Jump to content

Talk:No Country for Old Men

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.9.232.163 (talk) at 04:06, 11 March 2019 (→lost, mislaid, and abandoned property). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleNo Country for Old Men was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 8, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Neo-noir?

On what authority is the film given this description? Does it emanate from the directors themselves or from stable academic criticism, rather than from transient journalism, PR floss, or uninformed amateur comment? Does the phrase have any real meaning? Would the article still work without it? Renfrew Road (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-noir is pretty well defined, and commonly used, in critical circles and film art studies. Most of top critical reviews linked call it a neo-noir so I'd think it's fair to say it in the lede. Perhaps the sourcing could be better though. Capeo (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking further in the article I’m not finding much to support neo-noir in the lede. The genre section doesn’t really touch on it. Later this evening I’ll see if I can find some better sourcing. Capeo (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on No Country for Old Men (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on No Country for Old Men (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

I removed a lot of unnecessary character details from the cast section, information that is already found in the plot. I also changed some names to match the closing credits and added columns. You're free to revert my changes, obviously, but a discussion of the matter is preferable. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed quotes from named critics should not appear in the lead without being in the article body

... not really much else to say on the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lost, mislaid, and abandoned property

I would like to add to the "Themes and analysis" section: The film depicts the grey areas, consequences, and realism in resolving misplaced property; the resulting feud from the protagonist's finders, keepers approach is a central plot device. Requiring a precise citation for this obvious insertion for pure rule's sake, in this case prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and hence justifies the policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. This is not a bureaucracy and the rules are not the purpose of the community. That the movie depicts controversy arising from the possession of property is an obvious claim requiring no citation; it is no way exceptional or even controversial.

The law and realism in dealing with found property is an obvious thematic issue: On the one hand, many viewers can strongly resonate with a reality that it is futile to try to return lost coins or a hundred dollar bill found in a parking lot to its true owner; but then there is the law. On the other hand, if you find $10 million in cash, you'd expect there has to be an actively desperate owner—and there is also good cause to believe it was stolen. Add in the colliding cultural and legal mores across an international border, and a frontier that is functionally desolate of civil recourse. This central moral dilemma was deliberately written into the plot to make this a powerful multi-Academy Award winning movie. The protagonist could have given the money up to make the chase end, but he stands his ground to his ultimate death. As connecting as it was, this is not a new literary theme, finders, keepers is the subject of Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea and is actually the cause of the senselessly legendary Hatfield-McCoy feud.

In this section, contending sources for obvious themes is a rabbit hole; literary criticism and rhetorical analysis are heavily philosophical. There is no objective answer. Some will say art is up to the individual viewer to decide meaning, in such case authorial intent is irrelevant and is impossible to truly know anyway. What the author believes now, may not be what he or she meant when the work was made. Just look no farther than interpreting your own childhood diary. Under that philosophy, it is a fool's errand to look to the web to prove meaning or obtain citation authority, and yet we have. There are many approaches to literary theory—and what a critic writes is really a reflection of the philosophy they applied. I'm not a fan of the illusion of a proper reference.

Would anyone like to raise substantial controversy for the merits of this proposed addition while justifying the non-contorvery of this section's prior exiting unsourced content? 71.9.232.163 (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No_Country_for_Old_Men&oldid=887190362"