MovieChat Forums > No Country for Old Men (2007) Discussion > How Moss might have succeded...

How Moss might have succeded...


Silly as it might be to imagine fictional characters' outcomes when making different choices, every time I see NCFOM I try to imagine how Moss might have avoided the problems set into motion by taking the money. How might he, sitting with the freshly opened case, better planned how to keep it?

1) Obviously, don't go back to the scene. Lay low. Keep working, don't spend conspicuous amounts for the time being.

But that's not enough. He would have to assume the injured Mexican would identify him. Even if not, people would come to town, ask "who knows the area? who hunts there?" His name would eventually crop up.

2) Make a big change. Leave the country, Europe or Asia. Don't come back.

Better maybe. But people seldom sever ties with family back home that effectively. Bugging out suddenly would be an admission of guilt to the seekers. They'd lock onto friends & family & jump at the first contact.

3) Don't take it all. Skim a hundred grand or so off the top & hope the owners aren't fussed enough to make a big deal out of it?

A decent chance, combined with not making any big purchases, but still leaves his & Carla Jean's asses hanging out in the wind should anyone seriously come looking, & certainly less satisfying than grabbing the whole wad.

4) Take the money back to the shootout, burn everything down, vehicles, drugs, cadavers & the injured Mexican--leave no evidence of what did & didn't remain. Hope the owners will believe the last man standing got away, but never took the money along in the first place.

Probably the most effective, but Moss's lack of ruthlessness is what brings us back around to the original story. So no way he'd do the injured guy like that.

reply

I feel easiest way to have succeeded...put the cash in a new bag. The tracking device had to be in the bag itself rather than the money.

Unless I missed it

reply

The tracking device was embedded in a stack of $1 bills, in a cavity cut to fit. We see this when Moss is in his hotel room in Eagle Pass.

reply

Very well thought out post katz. But moss has to follow his nature. As you say his lack of ruthlessness is a huge factor. Very well put.

reply

How far was his truck from where he found the stash? If he never left his truck than they would have no information on him.

reply

Well, according to the book, it's a fair distance. Also he returns with water in the small hours of the morning; it's dark & perilous to drive at night.

But I really think even if he hadn't returned, left his truck or been caught that night they still would have got onto him. So much money & so many people seeking it--they'd just have to start asking around, who knows that area? Who hunts there? Hikes there? Moss's name would have come up eventually.

Then, of course, there was also the tracking device...

No, I think the scenario McCarthy provides, intentionally or not, is that was no way Moss could have taken the money & lived happily ever after. Of course, that conflicts with the notion that his fatal flaw, compassion, was what led to his undoing.

reply

Compassion was part of it, but I think what drove him out there was the need for personal atonement. Strictly speaking, to fulfill the urge for compassion he only needed to make an anonymous call to LE and/or ambulance service. But his guilt couldn't be assuaged by something that easy and impersonal.

reply

Larks theory has a hole so big moss could drive his truck thru it. How come of all the things moss did to cause people pain this was the only thing he had to atone for?

Can you say plot device?

reply

Larks theory has a hole so big moss could drive his truck thru it.
There will be blood would welcome you and whatlarks with open arms. 



---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

In the case of Aguaman we're shown that Moss deliberately, directly refuses him aid, and afterward there's time for his conscience to work on him. Later, not only is he never in a similar position, but he's also a tad preoccupied with how to keep himself and CJ alive. The contexts are so distinct it's a wonder anyone could miss it. And keep missing it, poor fellow.

reply

Refuses him aid? Moss doesn't have any water. If he did he'd give it to him. As other posters have said moss has nothing to atone for.

On top of that the drug cartel guy is a criminal. Moss doesn't do drugs he can't be happy this guy is coming into his neighborhood distributing heroin. He's a scumbag.

Larks with her daffy theories claims the rest of the movie moss is preoccupied with himself and CJ. But moss isn't too preoccupied to go out into the desert back to the crime scene in the middle of the night after he's taken the money.

Larks is correct moss is never in a similar position he is in many much worse positions where he is directly responsible for the harm done and he never shows conscience.

reply

Moss indeed refuses him aid. He doesn't step over and look in an adjacent truck for water, for example.

People always have rationalizations for depravity. Dmaria exploits a common one. I'm kindly not surprised.

I made it quite clear that by "rest of the movie" that context is post-return to the desert, noting a clear distinction between the context of his desert return and later conditions. Dmaria's Mother Goose level reading comprehension caused him to restate my own observation without knowing it. What a klutz.

That blunder also led him to gas on about "much worse positions," accidentally reinforcing my point that he was preoccupied with survival on those occasions. No wonder Dmaria has no access to what McCarthy and the Coens were doing.

reply

Looney tunes by larks. Now she says that moss who is in a hot red massacre zone with a truckload of heroin next to him should start rummaging through the other trucks to look for water. He should do that for a stranger. It begs the question whether larks is serious or keeps making up more and more preposterous sh*t instead of admitting she's wrong. There would be more dignity in that.

I suppose if moss was a bleeding heart ultra sensitive sort of guy who always went way out of his way to help people you could argue that it made a little bit of sense for him to go back. But he's not. In the movie he is in much worse positions facing harm that befell to other people that he himself caused and his conscience doesn't kick in.

But wait looney tunes larks says after the CGF moss was too busy protecting CJ to worry about conscience. Moss was so concerned about CJ he left her defenseless at the hands of the murderous cartel to go back with the water. He said there was a good chance he would never come back leaving her permanently defenseless. Some protector. As katz put it so well leaving CJ is his true moral lapse.

When I said moss was in much worse positions after the guy with the water happened larks doesn't understand I meant morally not physically.

reply

I've gone into detail about this with Pavlov in the past but he can't help thinking of characters as robots who have very limited programs. Kinda like him and Chigurh. He also can't help but fail to notice differences in situational context.

The storytellers want us to see the callous indifference, so they give us a second refusal of a dying appeal, this time to simply close the truck door. Of course that would take no time and trouble at all, so to refuse that small thing is deliberate cruelty. It doesn't matter if he thinks there aren't any lobos. It's about the attitude, not strictly, literally a particular action.

Pavlov is blind to any of this. Unlike the character himself, who comes to sharp awareness, in the still of the night once the loot is secured and the dust has settled, as they say. McCarthy et al gave the characters complexity, contradictory values and responses, and put them in different conditions. Due to Pavlov's limitations he has no access to their stories. As always, Mother Goose is his best bet.

reply

If you notice larks realizes her latest excuses for moss returning to the scene have bit the dust as nonsense so she is back to the old timers. She is circling the wagons and putting in the 4 corner offense.

Larks hurts her argument by mentioning that moss won't even shut the car door. That callous indifference by moss shows itself thru the movie. The water guy is the only time moss has a sharp awareness that he's done something wrong. All the other times when he is much more involved in callous indifference he has no reaction. Can you say plot device?

reply

Pavlov is flapping about the oldtimers but no one invoked them. The Goose is hallucinating.

I mentioned that Dmaria can't perceive different contexts. Owing to that limitaiton he can only parrot the same illegitimate complaint. This is no country for Mother Goose.

reply

There are other types of old timers than sheriffs. I am referring to to larks old time theory on this issue.

Larks has a self fulfilling prophecy. No matter how far fetched and unlike anything else the character does larks says the bizarre action by the character proves how wonderful the writer is. Following that logic a character can never do anything that makes no sense without saying it shows the writer is doing a great job.

I'm talking contexts here. One is the the guy in the truck who is a stranger to moss. He was in no manner involved causing this guy's injuries. According to larks Moss gets an attack of conscience causing him to go out in the middle of the night to give him a drink. Moss does this knowing he could very likely never return leaving his wife defenseless against the drug cartel who will surely pay her a very painful visit. As one poster said bearing gifts of a blowtorch and pliers.

Larks says this action is a testimony to moss' conscience.

reply

Well, that's just parroting the same extremely limited grasp of complex characters in differing contexts.

reply

For those who think moss went back because of an outbreak of conscience can we at least agree that under the surface it was a terrible moral choice on his part.

