Scene Analysis

[Doubtless]

The following is a scene from the 2007 Coen Brothers' movie, No Country For Old Men. What you need to know before this is just that Chigurh (pronounced like "sugar" with a southern accent) is a very bad man ( ). I'd like to hear your guys' thoughts about the subtext of this scene, and anything else you might find interesting.

An aside, whenever the script says "beat" it means that the characters do something, and usually there is a pause for dramatic effect. Using "a beat" is bad screenwriting, and should be described better (i.e. Mr. X scratches his nose, Ms. Y glances at the candle). But that's the technical stuff, pay attention to the story



GAS STATION / GROCERY SHEFFIELD

At an isolated dusty crossroad. It is twilight. The Ford sedan that Chigurh
stopped is parked alongside the pump.

INSIDE

Chigurh stands at the counter across from the elderly proprietor. He holds
up a bag of cashews.

Chigurh
How much?

Proprietor
Sixty-nine cent.

Chigurh
This. And the gas.

Proprietor
Y'all getting any rain up your way?

Chigurh
What way would that be?

Proprietor
I seen you was from Dallas.

Chigurh tears open the bag of cashews and pours a few into his hand.

Chigurh
What business is it of yours where I'm
from, friend?

Proprietor
I didn't mean nothin by it.

Chigurh
Didn't mean nothin.

Proprietor
I was just passin the time.

Chigurh
I guess that passes for manners in your
cracker view of things.

A beat.

Proprietor
Well sir I apologize. If you don't wanna
accept that I don't know what else I can
do for you.

Chigurh stands chewing cashews, staring while the old man works the register
and puts change on the counter.

...Will there be somethin else?

Chigurh
I don't know. Will there?

Beat.

The proprietor turns and coughs. Chigurh stares.

Proprietor
Is somethin wrong?

Chigurh
With what?

Proprietor
With anything?

Chigurh
Is that what you're asking me? Is there
something wrong with anything?

The proprietor looks at him, uncomfortable, looks away.

Proprietor
Will there be anything else?

Chigurh
You already asked me that.

Proprietor
Well... I need to see about closin.

Chigurh
See about closing.

Proprietor
Yessir.

Chigurh
What time do you close?

Proprietor
Now. We close now.

Chigurh
Now is not a time. What time do you
close.

Proprietor
Generally around dark. At dark.

Chigurh stares, slowly chewing.

Chigurh
You don't know what you're talking
about, do you?

Proprietor
Sir?

Chigurh
I said you don't know what you're
talking about.
Chigurh chews.
...What time do you go to bed.

Proprietor
Sir?

Chigurh
You're a bit deaf, aren't you? I said
what time do you go to bed.

Proprietor
Well...
A pause.
...I'd say around nine-thirty. Some-
where around nine-thirty.

Chigurh
I could come back then.

Proprietor
Why would you be comin back? We'll be
closed.

Chigurh
You said that.

He continues to stare, chewing.

Proprietor
Well... I need to close now -

Chigurh
You live in that house behind the store?

Proprietor
Yes I do.

Chigurh
You've lived here all your life?

A beat.

Proprietor
This was my wife's father's place. Ori-
ginally.

Chigurh
You married into it.

Proprietor
We lived on Temple Texas for many years.
Raised a family there. In Temple. We
come out here about four years ago.

Chigurh
You married into it.

Proprietor
...If that's the way you wanna put it.

Chigurh
I don't have some way to put it. That's
the way it is.

He finishes the cashews and wads the packet and sets in on the counter where
it begins to slowly unkink. The proprietor's eyes have tracked the packet.
Chigurh's eyes stay on the proprietor.

...What's the most you've ever lost on
a coin toss?

Proprietor
Sir?

Chigurh
The most. You ever lost. On a coin toss.

Proprietor
I don't know. I couldn't say.

Chigurh is digging in his pocket. A quarter: he tosses it. He slaps it onto
his forearm but keeps it covered.

Chigurh
Call it.

Proprietor
Call it?

Chigurh
Yes.

Proprietor
For what?

Chigurh
Just call it.

Proprietor
Well - we need to know what it is we're
callin for here.

Chigurh
You need to call it. I can't call it
for you. It wouldn't be fair. It wouldn't
even be right.

Proprietor
I didn't put nothin up.

Chigurh
Yes you did. You been putting it up your
whole life. You just didn't know it. You
know what date is on this coin?

Proprietor
No.

Chigurh
Nineteen fifty-eight. It's been trave-
ling twenty-eight years to get here. And
now it's here. And it's either heads or
tails, and you have to say. Call it.

A long beat.

Proprietor
Look... I got to know what I stand to
win.

Chigurh
Everything.

Proprietor
How's that?

Chigurh
You stand to win everything. Call it.

Proprietor
All right. Heads then.

Chigurh takes his hand away from the coin and turns his arm to look at it.

