I watched "Old Nowhere" several times, because I really liked the killer played by Javier Baden. Not only because he plays well, but also because he likes the way the killer does things, not because he likes to kill, but because he likes the slow pace of keeping the rhythm and walking towards what he must do. Watching this film again, I went with the question of "Why are you old and helpless?" Because before, the attention was focused on the killer. Instead, the answer to this question was found in the killer, and I got my own understanding. The killer in the film is not as simple as the god of death, but more of the "impermanence" in human life. Everyone the killer passes by in the film represents normal law and order, and represents most of the people accumulated over the years. All applicable empirical models. The "impermanence" represented by the killer includes: irregular, non-logic, non-order, abnormal, random change, and change at any time. In other words, according to normal, according to experience, what should happen next does not exist in the killer, and there is no "should" in his system. The policeman who caught the killer at the beginning of the film would never think that the killer who had already been handcuffed would still be able to kill him. This is "Impermanence", which is normally impossible. Then the killer drove a police car, stopped a car at random on the road, and killed the owner. For the car owner, this is the "impermanence" of life. He drove well and was killed without spitting, no other people's car, or speeding. This is totally unreasonable in the normal category. The grocery store owner just asked the killer "Is it raining where you came?" and almost died. Because this casual question caused a series of reactions from the killer, the killer asked the boss to guess the positive and negative side of his coin flip. Fortunately, the boss guessed it right. If the boss guessed wrong and was shot and crashed, he wouldn't understand until he died, how could he be killed just by asking someone where you came from. This is not completely unreasonable. In his decades of life experience, he would not have such a very reasonable thing (person). Woody. Harrison played on the horrible gangster, he said he was sure to deal with the killer-they had an intersection. Unexpectedly, when the killer appeared in front of him, even when he died, he would not think of not wanting money. It’s illogical. It’s illogical to give your own savings to the killer. Don’t worry about it, go home immediately, and die. This is illogical—doesn’t the average person just get the money? Before killing him, the killer asked: "You obey the rules, but you end up in this way, what's the use of the rules?" Then the horrible messenger was destroyed. He does not stare at him. This is totally inconsistent with the story of life. If he admits that he doesn't need the money, he still has to be killed. This is not the common sense. As for the cowboy who found the money and began to run for his life, it was even more confusing. He is the one who represents the least resignation and the least "impermanence" in the film. He is tough, capable, and decisive. Based on these foundations, things should go in the direction he envisioned according to common sense. Therefore, when the killer said to him on the phone, "Now, if you pay the money back, and you die, your wife can not die. This is the best condition I have given. You can never save yourself, but you can Save your wife." At the time, the cowboy didn't believe in this evil at all. Because he had competed with the killer and even injured the killer, he did not believe in evil. After the cowboy died. When the cowboy’s wife faced the killer, she didn’t want to believe that there was such a thing. She said to the killer, "You have no reason to hurt me." The killer said, "I have, I promised someone else." The cowboy wife said "You promised someone?" The killer said "Your husband" The cowboy wife said "It doesn't make sense, you promised." My husband is going to kill me?" Assassin "Your husband has a chance to save you, but he chose to save himself." The cowboy wife's heart is broken, which is totally illogical and illogical-she must be thinking, this What the hell is it, why do I have to share this. Then the killer gave her a chance-let her guess the front and back of the coin. The cowboy wife collapsed even more, unwilling to guess, saying that it was not the coins that determined my life and death, but you, and I did not guess. But this kind of "correct" truth cannot change the killer-"Impermanence". Impermanence is unexpected, outside of common sense, and outside of experience. Throughout the film, from the main line of killers chasing and killing cowboys, to the sub-line of the sheriff's forced narrative, all explain "Impermanence" or "Permanence" (visible at any time). The conversation between the sheriff and his dad (the old sheriff), the conversation between the sheriff and the rookie policeman, the conversation between the sheriff and the cowboy wife, all explain the impermanence of the world. For example, the sheriff and the cowboy wife said, a buddy took a gun Killing the cow, and the bullet bounced back and injured himself-who could have thought of this? The killer who represents "impermanence" itself also encountered impermanence at the end of the film. He drove well and was hit by someone else without running through the traffic light. Even impermanence would encounter impermanence. The so-called old people have nothing to rely on, it is not that old people have nothing to rely on. It is the "old" life experience and common sense that are no longer reliable. "Old" here refers to everyone's inherent impression, experience and common sense accumulated over a long period of time. In a world where the pace of life is getting faster and faster, in a world where rules are constantly being refreshed, everyone's experience can no longer be relied on—including "impermanence" itself. (Do not transfer)
View more about No Country for Old Men reviews
