Excellent.

No Country is about faith and fate, not God and Darwin.

"I had no say in the matter. Every moment in your life is a turning and every one a choosing. Somewhere you made a choice. All followed to this. The accounting is scrupulous. The shape is drawn. No line can be erased. I had no belief in your ability to move a coin to your bidding. How could you? A person's path through the world seldom changes and even more seldom will it change abruptly. And the shape of your path was visible from the beginning."

Chigurh strikes me as a pure distillation of the dispassionate fatalism that crowds so much of Cormac McCarthy's personal philosophy. He is not really a villain or evil. Perhaps if he were, he'd be less terrifying, because he would be a human being. Hurrican Katrina killed many, many people but no one would consider a Hurricane to be "evil" because the Hurricane is indifferent and does as the world wills it to do based on the whims of nature. Whether Chigurh is meant to be merely a man so removed from humanity that he has delusions of being a force of nature or if he is meant to actually be a symbol of the Elements I do not presume to know. Either way, as Patrick Bateman describes himself in Bret Easton Ellis's "American Psycho," he "...is simply not there."

Just as Bateman is a barely sentient urge for animal gratification, Anton Chigurh is a barely sentient fate machine. Bad luck hits some (called the coin wrong) and good luck hits others and the luck has no opinion other than fulfilling its duty.

I really don't know. Cormac McCarthy is often so vague with his portents in "NCFOM" that his intentions elude me.

Just the angle I had been thinking about for the past week or so, and it is brought up during the busiest month I have ever had at work... Damn you, Jebus.

Good points, Jim. And I have an idea of linking this with your previous post about god, and I shall do that over the weekend. Can't wait to hear what others think.

Have to agree with you. If Chigurh put as much energy into survival as he did killing, he'd be living alone in the woods of Canada somewhere, eating raw squirrels and wrestling bears. There is an obvious backwards pleasure that Chigurh takes in killing, otherwise he wouldn't be doing it.

And that's sort of the key. If you want to talk atheism and assume that atheists live for no one else for themselves (not true) and that the logical, pure result is true survival of the fittest (also not true), then Chigurh wouldn't be killing to survive like this. These are innocent people. He's not eating them. He's making money at best. But the money doesn't even seem to be the point. They'd have to really be paying him well to go through what he did in No Country. He's in this because he's committed and because he likes doing it.

Chigurh in a post-apocalyptic cannibal film, where the only food source left is humans? Fine. Survival of the fittest. But there was that Carl's Jr. in the background of the pool scene. He could just stop there.

I wish you had addressed the original submitters' line about atheists being 'craven', but I'm just glad you responded more politely and appropriately than I - a principled Atheist - would have been able to in response to such a mischaracterization of Atheists. Anton may have been an atheist, but all Atheists are not Anton any more than all Muslims are Osama.

Thanks Jim!

I really don't get the "atheists as survivalists" thing the author of the letter uses. When it comes down to it, EVERYONE is a survivalist, regardless of what religion, or lack thereof, they adhere to. And the insinuation that the religious "dare to exist for causes outside of self," while no atheists do such thing, is just absurd. I'm sick of the ignorant BS that gets thrown at atheists in this country.

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."
-Arthur C. Clarke

I think a lot of McCarthy's writing is about the internal struggle between belief and nonbelief. He may perfectly capture the voice of the white Southern Protestant ("the Bible is true because the Bible says so"), but he was actually raised Catholic ("the Bible is true because the unbroken line of believers / Church stretching back to the life of Christ say it's true"). Those are pretty reductivist summaries, but bear with me.

The struggle between belief and nonbelief is what I think the final dream in the film is about. Bell says "I always thought God would come into my life." Then, in a very Biblical way, his father comes to him in a dream to say that he's riding ahead of him into the next world, clearing a path, and that everything's going to be okay. "And I then I woke up" -- which means that he woke up metaphorically from the illusion of belief -- or he just woke up because it was time to get up. Belief vs. unbelief.

And as David Mamet version 2.0 might say, Jim, your kneejerk decision to separate Darwinism/atheism from villainy might make you a brain-dead liberal. :)

If I were to take this movie in religious allegorical terms (and I do not) I would put Chigurh in the believer/God role, not the other way around. Just as in the Old Testament God, Chiguhr is violent and unstoppable, but goes on and on about free will. God says, "Do what you like but if you choose to do something against me you will be punished eternally," thus negating any real sense of free will which can only exist if there is no reward/punishment system in place. Likewise, Chiguhr says the choice is yours but if the coin flips the wrong way, you're dead. You're relying on the coin, not your own actual choice of whether you want to live or die, so again there is no real free will.

Sheriff Bell (who is a lawman unlike Wells) in this allegory would be the modern day skeptic/atheist/freethinker who the outside world sees as "giving up" but in reality he is simply reaching the conclusion that Chiguhr is something he doesn't understand, doesn't care to understand and finally, something too vile and violent to let himself understand. Just like the modern day atheist "giving up" on arguments with people who don't understand that doing something based on a reward punishment system of Heaven and Hell means that you're always acting on your own "craven" behalf, not others'(something that Brad Smissen gets exactly backwards), Bell realizes that the illogic and relentless bludgeoning of free thought and true free will represented by Chigurh is something no man can fight alone. It will take time and evolution and younger minds and he is too old to keep up the fight.

Brad brings an interesting twist to the story but unfortunately he's put the characters in the wrong roles.

It is existential for sure, and I think it's another way, besides the dream, for Bell to express his wish that he would still be relevant, that his existence would have a meaning. He'd like to believe, like the man who chiseled the rock, that despite the fact that the country will always change (probably for the worst, if you think like Bell), what he has done in his life will still have some kind of a meaning to the future generations.

But since Bell has a lot of trouble believing in that line of thought, wouldn't we still be facing some kind of nihilistic-existentialist confrontation? I don't think we can reduce the movie's themes to nihilism (like some reviewers did) but it's still a central theme to me.

I really hated that letter, as it seems to be saying atheism = social darwinism, and therefore killing sprees. But maybe (hopefully) I'm reading it wrong.

I disagree w/ Brad's atheist reading. I'm more aligned with your reading, Jim, but I still find myself thinking of the characters as meditations on man (not necessarily existence) and, therefore, more reflective to one another rather than literal people or types.
I find it fascinating that the only screen time Moss and Chigurh have together is as Moss drops out of frame as he jumps from the window and Chigurh kicks open the door and fires his shotgun. As they trade gunfire, one pops into frame and the other pops out.
Even when Bell goes to the morgue to see Moss, we never see Moss's face. And when he returns to the scene of the crime, Chigurh is a phantom in the shadows.
Could it be that the three can't exist in the same place at the same time because they are all facets of the same person?
Its definitely not an easy split, like Alien with superego, ego, and id battling it out.
Its more about the balance necessary for survival--so in that sense I can understand part of Brad's reading. Still, any which way you slice it, this film has so many ideas and allows room for so much interpretation that its pretty much perfect.

And I just want a quick diatribe if I may. Roger Deakins was ROBBED once again. Yeah, There Will Be Blood is pretty, or whatever, but compositionally, shot-for-shot, and based on lighting design (I kept thinking as I watched it, 'How did he light that?') No Country is better.
But he was REALLY robbed when English Patient won over Fargo.
Do you know how easy it is to make sand look pretty?
Do you know how hard it is to make snow look pretty?
Ok. That's it for my diatribe.

I agree more with your reading of McCarthy's work than I do with Brad's take on it.
Perhaps this is simply a personal bias, but as an atheist, I cannot understand the rationale behind the way Brad equates atheism with a lack of morality, guilt or human values. In any case, atheism does not automatically confer on the atheist an innate understanding of Darwinian principles, or 'carve him into a creature with a powerful survivalist function.'
In my opinion, Chigurh is the way he is simply because he is. Being an athiest, and not believing- is more convenient and less work than being religious, and believing.