Chigurh
Well done.
He hands it across.
...Don't put it in your pocket.

Proprietor
Sir?

Chigurh
Don't put it in your pocket. It's your
lucky quarter.

Proprietor
...Where you want me to put it?

Chigurh
Anywhere not in your pocket. Or it'll
get mixed in with the others and become
just a coin. Which it is.

He turns and goes.

The proprietor watches him.


EDIT: For what it's worth, the screenplay won the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay, and Javier Pardem (Chigurh) won the Award for Best Actor In a Supporting Role. It also won other awards, including Best Director, and Best Picture. I, sadly, have not seen the movie.

 

[Doubtless]

lol. I should know better than to post non-Eragon-bashing topics here.

just kidding, obviously...

 

[Brynwizard]

It's a cheap scene, built entirely by playing on the viewers' fear that Sugar is going to kill the old man. If you enjoy watching a self-absorbed bully jerk an honest, hardworking, defenseless old guy around, this scene was written for you.

I haven't seen the movie so I went to the Christian Spotlight on Entertainment website and looked around. Most agreed the acting was great, but the content fared worse. Here is a viewer review:


Negative - A well made film, but what dreadful subject material! None of the characters aroused any sympathy, and I couldn't have cared less who's head was blown off. And there was plenty of that, with strong, bloody violence! It was all pretty nihilistic stuff, and the ending was poor, as if they didn't know how to finish the film. Should carry a warning: “Likely you make you exit the cinema feeling totally depressed.”
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
—Ken Edwards, age 60, United Kingdom


christiananswers dot net slash spotlight slash movies slash 2007 slash nocountryforoldmen2007 dot html

 

[Doubtless]

lol. Dude, that's the point. Chigurh (not Sugar) is the bad guy. In this scene, the Coen bros set up a few things:

1. Chigurh has a serious animal side of him that needs to MAKE everyone KNOW that he is in control.

2. Chigurh believes in fate, and allows it to decide who lives and who dies (the infamous coin toss (which, might I add, later on in the movie, Chigurh makes the same offer to the woman. She calls it, he flips, next we see him outside, with blood on his boots)).

3. Chigurh is obviously a little insane.

I suggest reading a secular review on the subject. It's funny how strongly opposed a review can be, when the reviewer is biased against something in the film (the violence).

NCFOM is bloody, and violent, and depressing. It has a hard-core ending that nobody liked. Why? Because it's art. It shows life and crime in its true form, not the way we want to see it. The only response to reviews like the one you quoted: "Life sucks, go see the movie."

 

[Christianfantasy]

Wow, what a reply. You assume the other poster couldn’t figure out the character’s real name even after reading the whole scene. I’d assume he/she either used ‘Sugar’ sarcastically, or else for ease of typing. Either way, I wouldn’t have been so quick to assume the poster was a moron. [Note: henceforth I will refer to the character as Chigger, which just seems to fit. (Chiggers being a type of tiny parasite that itch like heck if you get into them.)]


Next, you invited discussion, but when somebody weighed in you told them, in essence, “nothing you said had even a micro-smidgen of validity”. Way to encourage the free exchange of ideas! If you really want to make a point and have others at least mull it over, you might consider acknowledging their perspective. Not every moviegoer wants to plunk down money to watch an amoral blood-and-violence soaked piece of nihilism. That doesn’t automatically classify then as brutish savages, incapable of appreciating the finer points of cinematic “art”.


On to your points. [Which once again you assumed the other poster didn’t get, while I’m far from convinced, seeing that the points you list are either obvious or questionable.] First, Chigger has an animal side to him, and needs to be in control. The same could be said of the most notorious pedophiles in the world. [Stay with me here; there is a point, but it’s coming later.]



Second, Chigger believes in fate. Bullhockey. Fate is the belief that something larger than oneself is at work, calling the shots. It’s also a philosophy of life that separates a person’s actions with Fate. I.e.: Fate is what happens in spite of a person’s actions, not because of them. Look it up and learn. The opposite of fate is a sociopath forcing a helpless person to choose ‘heads or tails’ and then brutally murdering them if they happen to choose wrong. The latter is just Hollywood’s way of ‘justifying’ a horrific level of blood and violence, while providing a fig leaf to the kind of viewers who enjoy watching this kind of thing.


As an aside, what kind of viewer casually throws out the violent murder of a woman as nothing more than an illustration of so-called fate? Answer: the kind who enjoys the thought of a helpless woman dying in terror and agony at the hands of a soulless sociopath.


Next, Chigger is at least a little insane. What’s the point? That people should hand over their hard earned cash to watch a movie because the killer isn’t completely sane? I’m unclear on this. What makes an only partially sane killer more enjoyable and/or commendable to watch than a sane killer? As viewers, are we supposed to see the blood as more artistic if shed by a partially sane person than if shed by a wholly sane person?


