No Country For Old Men: Character Analysis

Abstract

Verbal and non-verbal behavior is a constant in the world and science behind how we as individuals and a society communicate with one another. For this paper, “No Country for Old Men” by the Cohen Brothers has been selected to be analyzed to bring the understanding of how these ideas are implanted in film to bring depth out of the characters produced. Focusing on two characters, Anton Chigurh and Carla Jean, whose dialogue amongst each other in the film was one of the most noteworthy. The focus of these two characters will be a proper analysis on their verbal/non-verbal behaviors in their moments of dialogue. As well as, an in-depth look into how culture, gender, and perception portrayed how these two characters would interact with each other. These factors will be present and affect how the two move and think while communicating amongst each other in the film. Details such as eye contact, movement, and dialogue will all be evaluated to properly complete how the scene and film analyzed comes together to the masterpiece it truly is.

“No Country for Old Men”, directed by the Cohen brothers in 2007, is a powerful film that portrays the story of the protagonist, Llewelyn Moss, a Vietnam veteran who discovers two million dollars while wandering through the aftermath of a Texas drug deal gone horribly wrong, his decision to leave with the cash sets off a violent chain reaction in a stripped-down crime drama. The film is infamously known for leaving you with unanswered questions. Throughout the movie, you are introduced to a variety of characters and supporting roles who hold value to the unpackaging and development of the character we will be going in more depth with. After the problem in the film was set, we are introduced to the antagonist of the film, Anton Chigurh, a psychopath whose words lack but his actions make up for it. He throughout the story spends most of his time chasing after the stolen cash and the main character. Starting the man hunt early in the film with his primary weapon, a gas compressed contraption that instantly kills anyone in it range. The other character we will be looking into is the wife of the protagonist, Carla Jean, who is portrayed as the sweet and clueless wife to Llewelyn who has made a whole mess for himself and those all around him. In this fantastic take on a thriller-based story, the subtle and not so subtle patterns and characteristics of the characters are present in the film and help engage the audience in a way that is beyond relative comprehension. This film has been analyzed by many because of the reoccurring pattern the Cohen brothers leave. They are infamously known for leaving questions unanswered and left to the viewer to interpret in their own way. The focus of this will be interpersonal aspects and attributes with the characters Anton Chigurh and Carla Jean.

Anton Chigurh, an emotionally detached character who is psychologically removed from other people and from his own self. There is no mention of him having a home, a personal life, or any close family and /or friends in the film. Anton’s communication is often characterized by emotional detachment and a desire to dominate and have power over their conversing partner. In many situations within the film you can see how Chigurh handles social interactions. Chigurh has an interesting approach to how he handles his business. He is a man of not many mistakes and is very cautious with who and what he talks to and touches. Chigurh is quite interesting with how interacts with everyone he comes into contact with. When he speaks, he uses very dominant patterns to convey to his conversational partner that he is in control of the conversation. We most of the time communicate ownership of our emotions through the use of “I” language. This may allow us to feel more in control, but it may also facilitate emotion sharing by not making our conversational partner feel at fault or defensive. However, Anton Chigurh provides an unsettling example of not using the “I” language. Chigurh does not use this type of communication frequently in a lot of his interactions throughout the movie. This is countered by using nonverbal communication like consistent and piercing eye contact, unsettling movements, and posture. One of the most chilling facets of the character of Anton Chigurh, is that twice in the film he allows his potential victims a way out of their death sentences via the toss of a coin: once with the proprietor of a gas station early in the film, and again at the end once he’s finally found Carla Jean. The gas station scene in the film was the first true time we saw Anton Chigurh act as a true psychopath. As he was talking to the gas station attendant, the attendant asked him some personal questions and that made Chigurh uncomfortable. This resulted in one of the most chilling scenes in the film where Chigurh asked the attendant “what was the most you have lost in a bet” which was a statement that alluded that he was going to gamble his life for him. The gas attendant in the end survived by the luck of a coin landing in his favor. You can see how Chigurh’s urgency, posture, and tone of voice helped dictate how the conversation veered in the short amount of time he had with the gas attendant. Control in a conversation can be very important, and nonverbal movements can be used to further help to control. You might also put up your hand or vocalize your pauses (for example, with “um”) to indicate that you have not finished and aren’t ready to relinquish the floor to the next speaker. Anton doesn’t move at all which is what makes him so special. The stagnation in his movements and his consistent glare produces an outcome at which he controls the conversation and almost even the person. The tone is uses when he communicates is very assertive and speaks in a manner that makes the viewer and receiver think that he has no intention of listening to anything that differs from his own idea or opinion.

