Goddamn... What is it about old cowboys slowly coming to accept their mortality that just get to me? I don't think I've ever watched Jones's final monologue without tearing up just a little. Great video, you absolutely nailed it.
This is excellent commentary. Note bene: the images in the murals of the church in which they take refuge are depictions of the Eucharist. The Eucharist being the sacrament in which God the Father allows His only son, Jesus, to be sacrificed, thereby saving us with…His sinless Flesh and Blood. I imagine this is no mere coincidence. Having witnessed the horrors of the unholy devouring of a child’s flesh and blood, we see the holy remedy to the evils of sin: the Eucharist, the salvific supper of the Son of God. The fire represents not only the Holy Spirit that animates creation, but the burning love of God, which we carry within us upon baptism. Perhaps bizarre coincidence…perhaps intentional symbology from McCarthy and Hillcoat. I tend to think the latter. Either way…powerful, remarkable, beauty to break our heart.
Great analysis. Kind of thinking about the Road right now too. Great connection (the carrying the fire motif) between the two movies. Thanks for the video.
Totally agree on seeing films as separate from the source in terms of the artifice. It's the soul that has to stay the same, but that soul can't usually be conveyed the same way in print as it can on screen. The scene they changed, I think, accomplishes the same thing that the cannibalism of an infant did symbolically in the book. The consumption of pure potential, the eating of all of the future in order to sustain a present. It's a hopeless moment just as in the movie The Old Man conveys hopelessness. Humanity is gone and there's nothing left to save. Without something LIKE that, The Man isn't facing (and asking the boy to face) a truly unreasonable world with hope and carrying the fire into. The film did not need something so visceral as a baby roasting over a fire. A more contemplative moment suits the pacing and storytelling way better there. Seeing that would be such a shock it would likely be impossible to understand why it was in the film.
Interesting take. I felt the earthquake in the film was a little over the top, showing a divine intervention in otherwise subtle story telling. The second cannibal scene is not just a repeat of more dangerous cannibals. It's more important. They approach the camp with the smell of food cooking with a sense of hope but when they find the baby cooking, it appears all hope in the boy is lost. The man wonders if the boy will ever talk again. When the boy does finally speak again he manages to find hope in what almost anyone would find absolutely hopeless. He says that if the baby was alive they could have saved it and taken it with them. He then wonders and hopes there are more babies. Afterwards they find a cabin that has not been looted, where they are able to rest for a few days. The man says something like "maybe the fathers are watching us" The movie is probably one of the best film adaptations ever, but the exclusion of the second cannibal scene and replacement with the earthquake was a huge mistake.
You keep saying they're "narrowly being killed," but I'm pretty sure you mean "narrowly *avoiding* being killed." I love your analysis, but this is jarring. Is there a way to fix the audio?
Goddamn... What is it about old cowboys slowly coming to accept their mortality that just get to me? I don't think I've ever watched Jones's final monologue without tearing up just a little. Great video, you absolutely nailed it.
I feel like Blood Meridian, No Country for Old Men, and The Road all feel like a trilogy or anthology
When you become a father this book/movie hits different.
This is excellent commentary. Note bene: the images in the murals of the church in which they take refuge are depictions of the Eucharist. The Eucharist being the sacrament in which God the Father allows His only son, Jesus, to be sacrificed, thereby saving us with…His sinless Flesh and Blood. I imagine this is no mere coincidence. Having witnessed the horrors of the unholy devouring of a child’s flesh and blood, we see the holy remedy to the evils of sin: the Eucharist, the salvific supper of the Son of God.
The fire represents not only the Holy Spirit that animates creation, but the burning love of God, which we carry within us upon baptism. Perhaps bizarre coincidence…perhaps intentional symbology from McCarthy and Hillcoat. I tend to think the latter. Either way…powerful, remarkable, beauty to break our heart.
Great analysis. Kind of thinking about the Road right now too. Great connection (the carrying the fire motif) between the two movies. Thanks for the video.
Totally agree on seeing films as separate from the source in terms of the artifice. It's the soul that has to stay the same, but that soul can't usually be conveyed the same way in print as it can on screen.
The scene they changed, I think, accomplishes the same thing that the cannibalism of an infant did symbolically in the book. The consumption of pure potential, the eating of all of the future in order to sustain a present. It's a hopeless moment just as in the movie The Old Man conveys hopelessness. Humanity is gone and there's nothing left to save. Without something LIKE that, The Man isn't facing (and asking the boy to face) a truly unreasonable world with hope and carrying the fire into.
The film did not need something so visceral as a baby roasting over a fire. A more contemplative moment suits the pacing and storytelling way better there. Seeing that would be such a shock it would likely be impossible to understand why it was in the film.
My dude. Where'd you go? This is great content. The world needs more of what you have to offer!
Wow im actually amazed by these parallels, incredible analysis
Masterfully analyzed and brilliantly written narration. I thoroughly enjoyed your words. Peace and blessings🙏
.....I'm carrying the fire
Great stuff
I think I forgot this channel existed.
아저씨 same
please come back
It's the light of love.
Interesting take. I felt the earthquake in the film was a little over the top, showing a divine intervention in otherwise subtle story telling.
The second cannibal scene is not just a repeat of more dangerous cannibals. It's more important. They approach the camp with the smell of food cooking with a sense of hope but when they find the baby cooking, it appears all hope in the boy is lost. The man wonders if the boy will ever talk again. When the boy does finally speak again he manages to find hope in what almost anyone would find absolutely hopeless. He says that if the baby was alive they could have saved it and taken it with them. He then wonders and hopes there are more babies.
Afterwards they find a cabin that has not been looted, where they are able to rest for a few days. The man says something like "maybe the fathers are watching us"
The movie is probably one of the best film adaptations ever, but the exclusion of the second cannibal scene and replacement with the earthquake was a huge mistake.
To bad you don't do any of these any more.
A shibboleth for those with souls.
Clickbait Title: Are No Country for Old Men and The Road in the same literary/cinematic universe????
You stopped making videos again?
You keep saying they're "narrowly being killed," but I'm pretty sure you mean "narrowly *avoiding* being killed." I love your analysis, but this is jarring. Is there a way to fix the audio?