Jim: I'm with you. Though I can understand (if not agree) with Brad's reading of the scenes mentioned, a scene that I think contradicts his reading is the one with Chigurh and the man at the gas station. How would killing that man, or even considering it, make Chigurh an "atheist/survivalist"? If anything, that pointless murder would stand to harm him (creating another crime scene). Though it's impossible to tell precisely what the man says that stimulates Chigurh's "agent of fate" instincts (borrowing from your apt description), once those instincts are triggered Chigurh's decision comes down to an assessment of whether the man has indeed summoned fate or not. Hence the coin toss, just to be sure. By this reading, Chigurh better fits Brad's description of atheists' opposite: "believers who dare to exist for causes outside of self." The film never makes it clear exactly what cause (or deity) Chigurh is living for. But by threatening a man who poses no threat to him and/or sparing a man who does pose a threat to him (depending on your view of the gas station owner), Chigurh certainly isn't behaving like a "Darwinian creature" whose only principle is to put his survival above all else. That said, Chigurh certainly causes Ed Tom Bell to question his religion (his understanding of the universe). So, "No Country" is still a "deep meditation" on the presence (or lack of presence) of God.

Having not the read the novel and having only seen the film, I found little evidence of Chigurh as a survivalist/Darwinian. Are we to believe that this human slaughterer selects a life saturated in violent potential because of its "safety"? Granted, Chigurh means to survive (as most creatures do) but I'd place my money on a low-profile tax attorney outliving Chigurh by a few years. What, after all, is especially safe about tracking a case full of cash from a man with a sawed off shotgun?

And the visit he pays to Carla Jean is in concert with Wells' assertion that he "has principles." Were he simply a survivalist, principles (lofty personal ideals) would be rendered irrelevant.

Chigurh might be a non-believer in the sense that he is not a follower of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but to say that he is an out-and-out atheist misses the point, I think. Chigurh has replaced God with Fate. He has replaced a universe with a kind and loving centre with a cold universe that does not care for any individual. Chigurh's universe stops for no man. It cannot be reasoned with, cannot be placated. It moves along its pre-determined course with all the relentless implacability of a freight train.

It is not the coin toss that reveals this side of him, but rather his adherence to the principles Wells spoke of. The coin toss can be a way of passively rejecting responsibility, as Mr. Emerson said, but Chigurh NEEDS the coin toss in a very real and active fashion. When Carla Jean refuses to 'call it' he insist that she must. That he 'cannot call it' for her. And when she insist that the coin decides nothing, that it is HE who decides, he says that the coin got there the same way he did: as the end result of the universe's vast and predestined Fate, as the final conclusion created by choices already made.

Consistency is the only God that Chigurh recognizes. Once the universe sets an act in motion, it must be realized and no amount of sympathy or emotion will make it otherwise. And, as someone who finds it useful to model himself after God, once Chigurh sets an act in motion, he must by necessity see it through as well. This is true whether he is letting a coin toss decide a man's fate, or delivering on a promise made to a dead man to kill his wife.

I never gave much thought to what Chigurh believes or doesn't believe. I agree with the "fate" concept when it comes to analyzing Chigurh's character. But one thing I have wondered is what exactly IS Anton Chigurh. My girlfriend thinks he sounds Irish, but I think in the film he's supposed to be Native American. Think about it, NCFOM could have just been two hours of "Bitch...this is my house!" Did the novel delve into Chigurh's nationality at all?

Jim, just curious and not that it is relevant to this post and I hope its not too personal a question to ask. But are you an atheist? Maybe its just me, but I have never seen an unemotional comment about atheism by a religious person. This post certainly was unemotional!

I am sure someone HAS written this before me, but having seen the film 3 times now, the last on dvd, the film seems to be to be McCarthy and Coen's updated negative image of Peckinpaugh's "The Wild Bunch".

That film was about how the "civilization" of america was leaving no place for the old guard gunfighters. It ends with the iconic blood letting of William Holden and his crew, going out in a blaze of glory from a world that no longer needs or wants them.

No Country seems to be about the Tommy Lee Jones character realizing the world no longer needs or wants him, not because it has become too civilized, but because the drug cartels, who came to prominence in 1980 when the film is set, were so violent and ruthless, they rendered old school she'iffs like Jones irrelevant. The two speeches by Jones at the end and the scene in the hotel room with Jones where Bardem is there and simply doesn't look for him to me seal it. He can't imagine the guy is still there, waiting to kill again and that he will continue to go after Brolin's wife. He just quits "I'm overmatched" Bardem's character has some reminders of the old school, a code, but the code is so perverted, it makes it ironic.

I think the fact that the ending has no shootout is a further answer to the Wild Bunch, no blaze of glory, no last case solved, just a dream about his dad waiting.

I agree that Chigurh's Darwin incarnate, but not because of faith, that is the just the mechanism; it is the fact that he slaughters people that makes him the next evolutionary step, he becomes almost like a super human.

I appreciate your comments here Jim. I was particularly offended by Brad's view of Atheism as "Craven" or "reckless". This falls off the cliff of logic so severely that I think someone needs to point to Brad where his thoughts go astray. Atheism is a brave way of facing the reality of the universe instead of relying on wishful thinking and invented reality. Also, Atheism does not denote anything more about a persons morals than by saying a person is religious. As can clearly be seen in prison populations, which tend to be much more religious by percentage than atheistic by a large margin.

Otherwise I have to comment no whether Chigurh is an atheist or whether any other character is an atheist in the movie because without them coming out and saying so you could not tell whether a person was religious or not by their actions. (Except maybe if you saw them praying or typically on their knees)
)

I think Chigurh is similar to other McCarmack characters in that he has a personal code that replaces traditional morality (whether divinely inspired or otherwise). He gives Lewellen the opportunity to spare his wife by sacrificing his own; once he is dead Chigurh has no choice within his personal code but to follow through on killing his wife. Note that this also has the effect of enhancing Chigurh's reputation as the most ruthless mercenary alive.

Returning to my first sentence, McCarthy's Judge in Blood Meridian and the man in The Road both had very strict codes of behavior that supplanted all else. The Judge valued loyalty above all else, no matter what the motivating factor, and viewed betrayal of that loyalty as a capital offense. The man, who was supposedly "carrying the light" in The Road's dying world, routinely treated even seemingly harmless strangers cruelly in order to protect his son. Chigurh's worldview follows a similar path - he says he is going to do something and once his word is given it must be obeyed. The coin flip is a little more of a puzzler, but seems to me to represent the randomness with which innocent people's fates lead them into Chigurh's path and whether they live or die is likewise fated.

Atheism is often seen as necessitating nihilism. As an atheist, I put my faith in my fellow man and in myself. I honestly love the people around me. I love them too much to go on a killing spree. I understand why some people need to think there's a God, but I don't need Him. Whether I was created by God or by evolution, I'm here and alive, and that's wonderful. That I enjoy this whole life thing is meaning enough for me.

Darth: I suppose I qualify as a lapsed Protestant. I belonged to one of those '70s Methodist congregations whose pastor's motto was "Expect A Miracle!" when I was in my early double-digits. But even then, I felt it, but I didn't believe it. By the time I read the bible (Old and New) at 14 or 15, the roots of my discontent became clearer to me. The morality in those books is so muddled and internally inconsistent I knew I couldn't aspire to be a moral person and believe in that. But, like almost all atheists, I love to study religion and philosophy -- especially as they relate to morality and the human desire to seek meaning. (It's been said that only atheists take religion seriously.)

In the case of "NCFOM," I'm interested in how a conception of God may or may not figure its moral universe. I don't see the hand of God at work in "NCFOM" (and I don't see it in the bible, either, where God is anthropomorphized into an all-powerful human) but I'm curious about Christian or religious readings of the book and film.

I might try looking at it the other way 'round: That Chigurh is the God figure, the arbiter of life and death who doesn't take responsibility for his own Godlike actions [like Jonathan said!] because he sees them as other people's fault. (Is this an echo of the God who became so angry and/or disenchanted with his own creation that he wiped out life on earth with the Flood, or who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, blaming humans for the faults he built into them?) Chigurh has a godlike faith in his own Mysterious Plan -- something mere mortals are incapable of comprehending.

Morality, in religious or non-religious terms, is tied to free will: We must make choices and be responsible for the choices we make. In some respects Chigurh is right that Llewelyn was willing to sacrifice Carla Jean -- but it's not really "like that," as she knows. Earlier, Carla Jean says her husband won't stop any more than Chigurh will. She sees something similar in both. Llewelyn sees it, too -- and is determined not to give in to Chigurh's vision of how things will "end," but to assert his own. He has no reason to believe in Chigurh's "word," anyway. (In my "Out in all that dark" post a commenter asks if others see Llewelyn as an "unsympathetic" character. In conventional terms, I'd probably say "yes" -- look at the way he behaves when he comes upon the site of the massacre -- but I'm not sure the term is particularly relevant.)

