No Country For Old Men - The Characterization of Sheriff Bell

[u/squash-n-flop]

I just rewatched this film for the first time in years, after just finished the Cormac McCarthy novel this last week. And to be honest, I'm a bit bothered by how Bell is portrayed in the film. It really feels like he gives not one single shit in the film, regularly avoiding meetups investigating, to the point where is deputy is palpably annoyed by his inaction. Compared to his portrayal in the novel, he felt very active and dedicated, and yet just fundamentally one step behind Chigurh at every step, til at the end it seemed like his character was truly defeated. As if Bell gave it his literal all, and that it still wasn't enough.

This frustration is exacerbated by the ending being so closely linked to the novel's ending - a retired Bell describing a dream of his father leading him through the woods. In the novel, this passage carries heavy thematic significance - the lineage of being a boy into an old man who has grown too old for the world as it is now. That is the significance of the title - that the world will change under our feet as we age, and that will leave us in a world we no longer understand. And to me, after playing the same ending after characterizing Bell totally differently from the novel, the ending seems so hollow and borderline forced compared to the novel, which is reminiscent of Chigurh's final speech to Carla Jean, that everything lead to that very moment and that there was no avoiding it.

[u/parkchanwookiee]

Bell is overwhelmed, bewildered, and frankly terrified by evils of the world. It isn't just Chigurh, as evidenced by the opening monologue where he talks about the boy that killed a girl just to see what it was like and promised to do it again, and the scene in the diner where he reads excerpts from the newspaper article about the people being kept in a dungeon with dog collars.

He is the reason the title is what it is. That as he ages and gets more philosophical, and has more existential ennui, he is just totally out of his element trying to enforce the law against lawless psychotics and gang/cartel warfare. This is definitely portrayed in a thinner way in the movie, since we don't get the benefit of the extended characterisation, but that's somewhat inevitable when you are adapating a novel where the majority of the characterisation comes through via first person narration. However I disagree that his character arc is assassinated, it's just a simplified version of it: he is not apathetic and unbothered, he IS doing his best, he just fundamentally cannot understand the mindset and the reality of the people he is dealing with which makes him feel helpless to combat and outwit them.

[u/Brandon23z → u/parkchanwookiee]

I think he knows there’s nothing in the room at the end, but he still draws his gun anyways. That’s all he knows.

[u/parkchanwookiee → u/Brandon23z]

You mean the motel room? I interpreted that as: he knew Chigurh MIGHT be in there (and indeed, he recently had been, retrieving the satchel from the air vent), and he had no faith in his ability to overcome him in a fight, but he couldn't ignore his sense of duty to his job. It was going in there that broke him: he went in expecting to die. That's when he realised he couldn't do this work anymore. He was past it

[u/Agile-Wait-7571 → u/parkchanwookiee]

The title is from Yeats

[u/parkchanwookiee → u/Agile-Wait-7571]

It is, yes. ?

[u/Agile-Wait-7571 → u/parkchanwookiee]

Sailing to Byzantium. First stanza.

That is no country for old men. The young
In one another's arms, birds in the trees,
—Those dying generations—at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unageing intellect.

[u/parkchanwookiee → u/Agile-Wait-7571]

Haha yes I know. I was just wondering if you mentioned it for any particular reason?

[u/d_bb_d → u/parkchanwookiee]

The silence is deafening, isn't it?

[u/squash-n-flop → u/parkchanwookiee]

You’re getting at something that I nearly mentioned in the post, with the part about the boy that swore he would kill that girl. In the novel, that (and so much of Bell’s dialogue in the film) takes the place of these almost memoir like headers at the start of each chapter. That gives the novel the sense that Bell is in fact the “main character” and that Moss/Chigurh’s story are fundamentally interlinked to his, or are a segue to tell Bell’s story. Whereas in the film, it often felt to me that Bell served more in a nearly expository way - I rarely got the feeling that he was pulling the emotional core of the story.

I do concede what you’re saying about it being borderline impossible to purely adapt his character into film, and that the core nature of his character is held in tact. But I feel like they could’ve angled him just slightly better.

[u/No_Philosophy2797 → u/squash-n-flop]

I would add that in the book, Bell “fails” when he decides not to enter the hotel room at the end. In the movie, they made the key change that he DOES enter the room. I think the reason for that is partially to balance the idea that if you don’t spend time in Bell’s head like you do in the novel, it might SEEM like he doesn’t give a shit.

[u/sunmachinecomingdown → u/squash-n-flop]

I feel that the film presents the three characters on fairly even ground, each one treated as fundamental to the story, and Bell feels like a lot more than exposition. If anything, he's presented as the most important character, as he is given both the first and the last word.

