Seeing Hooker was never going to take the offensive, Lee pulled two more Divisions, those of South Carolinian RH Anderson and Georgian Lafayette McLaws from in front of Hooker and led them himself against Sedgwick in conjunction with Jubal Early. It was to be a day of frustration for Lee, as he could not prod McLaws forward and get the 3 division attack going. Sedgwick withdrew over Banks’ Ford when he lost Marye’s Heights to Early.(Early had a great battle.)
This was the cue for Hooker to call the campaign over and he withdrew over US Ford on the 5th. Casualties were high for the four day battle: 13000 for Lee and 17000 for Hooker. Lee’s proportion was too high, considering he only had 60000 to start with.
Lee and the South had bettered an army twice the size of their own and given Virginia breathing space. Lee’s next move, as it had been in 62, after a victory, was to move North.
Gettysburg awaited.
Jackson would never again be Lee’s “right arm”’ as he passed away on the 10th from complications from his amputation.
His last words were: let us cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees.
So I finally saw 'No Country For Old Men'…
-
…a helluva motion picture, if I say so. Absolutely incredible.
What are all of your opinions on it?
What other good movies from last year am I behind on?
-
its a damn good movie. My buddies and me tried to figure out exactly what happened after the movie, but after about 4 hours at the bar, we got it figured to a T.
-
i liked 3:10 to Yuma also. good flick.
-
“Anton” will be remembered as one of the all time best villain performances, similar to Hannibal Lector in “silence of the lambs”
His facial demeanor is remarkable in its intensity.
-
…and another + to IL for telling about Anton
-
I specifically read the book before I saw the movie. I kept hearing how close the movie was to the book. It wasn’t bad, but they left a few things out that would have helped people “get” the ending and just created some plot holes for me (but nothing glaring). It was probably necessary due to time constraints. I was also hoping they’d clear up two points in the book that are confusing.
I really liked the movie. The book is better though. Read it.
-
Elaborate more on these plot holes and confusion about the book.
I understood the ending, at least I think I did. The entire film seemed to be about two things: The changing of the times (and how it really is ‘no country for old men’, who fall behind while everyone else gets more greedy and violent, but this is disproved when Bell’s uncle tells him the story of the indians killing the man on the porch as he claims ‘its always been this way’) and Destiny (where Chigurh represents complete fatalism and predestined timelines, as he seems to know everything in advance and thinks fate decides things, but this is disproved in his final cointoss scene and the event that follows, where Carla Jean Moss makes Anton himself decide instead of the fate of the toss).
I interpreted Bell’s first dream as meaning that his fathers work as a sheriff meant something in society (as evidenced by his fathers wealth in the dream), but in modern times, after passing the money (his profession off) in the dream, Bell can’t handle it like his father had, as he believe crime has changed and law enforcement is overall failing.
I interpreted Bell’s second dream as meaning the only thing definite in life is its end. The cold and dark and poor weather is supposed to be the uncertainty of life. The only thing that would be visible in this dream would be his father’s fire, where his journey will end, and Bell says that he knows that his father will be there when he arrives (as if his father’s fire is heaven and death).
-
I think you just “elaborated” beyond even the writers intentions with that. My god.
-
it represents true nihilsm. nothing matters. fate is the flip of a coin. people are killed or live, and does it really matter which?
and its not about changing times. remember, its about how its always been bad with ruthless people out there and that it always will be.
just my opinion.
-
Well what I meant was that it was about Bell’s percieved changing of the times. Like I said, the story about the indians killing the man on his porch discredits Bell’s belief.
-
Sorry, Cobert, I should have said inconsistencies instead of plot holes.
For instance, in the book, the girl Lewellyn meets by the pool has a much bigger role. You also know who kills him (hint, it’s not Chigurh). The scene in the office building, there is not a second guy in there…just the guy behind the desk that Anton kills. The street battle involves a lot more people, not just Anton and Lewellyn. And you know exactly what happens with Carla Jean and Anton, and it’s not a decision by Anton (except for allowing her a coin flip).
The fate vs. circumstance thing is played heavily upon by the Coen brothers. I’m not sure Mccarthy was pushing that notion as much in the book, but I know the Coens concentrated on that theme.
Yes, Bell perceives things to be changing. Just like all people say that America is going in the toilet now. People always have said that, and always will. He just realizes that his job isn’t as honorable or good as he thought, and that it will just end up getting him killed. Especially with a unstoppable psychopath like Chigurh. Bell’s good intentions meant nothing when death was around the corner.
And speaking of that, many people have concluded that Chigurh not only represents death, he actually IS death. He’s unstoppable, ruthless, untiring, and always gets his man. Remember how he asks the one guy if he saw him? Or the kids after the accident? Anyone who didn’t “see” him lived. People always see death before they die. Bell never actually saw him, but Lewellyn did.
-
Sorry, Cobert, I should have said inconsistencies instead of plot holes.
