Adaptation Of Cormac Mccarthy's No Country For Old Men

Within the 2007 film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s novel, No Country for Old Men, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell is attempting to help Moss, a man who stole money from a botched drug deal, evade the vengeance of a dangerous hitman, Chigurh, who was sent to retrieve the money for his employers. Bell throughout the story shares his viewpoint, but within the movie, those who pay attention to his thoughtful observations appear unaffected. The Coen brothers, who directed the film, acknowledge that the novel’s title is a representation of the sheriff’s perspective, but in contrast with the novel, the focus of the movie’s approach involves an emphasis on multiple characters’ viewpoint and actions. To further clarify, the novel also highlights the other characters’

motives and articulations, but McCarthy frequently provides Bell’s analysis of each extraordinary event and his general outlook. The reader is continually brought into Bell’s reconciliation of himself and his understanding of the world. The introspection that the book evokes, when reading Bell’s ideas about the world, contrasts with the movie simply provoking an emotional response. The lack of Bell’s narration consequently makes the film’s version less intellectually stimulating.
Within Bell’s world, the reader understands there is a persistent longing for a clear understanding of morality and means of obtaining justice.

From the beginning Bell contemplates, “What do you say to a man that by his own admission has no soul?” (McCarthy 3). From this passage, we understand Bell’s keen sense of what is wrong and what is right. This specific quote is omitted although the film contains most of this selection’s content. The general understanding gleaned from the book’s entire excerpt is Bell’s concern with his soul. In contrast, within this part of the story the film also introduces the image of Chigurh as he is being arrested. Additionally, the movie has additional dialogue to complement the arrest scene and ensures the focal point briefly becomes Chigurh’s unusual air tank. As a result, the audience can quickly make the association that the concern the sheriff has is directly with Chigurh and not, as can be deciphered within the book, the universal existence of an inexplicable

evilness.
To further explain, from this scene the context is presented as Bell’s reaction to the world in which Chigurh dominates and all those who are affected by him, rather than the world that Bell conceives.

With Bell’s comprehension of the world, Chigurh is not the only malevolent criminal. Throughout the book, Bell wrestles with various crimes and personal issues but also engages the reader to ponder his perception of each situation and to contemplate possible explanations. Though the movie also contains some excerpts from the novel like the mention of the newspaper article where a Californian couple tortures older people (McCarty 124), it does not include all of the anecdotes the novel provides that clarifies Bell’s struggle with morality. Furthermore, Chigurh exemplifies all the insidious criminals combined and he is tangible to Bell to where he has some possible means of balancing what he perceives as the scale of right and

wrong.
In contrast, within the film, Chigurh is a formidable antagonist that each character’s focus revolves around. Nearly every scene is regarding how a character reacts to and assesses Chigurh’s actions. Sheriff’s ruminations are presented as his response to Chigurh and his effort to find some other explanation of modern day crime that facilitates understanding of Chigurh. In the book, when Bell is considering what Satan would consider doing to “just bring the human race to its knees,” he answers with narcotics (McCarty 218). Though all the chaos and deaths in the story revolves around illegal drugs, his thought of Satan is not specific to Chigurh. An audience is less focused on Bell’s perspective of events and more focused on each of the character’s involvement with Chigurh. For instance, Moss’s occasional mumblings to himself within the film, where he acknowledges his poor choices, gain equal if not more consideration. Also, within the film, most of the exploration of principles is the dialog that occurs during Chigurh’s confrontation with each of his victims. Surely, if the number of scenes that contains Bell’s rhetoric equals the number of times they are presented in the novel, other’s articulation of morality would have less significance to Bell’s, comparatively.
Lastly, not only is the frequency of Bell’s discourse limited in the movie, but the amount of personal information shared about him. Within the book, it becomes more evident that Bell is consumed with reconciling his soul when he reaches out to his uncle, Ellis. The reader learns that the motivation is not merely to save Moss and his wife, Carla Jean but to save himself. Not to discount his sense of duty and humanity which usually drives his action, as they were inherent throughout. He explains to his uncle, Ellis, that he deserted his troops as soon as it became night to better ensure he could save himself, “They might could of all been dead by then. But I didnt know that. And quick as it got dark I got up and I left out of there.” (McCarthy 269) Specifically, within the novel, his constant evaluation and need to understand the world was due to Bell’s desire to validate himself due to his inactions as a serviceman during World War II.
Without knowing Bell struggled with this unreconciled personal conflict, a movie audience would find it difficult to understand why the title represents Bell and why his perspective is significant. The Coen brother’s approach to the story, provides attention to each of the character’s perspective, though still using the novel’s title which represents Bell solely. The result is the film is mostly provocative whereas the book is more intellectually invigorating.