Brolin defends poor No Country for Old Men ending
Josh Brolin has been defending the ending of No Country for Old Men by going on the attack and saying that anyone who didn't like it just wants to see death and that if you didn't like it, what it actually means is that you did, and you just want something to talk about.
What? That's ridiculous. I certainly don't just want gratuitous violence and I thought that the ending really did let the film, the characters and the audience down. In fact I've been considering dropping my rating of the film.
“I love that people are talking about this movie. I love that people leave the movie saying, ‘I hate the ending. I was so pissed.’ Good, it was supposed to piss you off...You completely lend yourself to [my] character and then you’re completely raped of this character. I don’t find it manipulative at all. I find it to be a great homage to that kind of violence. ”
He says that if we were expecting something different that says more about us than it does the film:
“You wanted to see his death, why? Because you’re used to it. Aren’t you so pleased to see a different take on the same cat and mouse game?” he asked. “I would think that you are happy and it seems that you are happy because you’re pissed off and you have something to talk about all day.”
I have to ask what the hell he thinks he's talking about? He sounds like some arty person who has their head so into themselves and their “art” that they're out of touch with their audience.
Just because someone doesn't like the ending of your film does not mean they love violence and want to watch death, you're totally missing the point.
No Country for Old Men follows a violent, unstoppable character for the entire film and plays on the relationship between him and a man just trying to look out for his family and stand up for himself, all narrated by a world weary Sheriff from another age.
All the violence you can handle is up front in the film, the kind of people you are deriding are already catered for at the start of the film.
What we get by the ending, which drops the major plot threads like a brick and ties them up nice and neatly behind your back, is a complete cop out in the dramatic conclusion of two characters who are careering headlong towards one another.
Just because I want to see the focal point of the building of all of the drama and tension in the film doesn't mean I'm some sick pervert who gets off on violence, it means I like a dramatic conclusion to the stories I'm watching.
If I liked this kind of film-making where plot lines were just dropped without apparent reason then many of the films I've rated from zero to three stars would be pitched as Oscar contenders.
I would be happy if another version of the film ended with this same quiet monologue and devoid of violence, but I'd like to see the dramatic conclusion of the characters we'd been following all this time.
Even if it did involve violence, so what? The rest of the film is filled with violent killings. It's not very intelligent to say that some kind of message is being made by not showing the final few killings when there's a strong of violent deaths peppering most of the film building up to that point.