No Country for Old men does not fit neatly into Stuart Halls theory of spectatorship due to its post modern nature as a neo western that deconstructs genre, rather subverting this theory through eluding a clearly defined preferred reading; however the constructed chaos in the film does still lend itself to a variety of spectator responses through its elusive meaning, with characters full of contradictions and characters that cannot understand these contradictions.
Stuart Hall’s theory of spectatorship can help explain multiple readings of the character of Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. The preferred reading would be to fear Chigurh from this scene, he is anomalous to the western genre, especially in his twisted sense of morality which is hard to understand and grasp. The tension of the scene helps establish this reading through micro features; sound is utilised through a subtle naturalistic soundtrack, blowing wind that underscores the soft spoken dialogue to heighten the tension of the scene. The slow track in also works to create tension, equally subtle and less perceptible which helps sutra the spectator into the diegesis of the film to heighten this tension. This tension builds fear towards Chigurh which is built further through subverting genre expectations with Chigurh’s elusive moral code. The mise en scene establishes western conventions with the shop keeper wearing a plaid shirt and overalls, cowboy hats sit in the background as does an empty desert landscape. Chigurh’s dark clothing and hairstyle juxtapose this, as does his contradictory morality; he tells the shopkeeper to not let the coin become like an other then contradicts this by telling him its just another coin. This represents his chaotic moral code, partly governed by fate as he decides the shop keepers fate by tossing said coin.
The character of Chigurh in the police station scene lends himself to a preferred reading through his malign portrayal. Cinematography is used to create a sinister tone; a shallow depth of field lightly blurs Chigurh reducing him to a lurking silhouette which stands out against the tan colour palette of the scene. A slow track in mimics Chigurh as he methodically stalks in; the track in also cuts of Chigurh ensuring his character remains shrouded in mystery; thirdly it brings the spectator closer to Chigurh as he slowly moves in, all three building tension and arguably aligning us against Chigurh in inciting fear towards him. This fear is heightened when Chigurh attacks the policemen, a high angle shot rotates as Chigurh’s face reveals an intensely psychotic expression; the smooth rotation couples with Chigurh’s unchanging expression, connotative of his composure in contrast to the frantic performance of the police man, the rotating camera can be seen to represent a spiral which is also connotative of madness. This helps align the viewer against Chigurh in his malign and mysterious presentation, the contradiction of chaos and order in his performance and the cinematography evokes xenophobic feelings from the spectator; contradiction surrounding Chigurh continues throughout the film, the spectator is never truly allowed to know or understand him, an intentional technique displayed in this scene and designed by the Cohen brothers to strike at arguably, the fundamental fear, fear of the unknown[1].
An oppositional reading of the film may suggest that these contradictions and the mystery that comes with them, doesn’t wholly alienate the spectator from Chigurh, but rather draws them in, despite the film often pushing the spectator away from this alignment. For example after a shoot out scene at a motel between Chigurh and the cowboy, a series of close up shots in another motel rooms reveals Chigurh’s wounds in extreme detail; this arguably encourages the spectator to align with him in revealing his vulnerability, which contrasts his previous presentation as invincible. The stark contrast of this may even heighten sympathy towards his character in the subversion of expectation. Alternatively however this contradiction can be argued to further align the spectator with Louellen, as we are shown the extent of the damage he has inflicted on the antagonist in close detail; it proves Chirgurh’s mortality and in that further aligns us to Louellen in creating hope that he can now overcome the antagonist. Again however this is contrasted In later scenes (scenes depicting alternative depictions). The spectator is left alienated from both the protagonist and antagonist in this chaos, in this lack of meaning; only through active spectatorship will a spectator recognise this feeling of alienation and align it to that of the Sherriff’s own feelings of alienation to this changing world, of which Chigurh is the ultimate product of – Only then does the diegesis of the film extend to our own context; a world without clearly defined values, without a great or foreign evil; in the absence of a Nazi Germany or Soviet Union, the post modern world is left clutching at straws for greater meaning in places like Iraq and China but such clear unmuddied meaning is irretrievably lost in a world we’ve come to understand we can’t understand. So maybe like Chigurh, we should learn to embrace the chaos.
Chigurh’s chaotic morality is evident in the killing of Carla Jean on one hand he seems to follow his own code, being a man of his word, as he tells Carla Jean in the final scene, where she finds him in her home. Yet, he quickly abandons such certainty of action, and leaves Carla Jean’s fate to a coin toss. His dialogue in this scene and in the gas station attendant scene give some clue as to his reasoning, that he believes he is an instrument of fate - ‘I got
here the same way the coin did’, although even this is quickly discarded as an absolute truth - ‘then it becomes just another coin - which it is’. However, microfeatural analysis can give some indication of what the preferred response may be. The over the shoulder shot of Carla Jean is one of the only shots that suggest a perspective, the rest are one shots with the character looking off camera. This may illicit spectator alignment to a certain extent, as well as the sympathy one might feel for her having come home from burying her mother, thus making the preferred reading that we don’t want Chirgurh to kill her, rather than feeling indifferent (as is the case with Wells and the gas station attendant). She is portrayed as a powerful character, shot in low angle coming into the room, with Chigurh in a slight high angle. This may be due to her taking away his power when she refuses to call the coin toss, the only character not to play Chirgurh’s game. However, opposing spectators may say the tracking shot of Carla sitting down is from Chigurh’s perspective, imitating his head movement, with the camera placed where he is seated. This would be in favour of arguing Chigurh is the protagonist of the film, the only character we are supposed to align with. Ultimately any direct perspective or alignment with a character is eluded; the closest we come is the sheriff, but if he were considered the protagonist the short amount of time we spend with him would be very unconventional, though thematically the film feels to be playing out from his bewildered, disillusioned and alienated perspective as the spectator is made most commonly to align with these themes and feelings. The contradiction and madness rampant in the modern world is something we’re so accustomed to, many of us barely even acknowledge it beyond a shrug; the Coen brothers remind us of this absurdity through the neo western genre, deconstructing the western which is known for rigidly constructed morality and meaning by thematically taking the perspective of a disillusioned western sheriff (the enforcer of this morality). This highlights the loss of this rigid morality and meaning therefore reminding the spectator of the absurdity and chaos inherent to our postmodern world.
Comments
Post a Comment