Postmodernism and Marxism in No Country for Old Man.
“No Country For Old Man” is fundamentally post-modernist rather than Marxist because of its absence of a moral center and depth of its characters.
Marxist scheme of ideology emphasizes the difference between factors that distinguish capitalism and socialism: ideology vs. reality, alienation vs. nature; its economic structure is what gives way to action and rest of society. Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism as F. Jameson called it, in contrast is represented by lingual methods, the absence of moral center and depth of the ideology.
No Country hints at notions like conservatism, nihilism, free will, and morality, but never suggests anything definitive. The story is built around three main male characters: Anton Chigurh, Sheriff Bell and Llewellyn Moss. It could be suggested that it as an attempt to show the transition from modernism to postmodernism, using three characters whom represent each stage of the transition.
Anton Chigurh is an implacable and more or less unstoppable villain, whose weapon of choice is as peculiar as his haircut. Proposing a representation in the shift from modernism to postmodernism, through his denial of authority (law, police and etc.) and moral values, as well as an absence of social code; at the same time we know that he has principles (but not exactly what they are) that stand above “money and drugs” (another character states explicitly that money is not what motivates Chigurh: “You might say he has principles”).
An interesting point when considering the car accident: the car that crashed into Chigurh failed to stop at the red light, failed to halt according to the rules of the road. Chigurh, however was following the rules of the road and proceeded as one would through the green light. One must then reflect on an earlier line of dialogue by Chigurh; “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?” This is likely a question about the ever-expanding universe itself versus the security that humanity believes that it has built for itself. Chigurh is the embodiment of evil, but a comic embodiment. He seems to be offended by life itself, and shoots at birds while driving for no reason other than snuffing them out of this world. Most directly, we know this from the remarks made by terrified characters commenting on the events.
Sheriff Bell alternatively is a representation of modernism; ironically he speaks of “old timers” in the beginning, towards the end the viewer realizes that who Bell is, relative to the time in which he lives in. Sheriff Bell’s traditionalist worldview is a depth model, because of his moral judgment in the end, he comes to understand his place in the universe, perhaps due to the ability to analyze through the depth-models to which he had been exposed (probably, when he grew up).
This is the embodiment of a true protagonist, because his world and views are exposed to the audience; the first and last scenes represent it best. The viewer is expected to judge a plot development through the lens of modernism. It seems that dislike for the two other protagonists come from this artistic device, from this perspective certain moral decay can be seen; if fact, it happens from the bottom up, in the sense that each person has own principles (Chigurh), which leads to the destruction of a universal moral base, ethical rules and etc.
Postmodernism implies this by rejecting the universal moral base in favor for “personal morality”; but can we call it morality if it depends upon an individual’s judgment, a good chance for it to be inadequate (Chigurh and Llewellyn Moss)?
Llewellyn Moss is representative of the postmodernism; he is simple and amorphous personage. His decision-making process seems purely emotional; if he is a destructive mood, he will do wrong thing, if he feels positive, he will act in the right way. Most importantly, a pervasive cynicism and a near complete unwillingness to deal with a genuine human feeling represents the absence of a moral center that defines postmodernism. It should be noted that the only selfless act in the film, through the carrying of a bottle of water to a dying man, is severely punished.
No Country for Old Men projects unrepentant nihilism, manifested in the fact that almost no one escapes unharmed and evil triumphs in the end; its nihilism denies morality altogether. In fact, the end of the film seems to introduce a small correction along these three lines, but by this time it is too late, as the last twist is arbitrary and leaves the overall impression unchanged. The problem, rather, is that while evil is very much the subject of No Country for Old Men; it remains in this film a cliche conception.
