack another person’s character online but this has to be said: You sir, are deceptive.
You try to make some convincing points but you end up presenting yourself as a pompous preacher of pseudo-definition. What is especially great about this film (and novel) is the fact that everything is left open for interpretation because the lack of formulaic plotline allows for such. YOU completely discount this idea by falsely assuming that your explanation is the “one and only…” and by foolishly arguing that “THE DEBATE ENDS HERE!”
You’re not convincing at all.
And the worst part is you try to end discussion instead of trying to build upon it.
(P.S. It’s slightly unsettling that Bede was able to deceptively convince one person—the one who was critical of the film because he/she was unable to form an opinion for themselves… Come on everyone! Don’t but into people like this!)
LikeLike
Hey there,
Just saw the film today (yes, the day of the oscars) but I think I might be too simple minded in my interpretation…I thought that Chigurh was basically evil, the future, and the future of evil. I think that’s why he was portrayed as unstoppable, inhuman and heartless. I think that’s why he uses the weapon he does and why the sheriff tells the story about that weapon, it’s about demented progress. And the sheriff was doomed just as his predecessors were in the face of increasing evil, hence the opening and closing speeches. The sheriff was no longer able to keep up and became tired and afraid and too resigned to just cleaning up the mess. I thought the plot was a pretty good crime fiction yarn but really an excuse to meditiate on evil and the future of evil. I also thought maybe thats why the story was set in 1980. Sorry for being too literal–flame me!
LikeLike
Well, they took the Oscars by storm, and deservingly so.
All in all a good oscar night. I agree that Diablo Cody wrote the best original screen play for Juno (No Country was adapted, obviously). So no, the ending is not open for a sequel, as the book had no sequel.
Also, Chiguhr I believe DID kill the wife as he checks his boots for blood upon exiting the house. He never wanted blood to touch his boots, as we saw in the scene at Wells’s hotel room. He would remove his boots whenever he was about to make a kill.
Aside from my one little thing to chip in there, I’m as clueless as everyone else about the hidden message here. I DO find it very interesting that Chiguhr was only in the car wreck because he was too caught up in the children on their bicycles, who later of course gave him the shirt. I’ll have to give it some more thought, but I’m confident this fits the theme somehow.
LikeLike
Also, another interesting point was that the crippled deputy was telling the story of “Uncle Buck” getting shot by indians, and when Tom asked when he died, the cripped deputy replied “19 zero 9” which of course would be far before any of the characters where born. The BOOK was set in 1980 (current times when the book was released.) An interesting detail but one to ponder…
LikeLike
note – last comment, promise. I’ve read through some earlier theories posted on here. I think it’s EXTREMELY possible that the crippled sheriff is Tom’s dead father and he’s delusional or dreaming. It would explain the 1909 reference, as well as the crippled Sheriff commenting on how Tom looks older, but Tom isn’t taken aback by the crippled man’s appearance. Okay, I’ll leave the forum alone for a while. hah.
LikeLike
It was a great movie.
I think that Chigurh was Death itself. It was no coincidence that he used cattle gun to kill people. People like cattle die unexpectedly and without any reason whatsoever. I was reminded about Jungle by Sinclair. Poor hogs never knew what was coming when they were killed.
LikeLike
In response to Jesse’s post. The BOOK (your caps, not mine) was published in 2005 according to Cormac McCarthy’s website. If you think that Mr. McCarthy is incorrect please contact his website. But anyhow, i do believe the time in which the book was set was important. Remember this is a work of fiction everything that happens in the story was created by the author.
I really believe the Chigurh was a personification of the future and of evil. And Tom just couldn’t keep up with it. Nothing can stop the future and nothing could stop Chigurh. He had no respect for anything representing the past or how things had been done or for “old school”. And the reason the opening monlogue is important as well as the dreams at the end and the visit to his uncle is that his predecessors (including his uncle) all were victims of time and change
LikeLike
When Moss’ wife calls the sherriff she mentions Charles ??…the man who had been injured by the ricocheting bullet off the cow…when she said his name, Ed Tom did’t remember the name, then, she asked if he even existed and if he was just telling her a story.He said something along the lines of, “I am not sure if it is real or not, but, it is a story.”