For instance, in the book, the girl Lewellyn meets by the pool has a much bigger role. You also know who kills him (hint, it’s not Chigurh). The scene in the office building, there is not a second guy in there…just the guy behind the desk that Anton kills. The street battle involves a lot more people, not just Anton and Lewellyn. And you know exactly what happens with Carla Jean and Anton, and it’s not a decision by Anton (except for allowing her a coin flip).
The fate vs. circumstance thing is played heavily upon by the Coen brothers. I’m not sure Mccarthy was pushing that notion as much in the book, but I know the Coens concentrated on that theme.
Yes, Bell perceives things to be changing. Just like all people say that America is going in the toilet now. People always have said that, and always will. He just realizes that his job isn’t as honorable or good as he thought, and that it will just end up getting him killed. Especially with a unstoppable psychopath like Chigurh. Bell’s good intentions meant nothing when death was around the corner.
And speaking of that, many people have concluded that Chigurh not only represents death, he actually IS death. He’s unstoppable, ruthless, untiring, and always gets his man. Remember how he asks the one guy if he saw him? Or the kids after the accident? Anyone who didn’t “see” him lived. People always see death before they die. Bell never actually saw him, but Lewellyn did.
How does the girl play a bigger part in the book? In the movie, her sole purpose seems to be to begin a short bit of dialogue that further explores the fate theme:
“Whatcha looking for?”
“I’m lookin’ for what’s comin’.”
“Well you don’t know what’s comin’.”Its implied in the movie that Chigurh doesnt kill Lewellyn. The Coen Brothers decision to leave out Carla Jeans coin toss can be taken as it being Chugurh’s choice and pushing for their theme of fate. More people in the street battle seems like it may have ruined it, that scene was definitely intense. Everyone I watched it with jumped when the lock shot off the door.
I guess I can buy the ‘Anton as death’ thing, it ties into my idea that Bell’s dream is about the only certainty in life is its end. Anton, representative of destiny and against free will, could very easily also represent death, the only thing certain in life.
-
Its a social comment on the American system, if you follow the money and make greed your virtue in its pursuit, you will fail and it will lead to your demise. Good people take what they have everyday and instead of being happy they still want something more and it will corrupt you in the end, so in this journey you leave this life early even if you live, your still dead in other ways.
I think thats the movies basic idea IMO.
-
Okay, assuming IL did a good job, because I am not watching the movie, I just don’t have the time, then the movie is wrong.
Good people fail more often than bad people in our culture. Look at lawyers, politicians, corrupt contractors, corrupt police men, etc. We catch very few of them and even the ones foolish enough to get caught seem to do much better then the average “good” man.
Corruption seems to lead to power, wealth and respect more often then honor and integrity. It’s really only the soldiers and leaders of war that seem to be remembered in the course of history for displaying honor and integrity.
Sure, everyone knows that Lee was an honorable man. Everyone knows that William Wallace had integrity. Everyone knows that Richard Nixon was a crook and that Joseph Stalin was a mad man. (Everyone forgets the good that Nixon and Stalin did however, and only remember the bad.)
Okay, so Nixon and Stalin are bad examples because one was eventually found out and the other didn’t care if he was found out because he had the power. But that’s just the point! Deceit, corruption, conspiracy, theft and other criminal or quasi-criminal behavior is how men get power.
It’s unfortunate, but it’s also an inconvenient truth.
-
How does the girl play a bigger part in the book? In the movie, her sole purpose seems to be to begin a short bit of dialogue that further explores the fate theme:
“Whatcha looking for?”
“I’m lookin’ for what’s comin’.”
“Well you don’t know what’s comin’.”Its implied in the movie that Chigurh doesnt kill Lewellyn. The Coen Brothers decision to leave out Carla Jeans coin toss can be taken as it being Chugurh’s choice and pushing for their theme of fate. More people in the street battle seems like it may have ruined it, that scene was definitely intense. Everyone I watched it with jumped when the lock shot off the door.
I guess I can buy the ‘Anton as death’ thing, it ties into my idea that Bell’s dream is about the only certainty in life is its end. Anton, representative of destiny and against free will, could very easily also represent death, the only thing certain in life.
Well, the girl rolls with Lewellyn for a while. She’s another example of the fate vs. circumstance theme. She dies just as well in the book, but it was unnecessary as she was just in the wrong place in the wrong time. There is a lot of dialog between her and Lewellyn that gives more insight into his character too.
The book and movie kinda blur to me, so I’m trying to remember what’s what. Carla Jean loses the coin toss, but resigns to her fate (I thought that was important after she pleads for her life). You get to see Anton’s weird but logical “moral” code, and that he is a man of his word. The people in the street battle are the same ones that kill Lewellyn…Mexicans from the other drug runners where the deal went bad (and the attack Anton as well). And I knew that lock (and the sudden wreck) was coming, so it didn’t get me too much but it worked well for my date!
-
And I knew that lock (and the sudden wreck) was coming, so it didn’t get me too much but it worked well for my date!
Without having read the book I felt both the lock and crash coming, but yes, it easily surprises women, hahaha.
-
I really recommend the book though, you seem interested enough in the movie. You could probably knock it out in a day or so.
-
Ill check it out sometime, and throw it onto the extremely long list of books I want to read.
Suggested Topics