Moss said there was a good chance he wouldn't return and he very nearly didn't. By going back with the water not only did he put himself in mortal danger but he left his wife completely defenseless at the mercy of the drug cartel.

reply

Dmaria has suddenly realized that Moss was not the sharpest of tools. This we can call progress.

reply

Notice how larks completely avoids responding to the issue.

reply

In the past I've provided Pavlov with all the details of my perspective on this issue. So this falls under my policy of not repeating details to him.

reply

This falls under larks policy of being cornered and not knowing what to say.

reply

As much as I'm reluctant to respond to you, I've gotta agree with this one.

Larks always has something to say. It's called CYA ( cover your ass ). By whatever ploy necessary.

reply

Evidently your reluctance to respond to Dmaria is not as strong as your need to express sour grapes. I think your pairing makes perfect sense.

reply

Actually, it's all about my disdain for your egocentricity.

More cya on your part.

reply

I'm okay with your disdain. Sticks and stones, etc. We will simply have to agree to disagree again.

reply

And I'm okay with your concession. I do have a measure of respect for your intellect.

reply

We must be okay with what the other thinks. Another worthwhile policy.

reply

At least larks gave up on that conscience nonsense. Now she is saying moss went back using her language because he's not the sharpest of tools.

reply

Dmaria makes an anvil look sharp. Here he reveals that he can't tell the difference between motivation and means. Without exaggeration, he is at the level of Mother Goose.

reply

It's basic logic. Conscience means doing the morally correct action. In this situation the morally correct thing is to stay at home and protect CJ. By doing that moss would be following his conscience.

reply

That is a really good example of Dmaria's lack of access to ordinary human psychology. He thinks human beings are robots. He speaks of conscience in abstract terms that don't fit with how it works in life. Conscience doesn't necessarily mean doing the morally "correct" action. It isn't driven by reason. What it focuses on isn't always according to "basic logic."

In this case, Moss's conscience was spurred by the need to redeem himself. The power of the memory of his involvement in the incident in the desert was a greater influence on his conscience than any other concern.

There's just no way Dmaria can hope to access this story because he is so alienated from fundamental human psychology.

reply

What larks is saying is that a person can rob a bank and justify it by saying his conscience made him do it.

Larks is sinking to the son of Sam level. David berkowitz said the neighborhood dog Sam told him to kill.

reply

You see how alienated Dmaria is from ordinary human psychology that when you describe it to him he thinks it's so outrageous he can only equate it to psychosis and psychopathy.

A person could rob a bank and say he was influenced by conscience. That is the basis for the Robin Hood legend, after all, which informs so many stories. But according to Dmaria, that could only be pathological because he thinks people are robots and every situation is as simplistic as a Mother Goose story. Which is where his energies would be best spent. McCarthy is out of his league.

reply

It is larks who has made conscience a joke. According to larks Charlie Manson could say he was following his conscience by killing those people.

reply

Another demonstration of Dmaria's alienation from ordinary human psychology. Here he employs the appeal to extremes, which is odd for someone fixated on "basic logic."

reply

There is a basic difference between me and larks. I think conscience means doing the right thing. I also think there is an objective standard for right and wrong.

Larks thinks that when men of a village stone a woman to death because she was raped they are merely following their conscience. I think it's an abomination against conscience.

Moss is very similar. The core of both those behaviors is devaluing women. Moss left CJ high and dry in all senses of the word. Following his conscience would have been to stay home and protect her. Instead he followed his urge to go back to the CGF. That's the lack of conscience.

Do you notice larks has no concern for CJ in this scene? That should be the focus not bringing a drink to a drug pusher. Larks is a misogynist.

reply

Evidently Dmaria doesn't understand what appeal to extremes means, lol.

Describe character behaviour, and Dmaria takes that to mean agreeing with it. Even after you say it was dummern hell. That happens a lot. Dmaria can't distinguish between a description of something and a statement of agreement with it. No wonder he has no access to McCarthy's story. The Goose is obtuse.

reply

Larks is back sliding big time. In about 100 previous posts she says although it was dumb to go back moss followed his conscience. Larks referred to it in glowing terms. Now she doesn't agree with it. Larks is so pathetic.

Larks still doesn't understand the center of the scene is CJ. Moss merily goes on a suicide mission leaving his wife to the cartel. My example isn't extreme. The cartel would treat CJ worse than the men stoning to death raped women.

It's moss being consistent with a lack of conscience through out the entire movie.

reply

Another demonstration of Dmaria's inability to distinguish between different context. In this case, I've consistently referred to Moss feeling that pang of conscience as a positive, while also referring to following it in that particular way in negative terms. Specfically, I've always said it would have been better to make an anonymous call. This is much the same thing as the above, where Dmaria confuses a description of character behaviour with approving of it.

Dmaria referenced Charles Manson and Son of Sam. That's appeal to extremes in as blatant a form as possible. You have to laugh at Dmaria not grasping that.

I've consistently noted how Moss unilaterally puts CJ at risk throughout the story, and how it was dumb to go back. In fact I'm the source from whom Dmaria learned that idea. Of course at first Pavlov had to disagree, lol. I hardly need to answer to something I've put in his mind to begin with.

It's not the case that Moss consistently lacks conscience, it's that his conscience is inconsistent.

reply

I hope it's cool where larks lives. She works up a sweat with all her back pedaling, and heming and hawing.

Larks says my examples are extreme but what could be more extreme than the drug cartel coming to your trailer with your husband in the hard caliche.

Larks still doesn't get that CJ was the center of the scene and leaving her defenseless was another failure of conscience for moss.

reply

Dmaria keeps showcasing that he is alienated from ordinary human psychology. He can only perceive one quality at a time and assumes it's exclusive. This is surely Dmaria projecting his own limitation onto this more complex character. Dmaria finally absorbed my observation that Moss neglected CJ, even though being Pavlov he had no choice but to deny it at first. But neglect of CJ is not representative of all Moss is. He is not a black and white creation. Dmaria should master Mother Goose before attempting McCarthy.

reply

Larks is twisting herself in a pretzel to avoid admitting she's wrong. If moss was by himself and went on a suicide misson to bring a drug runner a drink of water because of conscience it would be extremely far fetched. Especially since he showed no conscience in the rest of the movie.

But adding CJ to the equation changes the whole dynamic. It is a violation of conscience to go on a suicide mission to bring a guy a drink of water knowing that a drug cartel famous for their brutality will come and cause your wife a horrible death.

With CJ involved larks can't use conscience as an excuse.

reply

Dmaria keeps advertising that he has no access to this complex character. He says Moss's neglect of CJ's safety is a "violation" of conscience. That is indeed what I've said many times, and he has absorbed it. But of course that doesn't mean it wasn't conscience that drove Moss back to the CGF. One thing doesn't make the other impossible unless the character is a robot with a program that doesn't allow for any inconsistency.

Moss acts on conscience and brings water to the dying man, and also compromises CJ. If this was a Mother Goose story Moss would be much simpler, and Dmaria could comprehend him.

reply

Hi peeps. Larks cannot comprend this issue. She thinks conscience means listening to your inner voice. As I pointed out son of Sam listened to his inner voice.

Conscience indicates the triumph of right over wrong. You have to look at all of the circumstances in one transaction or situation. If it was just moss you could argue that going to bring the water to a drug dealer was a positive thing. But in this case by doing so he puts his wife in mortal jeopardy. When you weight the two the conscience scale tips dramatically in favor of staying home and protecting CJ from the drug cartel.

Look at it this way. Suppose someone wants to give money to charity. To do so he would rob money from a bank at gunpoint. Larks would say he did one good thing and one bad. Do you agree?

reply

Again Dmaria confuses observation with approval. If you note that Moss acts on conscience in returning to the CGF, he thinks you're approving of it, neglecting other context and/or judging it more important. All that Dmaria typed is irrelevant. The Goose has taken apart a straw man. At least he can build a nest with it. Winter is coming.

reply

Larks can be thick as a block of cement. It is true it makes no difference if larks approves of moss' actions.

What I'm explaining is what qualifies as an act of conscience. I'm saying taking the water to the guy is not an act of conscience. Staying home and protecting his wife would be an act of conscience.

reply

I would say there's some validity on both your sides of the argument. Moss has been in combat, perhaps he recalls the misery of someone needing water, maybe even himself - injured or trapped and can't get to water. The thought of agua man suffering from thirst was gnawing at him.