Next you suggest reading a secular review. Why is that, exactly? The last secular review I read and trusted resulted in my husband paying for two full price tickets for a sick, revolting, nauseating piece of sub-trash. [The review praised the movie to high heavens.] At least my eyes were opened and I discovered an option. Namely, I could turn to Christian reviewers and get a second opinion. In my experience, the Christians get it right a lot more often than the secularists. Maybe that’s because the knowledge of God is the beginning of wisdom. Also, if a person doesn’t like violence, does it automatically mean that every point they make is invalid? Just asking.


Finally, and worth quoting:


NCFOM is bloody, and violent, and depressing. It has a hard-core ending that nobody liked. Why? Because it's art. It shows life and crime in its true form, not the way we want to see it. The only response to reviews like the one you quoted: "Life sucks, go see the movie."


Which brings me back to Point One. Let’s posit a movie that shows the crime of pedophilia in its true form. Just as graphically as NCFOM shows the crimes of murder, etc. Hey, it’s art, man—get real! Life sucks, especially for the little bitty kids who are brutalized, but for them, that’s life. Go and see the movie, because it’s ART.

Or is pedophilia a ‘bad crime’ whereas murder is a ‘good crime’? If so, on what basis? One preys upon a precious, God-created child; the other takes a life that God alone gave, and that He cherishes. Is He cool with showing the ‘true form’ of one crime but averse to showing the horrific details of the other? If so, why? If there is some intrinsic merit to showing “true crime”, then why limit it to torture and murder? Why not show other true crimes as well? Please be consistent. [Note: I have no problem with watching murders on-screen. I prefer to see them as part of a meaningful plot, though, as opposed to murders being the essence of the film.]


PS: Let’s suppose Chigger posed his choice to a five yo child. 'Call it, kid, heads or tails.' The child calls wrong, and Chigger emerges from the artistic experience covered in blood. What’s the problem? It’s all ‘fate’, right? The little innocent child just needed killing, I guess. Or else it’s simply more gratifying to see a woman brutally murdered than a little child, take your pick. And Hollywood wonders why fewer and fewer people tune in to watch their narcissistic awards ceremonies. Duh.

PPS: If we can't comment on a movie without seeing it, then we should all be renting every porno movie on the market, so as to be justified in non-endorsing them.

 

[Doubtless]

Microsoft Dictionary Definition of FATE:

fate [fayt]
n (plural fates)
1. force predetermining events: the force or principle believed to predetermine events
little knew what fate had in store for him
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


First off, if you're going to refer to a character, please refer to his true name. If your name is Jennifer, I don't refer to you as Lisa. Nor, if you were annoying me, would I refer to you as Flea. I don't pretend to know (or care, for that matter) whether or not Brynwizard was being sarcastic, just as I don't care if you are being sarcastic by using "Chigger."

When I posted this scene, I was rather hoping that people could look beyond pre-supposed opinions about the movie, and take this ONE scene, and analyze it. If you do that, you could learn (if you don't know already) a bit about subtext and good screenwriting. But if you come in here to say "NCFOM is a BAD MOVIE!" I don't really care what you think, you aren't analyzing the scene, you're bashing a movie. I'm not here to uphold OR bash NCFOM, I'm here to analyze a scene with people who, being fellow writers, I assumed might give a crap. I see that from now on, I should keep things like this on CF.org.

FATE, in the context of my post and of this scene, is used like CHANCE. Is it going to be heads, or is it going to be tails? It's a gamble. If you call it right, you live, if not, you die. Chigurh left it to fate (or chance) to decide who lived and who died. Seeing as this is NOT uncommon either in real life or in fiction, I don't understand how it's so hard to accept or comprehend.

Which brings me back to Point One. Let’s posit a movie that shows the crime of pedophilia in its true form. Just as graphically as NCFOM shows the crimes of murder, etc. Hey, it’s art, man—get real! Life sucks, especially for the little bitty kids who are brutalized, but for them, that’s life. Go and see the movie, because it’s ART.

Because you know I'm just the kind of pervert who wants to watch little children get murdered, right? Wrong. In fiction, you use anything (within your own conscious limits (e.g. I don't use nudity or sensuality, but murder and violence, I use when necessary) that best tells the story. The story the Coens decided to tell was one about a very wicked man. Should they show him with cuddly teddy bears in hopes that they will offend less people, or come across as nice guys who just want to make people feel good? No. Art, by my definition, is a representation of reality given through the subjective viewpoint of:

1. The artist

2. The subject of the art

3. The viewer of the art

In NCFOM, the Coens gave you a representation of reality through their lens.

As an aside, what kind of viewer casually throws out the violent murder of a woman as nothing more than an illustration of so-called fate? Answer: the kind who enjoys the thought of a helpless woman dying in terror and agony at the hands of a soulless sociopath.

OR...

A person trying to tell a story.

...this is pointless.

For future reference, if anyone wants to ANALYZE the scene, without trying to trash the film, I'd love to continue. If not, happy Monday.