So, do I think "NCFOM" is about moral responsibility? Absolutely. That, in the face of inevitable death, is what Ed Tom Bell is wrestling with throughout the whole thing. What is his duty, as a man and a lawman -- to his father, to his job, to the law, to the people he is sworn to protect and defend? Is that reckoning built around a conception of God or an afterlife? I don't see it. Not because I think the concept of "God" makes morality irrelevant (What can morality mean if it involves accountability to a supernatural power?), but because I don't see enough evidence throughout the book/movie to support that kind of reading.

Gman: I understand why some people need to think there's a God, but I don't need Him.

It's funny: That's what the arguments so often come down to: What works for you? People will believe whatever they need to believe. Call it faith or call it denial or call it nonbelief. Whatever works. I've simply never understood (even when I was a churchgoer and considered myself a believer) why anyone would assume the answers to our deepest, most profound questions have to do with a supernatural force possessing intent. Maybe humans are incapable of conceiving the forces that brought the universe into being. But monotheistic religion (popular though it is) seems to me the weakest of all possible metaphors for it. The idea that the universe rests on the back of an infinite turtle seems just as likely, and far more interesting to talk about.

I might try looking at it the other way 'round: That Chigurh is the God figure, the arbiter of life and death. You left off like Jonathan said.

JE: Sorry! I hadn't read that!

I feel I need to make a comment regarding vader's final statement. It seems that vader has gone ahead and promoted one of the two major misconceptions that are often made about darwin's theory of evolution. The first is the silly statement that evolution is the "survival of the fittest." This is simply not true. If it can be said to be anything then it s more like the survival of the adequately sufficient. By this I mean to say that evolution doesn't care, if evolution could be said to care about anything, if an organism is the best suited for surviving in a particular environment, but if that organism is sufficiently capable of doing so.

The second major misconception is the one that vader promotes in his post. This is the view that evolution is somehow goal driven, that it seeks to create, as it were, a superior being that is somehow ideal or perfect in some way. As stated previously, this is simply not the case. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that such is the case. When an organism reaches a point evolutionarily that it can survive sufficiently in a given environment, they generally do not change, but only ever so slightly, the shark being the perfect example. Sometimes, as with humans, the organism utilizes other faculties that had previously evolved to adapt to new environments without the necessity of change.

To say that evolution seeks to achieve some state of perfection in some nebulous round about sense is completely ludicrous to the point that it would be laughed at as absurd by most if not all scientists, especially those who study evolution. All evolution does it try to achieve what is sufficient for an organisms survival. This basically means that Chigurh would not be, as stated, Darwin incarnate, not by a long shot.

To Darth Vader, sorry for the attack, I seem to have not fully figured out the author placement is set up, I should have looked more carefully. My comments are actually supposed to directed at the poster calling himself mike. otherwise they stand as posted.

Lots of interesting comments! First, I think the original letter confuses atheism with being amoral. Being amoral is, or may be, what gives Chigurh the power, so to speak, over the more moral characters in the movie, such as the Sheriff, who like Brad Smissen says are hampered because they have to act "within confined moral/legal spaces". If Brad is equating atheism with being amoral, he is quite wrong.

Secondly, thank you Jim for answering my question. It is my experience that for most people the title of "religious" or "atheist" is something they take only when pushed to take a position. I think a lot of people would prefer to not being asked to answer this question. Also, I completely agree with you Jim in that I do not think God figures either explicitly or implicitly in the "No Country" universe.

I personally think that Chigurh is simply amoral and his insistence on the coin toss and general disregard for life are due to more earthly reasons. Maybe he is a misanthrope or a serial-killer or treats everything as a game. I wonder if we are trying to attribute something to him that McCarthy did not intend. Maybe he doesn't even have to fit into any stock characterization like "atheist" or anything else.

I also found it interesting that he gave the coin toss option only to people he strictly doesn't have to kill. He doesn't give the coin toss option to people who get in his way or have something he wants. And, if to the former, he is "Fate" why does he only give two choices: Live or Die. Why not "break a leg", "lose an eye" etc.? I think he is meant to be just an agent whom Sheriff Bell cannot explain or understand (just like we can't) driving him to retire.

Atheism has nothing to do with Darwinism, and to assert that a natural conclusion of it is "recklessly craven positioning of self for purposes of survival" is simply theistic hatred. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. Anyone who recognizes the Scientific Method as the best method we have of examining empirical or reason-based knowledge, and is therefore an atheist, does not need to "position themself for survival".

No Country is a thrilling, well-told movie that doesn't proselytizing or demonizing of atheists by alluding to Chigurh by association.

Following up on Darth Vader's most recent comment, I recall Chigurh giving Carla Jean the coin toss option only because she insists that her death is not necessary. This conflicts with the gas station attendant who is forced into the choice without realizing the stakes at first. He has the ability to provide the option, but it does seem to be at his whim. This would seem to conflict with the logical/linguistic games he sets up, in particular with respect to Carla Jean and the coin toss. He is so intent on making her choose that it is unclear (at least to me) whether he is suddenly trapped by it when it is presented. His struggle to accept whether she will call the toss seems very difficult for him to take, as though there is some impossibility in moving forward without it being called. If it never gets called, can he just rescind the offer?

Jeremy mentioned something above which also occurred to me while watching the film. When Bell goes to the motel and Chigurh is waiting in the shadows, the two rooms cordoned off with tape are 12 and 14, and the camera seems to deliberately focus on the space encompassed by these two doors, so when it zooms in, it essentially centers on the space between them (where Chigurh is inevitably standing). This coincides with several of the room numbers in the film- Moon staying in 138 when his shootout with Chigurh takes place, for example, as well as Wells' comment that the building where he meets his employer is missing a floor (implying the 13th, I would imagine). While it cannot be pinned down to perhaps more than "bad luck," Chigurh's connection to the number 13, particularly when Moon arrives at the motel, seems to imply that he is somehow not entirely extant in the same plane as Moon, Wells, etc. This of course clashes significantly with the capriciousness of the coin toss or his pursuit of money, and means that you cannot necessarily pin him into the realm of athiest/fatalist/etc. human or something on the lines of fate/death/etc. He is to me all of these things or none of these things at once, which makes it hard to look for a fully consistent and categorical reading of his character. This tends to work against how we tend to read films (or any type of text), with all pieces adding up to a whole, but there seems to be something decidedly non-zero-sum about the film which I enjoy quite a bit.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, and it's an odd detail to point out, but Chigurh does display one recognizably human characteristic in his self-surgery scene: he has the TV on in the motel room, not really watching it, just having it on as background noise, presumably to help take his mind off the pain. Then he comes out of the bathroom with a towel wrapped around his waist and turns it off before lying down. Even Chigurh needs to lighten his mood with a few mundane distractions from reality now and then.

I'm probably detail nitpicking, but Chigurh also audibly grunts "Ow!" when he gets out of the car at the end. I'm not sure if that's consistent with reading him as a symbolic character, completely detached from humanity or human feeling.

I don't know what McCarthy's personal philosophy is, but I've always detected a distinct atheistic vein running through the work of his that I've read. Its bluntest expression comes in a passage in Suttree, set up in a scene where Suttree is conversing with an old ragpicker, a man who claims to be weary of life, and wanting to die. Suttree asks the man if there's anything he'll say to God when he meets him. The ragpicker responds:

Well, I think I'd just tell him. I'd say: Wait a minute. Wait just one minute before you start in on me. Before you say anything, there's just one think I'd like to know. And he'll say: What's that? And then I'm goin to ast him: What did you have me in that crapgame down there for anyway? I couldnt put any part of it together.

Near the end of the book, Suttree comes back to ragman's hole and finds him dead in his bead, and starts berating the corpse:

Did you ask? About the crapgame? What are you doing in bed with your shoes on?

[...]

He wiped his eyes with the heel of his hand.

There's no one to ask is there? There's no ... He was looking down at the ragman and he raised his hand and let it fall again and he rose and went out past the old man's painted rock into the rain.