I don’t know if that has any significance or not.
I believe this was Ed Tom’s dream. If you recall, he said he didn’t remember much of the first dream at all…something about meeting his dad in town an losing some money???? Could i be possible that this whole movie was a dream he had that he couldn’t remember at all when he woke up. I know I have had such vivid dreams, but, when I awoke, only bits and pieces were remembered.
I took some major symbols from the movie/possible dream…and this is what I found..
I find the following to have some relevance due to the fact the sherrif is retiring presumably not just because of his age. But, also because he feels he cannot compete with the ever growing crime that he cannot control.
We see door knobs/blown out knobs thoughout
the movie…
**to see knobs in your dream, signifies issues or conditions around you. You needto get a handle on things.
The dead pit bulls….
-to see a dead dog in you dream represents a deterioration of your instincts
Milk
-symbolizes a loss of faith, opportunity or trust
Coin-
Indicative of your irrational thoughts
Suitcase/Satchel/Purse
-to lose your ^^ denotes loss of power and control …. may have lost touch with your real identity
Money-
you may be feeling weak, vulnerable, and out of control in your waking life
IF the movie/book is based on the above…that would be mindblowing. This movie (i call it the movie since I have seen it and have not read the book) reminds me of the poems and stories I read in advanced english. We would read them, break them down, and find the REAL meaning behind them. What you initially read was NOTHING to compared to what it really meant. If this is the case….BRAVO….if not…well, regardless…i will just choose to interpret it my own way. the way real art is supposed to be interpreted.
LikeLike
Christian has the best summary of this brilliant film…
LikeLike
I agree with Inna who said: “I really believe the Chigurh was a personification of the future and of evil. And Tom just couldn’t keep up with it. Nothing can stop the future and nothing could stop Chigurh. He had no respect for anything representing the past or how things had been done or for “old school”. And the reason the opening monlogue is important as well as the dreams at the end and the visit to his uncle is that his predecessors (including his uncle) all were victims of time and change”
The Bible at (Ecclesiastes 9:11)says: I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.
Here’s some REAL pertinent information:
The Demons Are Killers!
Satan and the demons have always been cruel and dangerous. In early times Satan killed the livestock and servants of faithful Job. Then he killed Job’s ten children by causing “a great wind” to destroy the house they were in. After that Satan struck Job with “a malignant boil from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.”—Job 1:7-19; 2:7.
In Jesus’ day, the demons made some people speechless and blind. (Matthew 9:32, 33; 12:22) They tormented one man and made him slash himself with stones. (Mark 5:5) They also caused a boy to cry out, dashed him to the ground, and “violently convulsed him.”—Luke 9:42.
Today, Satan and the demons are as murderous as ever. In fact, their evil activity has increased since they were thrown out of heaven. Reports from around the world testify to their cruelty. They plague some people with illness. Others they harass at night, depriving them of sleep or giving them terrible dreams. Others they abuse sexually. Still others they drive to insanity, murder, or suicide.
Lintina, who lives in Suriname, relates that a demon, or bad spirit, killed 16 members of her family and tormented her physically and mentally for 18 years. From firsthand experience she states that the demons “enjoy torturing their unwilling victims until death.”
But Jehovah is able to protect his servants from Satan’s attacks.—Proverbs 18:10.
Man’s rule today, reinforced by stockpiles of nuclear bombs, threatens to annihilate the whole human race. God’s rule through his Messianic kingdom will do more than preserve the lives of those who survive the war of Armageddon. It will restore to life on earth the unnumbered thousands of millions who died during the thousands of years of man’s rule. When a man on earth, Jesus Christ promised that there would be a resurrection of the dead for whom he laid down his perfect human life as a sacrifice. (John 5:25, 28, 29; 11:25, 26) As heavenly King he will see to it that such resurrection takes place. The wonderfulness of it all is beyond our powers to comprehend.