 

[Christianfantasy]

I regret that you felt you had to take such a hard tone with your reply. I also notice that you didn’t accurately address my points, and seem obsessed with being right even when the facts are against you. For instance, I majored in philosophy in graduate school. (Note: we didn’t use the dictionary as one of our primary source texts.) I know the difference between the concepts of fate and chance, and between a man who forces a woman to call his coin flip as a Sadistic excuse for spewing the blood of a weaker, helpless, terrified victim all over the place. But if that’s what you enjoy—and if you insist on erroneously labeling it “fate”—then that is your choice and nobody’s stopping you.

Re: character names. If you want to dignify a fictional monster with any name you like, that too is your choice. But who made you the free speech police, that you feel empowered to dictate to me or anyone else by what name we should be obligated to call a made-up person? You are free to make your choices; why not allow other people that sane freedom? Chigger isn’t a real person, and as such is incapable of suffering hurt feelings when I call him by whatever name I choose. It’s up to me, not you, how I refer to him. If you enjoy free speech for yourself, why try to curtail it for others? In countries ruled by oppressive political systems, the citizenry are denied the freedom to make a point through the use of nicknames, jokes, satire, or other creative verbal devices. Here in the US we still enjoy artistic license to use our freedom of expression as we see fit. Is there no room in your outlook to respect that basic and fundamental right/freedom, not solely for yourself but also for others? [And btw, if Chigger’s creators are too thin skinned to bear the thought of their precious character getting tagged with a nickname then they too should get past their hypersensitivity. Adults need to be able to take an occasional harmless verbal riposte without running to the hall monitor and crying foul.] [Plus the creators aren’t reading this thread anyway, so it’s only Chigger’s sensibilities that I run the risk of offending. Oh wait; he's fictional, and doesn’t have any.]

Lastly, you don’t really want to discuss this excerpt. Brynwizard made an excellent point, but because it wasn’t complimentary you blew him/her away. Apparently you’ll only engage respectfully and intelligently with people who admire the scene as much as you do. Maybe you have compatriots here at CF who enjoy the thought of a thug flipping a coin and then brutally murdering a terrified, helpless, female victim (while cavalierly dubbing it ‘fate’) as much as you do. If so, perhaps you and they get together and have a lovefest over the geniuses that created this unique, rich, amazing, memorable and intriguing character. [Actually I believe Chigger is the opposite of all those things, but there’s no point in bringing that up to you because you seem too fascinated by him to listen to alternate perspectives with anything approaching an open mind.]

Here is a question for you. If you were trying to talk Jesus into paying to see this movie—and thereby lending His support to it (ticket sales being the way the public votes on which movies succeed and make money and which do not)—how would you pitch it? Here are a couple of verses to get the ideas flowing:


"And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise."" Philippians 4:8

"Because of the miraculous signs Jesus did in Jerusalem at the Passover celebration, many began to trust in Him. Bus Jesus didn’t trust them, because He knew human nature. No one needed to tell Him what mankind is really like." John 2:23-25

 

[Doubtless]

Ok...

First, let's get one thing straight:

I'm not advocating Chigurh's behavior as right, nor am I saying that he is a cool guy, nor am I saying that I like him, and if you'd like to bring up any other points about how I view him, I'll most gladly shoot those down as well.

I'm interested in the screenwriting. I admire HOW it was told, not WHAT was told. Yes, there are limits, and if you have a conscientous objection to this kind of material, I respect that. I'm not asking you to support the film, or this scene, or anything. I'm asking that people look at the screenwriting; at HOW things are communicated. The subtext. The dialogue. The character. The plot. The tension. The suspense. (I so just broke every rule of good literature, but hey, I think I made my point ).

NAMES, you're free to say whatever the heck you want. I don't really care if you told all your friends that I'm gay. BUT, I also have a right: a right to choose who I talk to. If you aren't going to refer to the subject of this topic by his correct name, I'm not going to post in this topic anymore. I don't really think it's so much to ask that you use the right name.

Lastly, you don’t really want to discuss this excerpt. Brynwizard made an excellent point, but because it wasn’t complimentary you blew him/her away. Apparently you’ll only engage respectfully and intelligently with people who admire the scene as much as you do. Maybe you have compatriots here at CF who enjoy the thought of a thug flipping a coin and then brutally murdering a terrified, helpless, female victim (while cavalierly dubbing it ‘fate’) as much as you do. If so, perhaps you and they get together and have a lovefest over the geniuses that created this unique, rich, amazing, memorable and intriguing character. [Actually I believe Chigger is the opposite of all those things, but there’s no point in bringing that up to you because you seem too fascinated by him to listen to alternate perspectives with anything approaching an open mind.]