But why in the middle of the night, does he act on it? A person can go a few days without water. At least wait until daylight/morning.




---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

He probably couldn't sleep anyway, once his conscience kicked in. In his mind he'd gotten away with it. At that point he didn't think CJ needed protecting, or he probably would have insisted on both staying at a motel for a day or two.

reply

Moss told CJ there was a good chance he would get killed going out with the water. How could he not think one step ahead how CJ would be defenseless.

Another phoney note is struck by CJ. Wouldn't any wife argue forcefully against him going?

reply

Llewelyn wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but compared to Carla Jean he was a brain surgeon. I would have argued forcefully, at gunpoint if need be, but CJ is a person who upon seeing a killer in her house will not run, but needs to sit down.

reply

Llewelyn wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but compared to Carla Jean he was a brain surgeon. I would have argued forcefully, at gunpoint if need be, but CJ is a person who upon seeing a killer in her house will not run, but needs to sit down.
Or, she was indeed smart enough to realize running away is only delaying the inevitable - that those two will be face to face sooner or later with the results likely she does not survive the encounter.

However, you do have a valid point in that if I had even just a 5% chance of running away and somehow manage to evade his search for me for the rest of my life, I have nothing to lose in trying.





---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

Would you call the coin toss that gives you a 50 50 chance?

reply

Would you call the coin toss that gives you a 50 50 chance?
Would that be a moot point? If I chose to run the moment I saw the open window, there's a chance I would never see Chirgurh again, therefore no need to play his coin toss game.




---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

CJ should have invested in a weapon. Many years ago in my town there was a woman who was separated from her husband. He stalked her big time. The police would drive by her house to try and protect her. One night with the police in the neighborhood he broke in and gunned her down.

Moral everyone should have a gun especially if they have been threatened.

reply

Many years ago in my town there was a woman who was separated from her husband. He stalked her big time.
I can't really offer any input on that since I know very little on that topic. But there's a regular here who knows all about stalking, maybe he will chime in.




---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

I don't think so. I'm talking about real stalking not fooling around on the computer.

reply

Aah, okay. Thanks for clarification.




---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

But I really think even if he hadn't returned, left his truck or been caught that night they still would have got onto him. So much money & so many people seeking it--they'd just have to start asking around, who knows that area? Who hunts there? Hikes there? Moss's name would have come up eventually.

Then, of course, there was also the tracking device...
It does seem Moss was doomed at the moment he took the bag of money when you theorize a number of alternate possibilities aside from what events unfolded on screen: All roads possibly lead to Moss regardless of "what if he did this instead."

If he never returned, would he had just left the bag of money stuffed away for days? Unaware the tracking device is zeroing hunters in on him and his wife at the trailer. Or would he get curious and explore the bag to see how much he collected? Would he investigate the money further and chance upon the tracking device? It seems likely his curiosity would be lit once he saw a stack of ones among stacks of hundreds.

It's a tragic story of an otherwise likely decent guy letting greed turn him rotten. He had to think the moment he took a drug dealer's money, he was willingly risking his wife's safety. It's scary to think someone close in your life, will gamble your life as the stakes.




---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

I see Felix learned something from me to the point of almost copying me verbatim.

And now it's become part of his ' Bag of Tricks. ' I've seen this ploy before also. 😎

reply

I see whinehammer's enduring need to stalk me is the only thing he has in his pathetic no life to the point he is obsessed to add a snide remark on every NCFOM thread I post in.

Now that's some certified butt hurt right there. 




---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

Speaking of obsessive, what about your constant need to label someone else as " a whiny, little girl ? " There's clearly some psychological projection going on there. Is that the only way you can assert your masculinity ?

Sort of like the wizard in the Wizard of OZ ? A pathetic, impotent little man hiding behind a grandiose, albeit superfluous facade ?

So are you a misanthrope, a mysogynist, or just a pedo, because there's an obvious fixation with little girls going on in your responses?

reply

So are you a misanthrope, a mysogynist, or just a pedo
Of the two, you and I, which one turned psycho forum stalker here?

That is all you. So it is you that is a likely pedophile, stalking is in your nature, so now you're hinting you prey on children too. That's sick.

I'm curious, how many restraining order have been filed against you in real world?




---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

They're running a special today on the there will be blood board. I can give you guys a strong recommendation.

reply

"They're running a special today on the there will be blood board. I can give you guys a strong recommendation." says dmariat55, who him and whatlarks have pretty much hijacked and destroyed every thread here with their endless loop pissing contest.






---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

How far was his truck from where he found the stash?

"He parked the truck a half mile above the upper end of the caldera..."

By the way, I like the way McCarthy ends the sequence:

"He sat up and wrapped his feet and pulled the boots on and stood and started up the last stretch of canyon to the rim. Where he crested out the country lay dead flat, stretching away to the south and to the east. Red dirt and creosote. Mountains in the far and middle distance. Nothing out there. Heatshimmer. He stuck the pistol in his belt and looked down at the river one more time and then set out east. Langtry Texas was thirty miles as the crow flies. Maybe less. Ten hours. Twelve. His feet were already hurting. His leg hurt. His chest. His arm. The river dropped away behind him. He hadnt even taken a drink."

reply

Moss was in way over his head. He was told that, but he thought his military and hunting skills would be enough, but he was way outclassed. From the beginning I thought, "You don't want to get tangled up in this.", but again, he knows nothing about the Mexican drug cartels and how they operate. I'm glad the movie didn't bend to the idea that even though the killers seems to know everything and have every advantage, the 'good guy' get in the final blow and kills them. This ending was more realistic.

reply

Yeah moss was outclassed. He thought that his military skills would be enough. Sort of like the US in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and on and on. Can't wait for Hillary to muck it up.

reply

When I watch it I thought after he got the money he should have driven off to some random area, found a pay or random phone, disguised or muffled his voice and called the police or fire department and said he heard a bunch of shooting and screaming at that location, say he saw a aircraft go down there, and told the police to get out there right away so hopefully they can find the guy who was wounded and give him some help. If he did not call right away and could not sleep because he knew someone was dying he should have just driven to a phone and called the police and tell them to get out there. He likely would not have been identified as the caller with early 80's technology and nothing really would have tied him to it if he hid the money and guns after calling.

Depending where he lived and the distance from the hunting spot I don't think the cartel would have found him even if he still had the tracking device if he lived far enough away. That tracking device only had a range of maybe 200 to 250 yards or so judging by how it pinged when Chigur was driving around. If Moss lived 20 or 30 miles from where he found the money that is a huge area to have to drive around, to go into every neighborhood, down every road, and every side street would take days if not weeks, or even months for just a 20 or 30 miles radius and likely the cartel members would eventually think whoever got the money would have high tailed it out of there. Moss likely would moved in a day or 2 reasoning it was not safe to be there or no reason to keep living in a trailer when he was a millionaire, he likely would have counted money and possibly found the device though it seemed to indicate he already counted the money when he mentioned when he know how much it was to his wife when they were making plans to get out.

If Moss had gotten out of that area and just drove overnight the next day I don't think they ever would have found him even if there was a tracking device, he eventually would have found the tracking device and destroyed it.

Moss's big mistake was taking his truck back to the scene, he got shot by doing that, they got his truck/information, and now knew his name, address, etc. His other big mistake was not putting enough distance between his trailer and where he decided to stay for the night though without the tracking device he would have been safe. He should have just paid cash for a cheap car and drove a very long ways with the money with his wife and then dumped that car and got a car with no ties to him a few days later like he originally planned. If he put enough distance, like driving over night to a different state, they likely would not have found him. He would have to find a place to live far away, probably pretty isolated, and never use his or his wifes name again and just live off the money which would not be that hard in the 80's though in the years to come it would be more difficult with more scrutiny over using large sums of cash, better computer data base systems, etc. His best bet would be to move out of the country like to Canada where he could take the money without having to sneak it on a jet liner and the cartel likely would not trace him to Canada even if he did use his name to buy a house.

reply

It's certainly possible as you suggest that the cartelenos wouldn't have found him without the truck.

