[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
The maniacal character of Chigurh heads into a gas station for something as simple as paying for gas, and on the whim of something the owner says, he begins a dark, chilling interrogation of him leading Chigurh to contemplate whether the man deserves his life. [/quote]
Chigurh is not a maniac. He’s merely a hit man (and survivalist) who is exceedingly good at his craft.
The movie is misleading in this, but McCarthy’s novel is not.
[/quote]
To nitpick your nitpick just a bit. He is actually “the best” at his craft. Remember the conversation in the novel between the corporate heads who are discussing him after having made the very poor decision to hire him? From memory here, one is saying something along the lines of, “There’s always someone stronger out there.” And the other one replies “That can’t be true though. There has to be one person who is the best,” and it is pretty clear from the context the McCarthy provides that Chigurh is, indeed, that person.
Also, to agree now with what you say here. Chigurh is far from maniacle. He has a more clearly defined system and worldview than anyone except perhaps the most extreme religious zealot, and he is unfailingly true to his rules. The coin tosses are the best demonstration of his adherence to a system.
The book is, again, necessarily more clear on this point, but I will say that this is possible THE truest adaption of a book to film that I have ever seen. No other film I can think of even approaches level the Coen Brothers were able to achieve in bringing that story to life. And this is coming from possibly the world’s biggest Cormac McCarthy fan. Not exaggerating. [/quote]
Perhaps maniacal was the wrong word, I had in my mind the idea of him as a psychopath, as opposed to a sociopath, in that he is cunning and meticulous in his planning and execution (kind of pun intended). In an effort not to have to write psychopathical, I went with maniacal, and in retrospect it is clear that because of that my semantics were off. I apologise, but yes I do mean that he has an unflinching loyalty to his principles and his individualised moral code, however twisted and warped his actions may seem in response.