I think the key difference between the two scenes is that Chigurh asks the questions in a way that makes people think they’re being fucked with, when in fact the questions are much more significant. The store owner obviously thinks that’s what’s happening until he begins to think he might be in the process of being robbed (when he announced it was time to close). I don’t think he realized what the coin toss was about until he “won.” At that point it was all he could do to keep it together, and ironically that’s when Chigurh would happily answer what the weather in Dallas was doing. This is really the first time we realize what Chigurh is really about – it was logical that he would kill the deputy and the man because he was escaping.

Tommy, on the other hand, fucks with people because he needs to prove to everyone else that he’s the most dangerous and unstable (a big element of him being dangerous) person there. The idea that he might be fucking with you is what makes him dangerous – because if he’s not, you’re in really big trouble.

Another thing I notice is that in these two scenes if the characters were merely messing with people, it wouldn’t have nearly the same impact. It’s interesting that although I seldom use the term “fucking with…,” it’s exactly what I thought was going on and it was the appropriate term – perhaps because of the stakes in both scenes?

Here’s my really big question – if the Cohens weren’t also the producers and directors what would happen to that scene? Would it be cut to nothing, or cut completely? They had creative control over what would happen to the scene.

Scott, what would you do if that were your script and you were told the scene was too long?

Tom

Tom, interesting analysis.

Re your last points / questions: I'm almost certain that the scene would have been trimmed if the directors hadn't been the writers.

Re my reaction: Depends upon the situation. If it was my own script and I was in a script meeting with the director, I would fight like hell to keep the scene the way it is. I would explain precisely what I see the scene being about, why it's important to the movie, and how it could be incredibly memorable. If I felt strongly about it, I might offer to trim lines from other scenes to balance out the time. But at the end of the day, the director is going to do what the director is going to do.

I had an argument just like this about the script for ALASKA, only it wasn't just a scene, but an entire thematic subplot. I lost that battle. And in my opinion, the absence of that subplot is one of the reasons the movie isn't all that good.

Perhaps I'll post about that argument (it got quite heated) at some point.