But, bear in mind had he arranged for immediate rescue the wounded Mexican fellow would have been able to identify him, his rifle, etc., if not to the authorities (& don't let's forget, the DEA is also after this money), to the cartel hitters.

& if he & Carla Jean bug out, that's a big red flag to everyone. Inevitably they leave people behind. All Chirguh & Co have to do is hold a blow torch to cancer mamma's feet while calling Carla Jean.

No. I think his best option (& for those of us who fully expect someday to come across an identical scenario) would be to skim a couple hundred thou off the top. Have a nice payday, & hope the cartel won't care enough to track it down.

Ps: in the book he counts the money by multiplying the top row by the height their stacked--he doesn't have to riffle through the bills & find the tracker, not then.

reply

I think his best option (& for those of us who fully expect someday to come across an identical scenario) would be to skim a couple hundred thou off the top.

I think his best option was to take nothing and get the hell out of there.

In the movie he estimates the total in the same fashion as the book when he first opens the satchel under the tree.

reply

Strictly speaking, sure. But they live in a trailer, Carla Jean works at Wal Mart, comments on how they probably couldn't even afford to have bought the pistol Lewellyn brings home, etc.

Can't imagine anything tougher than walking away from all of that cash....

Anywho ... even that's not a perfect solution. Supposing someone else--drug supplier side, DEA, local cops--swings by & grabs the dough. Lewellyn's still likely to get his ass in a sling over it just for having been out there in the first place.

reply

that's not a perfect solution.

You mentioned his best option, not "a perfect" option.

Never mind the level of risk to his own life, he put his wife in the jackpot too. Unilaterally.

His best option was actually not descending into the caldera in the first place, even before finding the money. Few would go down into that obvious hell.

Consider that he did not merely stumble upon the money. From the caldera he had to go way out of his way to track the "last man standing," and he took the dying man's machine pistol along with him, clearly in anticipation of a potential shootout. The whole business with the dying man demonstrated a preoccupation with obtaining the money at the expense of his humanity.

Once the loot was secured, he came to his senses, and felt the need to atone. Moss was evidently prepared to kill to get that money. He went from a hunter of animals for food to a hunter of human beings for money. "Hold still," the line used by both him and Chigurh, the Coens drawing attention to their similarity. To the soul's corruption. The tracking device served as a metaphor, a beacon of that corruption, that he carried with him.

reply

Larks says that nonsense about moss going from a hunter of animals to a hunter of men for money at the CGF.

Obviously one of the important points of no country is that moss became a hunter of men in Vietnam as a sniper.

reply

Since what I described is exactly what happens, Pavlov should direct his complaint to McCarthy or the Coens. He should also try to think more like a writer and/or an informed viewer, and in that way appreciate that this shift implies more than the immediate context. It's maybe asking too much of a Mother Goose reader.

reply

"Consider that he did not merely stumble upon the money. From the caldera he had to go way out of his way to track the "last man standing," and he took the dying man's machine pistol along with him, clearly in anticipation of a potential shootout. The whole business with the dying man demonstrated a preoccupation with obtaining the money at the expense of his humanity. "

My understanding was that he tracked the last man standing to avoid stumbling across him inadvertently & getting shot because the guy would likely assume Moss was hunting him on behalf of the opposition. I don't think he really anticipated finding money until he saw the case. After all, Bell & the deputy aren't certain there was any money to begin with, & it's absence might have been what triggered the shootout in the first place for all Moss knew.

You're right about him putting Carla Jean, et al into the jackpot with the money--he realizes that immediately after nearly being caught in the desert. But I just don't see atonement as a motivation for him to return with water.

What's he atoning for?

I don't think he realized, until abandoning his truck, that he & CJ & the rest of their family were in any danger from taking the money. It is possible that had he not gone back he never would have been found (though unlikely in my opinion--but that's based on the effort & resources we see employed in the rest of the film/book).

I think his gruffness toward the injured Mexican is based on the belief that, yeah, the guy was suffering, but he knew what he was getting into when he drove out there to take part in the exchange. Same for the money. A drug-dealer's investment gets waylaid--while it might be physically hazardous to claim it for one's own, is there really a moral issue at play?

I don't see him losing his humanity (in the book he plainly bypasses an opportunity to kill Chirgurh having him dead to rights at one point), & don't recall him killing anyone at all. When he shoots it's in self-defense. Once the cartel knows who he is, they'd be as likely to kill him should he try to return the money as Chirgurh (or at least it'd be reasonable assumption).

Finally, he does attempt to take Wells up on his offer of protection in return for the money. Wells suggestion that he might be able to keep "some of it" is nothing like a firm promise.

Sorry, I don't recall Moss saying "hold still" in the film. When was that?

reply

My understanding was that he tracked the last man standing to avoid stumbling across him inadvertently & getting shot because the guy would likely assume Moss was hunting him on behalf of the opposition.

It makes no sense for him to go way out of his way to track a guy in the middle of nowhere, not even close to the route back to his truck. And when he finally spots him in the distance, he doesn't vamoose the other way, but waits for him to move, then creeps up on him. Clearly he went looking for the guy because of the money. He knows the last man is likely to have it. They show him checking the dope in the truck bed, then asking about the last man. The link is made: lots of product implies lots of money for product.

After all, Bell & the deputy aren't certain there was any money to begin with

WENDELL
You know, might not of even been
no money.

BELL
That's possible.

WENDELL
But you don't believe it.

BELL
No. Probably I don't.
What's he atoning for?

You really can't see it?

is there really a moral issue at play?

Yes, there is.

I don't see him losing his humanity

You don't have to shoot anyone to diminish your humanity.

I don't think he realized, until abandoning his truck, that he & CJ & the rest of their family were in any danger from taking the money

That's maybe true. But he should have. It's damned obvious.

He says "hold still" when he's taking aim at the antelope.

reply

"It makes no sense for him to go way out of his way to track a guy in the middle of nowhere, not even close to the route back to his truck. He clearly went looking for the guy for the money. He knows the last man is likely to have it."

What can I say? I had, & have, the impression he's careful about the last man because he doesn't want to stumble across him holed up somewhere along the way to his truck. I don't get the impression that Moss went out of his way to track the wounded man. How would Moss even guess which way the guy had gone. When Moss follows a blood trail, we're shown that or it's explained. There's nothing in either book or film to suggest him following a trail to the last man. Rather he seems to be heading back to his truck, & the highway, using common sense & experience to suss out where the man might be holed up, if he'd even gone that way.

Sure, he opens two doors & takes a look at the dope cargo, but otherwise spends no time searching for money at the scene. One might assume that the last man took it, but wouldn't that really depend on how badly wounded he was? He might, after all, have too weak or too focused on saving his own life at that point to bother with the money. It seems like plain common sense that if you're seeking the money in that context you search where it was supposed to be first before heading off into other possibilities.

While the sheriff doesn't believe there was no money, he's not sure of it, anymore than the deputy. Why would Moss risk his life for money that might not even exist?

& no, sorry, I really don't see what he would have to atone for when starting back to the site with water. I believe he put his & CJ's lives at risk simply by taking the money, but he has yet to realize that.

& sure, you're right about "hold still" but that's at the beginning of the film, before Moss even knew the money existed. I think it's an ironic parallel between him & Chirgurh, showing they're both hunters of a sort. It's not dissimilar to the sheriff sitting on one corner of the bed in the motel room wondering if the money was still there just as Chirgurh did after he killed the Mexicans in the first motel (or Moss & the sheriff drinking milk on the Moss couch seeing their reflections in the empty TV screen). I don't think it intends to suggest a moral equivalence.

reply

Moss deliberately tracked the guy. He looks at the tire tracks and says "Reckon I'd go out the way I came in." So he follows. And again, when he finally spots the guy in the distance, his reaction doesn't imply he's interested in avoiding him. It implies he wants to intercept him.

I really don't see what he would have to atone for when starting back to the site with water.

Well, then there's not much to talk about. I think it's pretty obvious. I'd only add that the story's thematic focus is announced in the first minute, in Bell's narration. We know then that the author's interest is the state of the soul, that this is the thing at stake, and will be the underlying context informing scenes, not just Bell's.

I think it's an ironic parallel between him & Chirgurh, showing they're both hunters of a sort.