Scriptures:
(Job 1:7-19) Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where do you come from?” At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: “From roving about in the earth and from walking about in it.” 8 And Jehovah went on to say to Satan: “Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad?” 9 At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: “Is it for nothing that Job has feared God? 10 Have not you yourself put up a hedge about him and about his house and about everything that he has all around? The work of his hands you have blessed, and his livestock itself has spread abroad in the earth. 11 But, for a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch everything he has [and see] whether he will not curse you to your very face.” 12 Accordingly Jehovah said to Satan: “Look! Everything that he has is in your hand. Only against him himself do not thrust out your hand!” So Satan went out away from the person of Jehovah. 13 Now it came to be the day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in the house of their brother the firstborn. 14 And there came a messenger to Job, and he proceeded to say: “The cattle themselves happened to be plowing and the she-asses were grazing at the side of them 15 when the Sa·be′ans came making a raid and taking them, and the attendants they struck down with the edge of the sword; and I got to escape, only I by myself, to tell you.” 16 While this one was yet speaking that one came and proceeded to say: “The very fire of God fell from the heavens and went blazing among the sheep and the attendants and eating them up; and I got to escape, only I by myself, to tell you.” 17 While that one was yet speaking another one came and proceeded to say: “The Chal·de′ans made up three bands and went dashing against the camels and taking them, and the attendants they struck down with the edge of the sword; and I got to escape, only I by myself, to tell you.” 18 While this other one was yet speaking, still another one came and proceeded to say: “Your sons and your daughters were eating and drinking wine in the house of their brother the firstborn. 19 And, look! there came a great wind from the region of the wilderness, and it went striking the four corners of the house, so that it fell upon the young people and they died. And I got to escape, only I by myself, to tell you.”
(Job 2:7) So Satan went out away from the person of Jehovah and struck Job with a malignant boil from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.
(Matthew 9:32-33) Now when they were leaving, look! people brought him a dumb man possessed of a demon; 33 and after the demon had been expelled the dumb man spoke. Well, the crowds felt amazement and said: “Never was anything like this seen in Israel.”
(Matthew 12:22) Then they brought him a demon-possessed man, blind and dumb; and he cured him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw.
(Mark 5:5) And continually, night and day, he was crying out in the tombs and in the mountains and slashing himself with stones.
(Luke 9:42) But even as he was approaching, the demon dashed him to the ground and violently convulsed him. However, Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the boy and delivered him to his father.
(Proverbs 18:10) The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous runs and is given protection.
(John 5:25) “Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live.
(John 5:28-29) Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.
(John 11:25-26) Jesus said to her: “I am the resurrection and the life. He that exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life; 26 and everyone that is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all. Do you believe this?”
LikeLike
Just read Tony’s post. I wrote that part that you cited– but not sure how the rest of your post fits in?
Also, I think my posts are pretty much in line with David and Inna’s. I think we pretty much have the same take. Anton is death or evil or the future and it cannot be stopped. And I also agree that its very sad that a post would contain the words “debate ends here” Especially when that poster might be confusing what the plot is about and what the whole story is really about.
And to Danny–I think you also have it right but why do you think it’s a dream? These are the events that took place in the story and you get the meaning so why would it have to be all in a character’s head. I’m not saying you’re wrong it just seems a lot less interesting if none of this happened and the next morning the sheriff wakes up and its 20 years ago and JR really didnt get shot! (from the TV show Dallas). It seems like it would be a bummer for the writer to invent this story infuse it with deep meaning and an intricate plot and then say”oh, it never happened” It’s fiction–It doesnt need to be a dream.
LikeLike
I have to say,this blog is quite an amazing discussion of a film, whether the theories offered are true or false. Simply good philosophical discussion until….until the scroll of Bible verses. Bible verse guy killed it. In my humble opinion, if the meaning does involve a critique on the nature of good and evil it is decidedly non-dualistic, Jehovah and Satan are about as dualistic as it gets.
To add one thing Anton is the classic trickster archetype, fairly androgynous, quick, like a modern day Hermes, no respect for societal norms, and seemingly inhuman yet human nonetheless. Google ‘trickster’ or ‘psychopomp’, that fits too.
Sorry Bible Guy
LikeLike
he/she was unable to form an opinion for themselves… Come on everyone! Don’t but into people like this.”
Ambrose, stop bitching. First, it’s clear that Matty was being humorous. Second, if you can’t handle the fact that I FORMED THE OPINION THAT the film wasn’t deserving of an oscar because of its overly obscure, directionless metaphysical overtones, then don’t try your own deception of putting words in my mouth.