And that's the definitive word on the subject in Suttree. But I think you can find the same theme expressed in McCarthy's other works, like No Country: you can look to God or fate or what have you to explain why this crapgame is the way it is, but in the end, there's no one to ask. It's just us.

Ugh. I just got through sitting through a just released movie tonight in which every shot was supposed to "mean" something, in which every inept line of generic dialogue we were supposed to "feel" the pain of the characters. The funny thing is that someone watching this film who maybe has lived a life of sexual favors for the sake of "love" might view it completely different than I did.

We can say Brad's interpretation is way off, maybe it is because we don't have the background Brad does. A wolf certainly lives by Darwinian rules and I think it still kills to kill, and enjoys it. Man hunts because its a sport. We prove our power over other species constantly..."Sit boy, sit!" Maybe Chigurh's way of showing his superiority over us is to flip a coin. It's his egoism to believe that he is superior, that he follows the rules of fate, and as we know from his getting torqued by the car in the end and getting shot earlier he's not completely susceptible to the rules he feels he's above. Maybe that's what drives him to Carla Jean - his insatiable need to wreak havoc on those that come close to putting him in his place.

I'm breaking away from the metaphors and symbolism of the piece for a moment. A character can say something and certainly not mean it, right? The guy's f-ing psycho. He can talk about a code, and fate, and flip a coin, but in the end he's an f-ing psycho. Just as capable of getting wet when it rains as Thom Bell is.

He may or may not believe in God, but he certainly doesn't believe in the sanctity of human life and that in essence, as far as Christianity is concerned, does make him a nonbeliever. And I'm not talking about Christianity as in the kind that killed thousands of people on witch hunts when everyone was a lot more ignorant about everything, those hypocrites. Just the general God fearing rule that people twist to meet out there own needs. After all, Chigurh never flips the coin for Carla Jean - he's not fate. It could all just be a lot of pomp and circumstance for him. As I stated earlier, just his way of feeling superior, above the laws of human nature.

Creatures by darwins rules do what they do because it's what they're best at, whatever part of them has kept them alive they keep and become, roughly. Whose to say that Chigurh isn't man pared down to that primordial sludge of a base thought. You see that look in his eyes when he strangles the cop. It's not a flip of the coin, boys and girls, it's not fate dictating his whims, it's the wolf catching the rabbit and loving every minute of it. What would be more frightening to Thom Bell, fate or someone who believes he is fate and kills because of and in spite of it?

Maybe Brad isn't right on, but he may not be that far off. I guess it's difficult for me see someone else's logic when they take offense to someone else's argument which many people here did. I don't think he was attacking anyone's ideologies, and if he was, who cares - that's what he thinks.

Funny how you Americans are fascinated with mass killers. Bush anyone? Evil is banal. There is nothing phylosophical in it.

I think Chigurh is only “crazy” because he has chosen to hold no value for human life if that life is lived nonsensically. Participators of the drug trade also hold no value for human life, yet they themselves are living nonsensically. Yet Bell holds value for human life, is sensible, but tolerates the non-sense he finds himself around. The only thing that separates Chigurh and Bell is what they are willing to do to counter the drug trade. Since Bell cannot forgo the valuation of human life, he cannot immerse himself in the drug trafficking world and finds himself ineffective in that world he lives in as a lawman. Chigurh only becomes an agent of fate if he foregoes the valuation of human life, and can therefore deal with that world.

It's interesting to note that the desire to persevere financially in a huge scale is what caused the whole state of matters Bell finds himself obsolete in, a change in the countryside-drug trafficking. It creates the opportunity for a seemingly financial secure personal state with little effort, but one you have to sacrifice your own morality(the damage drugs cause society) and a sense of structure(your life is more out of your hands more apt to be taken from you - you have less protection from and offer yourself to the hands of fateful events) in. Violence and the hunger - and the character of the drug trade sacrifices the environment of Bell's father and sherifs of old.

This desire motivates most of the main characters. It does not motivate Chigurh though. Llewelyn is motivated entirely by the prospect of financial security throughout the film. A parallel can be made in both scenes where Llewelyn needs a coat and Chigurh needs a jacket. In Llewelyn’s scene he comes across 3 teens or young adults (who would tend to be broke). The first teen who speaks asks the specific question, “Were you in a car accident?” Llewelyn does not answer this question and turns the acquisition of a coat into a financial proposition. The teen’s question is a caring more human question not typical in the world Bell finds himself in. Same with the Mexican guitarists when he asks for a hospital (the shot featuring a nice close up of an offered 100 dollar bill). When Chigurh needs a shirt, the boy offers the shirt without payment. Chigurh has the opportunity to take the shirt without giving any money. Yet he does give money. Money, an impetuous of the environment Bell finds himself obsolete in, Chigurh doesn’t care about.

The tendency for many people to not answer the question asked is a recurring theme in the movie, especially in Chigurh’s scenes, he not proposing to perhaps kill those who are honest or sensible. Honesty and sensibility are all lacking in the drug trade, and those who lack it in general are more apt to set themselves up for a negative “fateful” event. The owner of the gas station does not answer Chigurh’s questions with honest or sensibility. The candy wrapper may be symbolic of the economy the owner has wrapped his entire life around perhaps not questioning a fateful position pulling him toward ownership of the station-living a life Chigurh understands are indicative of the drug trade, Chigurh gives the prospect of fate to the owner in the coin toss. After the owner winning the toss, Chigurh gives the owner the coin and reminds him that it should be kept separate from the other coins, yet the owner should remember “it IS just a coin.” It is only money.

Chigurh’s motivations turn him into a symbolic agent of fate, in his own way, playing within the world surrounding the drug trade, where the rules have made human life less sacred, in his own way is honest, sensible, and cares nothing about money. As an agent of fate, holding human life less sacred(a lawlessness-in this way lacking morality), but retaining honesty, sensibility(in communication and own rules), and not caring about money, Chigurh is the perfect foil for the situation of the drug trade. Participators in the drug trade sacrifice honesty and sensibility for money, and in exchange set themselves up to be damaged by fateful events(maybe killed).

Bell’s opening speech:

You can say it's my job to fight it but I don't know what it is anymore. More than that, I don't want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, OK, I'll be part of this world....

Chigurh is an anti-hero perfect for the drug trade willing to put his soul on the line as he holds no sacredness for human life lived with nonsense, yet has honesty, sensibility, and a outlook not placing emphasis on money similar to Bell. Chigurh is willing to put his soul at hazard and is willing to participate in that world, something that Bell cannot. There is probably a reason Chigurh has decided to enact the counter to his understanding of the drug trafficking problem – a problem influencing the entire area.

Chigurh encounters in order:
Police officer (sensibility-leaves prisoner in a position where Chigurh could do harm)
Guy in the Car(sensibility- guy looks in the mirror Chigurh is not wearing a uniform yet guy obeys-shot in the head-very Miller’s Crossing)
Drug Traffickers(money drug trade honesty, sensibility, money- Chigurh has consciously decided to fight the drug trade)
Station Attendant(sensibility- not answering the questions which were asked, nonsensical, sets himself up to be damaged by fateful events *coin toss)
Lady at trailer home(IS sensible/honest sticks to what she says)
Llewellen(money from drug trade- Chigurh seeks to undo the influence of the drug trade)
Wade(mercenary involved in drug trade for money-money\sensibility)
Guy in office(drugs)
Underling in office(Chigurh asks a simple question-unknown)
Guy in truck(questions/sensibility-is probably dead)
“Chigurh\Bell”(probably signifies their similarities)
Carla(in Chigurh’s version of sensibility words indicate one’s sense when Chigurh says he will go after Carla if certain conditions are met he will go after Carla-her best bet is to call the toss *coin toss)

I'd like to add my support to a number of posters who have objected to the deeply mistaken understandings of both atheism and Darwin. The level and degree of the misunderstanding is mindboggling, since the misunderstandings are also simply inconsistent.

Even if we did erroneously treat Darwinism as survival of the fittest or as a teleology toward "higher" forms of life, it would be moronic to interpret a murderous "fate machine" (as one poster beautifully described it) as the perfect embodiment of survival or as a "superhuman"--there's a reason social behavior is naturally selected in most "higher" primates, after all.