Yeah. That's what I said. Hunters of a sort.

I don't think it intends to suggest a moral equivalence.

Given you don't see a moral aspect I'm not sure how you could put together moral context to determine what they intend.

reply

I agree that Moss deliberately tracked him, just not necessarily for the reasons you state.

"Well, then there's not much to talk about. I think it's pretty obvious. I'd only add that the story's thematic focus is announced in the first minute, in Bell's narration. We know then that the author's interest is the state of the soul, that this is the thing at stake, and will be the underlying context informing scenes, not just Bell's."

If it's obvious it ought to be easy to come out & define in plain language rather than scoot around with innuendo & condescension.

If a person believes that taking & keeping found money that was intended for use in a drug deal by white collar criminals is somehow immoral, then okay. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't. I believe most people wouldn't. I also believe that if Cormac McCarthy wanted to convey Moss's dilemma as essentially a moral, rather than circumstantial, issue he would have created a different scenario.

"Given you don't see a moral aspect I'm not sure how you could put together moral context to determine what they intend."

I don't see a moral aspect in Moss first deciding to keep the money. The remainder of your comment, as vague as it condescending, suggests to me that you really don't have a firm grasp of what you're trying to convey. Who, for example, is "they"?

reply

just not necessarily for the reasons you state.

Except you don't address all the reasons stated. Like the fact that when Moss finally spots the guy in the distance his reaction doesn't imply wanting to avoid "stumbl(ing) across him holed up somewhere along the way to his truck." Instead it implies he wants to intercept him. Which he proceeds to do.

I defined the reason he felt the need for personal atonement in this post:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477348/board/nest/261044052?d=261127366#261127366

In plain language. No big words. No obscure words. No innuendo.

After explaining clearly, if someone then says they don't really see what he would have to atone for, then it's only reasonable to say there really isn't more to talk about. I can't make it any plainer.

taking & keeping found money that was intended for use in a drug deal by white collar criminals is somehow immoral

Except I didn't say that. It's not "somehow," because I made a point of stating, in plain language, that it was not a case of merely "found" money, and also stated, in plain language, Moss's unilaterally putting his wife at risk. You've mischaracterized what was said.

I also believe that if Cormac McCarthy wanted to convey Moss's dilemma as essentially a moral, rather than circumstantial, issue he would have created a different scenario.

That doesn't mean anything because it's totally vague. It's not defined in plain language. It's just "innuendo." McCarthy's novel is shot through with moral implication. The movie isn't exactly subtle about it either -- again, cueing viewers as to the real focus, the real threat, the real thing at stake, in the first minute.

I don't see a moral aspect in Moss first deciding to keep the money.

Maybe you can see it in your own words, then: "You're right about him putting Carla Jean, et al into the jackpot with the money."

Who, for example, is "they"?

The filmmakers. If you can't see the moral aspect of Moss's treatment of the dying man - even when the character obviously does - and don't make the connection between putting his wife in jeopardy and a moral aspect to taking the money, then I'm not sure how you could put together the film's moral context to determine what the filmmakers intend. It doesn't seem to be accessible to you yet.

reply

LOL, I hadn't seen that comment when I wrote my previous reply.

Okay, as Moss explains at the time, he hadn't brought any water with him to give the injured man. Furthermore, as I already wrote myself, I interpret Moss's reaction as based on the assumption that the injured man would have known what he was getting himself into in the first place. He was no innocent bystander.

In addition, Moss certainly realized how the man, had he not been injured, would have reacted to Moss's presence at the scene--he would have killed Moss without a moment's hesitation.

So I don't find Moss's initial callousness to his predicament that blameworthy.

Nor do I see a connection between his treatment of the injured & any desire, at that point, to find money. It makes no sense. If Moss failed to offer him succor (which he didn't have the capacity to do) because doing so would stand in the way of him finding the money, why not kill him outright? After all, Moss had seen injuries enough to realize the man wasn't dying--otherwise going back made no sense.

I don't fault Moss for not realizing the extent of the peril he was putting himself & CJ into when first finding & taking the money. After all, he would be the one primarily in harm's way if the cartel members discovered who had taken it.

We'll have to agree to disagree about his reason for tracking the last man. I looked through the book & rescanned that part of the movie. I don't see how he was aware of any money prior to seeing the document case.

Moss's moral lapse, when it occurs, starts when he places assuaging his conscience by going back above Carla Jean's safety. After all, if he's caught & killed, the money remains back at the trailer. He must know at that point the cartelenos aren't going to knock on the door & ask Carla Jean for it politely.

reply

Moss treats the dying man with callous indifference. I haven't mentioned the other thing he does: he refuses to close the truck door when the guy pleads for him to do so. He's terrified of "lobos." To refuse to do that small thing is deliberate cruelty. He certainly has "the means" to offer that succor, and chooses not to. It doesn't matter if he thinks there aren't any lobos.

Not bringing water doesn't prevent Moss from walking to an adjacent truck and looking for some. He's certainly willing to make the time to come all the way down there, putting himself at risk for an opportunistic reason.

With the Moss/Aguaman scene, McCarthy and the Coens offer a non-simplistic scenario in that the dying man is not a good man. This is like bait for those who want their morality easy; they simply note that the man is bad, and therefore there's no fuss no muss morally. You can deny him whatever you like, and it's all good -- you can say to yourself you're still good.

Well, evidently the Moss character doesn't think so once he's secured the loot and is alone in the quiet of the night with his conscience. We're supposed to have learned better in pre-school. "Johnny's mean and would be mean to me if he wasn't hurt so I'm allowed to kick Johnny when he's down." The usual lazy get-out-of-jail-free card for depravity. A major reason why the world is in flames. As mentioned, McCarthy's book is shot through with moral implication, and the movie isn't subtle about it, either.

Nor do I see a connection between his treatment of the injured & any desire, at that point, to find money.

Based on your previous comments about not seeing moral aspects, that's not surprising. The connection is located in the stark contrast between material and spiritual context. On the one hand, Moss's fixation on the last man, who he hopes to intercept with the money, and on the other his cruel indifference to the pleading of the dying man.

If Moss failed to offer him succor because doing so would stand in the way of him finding the money

Straw man. That idea has never even been implied.

Moss had seen injuries enough to realize the man wasn't dying

Clearly bleeding from an abdominal gunshot wound. Clearly unable to move. Parched. To not see he was dying... that's pretty extraordinary, to put it mildly.

he would be the one primarily in harm's way if the cartel members discovered who had taken it.

Because she's not the primary one in harm's way does not = she is not in serious jeopardy. This is elementary logic.

I don't see how he was aware of any money prior to seeing the document case.

Oh, Gawd... He was aware of the potential, not the fact. Come on, man, use your noggin. Moss was aware of a drug deal, aware that money was likely involved, just as Sheriff Bell assumed -- that scene reflecting Moss's thinking thus making it even more overt. He wasn't aware of the fact of the money, he was aware of its possibility. Moss was an opportunist; that's the whole point of his going down into the caldera in the first place.

reply

Yeah. Moss certainly treats the man callously. Sure, I like to think I'd do better myself, but I understand Moss's pov. The guy's responsible for his own predicament. Tell me, is it really impossible to imagine Moss giving him some water he found, the Mexican feeling a little stronger, & then trying to kill Moss as a result?

After all, the Mexican has to assume that Moss's next move will be to summon the authorities who then seize both the dope & the money. He might recover from his injuries as a result, but his bosses aren't going to be too happy that he allowed that gringo into their scene.

Also, from Moss's pov, the guy isn't dying. He's not even in that much trouble. You can live with an abdominal wound for days. Moss would know that. He'd also know that the Mexican is sitting on at least 2 plus million dollars of dope & possibly as much cash. Are the owners really going to just leave that, & him, there? If it were me, I'd be looking over my shoulder the moment I walked into such a place.

& this is also where I don't see how you connect Moss's alleged desire to find money with his treatment of the injured man. If he's really thinking about money, he needs the guy dead. Otherwise he'll doubtless identify Moss to his bosses & that will narrow down the search considerably.