The deceptive one is you, unable to provide an alternative interpretation, you attack others for daring to propose a bold and persuasive interpretation of the film. That’s hilarious, because Matty provided more substance than you ever did in your petulant little rant.
Instead of providing analysis of substance, you propose the usual insipid, vacuous, vapid, and intellectually unserious cop-out that confused art students love to try when they want to sound profound: “make up your own interpretation”. “It’s an open canvas you see.”
Nonsense. The latitude for “open meaning” in art is very narrow. Either the meaning of a piece of art is circumscribed, and some interpretations are more correct than others, or else anything goes. If anything goes, THEN WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHAT IS ON THE CANVAS? You can derive any meaning you want from anything – which means that even the most cliched, hackneyed, and erroneous interpretations can be regarded as ‘valid.’ In which case the attempt to draw logically meaningful significance is a fruitless task. But feel free to adopt such an intellectually impoverished approach to cinema. You might impress the girls.
In short, your trying to ‘make it up as you go along’ is a philistine’s prescription.
It also means that your sanctimonious lecturing of others is misguided, because you criticize from a vantage point that is as trite as it is simplistic.
Lynch for example might get away with being obscure because of the sheer cinematicism of his work. The Coen brothers don’t.
So to sum up, Matty Bede provided a meaningful, logically coherent interpretation of the film. And I appreciate that.
Ambrose provided unwarranted personal attacks and pablum masquerading as profundity.
Matty wins.
LikeLike
I think people seem to be grasping the underlying themes but no one is connecting the meaning of the title with the film. The dream story at the end really sums it up and demonstrates the connection. Jones says he new his father would be waiting there for him (in heaven), and then he “woke up” as if to say he realized it was just a dream, a dream we all tell ourselves over and over throughout our lives, that there is meaning to the world, that somehow we will cheat our mortality in the end (as evinced by Jones’ indication that he always felt when got older that God would somehow come into his life). This illusion that there is some sort of an afterlife and that there is some being in control of everything is all just something everyone wants to believe, and needs to believe as way of dealing with our own mortality. “No country for Old Men” quite simply means that there is no heaven and that there is no cheating mortality or big significant meaning to it all. Things don’t happen for a reason other than the most obvious reason of cause and effect. The film does a pretty good job of using slang from Texas southern culture (I’m from Texas) and No Country for Old Men is how a true Texan would refer to there not being a heaven.
LikeLike
It was all a dream the sherriff had, he just chose not to talk about to one about the killings at the end.
LikeLike
The movie conveys the fact that a once proud Texas sheriff, with a strong law enforcement lineage, is way out of his league when it comes to Chigurh. The fear he conveyed when entering the crime scene, and his massive relief when he found it empty, proved he was no longer someone who could combat this type of evil. His relaxed approach to leads that his deputy brought him showed his trepidation about even tracking the evil. He was more concerned about keeping himself as well as everyone else out of harms way, rather than confronting the evil.
I believe the underlying theme from the author is that the world is changing, and unfortunately many folks are not prepared for the changes. I don’t believe he is referring to armageddon, but more to a world that has many hard edges, and to survive and be successful will be extremely challenging. The rules demand an inner strength and hard edge that most people do not possess. Unfortunately, too many people will have to step aside, and let the whirlwind through, and they will be just unhappy spectators to a world they are no longer part of or make a difference to.
LikeLike
Acting is extraordinary, I’ll give it that. Other than that, just an excuse for imaginative bloodletting. The theme of regular guy gets chased by bad guy and gets killed is pretty old by modern standards. In the old days at least it would end with good triumphs over evil, now we just assume the opposite will happen. Waste of time psudohighbrow film.
LikeLike
I like Jim’s comment. However, I would love to read the book to find out more about the connection between all the events and characters in No country for old men.
LikeLike
Dear No Oscar for this Film,
I do not personally see that Matty was being humorous is his original post. I find his opening paragraph to be pretty contentious. “IT IS NOT ABOUT…”, etc. In fact, I found the tone of the entire post to be pretty snotty.
