site banner
SeekingBlood  1yr ago (text post)   2642 thread views

I feel that people often praise movies that call out or subvert expectations of their genre solely because they do that, even if execution of the subversion itself is not good.

Deleted
7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

His death also felt much less random than Llewelyn's death; whereas Llewelyn was killed by unknown cartel gangsters off-screen, Ned Stark's death was ordered by one of the most significant characters of that season.

Llewelyn's death wasn't "random": he was hiding from drug dealers, we were explicitly told that he would have extra dealers other than Chigurh on his tail (something Chigurh was foreshadowed as being angry about) and Moss is...just some guy. If anything, his death is the most predictable thing that happened. It was just anticlimactic.

This was also the point of the story of the cattle and the man with the prod: even in the best of times you can lose. Moss wasn't in his best times.

because his arc was not leading towards something that never ended up happening.

What exactly did it seem like Moss' arc was leading to? Cause I don't feel like the movie ever gives you any reason to think happiness or some grand achievement is on the cards. Moss' theft of the money is soon discovered and he has a psychopathic criminal on his tail, combined with his bosses who want to throw more resources at it (and are only stopped by said murderous criminal...for now).

Meanwhile, the Sheriff's perspective is basically one of fatalism and an inability to reckon with the evils of the day. At one point he seems to have been facing Chigurh (probably his imagination) and can't seem to bring himself to do anything. He's no savior for Moss.

Llewelyn isn't really just some guy.

Llewelyn has some kill but makes multiple mistakes - the most obvious being going back to offer water to the dying man and not checking the money early on - and shows what, quite frankly, is hubris. His dismissive attitude towards Wells, who is the only one who knows something about his nemesis, is telling.

He has some skill but he was clearly way over his head.

I felt like it was random because he was killed by the Mexican gangsters who were not really pivotal at any point of the show.

The Mexican gangsters actually came close to Llewelyn in the hotel. They were killed by Chigurh, close enough for Llewelyn to hear. Given how they were multiple men with automatics, I doubt it would have ended well for Moss.

Just as it didn't later. He was always screwed, and him being hunted by other people instead of just Chigurh had already been foreshadowed.

With Llewelyn telling Anton on the phone that he would find him, and his previous showdown with Anton, I definitely felt like the film was leading towards a battle between the two.

Fair enough, I can see that. IIRC my personal feelings I thought we were supposed to see Moss as hubristic and feel bad for the unenviable position he was in and had no choice but to try to fight his way out.

If Chigurh/the cartel had offered him the opportunity to drop the money and walk and Llewelyn didn't, I don't think anyone would see it as anything other than a dumb decision.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats