SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
"I know it was spare, white knuckle and morally resolute but I can't quite fit it all together." - Mick
it's interesting that you'd peg it as "morally resolute"
I had a long conversation about the film with a friend last night, much of which was spent debating whether or not the film was "nihilistic"
he seemed to think it was, I argued that it had elements of nihilism, but that the message I got from the film seemed to be a pessimistic one rather than a nihilistic one
his interpretation was that Chigurh was in a sense, the maturation of Sheriff Bell's mindset - that the killer may have once been an idealist and a moralist who had then lost faith and lost hope (like Bell) and eventually relinquished his morality for a self interested nihilism
in my mind, if Chigurh's mindset (as impenetrable and unknowable as it appears to be) is comparable to any other character, it would be the selfish, Darwinian Moss
I don't think it's an accident that Moss meets his downfall only after Chigurh upsets him by threatening his wife - that tiny bit of unselfishness, of caring for another human life, is his only weakness.
contrary to what I initially stated in my first post in the thread, I don't still consider Chigurh a force of, or representation of evil
adding to the discussion of him being a "force of nature" as much as a character, I think he does indeed view himself that way - a sort of agent of fate, hence the coin tossing - even if he does on occasion let small bits of humanity to slip through
Chigurh to me seems most definitely to be a nihilist. his world is not governed by morality, but rather by patterns and by chance. Moss acts only for his own sake (and even when his wife is threatened, he still doesn't give up his mission), Bell acts for the sake of others, but I think Chigurh believes himself to be acting in the name of some force greater than himself. Both Chigurh and Moss seem to understand the rules that govern the world (a combination of Darwinian order and chaos, essentially) and are able to 'play the game' and survive where the minor characters are not because of this understanding. I wonder: does Chigurh enjoy killing? or would that be too human an emotion? if he does enjoy it, he doesn't show any signs of his enjoyment.
but if we were to suppose a back story for him, I don't think he came to be the way he is through any process of disillusionment. he seems at times almost confused by human emotions, unfamiliar with them, like an android. in my mind, he's always been the way he is now. this fits with the Coens' depiction of him as an "other" with no discernible origin.
to me, the "no country for old men" Bell is living in isn't about evil. Bell is a man who believes irrefutably in moral duality. his confusion comes from his not being able to comprehend, not a world overtaken by evil forces (as a WWII vet, I'm sure he has no trouble conceiving of that), but by a world in which morality is irrelevant. both Moss and Chigurh are representations of this new world. the "pro-choice scene" fits nicely into this as well. Bell sees abortion as evil and cannot understand otherwise, whereas a pro-choicer comes at it from an entirely different direction, dismissing Bell's moral certainty as simplistic (and even old-fashioned)
"As for whether it the inability to comprehend is specific to Jones's character or not, I guess that is an open question that the audience is invited to wrestle with. How do you comprehend those dark and grisly events we saw? Are things worse now? How do you tell? Are you getting older?"
really excellent point
this actually relates to the conversation with my friend that this posts stems from - we were also discussing whether this film (in comparison to Haneke's Funny Games, another film that we agreed could be called "nihilistic") asks the audience to be a part of the battle between a moral world and a world devoid of morality playing out on screen
I suppose there's no way a film CAN'T involve the audience in such a way though |