After reading most of the posts on this blog, some I agreed with, some I did not, I found them to be mostly excited to share their points of view without denegrating those of others or the posters themselves except for Matty’s and, of course, yours. Ambrose’s post seemed to merely taking offense at the tone of self-righteousness in Matty’s post but I think you took self-righteuousness to a whole new level, at least in this blog. Although, I do think that Ambrose was mistaken in bringing you into this and then misunderstanding your point. It is quite clear that you came to your own conclusions and are quite capable of doing so. That was misguided of Ambrose.
But back to your self-righteousness. In just one post you used the phrases “intellectually impoverished approach to cinema”, “philistine”, “cinematicism (I actually had to look that word up but it didn’t seem to be in the dictionaries that I have access to so then I looked it up on google and got a few hits. One was YOUR post on this blog and then almost all the other hits were video game articles, hmm… So maybe you could help us out with a clear concise definition)”, and my favorite “pablum masquerading as profundity”. I guess maybe I’m missing the humor in your post as well as Matty’s.
I have posted my feelings/interpretations on this movie. It makes sense to me and it was how the film spoke to me. I, as well as, I think, most other posters prefer to think of those with different interpreations not as wrong but in disagreement. There is a difference. Maybe my take on the movie to simple for you as I didn’t find it too “obscure” but am I wrong? No. Are you wrong? No Do we disagree? Yes. Is Matty’s “bold and persuasive interpretation…”and “meaningful and logically coherent interpretaion…” wrong? Well, maybe if you look up the words “conscience”, “conscious” and “sub-conscious” (there is no “sub-conscience”, by the way”) and reread the post you’ll be going “Oh, that post makes no sense at all!”
THE DEBATE ENDS HERE!
LikeLike
If there is higher meaning to this story then shame on the ineffectual writing for not helping to illuminate it more clearly. Surely the acting, cinematography, and action were top notch and made for an entertaining movie (at least 95% of it), but to search so desperately for a “meaning” or “moral” to the movie is just trying too hard. Because it was done so smartly, most assume there must be a higher level of understanding and try to describe it. Go for it. In reality it means whatever you want it to mean. For me, it was about an out of work good guy who stumbled across a fortune in cash; a truly bad guy who wanted the money back, and a sheriff who, lets’ be honest, might just as well have not been in the movie at all. The presence of Jones’ character was particularly annoying to me because I kept wanting him TO DO something. Help someone, stop the bad guy, or protect the innocent. He failed at every turn and then apparently just quit. The ending scene, to me, was a ridiculous way to end this movie and only served to further point out how far removed the sheriff was from the rest of the plot. I hated that Brolin’s character died. I hated that the bad guy got away. I hated that the wife died. I hated that the sheriff didn’t make a difference. I felt like Harper’s character as she listened to Jones’ words at the end. Remember how she just stared at him? It was as if she was expecting more. Well, same here. The movie was art without substance and haunts me because I, like so many others, wanted there to be more meaning and quite disappointingly, it just wasn’t there.
LikeLike
Hey guys, saw the film yesterday. Okay I must be losing it as the end baffled me. I then began thinking that woody harelson first mentioned the killers name was Anton. I then could have sworn that during the conversation that tommy lee jones had with the older sherrif in a cafe near the end where they were talking about it not bieng like the old days that the other sherrif said “goodbye Anton” to tommy lee, so i had thought tommy lee was actually the killer or that this whole thing was a dream.