First, remember my point earlier, neither me nor any of my "compatriots" (of which I have very few) admire or like Chigurh. Second, remember my point that I'm here to analyze the literary worth of a scene from a script, not to debate morality. I've had my share of debates, been banned on one site, come real close to being banned on three others, and I've found debating does nothing.

Of Brynwizard's post, only ONE sentence was even partially based on the literary merit of the scene, and even THAT was given only in the context of the sentence after:

It's a cheap scene, built entirely by playing on the viewers' fear that Sugar is going to kill the old man.

If Brynwizard would like to discuss the literary merit of this scene, I would gladly take his opinions, even if he thinks it sucks, SO LONG AS he says it sucks BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN POORLY.

On pitching to Jesus,

you'll prolly think I'm a heretic after this, but I don't really think Jesus would mind watching this movie. It might not be the most uplifting thing to watch, but it IS, after all, just a movie. If watching violence offends you, then don't watch the movie, but PLEASE don't tell me I can't watch it because you don't approve.

An aside, the creator of Dungeons & Dragons, who recently died (if I'm right) was a Christian. When people would express concern over the magic in D&D, he would reply with a gentle twinkle:

"You do know the gold and swords aren't real either..."

 

[Christianfantasy]

I read your most recent reply, and I had some thoughts. It appears that your view is just as I suggested in my first reply. It’s not the content of a movie; it’s the:

< < the screenwriting; at HOW things are communicated. The subtext. The dialogue. The character. The plot. The tension. The suspense. > >

That is what I thought you were saying originally. That is precisely the reason I brought up child pornography. If content isn’t the issue, then how do you demarcate between one topic and another? You said that movies about blood, violence and murder but little else [i.e.: no moral dimension that commends the movie on any level] are fine because “that’s life”. As I said before, child pornography is life too. You can’t say it isn’t part of life just because you’d rather watch amoral scenes of bloody violence than child porn. Your personal preferences do not define life. There are people in this world who would rather watch child porn than gratuitous violence. There is no objective criteria by which you can say your preference supersedes theirs. From your perspective, it’s all subjective.

You also can’t say, ‘but child porn is a sin’. Murder is a sin, too. And again, I’m not suggesting all on-screen murder is bad. But if all you can say about murder for murder’s sake is that “it’s life”, then you simply cannot draw any distinction between that and child porn. Child porn is life too; the Internet is chockablock with it. So if a movie were to be made with explicit child porn scenes, but the movie also met high artistic standards in terms of screenwriting, all you could say would be, ‘But I don’t like that part of life’. That’s a losing argument because you can’t base standards on the precept: it has to be life PLUS something Doubtless likes’. You are not the ultimate moral arbiter; neither is any other human being, or even the aggregate of them.

I hope you are following this. Some of your replies have seemed so bombastic and knee-jerk, I did consider not replying at all. But we are both Christians here, and there is no reason we can’t discuss this subject on terms of mutual respect. I think your answer about Jesus not minding having to shell out money to sit through an amoral movie bursting at the seams with violence and murder is a little facile. But we can set that aside if you’d prefer. The point is, if the only justification needed to commend extremely graphic scenes is that ‘they’re life’ then you can’t arbitrarily specify that only the parts of life you like ought to be filmed. The parts that other people like can be filmed with equal moral footing, IF that is the criteria. My view, obviously differs radically on that point. If you’d like to hear it, I’d be happy to share. Otherwise, I’ll simply await your reply [which of course you are free to skip if you’d prefer].

 

[Doubtless]

 

[GrinningDwarf]

First, remember my point earlier, neither me nor any of my "compatriots" (of which I have very few) admire or like Chigurh. Second, remember my point that I'm here to analyze the literary worth of a scene from a script, not to debate morality. I've had my share of debates, been banned on one site, come real close to being banned on three others, and I've found debating does nothing.

Have you ever considered that both of these effects might be the result of your attitude and presentation? I mean, c'mon...few 'compatriots' and problems on not one, but four sites? I hope you don't subscibe to the "Everybody's an idiot but me!!" philosophy.

 

[Doubtless]

No, I don't think everyone but me is an idiot. The site I got banned from, it was for asking people to get saved...that's it. They didn't like it, so they banned me. I got in trouble here for arguing with the mods (who deleted an entire paragraph of one of my posts). And I got in trouble on Saleucami's old website for arguing about the Pope.

Forgive me, I'm 80% German. (heheh)

As for few compatriots, it's usually because I'm a little too...I don't know, serious. ...Usually.

@Christianfantasy,

You're reading between the lines, when all you need to do is read the lines themselves. It's probably my fault, though; I didn't clarify well enough:

What guides me in my movie viewing? My conscience.

Is my conscience offended by violence, murder, etc.? No, not really. Things like in all those horror films, yeah, but not if it's violence with a point.

