Challenging Morals and Fate in "No Country for Old Men"

The film No Country For Old Men is dedicated to encouraging the modern viewer to transcend traditional thought and morals in order to become more openminded to different philosophies. The movie covers themes such as the human’s manipulation to an object’s function, the interaction between people and their concepts of fate, and societal morals. There are three main characters, their relationships questioning different roles in society. Javier Bardem plays Anton Chigurh, a seemingly immoral hitman, Josh Brolin plays Llewelyn Moss, a traditionally good man who makes a key mistake, and finally, Tommy Lee Jones plays Sheriff Tom Bell who is the hero of the movie. However, Anton Chigurh and Sheriff Tom Bell embody how different philosophical approaches exist in a traditional society. The key to understanding the movie’s philosophical approach is through these two characters and the skepticism in society they induce.

No Country For Old Men begins with Llewelyn Moss, a war veteran, stumbling upon an unfinished drug deal with the parties dead and the cash left behind. Moss takes the cash and Anton Chigurh is introduced as the man who must locate the money by any means necessary. Quickly after, Sheriff Tom Bell also discovers the scene and learns quickly that Moss took the money. Understanding the consequences of Moss’s action, he sets out to protect him from his impending murder. On initial opinion, it seems clear that Bell is the hero and Chigurh is the villain, but neither character can be solely defined as such.

Anton Chigurh is a “man of action”, he is not restricted by the confines of common morality and can act freely according to his own belief. Throughout No Country For Old Men, Chigurh appears to be pure evil due to the way that he freely murders people paired with the power that comes with taking a life without feeling remorse. However, the Coen brothers who directed the movie, test the viewers and ask them to look beyond Chigurh’s actions. In reality, Chigurh does not kill randomly and does not kill everyone he meets, his actions are all deliberate. To be a man of action, not just of intention, but also to base these actions off of a personal-defined morality is the ideal state to many philosophers. Fyodor Dostoevsky speaks to being a person who can act freely and self-assured, “And to go to the root of the matter, why are you so positively convinced that not to act against his real normal interests guaranteed by the conclusions of reason and arithmetic is certainly always advantageous for man and must always be a law for mankind?” (Notes From42) Anton Chigurh acts against the predetermined moralities of society that Dostoevsky speaks to, becoming the man that Dostoevsky envies. However, not only does he act but he acts according to his own code. The idea of denying the beliefs defined by the masses in order to find what one values as an individual is also promoted by Nietzsche “Skepticism regarding morality is what is decisive. The end of the moral interpretation of the world, which no longer has any sanction after it has tried to escape into some beyond, leads to nihilism. “All lacks meaning. ” (Live Dangerously 131) The path that Anton Chigurh chooses may seem traditionally immoral and almost horrible, but it is the identity that two of the most famous philosophers directly speak to. No Country For Old Men explores a way of living that could potentially be moral and authentic despite its violent and illegal facade.

One of Anton Chigurh’s method of killing is with the use of a penny. In a scene between his character and a local rest stop attendee, this penny transforms from one cent to the difference between life or death. Chigurh approaches this man behind the counter aggressively, there is an extremely threatening way to his movement and the tone of his voice making it clear that the attendee’s life is in danger. Chigurh asks the man a series of abrasive questions about his life and then finally asks, “What’s the most you’ve ever lost in a coin toss?” (Coen) The attendee is taken aback and it can be inferred that this coin toss could decide if he is murdered or spared. Anton Chigurh forces his possible victim to feel the weight of this extremely small object, a penny and expects him to use it in a game of chance to decide whether he lives or dies. In this scene, Chigurh manipulates the function of the coin to suit his purposes. This idea is directly spoken to by Plato and interpreted Albert Hakim, “So Plato’s search for the permanent, for essences, is also a search for the higher and nobler. ” (Hakim 53) This penny, in the “world of forms”, exists as a method of paying and its essence is perfect. Once this penny enters the “imperfect world” its essence will be distorted. Chigurh becomes exactly what Plato speaks against, he distances the penny away from its truest form by using it for his own ideologies and not those of the “world of forms”. As this penny escapes its true form Chigurh becomes farther and farther from the Plato-defined good and truth.

Despite the power held within the penny, it is also balanced by the idea of fate. This coin toss has two outcomes and this outcome cannot be changed by the station attendee or Anton Chigurh. Chigurh will respect this outcome, as it is apart of his moral code to follow fate. This fate is what drives his actions, a belief that he is on an unchanging path. No Country For Old Men is constantly testing the power of fate, for Chigurh, Moss, and Bell would not meet without a remote drug deal gone bad and the movie would not last without the constant cat and mouse game between the three. The viewer is constantly on edge as the three men’s paths and the fate of their lives intertwine with each other. This idea of the domino effect is first described by Aristotle, “. . . If it was always true to say that it was or would be, it could not not be, or not be going to be. But if something cannot not happen, it is impossible for it not to happen; and what cannot not happen necessarily happens. Everything, then, that will be will be necessary. ” (De Interpretatione) To further explain, if the gas station attendee had gotten tails, Chigurh would have murdered him, but because he got heads he was safe. There were two outcomes based on the result of the coin toss, a single event, but either outcome could become inevitable and can still be considered fate according to Aristotle.

Fate needs to be viewed in the context of morality. Chigurh believes that his moral-driven actions are in agreement with fate but Sheriff Bell is of the same understanding. While both men are extremely different in their beliefs, they are motivated to take action accordingly. Sherrif Bell’s values align much more closely with those defined by society. According to Soren Kierkegaard, he has the potential to be the “tragic hero”. Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling defines the tragic hero as such: “The tragic hero finishes his task at a specific moment in time…” (16) “tragic hero relinquishes himself in order to express the universal…” (33). Sherrif Bell is constantly working to protect the lives of “innocent” humans such as Llewelyn Moss but ultimately fails. Sherrif Bell could be a “tragic hero” firstly because emotionally he is pained by his failure to stop Llewelyn Moss’s death and through experiencing the wake of Chigurh’s violent actions. Secondly, Bell persists to do the right thing according to society. However, No Country For Old Men does not allow the viewer to feel a sense of comfort from Bell’s unshakable valor by not only killing Moss but also presenting Bell’s actions as futile. He is constantly one step behind and truly does not affect the upsetting course of the film. Sheriff Bell is not even allowed the honor of the label “tragic hero” and the film ends with the traditional good loosing.

No Country For Old Men highlights the importance of having independence with one’s thoughts and ideas. The film provides a platform that encourages skepticism towards indisputed norms. By preventing a set definition of good and evil to be formed and preventing good and evil to be labeled to Chigurh and Bell, it is left to the viewer to make a choice. Through this agenda, the philosophy of existentialism can be manifested by the film’s viewers. Existentialism is the pursuit of defining one’s individual ideologies unattached to those taught by the populace. In a sense, No Country For Old Men could become a fable to budding existentialists. Within its scenes, it provokes the subconscious to begin the process of analyzing and dissecting their seemingly rigid code of ethics.