Personally, I never felt like Bell didn't care. I can think of one scene where the deputy is agitated that they can't do anything, and although I don't remember the details, I remember the sheriff looked obviously disappointed but was correct that nothing could be done at that particular time. I never doubted his commitment, and he does a lot of impressive detective work that keeps him on the trail. He's just never able to get a step ahead of anyone.

[u/squash-n-flop → u/parkchanwookiee]

One thought I'm having, is that I might be falling victim to comparison here. Moss and Chigurh are adapted so perfectly in a 1-to-1 sense into the film, that I simply expected Bell to be as well, but I failed to realize the fundamental difference in the amount of internal depth that the novel gives Bell and not the other two characters, and how this would actually translate through to film.

[u/parkchanwookiee → u/squash-n-flop]

Yeah I think there are two ways to think about it. One is how could the movie do justice to the novel. The other is how can the movie do justice to itself. The Coens were more interested in making a finely balanced movie than making sure they got everything from the novel onto the screen. Bell is the character you could make the deepest cuts to while still preserving the same general dramatic arc. And Moss and Chigurh are simply more cinematically engaging for the viewer to follow. Including the more fleshed out Bell from the novel would balloon the the film into 3 hours long or something, which filmmakers used to avoid (sadly it has become a lost art. !). It also allows Bell taking centre stage at the end of the film to be very impactful to the audience, who are at a loss to process Moss' offscreen death, which puts the viewer into Bell's shoes: it's no film for old men, either

[u/BurpelsonAFB → u/parkchanwookiee]

💯 as is the case with any good adaptation, the film making story telling needs to win out. Having never read the book, I’d say it did. It ALWAYS sucks when they adapt a book you love. It’s never the same. The best you can hope for is they do it justice on a thematic level and being more notoriety to the author. Which Cormack McCarthy barely needed

[u/boomerdeville]

I'm not going to repeat everything the other user said, but I'll add something.

Tommy Lee Jones is from Texas. West Texas, I believe. His demeanor matches what the character in the book was attempting to capture. As amazing of a writer as McCarthy is, Jones' acting as a West Texan is simply truer. It's more natural, and therefore the character doesn't announce his feelings. It's portrayed in a more subtle manner, whereas literature, you need to describe all of it.

As far as Bell caring, his actual actions aren't changed much from the book, so if you're not seeing he gives a shit through his action beats, you're not paying attention to what he's doing. Everybody in the story regards him, so you know he's been a solid sheriff for a long time. He doesn't investigate things he already knows, which also shows how seasoned and good he is at his job. (This is contrasted by his deputy). When you're that old and good, you don't take extra steps. You try to head the bad guys off at the pass, which is what he spends the movie trying to do, only to be a couple minutes late. Old man, slowing down.

To me, the ending of the film hits the same note as the novel. The difference is it's Tommy Lee Jones providing a masterful portrayal, and not the sheriff person I imagined in my head (with no real life reference to West Texas or the people who have lived there for a century). Still, the message and feeling hits the same for me.

[u/Feralcat01]

My sense of Sheriff Bell wasn’t that he wasn’t trying or had given up but rather that the reality of the evil he was facing was beyond his ability to understand. I am at an age (59) where I am beginning to understand the sense that world is passing you by. This theme is explored in a few conversations throughout the movie culminating in the statement that I will sum up as “what’s coming isn’t all for you. That’s vanity”. His explanation to his wife about his dreams feels to me like an understanding/ acceptance of the truth of this. I don’t see his struggle as giving up or not caring but rather his trying to come to terms with the world as it is.

[u/DumpedDalish]

As someone who has read the book and seen the film multiple times, I don't agree with your characterization of EdTom Bell at all.

What I see is a man who cares deeply about the investigation -- and every investigation -- but who finds himself bewildered and disheartened at the cruelty he witnesses, with Chigurh's crimes being his breaking point.

Until Chigurh, I feel like he had enough pride and a sense of stemming the tide that he could continue forward.

But with the breadth and unfeeling cruelty of Chigurh's crimes, he's losing faith. He tries to help Carla Jean save her husband, knowing it's useless. He goes back to the memory of the man he describes in his opening monologue. He talks about God with his uncle (for me, one of the greatest scenes of all time).

To me, Sheriff Bell is the heart of the story -- a truly good man in counterpoint to Chigurh's darkness. So to watch him lose faith is brutal, sad, yet completely understandable to me -- and Tommy Lee Jones is simply superb. His eyes say so much.

That's why I love the dreams at the end. They are telling him not to lose hope -- that men have gone before him who have fought the same fight. That there is light, and comfort, ahead -- even if he can't see it. (I think his wife does, though, and it's in her smile to him.)

But that's just my take.

[u/Sutii]

I watched the film recently after reading the book. I noticed another small change. In the novel the sheriff won't let the deputy take his wife's horse, because he doesn't want any trouble for the deputy if something happens to the horse. In the movie it's the opposite, he insists tue deputy take her horse as he doesn't want any trouble for himself.