It's very possible Moss would get a coin toss.
If Fate has ordained that Moss shall certainly die at the hand of Chigurh, then Fate is playing pretty serious games with Chigurh in letting his prime tool be grievously wounded and letting Moss escape. That could plant doubt in Chigurh's mind as to what Fate has in store for Moss.
Chigurh tells Moss, "I'm won't tell you, "you can save yourself," because you can't." That's a very different statement from, "no matter what you do, I'm going to kill you. The difference is that if you bring me the money, I kill only you. If you don't bring me the money, I kill you AND your wife." Yes, we read that implication into the exchange, but it's not actually said. Chigurh is carefully and deliberately ambiguous.
Throughout the film Chigurh sees himself as the tool of Fate, meting out whatever result Fate implants to his mind. In this sense, Chigurh is indeed crazy as Wells accuses him of being. The rest of his actions are ordered carefully around his delusion as Fate's hand. In that sense, he's not insane; rather, he's acting reasonably within that structure.
There is absolutely no doubt that Chigurh will ultimately consult Fate as to what is to be done with Moss. We can certainly imagine Fate (Chigurh's unhinged mind) responding, "he must die: be done with him." But there is also the possibility that had Moss done as Chigurh/Fate directed and brought him the money, that the coin would have been consulted, just as it was for Moss's wife and for the storekeeper he spared. Heads or tails, Fate orders Chigurh to spare or to kill. There's not anything Moss himself can do to either save or doom himself. The only thing that matters is Fate dictating to Chigurh and Chigurh acting accordingly. He does have, after all, those principles to uphold.
reply
share
Whatlarks
9 years ago
Chigurh couldn't have been plainer on the phone that he would kill Moss. He evinced no doubt, hesitation or qualification, despite having at that time all the facts related to "fate," including inconvenient ones, available for his consideration. Yet evidently none of these available facts swayed him to consider granting Moss the possibility of living. Chigurh's use of the coin toss was idiosynratic and arbitrary. Invoking it was a matter of personal whim, and in this case his whim was to kill the man who'd shot him.
reply
share
dmariat55
9 years ago
Excellent post by hobbar. Don't worry about larks. He is always on the surface he can never go deep.
To brush larks aside on the phone sugar said he would kill cj yet gave her the chance to call the toss.
reply
share
hobartz
9 years ago
This is the essence of Chigurh: he is absolutely NOT whimsical, headstrong, foolish, or vengeful in how he operates. He is simply carrying out the orders Fate gives to him. WE find it whimsy... HE, in his delusional state (crazy, as Wells asserts), considers it anything BUT whimsy.
The whole point of my post is that Chigurh very much could have been plain about killing Moss if that indeed was his intention. But he doesn't tell Moss, "I'm going to kill you." He says if you bring me the money, you (by Moss's own actions) can save your wife. It's clear that if Moss doesn't bring him the money, Carla Jean is a dead woman, because Chigurh has promised Moss that is to be her fate. Moss himself... that hasn't been clearly determined yet.
Chigurh may indeed kill Moss. If the coin, directed by Fate, tells Chigurh to do so.
reply
share
Whatlarks
9 years ago
I don't think Chigurh's statement "I won't tell you you can save yourself because you can't" admits the ambiguity you believe it does. If there's not anything Moss himself can do to save himself, logically that includes the certainty that he can't choose a side of the coin that would spare him, thus he simply won't be allowed a choice at all. Chigurh makes no such claim in the cases of the GSO and CJ. In fact, he informs Moss that the phone offer is the best deal he’s going to get. That is, a coin toss deal plainly isn’t in his future.
reply
share
dmariat55
9 years ago
Larks has shown time and again he simply doesn't understand sugar's code and the coin flip. Cj says to sugar that he doesn't have to do this. Sugar replies that he can't second say the world. That would leave him vulnerable. Yet he gives her the coin flip. That tells us the coin flip is king. If she won the coin flip and he executes her he is second saying the world.
The same reasoning applies to Moss. If he doesn't give Moss the coin toss sugar doesn't know if he is second saying the world which is crucial to him.
reply
share
Whatlarks
9 years ago
Chigurh doesn't give other victims a coin toss, although he has time for it. He decides to execute them and directly proceeds with the decision. Thus Dmaria's assumption is mistaken: the coin flip is evidently not king at all, but a gesture only indulged when the character feels like it, in particular circumstances.
Although it is the movie that is being discussed, Dmaria confuses the book (which he hasn't read but only heard about) for the movie. Here he imputes words to Chigurh that he doesn't say in the movie. One must be careful with adaptations; omissions change emphases and meanings.
reply
share
dmariat55
9 years ago
Larks has come down on the wrong side of every character and issue. You would think he would be right just once.
Larks can't make distinctions. He has no grasp of the concept of collateral damage. Larks can't tell the difference between the situation of the GSO as opposed to the chicken farmer and why one gets the toss and the other one doesn't.
reply
share
Whatlarks
9 years ago
One makes a point of noting the toss is applied in "particular circumstances," and Dmaria jerks out his knee with a complaint that particular circumstances weren't considered. That knee is going to wear out due to repetitive strain injury.
reply
share
dmariat55
9 years ago
Particular circumstances are considered by sugar. Larks doesn't understand how that weakens his argument.
reply
share
Whatlarks
9 years ago
Dmaria complained that the context of "particular circumstances" weren't considered, when they clearly were. He also imputed words to Chigurh that the character doesn't say in the movie. He doesn't admit being wrong about both these things.
reply
share
dmariat55
9 years ago
Larks is chewing on a bone that never had any meat on it.
reply
share
Whatlarks
9 years ago
Before Dmaria's claims are shown in error, he thinks they're substantial. After, he says they're insignificant. Well, I give him points for realizing it. I give me points as well, for the assistance.
reply
share
dbeane
9 years ago
Chigurh may indeed kill Moss. If the coin, directed by Fate, tells Chigurh to do so.
I think that may have been true "if Moss had given up the money immediately"; he may have gotten a coin toss, who knows?
But once Moss shot Chirgurgh, I'm not sure he would have granted Moss a toss, just as he didn't grant Wells a toss.
reply
share
armhammer
8 years ago
"Arbitrary" and "personal whim" are redundant; typical of larks attempting to convey superior intellectual prowess through excessive wordiness.
reply
share
CoenHead
8 years ago
That's idiotic. Under no circumstances would Chigurh have allowed Moss to live. The coin toss was reserved solely for (and not always granted to!!!) those who Chigurh encountered through no fault of their own. Moss hardly falls into this category. Moss was dead as fried chicken if Chigurh encountered him.
reply
share