Second, even if the social darwinistic interpretation (which is not true darwinism) is assumed, it would mean that every living creature is a murderous egoistic fate-machine, not just atheists. Theists, on this view, would be murderous egoistic fate-machines who dress up their crimes with the fairy tales of free will and moral justification.

Finally, while I agree with implication that the film deals with nihilism, it is a deep misunderstanding to treat atheism as the cause of nihilism. Nihilism is the result of our highest cultural and moral values dismantling themselves--e.g., the moral imperative to truthfulness, enforced by theism, leading to the exposure of theism as wishful lie. Nihilism results in an absence of values only because theism has systematically destroyed all natural values--all "earthly" values--thus leaving nothing behind after its own self-incurred downfall. In other words, theism causes nihilism. Atheism is the hope of its overcoming.

On a side note, I take the image of the coin toss as the film's (or at least Chigurh's) recognition that the notions of free will, moral responsibility, and "purpose" (whether theistic or misinterpreted darwinism) to be illusions. The fatalism of the film is the fatalism of pure, unadulterated chance, where there are no variables which could change the purely contingent outcome. Pure chance=pure necessity.

Saw the parenthetical in your original comment and laughed. You're a good man Charlie Brown. Maybe "like Jonathan said" could become the new Scanners tagline.

Or part of the laws of human nature.

Being equal to that would be just as powerful as being above that, I imagine.

Also, just because he's paid to do something doesn't make him a non Darwinian entity - someone who's the fittest. Hell, I'd love to be paid for what I do best, nothing wrong with that.

Great, just great. Another blatant misconception being lobbed, this time by Mr Kelly. FIrst off, I have never heard of any evidence in all the research I have personally done on wolves of a wolf killing and not eating some prey. In fact, I have read of reports of wolves breaking up fights between other wolves and sometimes between wolves and dogs. They do indeed live by "Darwinian rules" in terms of doing what is necessary for survival but to anthropomorphize wolves to the extent of assuming that they enjoy killing for the sake of killing without any evidence of them having done so, is just rather silly.

"I felt it, but I didn't believe it". Jim, your experience in church would have been enough for a lot of people who frequently say if you would just turn off your brain and let your feelings rule than God would speak to you. Why fight it?

I don't call myself an atheist for a couple of reasons. One: whatever the prevailing statistics about majority belief systems the burden of proof is still on belief, not non-belief. Atheism is not a rejection of some pre-established fact. It would be like a man, not convicted of a crime, calling himself "acriminal". Two: maybe I'm hedging my bets but if I am, I'm doing it out of courtesy. I have not come to a final disbelief in a creator and so if he exists I don't want to be identified as anti-Him or anything. At the same time I don't fear any such being because I *have* come to a final disbelief in the olde jealous and judgmental god. So call me a heretic but not an atheist.

As for the movie, I disagree a bit, with the idea that religion isn't part of NCFOM. I, like many, think of Chigurh as some sort of Fate, which is a pretty religious concept. Chance might be a better term for a similar, but areligious character, but Chigurh doesn't strike me that way at all. This isn't about butterflies beating their wings on the other side of the world. However bleak, I mean oblique, the plan might be the movie definitely seems to operate under the idea that there is a plan. It may well be an argument against the so-called Judeo-Christian God but I don't think it's at all about earthbound Darwinism. The selection going on here is definitely supernatural.

JE: I guess I should have explained my own experience a little more precisely. I wanted to believe. I saw everyone around me believing (as I had all my life, everywhere, when our teacher led us in the Pledge of Allegience to the motto on our money). I was never even exposed to the possibility that one could NOT believe in God. I was still a kid and I didn't know it was possible -- any more than I could not believe in air. But I do remember reflecting: If you get a bunch of people in a room reciting words and music together, whipping up emotions (that I felt but didn't understand why), everybody supporting one another and validating one another's feelings, then what did we all believe we were sharing? I didn't see how it had anything to do with God, just that we were feeding off one another.

When I got a little older, maybe I developed more skepticism toward authority and an increasing distrust of mob behavior (from Nazi rallies to Beatlemania), but I couldn't put my full trust in those things, even when I thought I felt them. Seemed to me that too many widely held beliefs were indefensible (like, say, slavery -- which even the New Testament condoned). To be true to my own deepest moral beliefs about who I am, I have to live my life without organized religion. Most of all, the idea of an omniscient God who exercises Divine Will and offers his creations free will, seems irrelevant to what I think is important in life. I could never believe in a God who thought it was important that I believe in Him. I wish I could, because maybe then I could believe in Divine forgiveness for what I consider to be my sins and mistakes. But, for me, the only possibility for forgiveness is in this life -- from other people and from myself.

Darwinism, as defined by Webster's Dictionary... #2 "A theory that inherent dynamic forces allow only the fittest persons or organizations to prosper in a competitive environment or situation." The dynamic forces being the drug trade, fittest person being Chigurh. I'm not even agreeing with Brad! I'm just making a point.

Boosh! .. Who was saying that Darwinism wasn't survival of the fittest? Huh? Anyone? ... Alright ... now chill. Even if Webster himself is wrong, if a movie deals with something, say, ooooh, Darwinism, we're not dealing with the reality of Darwinism. We're dealing with Darwinism through the artist's eyes. It's their interpretation of Darwinism or Fate or Death or being F-ing psycho that you're watching. If the filmmaker feels that atheism only leads to a twisted Darwinism then the way they portray Darwinism is going to be affected by that. That's why it's art and not science.

A lot of Christians do equate Darwin and atheism. If there's no God, there's kill or be killed. It's not an illogical jump if you see good and bad with such a white and black finality that many people do. Funny thing is, most of those Christians wouldn't be able to tell upon meeting an atheist if they are one or not. It's the same mentality that many atheists have about all Christians 9no not all Christians hold Brad's belief - if he is a Christian). Liberals and Conservatives. Americans and Muslims. The extremes are always going to be seen first and then followed through on as if it was the only depiction of the race or religion or belief. That's why movies like "Persepolis" should be shown in high schools all across America.

Now the misconception about a wolf not enjoying the hunt, or the kill. I'm sorry Killyosaur that you do not agree that an animal enjoys eating food. And in turn that a carnivore enjoys killing said food on its own terms. I imagine if you took the food away from the animal it might even be considered angry. True, my example of a wolf may not be completely appropriate as they are remarkably lazy creatures and will give up rather quickly if the chase drags out too long (which would mean that they don't enjoy chasing something if it's taking too long...they are impatient as well as happy to kill their prey when and if they can get it). There are however base instincts that can be equated between humans (as we are also animals) and the rest of the animal kingdom, one of those is eating, another is sleeping, and then there's romance - there could very well be more. Animals even have enough sense to make decisions based upon what they see. Good idea/bad idea. That antelope looks pretty good, thinks the Jackal, but that Lion that's already eating it makes him think twice. The lion roars, the Jackal becomes scared (oh God, I'm doing it again anthropomorphizing the damn Jackal - a jackal could never be scared of anything). I use the word think, because animals can reason - certainly not on a human level(though when a chimp signs it's pretty incredible). Saying that an animal doesn't enjoy something is like saying humans don't act based on instinct...ever, and that's not true. Besides, if you're going to semantically gripe about the wolf analogy, you probably missed the point of my argument all together. And if you don't get that a level of ridiculousness follows this argument, then ka-kow, I just wasted your time.

Jim,

The interesting thing about religion is that every religion, especially Christian, believes something slightly different. I don't believe in forgiveness the same way Catholics do for instance. It seems unnecessary for me to need to be forgiven by someone other than myself, the person I've offended or God. I think the mistake most people make, and not just as Christians, is that their religion or belief system takes precedence over human interaction when most often those religions or belief systems are about how we relate to others. So when you say "from other people and from myself" from my own Christian perspective, it's almost more Christian than most Christians behave. And the only reason why we feel the need to point it out is that we expect people who follow a certain higher law to be better and they can't, it's impossible. It's like asking all cops not to be dirty. Some are going to be. Some are still going to beat their wives or launder money or do drugs. Some Christians are still going to back stab and lie. It's not about being Christian or not being Christian, it's about being human and imperfect, and being able to forgive, even when you hold people to a higher standard because of what they call themselves.

Jim, thank you for your thoughtful response. It would seem that my letter offended a few people in the forum. Apologies to the offended. However, all I have done is taken the book/film and run it through my own personal spectrometer. Polite disagreement elevates any discussion, don't you think, especially with touchy subject matter like this.