Certainly Moss's conscience gets the better of him when he goes back with water. I don't see this as atonement so much because I don't believe Moss had any special obligation to the guy under those circumstances. Moss's moral failings start when he goes back, when puts his & Carla Jean (not to mention the rest of their family & acquaintances) at risk simply to live easier with himself. At that point he ought to have sucked it up & realized the guy's bosses were also in a hurry to get to the scene & would do so.

He reminds me a bit of Drew in Deliverance, who's willing to put his companions' lives at risk to do what he believes is the right thing & report the killing of the rapo hillbilly to people who are likely his friends & relatives.

While Moss doesn't shut the door in the movie, he does in the book. I always believed the difference was to give the audience an easier visual--door closed, something's wrong here.

As for Moss seeking the money--I'll use my noggin: McCarthy doesn't say whether or not Moss was seeking money, or just to avoid being bushwacked. Like many points, McCarthy leaves it open. So, you could be right. Or I could.

Sure the deal likely involved money. But now you should use your noggin--not only is Moss not depicted as looking for it where it's most likely to be, still on the scene, but something went wrong. They slaughtered one another. For no reason? Or maybe because someone forgot to bring the money in the first place? Isn't that as likely as any other reason?

If you're familiar with the book, I'd like your opinion on another point regarding the injured Mexican. In the movie Chigurh appears to the kill the two middle-management guys because they saw & can identify him. In the book it points out Chigurh's perception that the Mexican was killed far more recently than the others, either just before or just after he shoots the two. Makes me wonder if Chigurh's reason doesn't have more to do with the fact that they obviously killed the guy after he survived a couple of days, rather than their just having seen him.

reply

is it really impossible to imagine Moss giving him some water he found, the Mexican feeling a little stronger, & then trying to kill Moss as a result?

Sure, I can imagine anything. That scenario seems extreme and quite unlikely, given that Moss took his gun and ammo, and the guy's likely bleeding internally and seems unable to move his body. But my analysis is really not so much about the literal action or non-action taken as it is about attitude. That's why, I think, the filmmakers gave us more than one literal refusal of help, to reinforce the callousness as the most important element to be aware of. Deep down, I think this is what really stings Moss later.

If it were me, I'd be looking over my shoulder the moment I walked into such a place.

And he does. I think it's also worth considering that he deliberately walks down into such a place. Sees it from a long way away, knows what he's seeing, and yet makes the choice to go down into the caldera. Into hell. And once there, to take the time to find out what he can about the last man, and then to go off tracking the last man. All that risk for potential material gain, and he won't even take a minute to check an adjacent truck for water, or even a mere moment to shut the door to satisfy the dying man's last requests. I think we're supposed to notice the contrast here. I think later the character does, on some level. Only when the opportunity he was preoccupied with is accomplished, and stowed - most meaningfully in the mind - and that energy subsides, does conscience rise.

because I don't believe Moss had any special obligation to the guy under those circumstances... At that point he ought to have...

But in real life, conscience, and acting on conscience, doesn't necessarily work according to that kind of abstract reasoning. It's no good saying "ought to have" because that's the intellect talking, and it's not always the most influential source. Moss's intellect knows full well what he's doing is foolish. He's also not that bright - i.e., his intellect was never that influential.

Someone else "returns" in a foolish manner: Sheriff Bell. Why go alone to the motel if you suspect this horrible killer is there? That's not rational either. Bell certainly "ought to have" called the El Paso cops first. Same with driving down to El Paso in person the first place, honouring his promise to CJ meet Moss alone -- which was so inefficient and allowed Moss to die. I'm reminded of Chigurh's absurd "promise" to Moss to kill CJ if he didn't give up the money. Three characters going in person to fufill "principles," all dummern hell, things they "ought to have" not done, and paying for it. A lot of irrational behaviour in NC.

I was answering the question of why Moss returns in person, when compassion alone could be served just as well by an anonymous call to authorities. When we first see him in bed, he's shaking his head, as if arguing. It's not a rational thought that compels him to do this thing, it's something primal, out of the subconscious, or in his terms, "dummern hell." Atonement by nature demands personal investment, giving up something (per the GSO scene), like one's personal safety, taking a significant risk, making a sacrifice. It's not the first time I've seen a movie or read a novel or article or known someone, in which a person does something really extraordinary to atone, and it turns out that they have felt guilt for other things, left unresolved. It is as if they are presented with an opportunity, and they take it. We know Moss had two tours of Vietnam. There's a lot inside him.

Moss not depicted as looking for it where it's most likely to be, still on the scene

Moss has it pretty firmly in his mind that there's a last man standing. Says "must've been one." Given that he is convinced of it, and no one's standing at the site, he starts tracking him back the way the trucks came in.

maybe because someone forgot to bring the money in the first place? Isn't that as likely as any other reason?

Moss says "I reckon I'd go out the way I came in," and he was right. The money was at the site, and the last man lugged it back the way they came in. He got as far as the trees.

Makes me wonder if Chigurh's reason doesn't have more to do with the fact that they obviously killed the guy after he survived a couple of days

I think that's it, or at least one motivation. I don't think he was planning to kill them for seeing him.

reply

Ok, this post intrigues me because I've wondered about that scene under the tree.From what I remember, he briefly opens the bag, seems to sigh and mumble "ok" then quickly shuts it.

What I'm wondering about is, his estimate. How do you know what it is from that brief scene?

I understand you have a special insight, having read the book and constantly referring to it. I've experienced that with other films. But it still doesn't explain how you know what his estimate is in the movie.

For me, that scene ties in with another key scene and also with a previous point I tried to make about the money.

reply

Nothing mysterious about the process. He checks and sees the wrapped packets of notes are $10K each. He gets a sense of how many are in the case. Looks off, thinking - I think pretty clearly calculating a guesstimate.

reply

Thanks for confirming that to me ! Beginning to prove my point.

There's nothing in the scene under the tree evident to the viewer of how much is there;it's too brief. But in the motel room scene where he eventually finds the transponder, we get a better glimpse : 6 stacks across the top, 60K.

If we proceed on the assumption that each subsequent layer is the same, we would have to go 10 layers deep just to get 600K, which would account for the remainder of the space in the bag, at the very least.

So how does 2 mil even fit into that bag ?

And you still haven't actually answered my question about what his estimate was and how it coincided with the book.

reply

I answered your question about how he came to his estimate. For all we know he might have looked again once he got back to the truck. But he's shown making at least an initial guess under the tree, and that's all we need to get on with the story. Your calculation is different than Moss's. Whatever. It's trivial stuff, man.

reply

Odd response coming from someone who, up until now, has had a serious penchant for detail.

Actually, no you didn't. You only restated he made an estimate, not what it was or how it jived with the book.

But that's ok. Your dismissive tone speaks volumes.

reply

Since the movie doesn't offer detail, I can't very well offer you more than is available, which is why I didn't. I spoke to the process of estimation and when it occurred. I think that's reasonable. If you find it odd I think I can somehow manage to live with it.

We know what his estimate was because he says it. You already know that because you asked "how does 2 mil even fit into that bag?"

You asked "how do you know what it is from that brief scene?" And said, "But it still doesn't explain how you know what his estimate is in the movie." Perhaps this is a problem of language -- maybe by "you" you meant "one," as in how does one know what his estimate is, and how does one know from that brief scene? Because otherwise these would be cases where you assume I've personally said things I haven't. So in case it's necessary to clarify, I personally said nothing about knowing what his estimate was, or that I knew what it was from that brief scene.

You didn't ask "how it jived with the book," so I had no reason to speak to that non-existent question. However, I did show how it jived regardless, when I noted "he estimates the total in the same fashion as the book when he first opens the satchel under the tree."

What I find odd is fixation on the trivial concern about his estimation and how much money could fit in the satchel.

reply

Your posts are usually very lucid and replete with sound logic yet this response really comes across as doublespeak. And your complete denial of the movie offering detail when you have provided so much of it in your responses is near mind boggling. So yes, your abrupt departure from your usual style strikes me as odd.

If he said that, I sure didn't hear it. I told you I was relying on memory and I was pretty explicit about what I remembered of that scene. You obviously have a personal copy of the film nearby for handy reference, just like the book. The reason I know it's supposed to be 2mil is because it's just plain common knowledge on the board.

So, first you claim " he says it " and then follow that up with this convoluted go-around about who said what and end it with complete denial once again. Vacillating.