If my conscience were offended by violence, would I watch this movie? No. (and, for more clarity, I have NOT seen the movie. I don't plan to, for a number of reasons, one of the highest of them being that my wallet is flat, and I expect it to stay flat for a long time )

Would I still consider it art? Maybe, I don't know. The WAY it was written, yes, probably. But if something in this scene offended my conscience, I wouldn't read it at all, and then I wouldn't pretend to know whether it was art or not (not that anyone here has done this). I personally don't excuse nudity or sensuality in films under any circumstance, but I have friends in the film business who do, as long as it serves a point, much like the way I feel about violence. I think it's wrong to watch movies like this, but if their consciences aren't offended by it, then I can't tell them they're sinning. If God doesn't tell them, then who am I to tell them.

The way I see it:

Violence does not affect me. I don't know if you've seen it or not, but I recently (a month or so ago) watched Flags of Our Fathers. The movie was violent, bloody, gory, and had a few spots that made even me cringe. But, other than sicken me a little (which, for all points and purposes, I believe was Eastwood's intent with Flags (to make the viewer see how sick the violence of war really is)), the violence and gore didn't affect me.

At the same time (not literally, just using the phrase ), I was once watching a movie that I had no idea had a very innapropriate scene in it. When the scene came on, I rushed to shut the TV off, and felt like puking afterwards (this time because, even though I hadn't known the scene was coming, I felt guilty. It was the most sickening feeling I've ever had (other than when I drank a second strawberry milkshake without waiting for the first to settle )).

Violence had the desired effect: it made me queasy. The immoral scene had a bad effect: it violated my conscience.

Wow, that was long. Hehe.

Anyways, my point:

If you don't approve of violence in film, then don't watch the movie, don't discuss the scene, etc. Just like if someone posts a analysis of a scene that I find immoral, I'm not even going to read it. You know, however, that there IS a difference in watching violence and watching nudity or sensuality, etc. etc.

Two last clarifications:

1.

You said that movies about blood, violence and murder but little else [i.e.: no moral dimension that commends the movie on any level] are fine because “that’s life”.

Please don't take my words out of context, you know that I don't believe that. I said that the Coens were trying to give an accurate portrayal of life in a way that was within their moral constrictions and those of the story. The theme of the film, as I see it (having not watched it): Bad things happen/Things don't usually turn out like they do in stories.

Maybe that's my own interpretation (my own screenplay shares the latter half of the theme), but anyway...

2. The film, I've been told (by a good friend, who actually saw it), actually doesn't have that many scenes of violence in it, and the violence isn't really so graphic as people say it is, more it's sickening because of the heinousness of it (he described the feeling like: "The kind of sickening violence you might find when you see a man kicking an old man's head into a curb"). Do NOT misread this. I don't care what you think of me, but don't think wrong of my friend. He did not see the movie out of a desire for entertainment, but a desire to watch a story (and he's a screenwriter, so he watches tons of films). He did NOT find some sick enjoyment out of watching this, and I suspect very few who actually watched it did.

Anyways...I think it's safe to say, I've completed the first draft of a novel.

 

[Christianfantasy]

Hi again, Doubtless. No, I haven’t been reading between the lines. It would be very poor communication if I did, and without good communication it’s very hard to have an intelligent, productive discussion.

Your conscience is only a valid guide to movie-watching if it’s been well trained and is sensitive to God’s leading. I have a very close friend who let his conscience guide his movie watching for many years. As he grew as a Christian, his conscience slowly but surely transformed, and I will never forget the day he so earnestly explained to me that everything is permissible to a Christian but not everything is edifying. He swore off a whole raft of movies he had previously seen as perfectly acceptable, and he’s never gone back. The point being consciences are not an absolute guide; they, like the rest of us, need to be submitted to God so that He can guide and direct us more perfectly each day.

< < Is my conscience offended by violence, murder, etc.? No, not really. Things like in all those horror films, yeah, but not if it's violence with a point. > >

Aha: violence with a point. This is the big fat bull’s eye. We’ll revisit it further down.

< < If you don't approve of violence in film, then don't watch the movie, don't discuss the scene, etc. Just like if someone posts a analysis of a scene that I find immoral, I'm not even going to read it. You know, however, that there IS a difference in watching violence and watching nudity or sensuality, etc. etc. > >

Please read back over my posts and show me, specifically, where I said I disapprove of violence in a movie. [Hint: it’s not violence per se that bothers me at all, not even in the least.] Who’s reading between the lines now?

Quote:
You said that movies about blood, violence and murder but little else [i.e.: no moral dimension that commends the movie on any level] are fine because “that’s life”.
Please don't take my words out of context, you know that I don't believe that. I said that the Coens were trying to give an accurate portrayal of life in a way that was within their moral constrictions and those of the story. The theme of the film, as I see it (having not watched it): Bad things happen/Things don't usually turn out like they do in stories.


So far the justifications you have given for NCFOM are: it’s life; it’s art; the Coens wanted to portray a very bad man. Where is the moral dimension??? As I have been trying to point out, everything you say about NCFOM/Chigger could be said even more so about the world’s most notorious child-molester’s/child killers. Yet you can’t morally justify making a movie that graphically portrays the latter. If there is a moral component to NCFOM, please elucidate it for me. I’m all ears.