Let me ask you something, Jim. What do you think the central question is at the heart of No Country? Or perhaps you feel there isn't one and that's fine. I'm pretty sure we disagree about what the film/book is centrally concerned with and this is why we have such different takes on this material. I think the question behind No Country is both simple and complex and everything within the book/film dovetails back into this question -- why do good? It's the question that Chigurh had to ask himself many years before. It's the question that Ed Tom Bell, as an old man, is only now starting to vaguely wrestle with. You see, Chigurh is man of principle and strong conviction. A man like this could never be a bystander in life's fray. No, his choices in life were lawman or killer. Now, onto the subject of Chigurh's atheism. Here's why his atheism is so critical to understanding him -- because No Country's author says so. Remember the line with Carla Jean -- Even a non-believer . . . .? To not interpret this line as an admission of atheism makes no sense to me. McCarthy is a spare, vague writer to be sure, there's nothing heavy-handed or preachy about his approach. But McCarthy means to give us an important piece of information here. We'd best take it because he gives us nothing else about Chigurh. Nothing. So is Cormac saying that Chigurh's atheism informed his lawman/killer decision? In a way, yes. But I also think that Cormac means to say that Chigurh's decision was arrived at intellectually and not bound by any spiritual belief system. Speaking of spiritual belief systems, I think this is exactly why that stone trough got carved, but that's a whole different argument.

Quite a few folks thought I was trying to make short work of atheism. This sorta baffles me. Are we not all aware of how religion can corrupt and twist ideology? Is atheism outside of such perversions? Of course not. I believe that No Country contains a character that has corrupted and twisted his own atheism. I believe that Cormac McCarthy finds corrupted atheism way more horrifying than corrupted religion.

Lastly, everyone seems to agree that the coin-flipping scenes are about fated things. But aren't these scenes also about Chigurh's sense of mercy and decency?

Brad: Thanks for providing the stimulus for so much interesting discussion. As I said, I do appreciate your point of view, even when I wouldn't read the book/movie that way.

In answer to your question: I think the central question is a little more abstract: How do you live your life knowing you're going to die? Not in the abstract, but really going to cease to exist? (I think both movie and book see death as final -- no promise of an afterlife -- which is one reason I don't detect the presence of God in it.)

I don't think there's any "mercy or decency" in Chigurh -- that he exists outside those concepts. As I wrote, I think it's just another illustration of his unwillingness to take responsibility for his own actions, to pretend it's up to "fate" or "chance" (depending on how you look at it). He insists the OTHER person has to "call it." When Carla Jean refuses, he's genuinely flustered. She will not validate his principles with her consent. Sure, he can still kill her, but that won't make her accept his terms.

Jim, I'm glad to have the more precise explanation but I hope it doesn't mean you misunderstood my post because I was in full agreement with you. My experience was almost exactly like yours and I was just parroting some of what I heard back then. I wouldn't say I wanted to believe, though, because more simply I assumed I *did* believe until I realized I didn't. And then want had nothing to do with it. I hear that a lot, though, even from someone who has tried to argue, scientifically, for the Christian side. Eventually they give up and say, "Well I just wouldn't want to live in a world without God." Or they use a line like "There are no atheists in foxholes." To me, these arguments are simply another way of saying "You must fool yourself--convince your brain there is a God because it's better that way." And I just can't nor do I see the need to try. I just avoid foxholes. And please, people, I'm not trying to convince anyone of what they should believe. I'm not an evangelical. I'm just saying that my reality seems pretty firm to me even if it isn't always pretty.

Mr. Kelly, you have still failed to demonstrate how Chigurh is a good example of a Darwinian being, rather than a terribly flawed example. Darwin's theory of evolution merely says that individual organisms within a species that possess mutations that make them more likely to be successful at producing more offspring in a given environment will become "naturally selected." Because the mutation would propagate/procreate more successfully than the non-mutation, the mutation appears more frequently within the species across success generations until, eventually, the species has "evolved" into a new species.

This is what is meant by "survival of the fittest." It's not "survival of the best," but rather "best chance of survival due to most appropriate characteristics for an environment." This is high school biology material. This is why the idea of an "evolutionary ladder" is a misconception, because evolution does not necessarily (and certainly has not always) produced more advanced species, which means that saying an organism/species is evolved does not signify that it is "better" or "higher" than that which came before it.

So in light of this very basic definition of Darwinian theory, how does Chigurh fit the Darwinian model? Darwinian theory says nothing about "kill or be killed" (which is why such Christian conceptions of evolution and atheism are dead wrong). Chigurh's motives for murder cannot be found in an overriding survival instinct. Within the dangerous, drug-trafficking world of the movie/novel, Chigurh does not need to be a bounty hunter who kills everyone in his way (and even those who aren't) to survive or "be the fittest." He could, for instance, be one of the people who pull the strings in the business.

He is never defensive, except for the brief moment when he finds himself hunted and wounded by Moss. That part of the story, the part after it (in which Chigurh steals drugs from the pharmacy and treats his own injuries), and his final scene, are the only times when his strong survival instincts and cunning are emphasized and thus could be loosely interpreted as Darwinian. But then one can say that as the hunted, Moss is also a Darwinian character, despite his ultimate fate. Chigurh doesn't claim to be superior or inferior, above or below, anyone else. He exists and acts to do what he has been hired to do and what fate calls him to do.

A much stronger interpretation for Chigurh's motives and place in his world is that he is an agent of order, the "one right tool" used to clean up the capitalistic mess of the drug deal gone bad. In this light, he is not a Darwinian entity but rather a machine, much like HAL 9000, that operates by a non-human set of rules that require him to do anything to fulfill his objective. Would you like to call HAL a Darwinian being?

Brad made the assertion that No Country for Old Men is best understood as a tract on Darwinism, but we're saying that this interpretation is weak, i.e. not well-supported by the entire story compared to other, more popular interpretations. Thus, I don't understand why you would suggest that the Coens and McCarthy are trying to portray Darwinism. It sounds more like you're trying to read that into the story rather than getting it from the story. And yes, I know that you're not completely agreeing with Brad.

How can you say that wolves (or any other predatory carnivores) enjoy killing prey? And just what do you mean when you say that people (or animals) "enjoy" eating? People enjoy good food, and people will be happy to be relieved of their hunger. But what makes the actual eating of the food "enjoyable"? It's just something that we have to do, like breathing or expelling waste. Do you enjoy breathing? Do you enjoy urinating or defecating, other than the relief that both bring you? Certainly whatever "enjoyment" might be argued for any of these cases can't be the same kind of enjoyment that we feel from doing recreational activities.

Predators kill because they have to kill, just like we have to breathe and expel waste. To make the inductive leap that they somehow must enjoy killing is unreasonable, unless you can read their minds. Certainly, they may not feel guilty for killing, but that doesn't mean that they enjoy it. And just because you'll upset an animal by taking away its food does not mean that it enjoys killing or eating. If you were unable to find a bathroom, you'd also be upset, but that also doesn't mean that you enjoy expelling waste; and if you're prevented from breathing, you'll be upset, but it doesn't mean that you enjoy breathing. Similarly, we don't know that Chigurh enjoys killing. It's just something that he thinks that he has to do.

What you say about Chigurh's sense of "superiority" in terms feeling not obliged to live by human moral decency does not all point to him being a Darwinian being; instead, it would make him a classic example of a twisted interpretation of the Nietzschean Übermensch ("overman"), a concept that isn't connected with Darwinism. Also, psycho-killers are necessarily anti-Darwinian because they act directly against the interest of the species. In other words, if everyone were like Chigurh, the entire human race would become extinct in almost no time.

"I think the mistake most people make, and not just as Christians, is that their religion or belief system takes precedence over human interaction when most often those religions or belief systems are about how we relate to others. ... It's not about being Christian or not being Christian, it's about being human and imperfect, and being able to forgive, even when you hold people to a higher standard because of what they call themselves."

Then what is the point of being Christian or a follower of any particular religion? Why not just expound secular humanistic values? Why even have so many religions? No, the point of any religion isn't to teach followers how to relate to each other. It's to bait followers with promises of supernatural rewards (i.e. God's love, heaven, 72 virgins, nirvana, etc.) in exchange for certain behaviors. If your religion serves primarily as a guide for how to relate to your fellow person, then why do you follow it versus another religion or no religion at all (i.e. secular humanism)? You certainly sound like a secular humanist, except that you call yourself a Christian.