On the other hand, the other character we will be focusing on will be the protagonist’s wife and lover, Carla Jean, a character who throughout the film was thrown around was told what to do. Her style of communication was a very relaxed and submissive pattern of verbal communication. A lot of the times very unsure of herself and also seeming to rely on others to figure out what to do. The complexity of her character and how she moves, and thinks is profoundly affected by the multiple aspects that affect her. Aspects such as, emotions, gender, and age. Throughout the film we do not get to really experience how Carla Jean is as an individual character, but there are times in the film that give us little glimpse of how she thinks. Unlike Chigurh, Carla Jean is very vocal about how she feels and is expressive towards the partner she is conversing with. She uses response that are concise even though they convey a little uncertainty. Her verbal communication gives away how she truly is. She knows this, this is because of retrospective sense making, which is essentially the basic understanding of our own behavior and actions in communication. While we all express gender through behavior that we believe is normal for a member of our sex, what we define as normal changes with time. By identifying how arbitrarily created gendered constructions, or conventions, affect interpersonal communication and our relationships, we take a step toward understanding what we hope for when it comes to our interpersonal lives These two characters are a perfect example of a complementary relationship. Complementary relationships maximize the difference between two people, especially when the difference is assertiveness and passiveness. Though they lack an actual relationship with each other the fundamentals of it are there. As a woman in the film, she was always told what to do when Llewelyn told her to. This gave off a passive/dominant relationship with her and any other person she interacted with. Whether it was her mom, husband, or Anton, she always received the short end of the stick when it come to her conversations and options.

The scene in which my focus was directed to be the scene in which Carla Jean and Anton finally meet inside her home. Carla is immediately greeted by Anton sitting in the corner of the bedroom waiting for her arrival. Anton and Carla start conversing amongst each other where Carla utilizes the “I” language quite a bit to communicate her thoughts to Anton. In this particular scene Carla is trying to share emotion hoping for a response that would reciprocate how she is feeling. This was a perfect example of when people share emotions, they may expect a variety of results such as support, validation, or advice. However, the film creates an image around Anton like he is an enigma that isn’t bound to societal or cultural rules. In this suspenseful scene, feedback, noise, and channels are used. For those who have seen the film you know how intense the scene was. The noise was not a physical disturbance affecting the interpretation of the conversation but rather a psychological noise that was obviously causing Carla Jean to be frantic and aggressive with her response. We can assume that gender plays a major part in the conversation. Carla finding the man who hunted her husband down could create a different pace and tone in the conversation, as well as the idea of a dominant and submissive concept in a conversation that is easily taken by Chigurh. The Cohen brothers use Communication accommodation theory (CAT) is a general theoretical framework for both interpersonal and intergroup communication. It seeks to explain and predict why, when, and how people adjust their communicative behavior during social interaction. The Cohen brothers bend this theory by creating the character that is almost impossible to predict how he acts because of how he is not set or bound by societal, cultural, language, and nonverbal behavior rules. A big influence in the scene I previously spoke about the two, are culture, communication and the self. Chigurh not being bound by any of these is a big influence and factor towards his unpredictability and persona, unlike Carla who has societal, cultural, and self-perception bounding who she is. They are two polar personalities collide together in that one scene. Resulting in an interesting mix of communication. The result of their interaction leaves a big question in film and allows for questions to be unanswered. Eye contact in a conversation is a huge part of nonverbal communication where it can convey how the speaker or receiver is feeling towards a message. The eye is also important in the aspects that allows us to interpret how someone is feeling towards us or themselves. For example, if one is avoiding eye contact with someone, that could convey they person is uncomfortable, bored, or anxious. On the other hand, eyes can produce signals that promote positive responses and proper signals of engagement. In the specific scene, Carla Jean tries to break eye contact with Chigurh, but her wandering gaze never is allowed to escape Anton’s overpowering aura. In certain instances, throughout the film, Carla Jean used body language to project the current status of her characters emotions. Frantic movements, confused, and unsure statements all provided enough context to understand who she was as a person. The coin toss itself was a fascinating way to bring the scene together. Chigurh gives Carla Jean the chance to call either head or tails to decide whether or not she will live to see another day. This mental behavior throws a lot of how behave out the window. The coin is metaphorical for something that is completely unaffected by emotion, reason, and communication. The coin flip was black and white. One or the either. Carla Jean tells Anton that she will not and refuse to play her game, but in that true moment was when you can tell that Carla Jean was internally paralyzed with fear. This is because the coin is unpredictable, and the stakes and outcome are mostly against her favor. As humans we don’t like unpredictability. A common pattern for humans is knowing. Knowing things and acknowledgement. However, Chigurh’s reliance towards to coin to decide on whether she gets to live or not is truly an action that is not thought about by any human. Carla Jean had admitted defeat after she subconsciously realized that she was not in control with him. That was too unpredictable. Too detached. It was later alluded that Carla Jean sadly did not survive the coin flip through subtle hints given by Chigurh’s movements as he exits the home. Where Chigurh drove off and got into an accident, survived, and then disappeared into an abyss of the end of the movie.

In conclusion, the film “No Country for Old Men” by the Cohen brothers is a visual masterpiece in story, communication, action, and emotions. The film is infamously known for leaving you with unanswered questions. Throughout the movie, you are introduced to a variety of characters and supporting roles who hold value to the unpackaging and development of the character we will be going in more depth with. The dialect between characters projects depth and room to analyze the reasons why the characters move like they do. Leaving you completely invested and emotionally attached to the characters, rooting for the best for them.

Citations

1. DeVito, J. A. (2019). The interpersonal communication book. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
2. Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. G. (2019). A first look at communication theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
3. DeVito, J. A. (2018). Human communication: the basic course. Place of publication not identified: Pearson.
4. Adler, R. B., & Towne, N. (1999). Looking out/looking in: interpersonal communication. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
5. Jensen, K. B., Craig, R. T., Pooley, J., & Rothenbuhler, E. W. (2016). The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.