LikeLike
Also remember the film takes place in the eighties….Maybe a little trickle down courtesy of Chiguhr……….he he
LikeLike
No Oscar for this Film nailed it on the head. Very good analysis. He analyzed the underlying meaning extremely well. I do not know what his name means but if it means this movie did not deserve an Oscar, then I am offended haha. I think it is one of the greatest movies I’ve ever seen. Bardem’s character is amazing, and to combat someone’s post on the fact Ed Tom Bell’s character was useless, that is a ridiculous statement. He is the reason for the title and for the overall message. He and Chigurh because Chigurh shows that HE controls the fate of people’s lives who come into contact with him, God does not control their fates. Great movie, I think, however, Llewellyn (Josh Brolin) deserved a nomination for best Actor. He was far better than Clooney in “Syriana”… anyway… for those who want to know the overall message, read NO OSCAR FOR THIS FILM’s analysis
LikeLike
The Coen brothers added a supernatural and deliberately ambiguous element to Chigurh’s character as a symbol of death that was not wholly present in the novel. This is shown in several scenes which included added dialogue not present in the book, whereas much of the movie’s dialogue was taken (verbatim) from the book. In the movie, the accountant in the high-rise asks Chigurh if he is going to kill him, to which Chigurh responds “That depends, do you see me?”. After Moss tells Carson Wells that he’s seen Chigurh, Wells surprisingly responds “Really? You’ve seen him and your not dead?. (Actually, although Moss had a gunfight with Chigurh, he never did see his face.) At the end of the movie, Chigurh tells the boys “You didn’t see me” so he will not have to kill them. And most importantly, the reason Sheriff Bell did not see Chigurh hiding behing the door in the hotel room (clearly he was there since he could see Bell’s reflection in the blown-out dead-bolt hole and the bathroom window was shown latched from the inside) is because symbolically Bell chose not to see (confront) death, but rather to retire from office as sheriff rather than face a force in which he was overmatched and couldn’t understand. Therefore, the supernatural element played directly into that scene, which is the most crucial scene in the movie. Finally, the Coen brothers made a point in punishing Chigurh for his autonomous violation of his own rules, the natural order of things (killing Carla Jean without allowing fate to determine the coin flip). His punishment was immediate and demonstrated by the shot showing Chigurh had the right of way with a green light and was struck by a single driver who ran a stop sign. This was changed from the book where in an ironic twist Chigurh was struck by teenagers driving while high on marijuana. However, since death cannot be stopped, Chigurh only suffered a broken arm which didn’t even seem to bother him.
LikeLike
There is one elemental, and consistent flaw I found in these interpretations. You can not find a theme in a movie by using an anti-thematic approach. This sort of allowance would credit any story with profundity even if the profundity lied in the lack there of. This movie displays life in its randomness and lack of causality and therefore can not be credited with genius design as that is its very antithesis.
LikeLike
Coupland has it so right. Needed to comment on the ending though. Was it surprise…or the Cohen’s just actually letting us know what the movie was really about? It was the explanation of a movie on life, what happens in unpredictable ways, and they told us that Coupland is absolutely right within that ending. Unless you are a film critic you simply won’t understand that unless you are over 50.
LikeLike
Hello Christian.
Just want to say I absolutely agree with you. Maybe the best film I’ve have ever seen. It was good minutes after the film ended, it was even better when I have thought about it for an hour, and it just keeps getting better.
One thing I must point out is when you say the following:
“This dream very much relates to the comment Llewelyn made to his wife on his way out the door to bring the Mexican some water. He says if he doesn’t come back, to tell mother he loves her. His wife says his mother is already dead. Lleweln responds, “Well then I’ll tell her myself.”
Again, the lesson here is that he has no idea what’s in store for him (it’s worth noting that his decision to return with the water is what eventually leads to his death), but one thing he knows for certain is that one day, he’ll be with his mother again, just as the Sheriff knows he is on his way to a reunion with his dead father, one way or another.”
The fact that he returns with the water is not the reason he dies… The little chip (or whatever the thing is) in the suitcase is the reason they find him. Without him bringing out the water, he probably just would have been dead a whole lot sooner – in his home with his wife.
LikeLike
Actually, this part of the plot is tricky. The transponder has a limited range. Chigurh finds Lleweln’s truck, takes the serial number plate, and calls it in, just like Lleweln predicts when talking to his wife the night before. Without the plate from Llewln’s truck, Chigurh wouldn’t have found his house, and might never have picked up his trail.
But you’re right that it’s not as clear cut has my post makes it sound. In fact, I just re-watched the movie, and wondered myself if Chigurh would have found Llewln anyway. He may have.
Christian
LikeLike
Such a great discussion. I found myself really enjoy all the comments despite the differences in opinions. I watched “No Country” again last night, and it was the fourth already. I still found the ending part rather puzzling, but I do start to appreciate the unpredicability theme in the movie. You never know what’s coming. Exactly what happened to the stack of money? Why Anton didn’t kill sheriff Ed Tom and what could possibly happen to Anton after severely injured in the car crash?
Thanks
LikeLike