By the way, the people who have committed atrocities in the name of Christianity are not hypocrites. In the Bible, God commands the slaughter of many thousands, and He says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." They're just doing what they believe God tells them to do, so why do you have a problem with that?

Don't want to contribute to a pile-on (well, maybe I do) but I have to say say a quick bravo to the challenging of Mr. P. Kelly's notions of animal behavior (especially the second mention, about the wolf "enjoying every minute of it"), which sound suspiciously like someone trying to justify their own feelings. The smug tone that suffuses his writing cinches it.

Though I would have to say that Fei sort of sidles up to anthropomorphism in a backwards way by saying that animals "may" not feel guilty for killing, because of course they don't. Things like guilt and shame are human, period.

Phillip: My joke about Catholicism, from the first time I heard about confession, was that it was the most brilliant thing I'd ever heard of: guilt absolved through accounting. Sin X + 10 Hail Marys + 3 Our Fathers = O! (Yes, I'm being facetious.)

Dane: I really appreciate what you said about believing until you didn't believe. My experience was slightly different, because even when I believed I wanted to believe more. I don't remember making a decision not to believe, but somehow I gradually realized that religion felt artificial to me and that I didn't see why I should keep fighting to accept it. Maybe it's like a left-hander being told "You must use your right hand" even though it doesn't feel right, and finally just accepting reality: "No, I'm left-handed, it's what feels natural to me, and I'm going to write with my left hand."

Philip: There is a big difference between natural selection and Social Darwinism. That definition you're using has nothing to do with natural selection or the theory of evolution. If you're going stand against evolution, you should be careful about how you throw around definitions.

Guys. I was hoping my statements since they included "boosh" and "ka-kow" would point to the fact that I wasn't taking myself all that seriously when talking about animals or the definition of Darwinism. The over intellectualizing of all this is about to make my head explode. The point of the animal diatribe was to show how ridiculous it was for one person to Lord that over me instead of seeing the point of my original post. I was being absurd in my second post. If they had an "absurd" font I would take full advantage of it, as I would a "sarcastic" font. I mean, really, "romance"? Is that what they mean when they put the word "mounting" on the descriptions outside of the monkey cages at the zoos? No one got that I was completely joking when I wrote "romance"? Smug, though, I will not tolerate when all I'm doing is having a little fun. If I couldn't have a little fun and poke some fun at even myself, my head would explode.

My comments about how artists view their material rolls back to my original comment concerning Brad's point of view being dictated by what he's experienced in his life (which then some people said I was doing -- how did things get so twisted around? Only my pointing it out in Brad's case was far less negative then it was in my case, but I'm a big boy.) An Artist's view of sex might be dark as it was for Emily Dickinson or Stanley Kubrick because that's the way they saw it. Me? I think sex is a great thing, my art would show that. A person will take their life and roll it over the movie. That's how they'll see something, and I don't believe intelligent discourse can happen until one is able to accept that in someone else, rather than feel immediately offended by it. Otherwise it's an I'm going to try and knock over your wall and not allow you to get past mine. All it is is butting heads. And that might not be the original intent of the author of the note or message.

My comment about the artist seeing Darwinism as something other than the definition was in no way meant to specify the Coen's take on McCarthy's novel. Merely to further show that personal interpretation can play a much bigger part in how something is defined beyond the viewer. If there's was an inference I was not making it.

Fei, my failing to show how Chigurh can be seen as a metaphor for Darwinism only happened, because he can't be seen as that. I in fact do not believe that Chigurh is a Darwinistic symbol. So many people reading Brad's comments were getting unnecessarily upset because they felt like it was an attack on their beliefs (in this case, lack there of - that is a joke). I tried to throw some balance into the conversation, to consider for a moment his point of view. And it led me to other interesting thoughts, the one I think I settled on is the fact that Chigurh is simply psychotic.

Anyone who feels that they are on level with the hand of fate, or as you point out the order in a chaotic world naturally takes a position of supposed superiority. Whether they feel they are or not. Again, it doesn't matter what he says about himself, he still breaks his own rules to deal the final blow - there's hardly order in that. But, that doesn't mean he can't see himself as order. I like your thought about order. I like the thought above about Chigurh representing something more Old Testament biblical too -- all very intriguing ideas. The Coen Brothers take everything, all the intellectualizing, ideologies, statements, metaphors, whatever you want to call them and they turn them all on their heads in the final few scenes of the film. All this that we're talking about and throwing around, really in the end of the film doesn't matter. They take the mythology of the characters, of the Western archetypes, and they humanize them. Chigurh is fatefully hit by a car even though he held fast to being the dealer of fate. Ed Tom is told that believing things have gotten worse is "vanity". Everything that the characters present themselves as, is shrewdly torn apart. Maybe, in the end he becomes a Darwinian symbol, surviving by dealing with his broken limb and moving on. These final few moments in the end are the most important in the film to me, and directly point to what the Coen Brother's are getting at. It's vanity to believe you can outrun death, it's vanity to believe you are the person who gives and takes away life when you can have it taken away just as quickly.

The best thing about this sort of discussion is that when you consider someone else's perspective you find new perspectives yourself. And sometimes you just strengthen your own. As a Christian I'm always questioning my belief system, it's the only way I can grow as a person.

Fei, I also enjoy breathing and peeing. Have you ever stepped outside after a nice long rain and just taken a deep breath? Or maybe been sick and unable to sleep at night because you can't breathe, then suddenly you wake up and you're not sick, and can breathe? There's enjoyment there. Or perhaps held it in to finish watching a movie, then rushed to the stall...it's a pretty enjoyable experience to release that tension. I enjoy walking too. I've had a broken toe for the last two months, and I can finally put weight on it. My cat doesn't meow at me for five minutes to get me to throw the ball because it doesn't enjoy running after it and bringing it back. There are words, descriptive words, that match both human and animal behavior. If I give a wolf a piece of fruit, it won't eat it, because it doesn't like the taste. Is it wrong to say that it doesn't enjoy eating that piece of fruit? Who knows if a wolf enjoys eating or not. I don't, do you?

You wrote, "What you say about Chigurh's sense of "superiority" in terms feeling not obliged to live by human moral decency does not all point to him being a Darwinian being; instead, it would make him a classic example of a twisted interpretation of the Nietzschean Übermensch ("overman"), a concept that isn't connected with Darwinism." These were two entirely different thoughts in my post as well. Thinking about Brad's thought I stumbled onto the other.

James, I don't think I mentioned the words evolution or natural selection in any of my statements while searching to understand Brad's observations, which I find intriguing. This was a definition given by Webster's Dictionary, which also did not say anything about evolution or natural selection. It is one of the base definitions of Darwinism. Some people were saying that wasn't what it meant, I was just showing that it can mean that. I guess even people who define Darwinism will define it differently. But this is what I'm talking about, because I consider Brad's ideas in a post I'm suddenly standing against evolution? It doesn't make any sense to me.

And finally, Fei, I guess I'll be the first Christian that does care about human beings over my stake in a great property beyond the pearly gates. I also believe you can do great theatre in Los Angeles without pandering to the film industry - I'm a little crazy. I believe it was Jesus who said love your neighbors as yourself. Unfortunately, most everything has become a sales pitch in our current era, at one point Christianity was sold on the basis of, become one or we'll kill you. I think we're doing a lot better now. So, do we view Christianity based on the way in which a culture has decided to sell it or spread it (depending on your POV) or do you base on it's value system and intent? I just don't like boxing anyone into corners, even atheists. I'd say that's hardly smug. I would say that I'm not religious and largely against the way organized religion is conducted in our current world, that doesn't mean I'm not a Christian. It just means I don't think religions necessarily act like Christians all the time.

Not all Christians fall into the same category, not all of them use it as a sales pitch, just as all atheists don't fall into the same category. C.S. Lewis is one of the people I admire, not only as a Christian, but as a person.

