No Country for Old Men - A Moral World/Amoral World - Part 1/3: Anton Chigurh

In this three part discussion of No Country for Old Men, I will be cutting open (metaphorically, of course) the three main characters we are presented in this 2007 Coen Brothers piece amidst discussing the relation they have with the moral sphere; hence the title of 'A Moral World/Amoral World'. For many years I have held that, for me, No Country for Old Men is the best film of the 21st Century. Hopefully the points I raise in regards to the three characters and the film as a whole is enough for one to see my point of view as I just adore the way this conflict between free-will and determinism unfolds. My first character under the spotlight is Anton Chigurh, played oh-so-brilliantly by Javier Bardem.

So, who is Anton Chigurh? Well, we never really find out. All that we are informed of is that he is a hitman, who has been hired to retrieve the money which Llewelyn Moss has unrightfully taken. One thought I aim to put to bed is that Chigurh is somehow representative of God or rather is a figure of Justice. I believe that this could not be further away from what Chigurh 'represents' and if anything, the notion that Chigurh 'represents' something goes against the very fibres that craft the film to mean what it means. This will all become clear in the end of this section and, in a more clarified manner, in the conclusive third part of 'A Moral World/Amoral World'.

On sites such as Reddit and Wordpress, many fans of No Country for Old Men have voiced their thoughts on the film, postulating possible symbolisms for each character - this is frequently backed up by some adherence to the Aristotelian ideas of 'hero' or 'narrative'. I do not wish to go down such a path, even though some of the thoughts do hold some weight; my reasonings for this is that such analysis provides an exclusive mode of thinking whereby it seems in order to truly 'get' the film, it commands pre-existing knowledge of Aristotle and with regards to No Country for Old Men I do not believe going to that extent is necessary to convey what the film is trying to ultimately comment on about human beings and their interaction with morality.

The postulation that Chigurh is a figure that mirrors "an archangel sent to Earth to do God's bidding" is absurd. Chigurh's blatent character arc of being this amoral figure - or at least seemingly so - automatically rids this idea that he is doing God's bidding as God's bidding would indicate some duty to perform that which is good, and to be a servant of justice to a divine force. Within the first 10 minutes, we witness Chigurh brutally murder two innocent people; 'innocent' used here in the context that they were of no threat to Chigurh nor did they seem rebellious to any rules, but rather complied. In such a situation then, it is easy to deduce that as Chigurh is evidently not an archangel, he is conversely the devil, or to some extent a manifestation of all that is evil in the world. Again, there is much wrong with the prospect of Chigurh merely being titled 'the devil' in many fan posts. In doing so, it creates space for a counterpart - the moral - to present itself and where one could take this to mean Ed Tom I do not think it is the right way of seeing these characters. Morality is not binary. No Country for Old Men is a tale that is showing this very sentence, and that the line between between 'right' and 'wrong' is not only extremely blurred, it can sometimes altogether not be there at all. The characters presented are not definitively 'good' or 'evil', they are fundamentally human beings and because of this they bear both these features (or rather bear neither, thus forming the amoral). Chigurh, if one had to pinpoint what he was representative of, is a character who embodies fate.

In Singleton's post on No Country for Old Men, he refers to Chigurh as being a "tool of fate" and I am inclined to agree. His reason for killing those who did not deserve it is done merely because they met him, and in meeting him they met their fate. He does bear this 'God-like' ability in being unable to be stopped yet this is does not equate to being supernatural. Rather, it seems to be indicative that Chigurh is the master of his own fate and in believing this places himself in the centre of the universe. The principles he stands by go against material, worldly desires but rather something more coherent; that of duty. Carson Welles in his brief dialogue between Moss significantly comments that Chigurh's "got principles, those that transcend drugs or money or anything like that." Chigurh cannot be brought as this would collide with the idea of having a principle to live by in the first place. In having a principle tied down to duty, it can then come clear to us of Chigurh's forward-looking actions as it is all done in the name of him endeavouring that which he desires or ,rather, regards as being a necessary cause of action.

His conception of a coin toss is interesting, too. It appears that this is his only way of deeming something as being fair, which is ironic as being 'fair' does not seem compatible with his principle of doing that which duty demands. Nonetheless, on two accounts we see Chigurh flip the coin and for the person on the other end to call it for their life. The first time with the old man at the gas station and the second being with Moss' wife, Carla Jean.

With Chigurh acting as this said force of fate and abiding by the principle of 'that which is to be done will be done' one can see the coin toss as also being a means of establishing what is meant to be. His episode with Carla Jean however exposes something in Chigurh; that he is weaker than both we as the audience and he himself were aware of. Carla Jean bluntly puts it that "he coin don't have no say. It's just you.". The coin toss, Carla Jean suggests, is merely a charade Chigurh uses in order to satisfy his blood-thirsty nature. The coin is not the same as Chigurh as he often remarks, as the coin does not bear any agency; it merely drifts through time and place. Chigurh on the other hand, Carla Jean is highlighting, bears an autonomy where he can choose to either nihilistically adopt the principle that all that happens will happen or that there is a degree of freedom we own and we ought to use that to the best of our ability. Carla Jean's attempt at enlightening is not successful but her words, unlike her death, do not die in vain. Chigurh receives his 'comeuppance' as shortly after he is hit by a car. Where he acted as though he was above the material world, his very own principle of determinism and duty comes and bites him in his behind. He becomes aware that he is not the be-all end-all but actually must cave into the circumstance that the world has thrown him in and must also endure this pain; Singleton underlines that the incident is a a "cosmic form of justice for Carla Jean’s unjust killing". He is no longer a controller of people's fate but has instead become controlled, portraying the ruthlessness of nature and that no man can ever be above this nature as it works amorally, without principles.

~ Iman