I asked you a very specific question about what his estimate was, not the process he used to arrive at it. You told amkatz it was corroborated by the book so you opened the door to that " non-existent " implied question.

What you perceive as fixation I see as attention to detail and spotting another glaring error in the film. Someone else here might have poo-pooed that dime on the floor next to the grate as trivial but I agreed with you it was significant in that it pointed directly to Chigurh.

That satchel never made sense to me from the time he found it. It was clearly not big enough to contain $2mil. Had it been a duffelbag, it would have been more logical, authentic. And it would have impacted the remainder of the movie much differently, i.e. as far as transporting it, hiding it, etc.

If it's such " trivial stuff " why did you even bother to respond ? Bored ?





reply

And your complete denial of the movie offering detail when you have provided so much of it in your responses

That's irrational. How can I offer detail that the movie doesn't provide? We see Moss gauge the bills, do a mental calculation. That's all I know, all I can tell you.

If he said that, I sure didn't hear it.

He says it in the bathroom to CJ.

To clarify the timeline, I was referencing previous posts, in which I hadn't said anything about knowing what Moss's estimate was, or that I knew what it was from that brief scene. I mentioned this because your questions seemed to assume I knew what his estimate is from that brief scene, and that I hadn't explained how I know what it was from watching the movie. I was trying to tell you that I'd never mentioned that total figure.

I mentioned that in the movie Moss estimates the total in the same fashion as the book when he first opens the satchel under the tree. No mention or corroboration of a total figure.

Anyone who judges the dime on the floor as trivial would be mistaken. Whereas the question of whether 2 mil can actually fit into the bag is equivalent to the guy fussing over the idea that "The Greyhound bus was also much newer because it had the New Style Seat Covers that were on '86/'87/'88 year Buses."

It was clearly not big enough to contain $2mil.

I'm happy to agree for the sake of argument. Go for it. Doesn't impinge on my appreciation of the movie. I'm also fine with imagining the case can contain $2 mil. More levels than you believe can fit in. Or maybe higher denominations deeper down. Or maybe Moss miscalculated. Whatever.

I responded because you asked me questions and challenged my posts. It didn't take long. At one point I was waiting for a rain shower to clear so I could go beachcombing. I love doing that after a good rain. It's like God has taken a fine rake to the sand.

reply

Absolutely nothing irrational about pointing out an inconsistency. It's the first red flag cops usually pounce on when investigating a mystery.

Another inconsistency: " How can I offer detail that the movie doesn't provide? "
" He says it in the bathroom to CJ. " Ok, obvious proof you have a handy copy nearby to reference. But why did you make it appear as if he said it in the scene under the tree? All you're doing is adding more ambiguity to a film already loaded with it.

Followed by more doublespeak.

I don't think the satchel and bus issues are equivalent at all. The bus comment is focused on minutiae. I pointed out a technical error.

Yes, I'm convinced!

Your final comment is somewhat cryptic and oddly reminiscent of dialogue in the movie Joyride where Rusty Nail says ( paraphrased ) " I love a good rain, it washes everything clean. "



reply

Absolutely nothing irrational about pointing out an inconsistency

It's merely a perceived inconsistency since I offer details where they exist, and don't offer them where they don't. If that doesn't satisfy you then I don't know what else I can do.

why did you make it appear as if he said it in the scene under the tree?

I described his initial reaction to the money, and assumed he did a silent guesstimation. I said he estimates the total in the same fashion as the book when he first opens the satchel under the tree, that he looks off, thinking, I thought pretty clearly calculating a guesstimate. No implication of a specific total, or him saying anything about a total in that scene.

The bus comment is focused on minutiae. I pointed out a technical error.

LOL. Technicalities are minutiae. Fretting about either is making mountains of molehills.

My final line is plain speaking. You asked why I bothered to answer, and I answered why. There's nothing cryptic about it.

reply

An actual inconsistency;anyone with half a brain can spot that.

" no implication of a specific total " so where does that amount come from when he mentions it to CJ in the bathroom ? Vacillating.

If technicalities are minutiae,then you're absolutely inundated.You do nothing but contradict yourself. And you have the gall to take the ' moral high road ' referencing God and lecturing about morals from your condescending ivory tower. You're very clearly part of the problem you denounce in your posts.

Hypocrite !

No wonder you're a suck-up to that pos,zone.



reply

No wonder you're a suck-up to that pos,zone.
OOOOWEEEE! The butt hurt is strong in this one!

Hey forum stalker whinehammer, where is Carla employed? You know, the question I keep asking you and you keep running like the coward you are.

What's really funny, I bet some readers know the answer to my question, but they are remaining silent because they like watching you squirm away from the question like a spineless worm.




---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

Hmm. Speaking of hypocrisy, I'm not the one losing control and attacking you with wild, aggressive ad hominems.

I referenced God when speaking of the beauty of a beach after a rainshower, and somehow you find that takes a lot of gall. Well, you know, LOL.

I can't recall responding to the poster you mention. Maybe you can say what you have in mind that was "sucking up." If you can't, I can only assume it was just another empty insult.

I've observed that the movie (and book) presents a distinct moral point of view, and described how it does this. I also happen to agree with that point of view. I think that this moral point of view is pretty blatant in both versions, and that if it goes unrecognized then much of the story's meaning and value remains inaccessible.

You've mixed up context. Yes, I said I made "no implication of a specific total," which was only to clarify what I had and had not said in our exchange. That context is not related to your question about the movie itself, where the amount comes from when Moss mentions it to CJ in the bathroom. Two different things.

As for that latter question, I did speak to it. I said that for all we know he might have looked again once he got back to the truck and counted more thoroughly. I don't care when or how he came to that figure because I consider the entire matter insignificant, like fussing over the proper year of a Greyhound bus. It's pedantry.

reply

How am I "losing control " and exhibiting " wild, aggressive ad hominems ? " I merely noted you tend to talk down to others on here from a condescending, morality based soapbox.

If you can't recall the poster, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; it's wise to distance yourself from him.

As far as the rest of your argument.....more convoluted bs.

If you're so God oriented, why haven't you heeded the counsel " Pride goeth before destruction, haughtiness before a fall ? " Look it up.

If you were in the least bit God-oriented, why can't you admit you simply made a mistake ? No humility whatsoever. Just constant ploys to save face,



reply

How am I "losing control "
Well....members witnessing you forum stalking another member here would be a pretty obvious sign, ya think?


If you can't recall the poster, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; it's wise to distance yourself from him.
You really are a certified moron, arent' you. Read larks comment again, diptard.

"I can't recall responding to the poster you mention." Good effin grief, you're dense.

This is why you constantly stick your foot in your mouth, you can't even keep up with the conversation. You mouth off browbeating others here, when you have proven again and again that you don't even understand the basics of the movie and you ignore dialogue.

And lastly, any members who would be wise to distance themselves from a certain member, it's you, where they can see in recent posts you are a confirmed psycho stalker.






---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

I think pride had something to do with the fall from relative grace to aggressive ad hominem. You lost control of yourself when you abruptly shifted to that attitude.

Telling me I have a lot of gall to take the moral high road for referencing God just once in a line about appreciating a beach after rainfall, LOL.

That I condescend from an ivory tower, whatever that's about.

That I'm "very clearly part of the problem (I) denounce in (my) posts," even though what I denounced was cruel indifference to extreme suffering.

That I'm a hypocrite (exclamation mark), even though you burst forth with ad hominems.

That I "suck-up" to someone, but now you reveal you didn't really have any grounds for the insult in the first place -- justifying the descriptor "wild" ad hominem.

You've taken no responsibility for these insults. In fact you pretend they don't exist. I don't think I've made a mistake. I do think you've made several, and have admitted none. You think concern about the 2 mil in the bag is significant, I think it's trivial.

I don't feel animosity toward you. But since you've become aggressive, I think we've reached a good place to agree to disagree. There would be more dignity in it.

reply

I responded because you asked me questions and challenged my posts.
Careful, whatlarks, if he loses his temper with you he will start forum stalking you and dragging in your old posts from other forums to sooth his butt hurt.

But if you want to continue flicking his ears, ask him where Carla is employed or ask him if he believed there were no cut holes in the dollar bills. 