One person will be an atheist because he hates God for allowing a relative to die, another won't see the necessity in believing in a God from the beginning. Two completely different reasons to not believe in God. We don't label them differently like we would Baptist and Catholic, but we could. In the end they're both still Atheists. It's the person that makes the decision how they chose to believe and it isn't my place to judge them for believing the way they do. Unfortunately many Christians do judge other Christians. My Dad is a Pastor, I grew up in this world that you box up and condemn. There's certainly enough to condemn about it. There's certainly enough to condemn about the Coca Cola company. You can find something to condemn in any institution or social structure. But to condemn individuals within that social structure is a miscalculation and can lead to some of the most heinous treatments of human beings I've ever seen.

Now, if you want me to get really personal, which it sounds like you do: I'm constantly questioning my belief in God. And then I wonder if I'm questioning the way I've been taught to believe in God. How do I separate the two? This is why I'm drawn to people like Ingmar Bergman as filmmakers. The complications of my own personal belief is a discussion that goes a lot deeper than a few posts on a blog can take. But I do believe in God and I do consider myself a Christian. It's something I've decided on over and over again, but I have my days when cynicism, doubt, logic, hopelessness really steer me in the other direction.

Jim, I read your facetiousness, and I grinned accordingly. I feel from now on whenever I'm having a little fun I'll have to follow it with a disclaimer.

Dane, they tried to force me to right hand it too.

I don't know what else to say.

I just went back and reread all of what I wrote because I didn't think I was being that unclear.

"A lot of Christians do equate Darwin and atheism. If there's no God, there's kill or be killed." Obviously, I'm talking about other people's opinions and not my own. The fact that I don't say whether that is write or wrong, means that I'm not saying whether it's write or wrong. A lot has been inferred into what I wrote.

Fei, see if this goes somewhere (I'm having a little intellectual fun). If Chigurh represents to the Sheriff the ever changing way in which the darker side of society deals with it's problems, then in fact, Chigurh is a Darwinian symbol. The Sheriff talks about a passage of time, from one generation to the next, that evil has become more potent, that the bad guys have found ways to defeat each other in ways that are so efficient and frightening it's not even worth fighting against them anymore.

So, we're not talking about a literal passing of genes from one organism to another so that a creature can adapt, but a metaphorical one, a creative one. If Chigurh is the evolution of what "evil" or "criminal" has become from one generation to the next then that does make sense (through the Sheriff's eyes). If this is what it takes for this sort of behavior to not only continue but worsen and become as efficient and brutal as it has, then Chigurh is the perfect example of a Darwinian villain in the drug trade. He has learned from his predecessors, changed/adapted to better fit his environment. He's in fact adapted to the point that death is just another thing to him. Killing someone in his eyes may not even be about killing, it's like brushing your hair in the morning, just another thing you do. (I abstained from making an animal analogy, even for the sake of humor.)

Now atheism doesn't fit into this equation. Though from some Christian point of views, as I stated before, a lack of value for human life is not very Christian-like, and from that side of the spectrum, I can understand someone equating this atheism with this Darwin idea, or reading it into the artist's point of view. Though, I do not feel that way. To first defeat your opponents you have to empathize with them (joke by way of exaggeration).

If Chigurh is primarily concerned about his own survival, why did he not kill the two kids on the bikes at the end who can not only identify him, but who now have a $100 bill from the drug deal? He simply paid one for his shirt, and then tells them to tell the ambulance or whoever that he was already gone when he got there. This scene for me does not fit with the above descriptions about Chigurh being concerned only with his own survival.

Well, since I started this whole discussion I'll attempt to refine my thoughts about Chigurh, a fascinating character to say the least.

First, we must accept the fact that Chigurh is indeed an atheist. The only real God/No God fingerprint(within the book)comes from Chigurh's own mouth when he intimates his non-believer status. McCarthy doesn't play fast and loose with this kind of information. He must've thought it important. We should treat it as such. Now it's easy to argue that God's presence can not be detected in No Country. This is true and to a degree precisely the point. For McCarthy to insert God into No Country would render the text non-secular and polemical which is not consistent at all with the thrust of McCarthy's body of work. Anyway, yep, Chigurh is an atheist. Now let us move on.

Second, we all seem to agree that Chigurh believes in determinism, which is informed by his atheism. To the believer free will is God's gift. No God, no free will, at least to Chigurh. Also, it's important that we not regard Chigurh as a symbol of determinism or fate. Chigurh must be viewed as a living, breathing entity with a philosophical background who has arrived at certain conclusions and made certain choices. Within the story, Chigurh is a real person, not a symbol of anything.

Lastly, does anybody wonder why Chigurh has chosen his particular line of work? Let's say there was a guy standing in front of you and all you knew about him was that he had principles and didn't seem to have an interest in money. Now which is he -- lawman or lawbreaker? Exactly. So once again, why did Chigurh chose this particular line of work? And please, don't say because he's a psychopath and that's what psychopath's do. Chigurh is indeed a psychopath but this is the effect of something else, not the cause. Are we to believe that Chigurh has always been a psychopath and then decided to brush up on his philosophy, reject God, and align himself with the laws of determinism simply because he needed a belief system that made his psychopathic tendencies more plausible to himself. C'mon folks. No, chances are that Chigurh rejects the entire notion of good and evil. Chigurh only experiences the world in terms of weakness or strength. This is why Chigurh works in the name of lawlessness -- better weapons(like that nasty shotgun deal)and absent moral/legal limitations. Yep, it's all about weakness and strength for Chigurh. And it's a short ride to Darwinism from there.

as to the last post on survival -
it looked to me that his expedient survival was paramount and foremost on his mind. he was nearly mortally wounded, sitting on the curb with no weapons or the ability to use them, with police sirens wailing in the background. his immediate objective was to remove himself from the scene as quickly as possible. unable to kill the kids even if he wanted to he did the next thing which was to give them hush money and hope that it would work. meantime it distracted the kids enough so that he could hobble away to safety.

Brad: So basically you're saying if Chigurh were a Christian he wouldn't kill people? Could it be he's just a sociopath who enjoys the hunt? Killing people ruthlessly doesn't require atheism. Plenty of self-professed Christians throughout history have exhibited sociopathic tendencies. I could just as easily imagine a killer who uses a metaphysical, even religious justification for hunting people down and killing them for money. I could just as easily imagine someone hunting down "sinners" and killing them, using a similarly deterministic argument (e.g. "I'm the left hand of god").

That might seem irrelevant to you because Chigurh ISN'T a Christian, but I think it's important to point out. Because you're suggesting a slippery slope that connects disbelief in god to murderous amorality, and that just doesn't hold water, because Chigurh being an atheist does not mean all killers must be atheists, nor does it suggest that being irreligious is a precondition for nihilism and violence.

Just because a story features an atheist killing people does not mean that the author believes that atheism must lead to killing. I think your argument is incredibly reductionist and completely overstates the implied intentions of the author and the film makers. Certainly we can agree that Chigurh is an atheist, but then we also say that Jim Jones was a believer.

Chigurh could murder because of deep uncontrollable compulsions, misanthropy, sociopathic apathy, psychosis and/or extreme narcissism- all of these disorders can emerge in people regardless of their religious beliefs.

Brad,

My one problem with all of this is that you're talking about the book. I haven't read the book, but I have seen the movie and that line isn't in the movie (unless I'm forgetting it). While McCarthy put it in the book no doubt for a reason, the Brothers left it out for a reason.

I don't think you can say the character in the book is completely representative of the character in the movie. And because of that while some themes might carry over, others may not.

Just a thought.

Ugh... commentary overload.

One thing that this discussion did bring to mind: given all of the signficance assigned to the coin toss, he only offers it to two people in the film, right? The gas station guy and Carla Jean. Gas station guy surrenders to fate (knowingly or otherwise) and lives. Carla Jean exercises her free will, refuses to call, and dies. What message there...? Have your papers on my desk by Monday.

Brad,

Have you studied evolution or Darwin? "Survival of the fittest" does not mean "survival of the individual," but refers to species. This often necessitates, and as Darwin points out, cooperation amongst a species. Otherwise, there is no survival.

Taken this way, if you link atheism with Darwinism (though this isn't necessary), perhaps atheism's "natural conclusion" is extreme cooperation.

However, if you take Darwinism to mean "survival of the invididual at the cost of all other individuals," then Darwin himself was not a Darwinist.

Since you do not adequately describe Darwinism nor, as others h