< < 2. The film, I've been told (by a good friend, who actually saw it), actually doesn't have that many scenes of violence in it, and the violence isn't really so graphic as people say it is, more it's sickening because of the heinousness of it (he described the feeling like: "The kind of sickening violence you might find when you see a man kicking an old man's head into a curb"). Do NOT misread this. I don't care what you think of me, but don't think wrong of my friend. He did not see the movie out of a desire for entertainment, but a desire to watch a story (and he's a screenwriter, so he watches tons of films). He did NOT find some sick enjoyment out of watching this, and I suspect very few who actually watched it did. > >


And yet I have read in numerous reviews that in addition to being sickening, the violence is also pervasive. To be honest, I wouldn’t care if it were pervasive if there was a point to it. I just don’t believe you can argue that there is. You keep saying, ‘it’s life’. Yet so much of what ‘is life’ is unsuitable for graphic filming, it simply isn’t a coherent argument to say that since NCFOM is life, it is morally defensible to make and watch it. [I say this as a massive fan of O Brother Where Art Thou, btw.] And how is it life, anyway, since the whole thing is based on a fictional novel? Not everything that hatches in the mind of an author is real life; some of it is just the product of a dark, perverted imagination running wild.

< < He did NOT find some sick enjoyment out of watching this, and I suspect very few who actually watched it did. > >

Oh come on, Doubtless! You can do better than that! You are SO far from unintelligent it’s not even remotely funny, but that is just a flat out unintelligent statement. You have no idea how many people did or did not see this movie for twisted reasons. You just don’t. God knows, but you don’t and I don’t—and we have no way of finding out. The people who saw the movie because they get pleasure from the thought of a helpless, defenseless, terrified woman being brutally murdered are NOT going to admit it.

For the sake of the argument, however, let’s say only one percent of the men who watched the movie got their jollies from the horrific murder of the woman. [Note: I’m not suggesting that only men are more dark and/or perverted than women, only that more men than women derive pleasure from the murder of women. (I assume the converse is true as well.)] That still translates into thousands. You have to argue that it’s okay to rev the engines of sick, misogynistic men—even the ones who are likeliest to act on their sick impulses [and don’t try for even one instant to suggest they’re not out there; you’d have to very selectively read the news even for one week—and be completely oblivious to the breakdown of the population at high security prisons (this representing only the ones they actually caught; NOT the number that’s actually out there)—not to know far more about this type of individual than any normal person would ever want to know] in order to portray scenes like that because the moral justification for making the movie is… is… is…. Help me out here, Doubtless. What is the positive/moral value of this movie again? [Note: you can’t say ‘it’s art’ because that’s circular; you must presuppose/stipulate it’s art in order to justify it as art. Also, the ‘it’s life’ postulate doesn’t work for reasons I’ve already enumerated three times, at least.]

< < Anyways...I think it's safe to say, I've completed the first draft of a novel. > >

Major, huge congratulations! That is a great accomplishment! What, if I may ask, is the novel about?

 

[Doubtless]

Your conscience is only a valid guide to movie-watching if it’s been well trained and is sensitive to God’s leading. I have a very close friend who let his conscience guide his movie watching for many years. As he grew as a Christian, his conscience slowly but surely transformed, and I will never forget the day he so earnestly explained to me that everything is permissible to a Christian but not everything is edifying. He swore off a whole raft of movies he had previously seen as perfectly acceptable, and he’s never gone back. The point being consciences are not an absolute guide; they, like the rest of us, need to be submitted to God so that He can guide and direct us more perfectly each day.

I tell you now, I have never met a person more devoted to God as the person I know who watched NCFOM and liked it (except for the ending), and follows his conscience in his decisions.

Please read back over my posts and show me, specifically, where I said I disapprove of violence in a movie. [Hint: it’s not violence per se that bothers me at all, not even in the least.] Who’s reading between the lines now?

I don't get you. If you aren't against violence in films, then WHY are you here arguing with me? The only reason I can think of is that you think I enjoy watching brutal murders, which I already told you I don't.

Oh come on, Doubtless! You can do better than that! You are SO far from unintelligent it’s not even remotely funny, but that is just a flat out unintelligent statement. You have no idea how many people did or did not see this movie for twisted reasons. You just don’t. God knows, but you don’t and I don’t—and we have no way of finding out. The people who saw the movie because they get pleasure from the thought of a helpless, defenseless, terrified woman being brutally murdered are NOT going to admit it.

(I'll answer to all the other points in one part)

...You know, the entire job of studio executives is to figure out what people like in films, and why they see the films they see. Trust me, if people wanted to see some sick killing, there are plenty of other movies that would gratify their flesh a lot more and a lot faster than NCFOM. People who like this kind of crap go to horror movies like The Hills Have Eyes, and Saw.

