You are viewing a clip of this video, click to Join. Members, click to Log in.

Bandwidth: Low < >
Share:

What's happened to film endings? Several notable films like UP IN THE AIR and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN have "just ended." - Question/Answer Now Playing


What's happened to film endings? Several notable films like UP IN THE AIR and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN have "just ended."

Sep 27, 2010

This is a Sample Member Question and Answer Page. Click here to become a member.

What's happened to film endings? Several notable films like UP IN THE AIR and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN have "just ended." - Question/Answer Q & A Discussion


Add Comment
at Sep 29, 2010 - 2:02 PM
From McKee's "STORY" on page 358:  "But instead of dropping a god in to get an ending, they use "acts of gods" [...] THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS THAT END "THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE."

I wish McKee wasn't so strict with his words in "Story"-- Ideas like "dialogue or narration to spell it out [the climax] is boring and redundant." As a writer, those words made me think "Oh, don't have some explain the climax of the movie." -- likkeee at the end of "No Country," the Tommy Lee Jones character sitting there talking about his father. Or even if the car crash with Chigur was the climax, it's then just a coincidence?

So what makes the car crash in "No Country" a "satisfying" climax? It's as bad as the T-Rex in Jurrasic Park.

The principles from Mckee's book have been ingrained in my head over time and then so often here on Storylogue, I will hear him completley excuse a certain film from what he says in the book.

So what's the difference? Is it because it's just a "good" movie and in which case none of these principals matter, so long as it's satisfying, good. In that case- who is to say that the T-rex at the end of "Jurassic Park" was bad?

I completely agree that it's an unsatisfying ending... and that the ending to No Country was good, but what's the difference? Because it's the Coen brothers? Because it's minimalism?

It drives me mad and makes me re-question everything in that book.
Bass wrote
at Sep 28, 2010 - 7:08 PM
I think I know why so many people had the feeling that NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was anti-climactic.

I remember when I saw NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN for the first time. I was absolutely enraptured by it, until Moss dies. After that, I lost interest. My friend and I just said "Robbed. We were robbed."

The reason was we were expecting a big showdown in the airport between Chigurh, Moss, Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, the Mexicans, and Moss' wife. And we didn't get that.

But, I saw it again, and I enjoyed it tremendously more. And I've seen it multiple times and every time, I enjoy it more and I think the reason is because I know that Moss isn't the protagonist; Tommy Lee Jones' character is.

Everyone I've talked to who saw the film, felt the same way, and it's all because it seems like Llewelyn Moss is the protagonist, when he isn't. So when he dies, the film feels like it's lost its focus. But on the second viewing I noticed that actually, it's all about Tommy Lee Jones and his in ability to deal with someone like Chigurh.

I love NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and I find it amusing that it's 'problem' is that it has too many enthralling characters.

I also really enjoyed UP IN THE AIR.
henrymann: hollywood's dream factory
at Sep 27, 2010 - 3:57 PM
A modern serious filmmaker might select the point in Casablanca when Rick says – So what if the world dies. It will be out of its misery. – as a satisfying ending.
(Gosh I can’t wait ‘til the next Spiderman film hits the theaters.)

In order to contribute to Storylogue, you must have a membership.
Create an Account

*
Please enter the username used when registering for Storylogue
*
Please enter your password
or Create an Account
Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

If you cannot find your password, enter your email here and we will send you a new password.
*
Please enter the email you used to sign up on Storylogue
or Cancel

This document or video is available
to active members only.

OR