Help me out here, Doubtless. What is the positive/moral value of this movie again? [Note: you can’t say ‘it’s art’ because that’s circular; you must presuppose/stipulate it’s art in order to justify it as art. Also, the ‘it’s life’ postulate doesn’t work for reasons I’ve already enumerated three times, at least.]

Ok. Are you ready for this? Here it is. I'm going to tell you. (by now, you already know it's going to be really simple, otherwise I would be wasting my time writing the huge hunk of post, rather than building it up).

The point

is

...

...

...

To tell a story. Yes, that's right. The Coens found a story that drew them in, they optioned it, they wrote it as a screenplay, and they filmed it. It's a story about a bad guy. It's violent, but the violence serves a point. We already went round with the whole "so could child abuse" crap, but you know that argument was dead before it was ever born. The truth is: there are limits. What are the limits? Only God knows, and people can only trust Him to tell them through the Holy Spirit. For me, the limits come at sensuality, immodesty, etc. I don't care if it DOES have a point, I won't watch it. Violence with a point, I don't mind. My limits are pretty clearly defined. If your limits won't allow you to watch NCFOM, then don't watch it. But, as I've said again and again, don't tell me I can't.

Major, huge congratulations! That is a great accomplishment! What, if I may ask, is the novel about?

lol. I meant that post was the novel. hehe.

 

[Christianfantasy]

Hi again, Doubtless. I can’t write to you any more on this topic because you have missed, either purposefully or inadvertently, every single point I’ve made. I have a tight schedule time wise and I have devoted the outside limit to this discussion. I don’t think you are mentally challenged, and I have no theory as to why you have been unable to understand the points I’ve made. [Note: you don’t have to agree with a person to at least understand them. Your replies indicate not that you understand what I’m saying but disagree, but rather that you don’t understand it to begin with, and then disagree with something I haven’t said while failing to address what I actually said.] I wish you all the best, and I will continue to remember you in my prayers. Best wishes with your screenwriting.

PS: If you read all my posts with care and did your very best to understand what I was saying and you still couldn’t get it, then okay. I was talking over your head, evidently, without meaning to. At least I took you seriously and made a good faith effort.

PPS: There are people in this world who go through life purposefully misunderstanding those with whom they disagree. Pro-abortion politicians come to mind. First they willfully misunderstand the pro-life position, and then they set up straw horses based on that misunderstanding and knock them down. The upside of their position, in their eyes, is that they never run the risk of changing their mind—and change is very threatening to this type of person. Also they avoid, a priori, ever having to concede even a minor point to the the other side. The larger downside is that their minds atrophy and they remain stuck at a fairly immature stage of intellectual and moral development. Given the basic dishonesty of their position, I believe it would be worth the risk to open their minds sufficiently to understand even positions with which they disagree. Fwiw.

PPPS: If anyone other than Doubtless has been following this discussion, and has the time and inclination, your feedback on one point would be invaluable. Namely, have I been so obscure in my comments that it isn’t possible for even an intellectually open and honest person to comprehend my points? Profuse thanks to anyone who responds.
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[Doubtless]

Namely, have I been so obscure in my comments that it isn’t possible for even an intellectually open and honest person to comprehend my points?

That's a cold insinuation to make. I could give you a list of references to prove I'm open to change on a great many subjects in debates (the cores of my faith are the only thing I won't change), but I doubt that would do any good.

To be honest, I don't have the time to scour your posts to find the secret code that is supposed to be right in front of me. Thus, I won't ask you to take the time to repost your points, I just ask that you don't insinuate that either I'm stupid, or I'm dishonest, and I purposefully misunderstand things for my own benefit. Obviously, we're both arguing about different subjects, that's that. Nothing sinister about it.

Sorry you have to go.

 

[Christianfantasy]

There is no insinuation. To find one, you have to assume something bad about me, and you evidently have no trouble doing that. In fact, I asked the question in simple honesty. If I communicated so poorly that you couldn’t for honestly trying grasp my points, I’d like to know about it. And if you can’t let a sincere question like that go without turning mean and petty, then that is your issue, not mine.

 

[Doubtless]

Whatever.

 

[Christianfantasy]

Have you ever tried the approach of just plain old being nicer to people? I have approached this discussion by assuming the best about you at every turn. I’m still in shock that you read so much negativity into my penultimate post. I am sincerely stumped as to why and how you misunderstood every single point I made. I am honestly trying to understand. It strikes me an odd sort of faith you must have, that enables you to so quickly assign bad motives to a fellow believer with no evidence to support that assumption.

 

[Doubtless]

Just forget it, dude(ette ). It's not that important. I'm not out to bash you or say you're a jerk or anything of the sort. In fact, right now, I'd rather just move on. So, if you don't mind, I'm done posting here.

God bless,
~ Eric