---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

reply

It would take a long time for that wounded guy to come out of treatment to identify anyone if he even would divulge that information with anyone. Most people involved in the drug trade don't talk to authorities, especially when they were involved in a large fatal shootout over a lot of drugs, the only thing he could really identify about Moss was a white guy with a mustache, hat, and hunting rifle came by, he did not understand English so would have no idea what Moss was saying. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of guys like Moss in that area. I don't see anyway he could pinpoint a description to Moss unless they showed him a picture of Moss or he saw him again which again would be highly unlikely because nothing would point to Moss. Authorities would care much more about the drugs, people shot/killed, his connections, supplier, then some random hunter that came by.

Chigur would not know Moss's vehicle so he would not know who to look for or be able to track the mom out. Just because someone moves out of a trailer park does not raise red flags, people move all the time.

What if he skimmed money out of the case or left it along and some other hunter came by and took the case, then the wounded guy could still identify Moss. Moss had to do something for that wounded guy asking for help/water, no decent person could live with themselves to just leave a guy like that without attempting to give them some kind of help.

reply

I don't believe Moss need worry about the guy describing him to the authorities, rather to his cartel bosses. & even if there are lots of guys around who might resemble Moss, it's like he said, "When would you stop looking for your 2.4 million?" They clearly had the time & the resources to track him down. Even without the Mexican (who, as it happened, they never bothered to ask).

If you're looking at a small town for someone who might have taken your money, & you find out these folks, one of whom happened to be a hunter, just up & moved out of their trailer--wouldn't that be a pretty big red flag?

& sure, skimming money's not a perfect solution. Moss was in some danger just being out there, even if he never encountered the shootout. Those were people who wouldn't hesitate to use a blowtorch & pliers on anyone they thought might have taken the money or know what happened, then kill them afterwards.

Regarding the wounded guy, I think it's reasonable to assume that his bosses will show up on the scene quite soon. Moss wasn't wrong to regret leaving him there, but rather to assume only he could offer the guy some aid. As it turned out, others had got there before his return anyway.

In a sense, the story takes off when the protagonist attempts to do something moral & totally screws up everything in the process.

reply

[deleted]

If he would of hid the body of the "Last Man Standing" which can not be hard in that vast open country. Everyone would be looking for a man that no longer exist or could be found.

Nice. I hadn't thought of that. It's definitely a legitimate alternative course of action. Even if Moss doesn't find the tracking device right away, he would eventually, probably before they got close enough to detect it.

If the last man disappears, the cartelenos might assume he recovered from any injury, absconded with the money himself & look for him rather than some accidental gringo.

reply

I'm not sure it would be so easy to hide the body. Lugging that weight how far? In that heat? What about the satchel and gun/s?

You know the bad guys could show up at any moment, but rather than vamoose you take the risk of eating up a lot of time, making yourself obvious on the flatland. Hindsight is sharper than foresight. You have to forget what you know to recommend a different strategy than just leaving, pronto.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[deleted]

It would have taken a while for the drug dealers to figure out if some random guy took the money if they ever did, the wounded guy by the time they got to them might not have been even able to explain or remember that some random guy with a rifle came due to blood loss, heat exhaustion, etc or the guy may not have even told them unless he was given medical aid which again would take a long time and he still may not fully remember. There was no way a cartel would know exactly how many people were involved in the deal/shooting and if other random gang/drug dealers came upon the scene and finished everyone off and made off with the money, the dead guy by the tree could have just been a wounded guy who made it to some shade and there was no evidence he had the money and then some other guy found him and took it. I just don't see how anyone would have figured out some random guy hunting would have found the money and taken off and Moss would not be in too much danger. I think drug dealers would assume some drug dealer made off with the money or it was buried somewhere in the desert over some random hunter found it.

Moss would have been better off to make a random call with a disguised voice when he drove to a payphone to the police that he heard a shootout and screaming in that part of the desert and the police should get out there to try to get the wounded guy some help over going back there late at night just to give him some water.

reply

This may come as a shock but many many people wouldn't help their next door neighbor if that person was sick or injured. Moss based on his actions throughout the movie strikes me as a non helpful person. Him going back under all the circumstances is ridiculous.

Moss returns to the CGF to provide an action scene and move the plot along. It works out well for the filmmakers.

reply

I just don't see how anyone would have figured out some random guy hunting would have found the money

They'd have driven around Sanderson and when the receiver started blipping they'd have slaughtered Moss and CJ. Moss stashed the money under the trailer, planning to lay low. He'd made a guess of the total, had no inkling the transmitter was in there. It's very likely that Moss bought himself a couple of extra days of living by going back to the CGF because at least then he knew the bad guys were after him and he could at least try to take some form of defensive action. Whereas if he'd stayed home he'd assume exactly what you assume -- that there's no way they could figure it out. That false confidence would not have served him well.

reply

Again, he's out there risking all this time on this scheme? Quartering a body, walking all the way back to his truck then driving back to the body to load it, then driving out of there? That's an enormous amount of time to hang around. All the while knowing the rest of the hombres could arrive at any time. In addition to taking all that time, quartering a human being is demanding much more of the character than quartering a deer. Overall this suggestion seems dubious. I think his simply getting out of there straight after finding the money makes the most sense.

reply

The receiver only had a range of about 200 yards or so judging by the hotel scene and they had no idea where to look whether right in the area or hundreds of miles away. They had no idea who took the money if anyone took the money at all, certainly not just some random hunter. The would likely assume some drug dealer survived and made off with it. I doubt they would spend much time where Moss lived unless they picked up his signal right away which means they would have to drive close to his trailer.

reply

I was addressing tdonnelly-4's suggested alternative of butchering the dead body.

As for the receiver, I think those are good points. But it does seem reasonable to me they'd at least check out the nearest towns. Why not be thorough?

They'd be able to account for their men. One side would be missing one, and I think it's likely they'd find him like Moss found him, along the route they came in on. Which would imply that no one from either crew has the money. So I think it's reasonable they'd at least cruise through Sanderson seeing what they could pick up.

reply

I have to agree/disagree with ya...

1: The Mexican would have died anyway. Moss was a soldier, he had guilt of conscience. I don't think he went back because he could be identified. Maybe I missed something?

2. I agree...but you are not just going to spend the money immediately. It leaves trails. Family would definitely know.

3. No...you take it all with the understanding that money never comes free.

4. Yes, he could have done that.


Moss did not have a lack of ruthlessness....in fact:


What happens at the El Paso motel?

Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) goes to the motel and waits to be reunited with Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) and Agnes (her mother). While waiting, the poolside woman (Ana Reeder) flirts with him and offers him beers. What happens next can be seen as ambiguous, the first option is that the Mexicans knew where he was headed because Agnes had told them at the bus station. During the ensuing shootout, the poolside woman was killed and her body was found in the pool. Moss was able to shoot one of the Mexicans before he was shot in the chest and died inside his motel room. The remaining Mexicans ran off as Sheriff Bell Tommy Lee Jones pulled into the parking lot. The second option is that Bell actually comes across a shoot out between the Mexicans and Chigurh (Javier Bardem) who has already killed Moss and the poolside woman. The evidence for this is circumstancial at best, The Mexicans are using machine guns which we hear, one of the Mexicans has been shot (by either Llewelyn or Chigurh) but we don't hear this. The machine gun casings are a considerable distance from the shot Mexican, why would the Mexicans be shooting towards their own man? There are no bullet holes observed in Llewelyns room or in the wall surrounding the door.

I would love to read the full script...



reply

Most importantly before events occur, Moss is made to sit in a room for a month and read nothing but Sherlock Holmes. That way he knows to never return to the scene of crime.)

That out of the way, Moss's best chance to succeed would have been to take the money directly to either a casino or some other gambling establishment to have his money cleaned into chips.

Even if it was the teller at the casino, who found the transmitter, Moss could always claim he put it there himself to prevent theft, pocket it, and then flush it down the toilet later.

Moss could then gamble for a bit, lose intentionally to satisfy the Casino that was the purpose of his visit. Losing obviously would look better, a few hundred thousand should buy their silence; and then cash out most of the two million dollars.

No transmitter, no assassins to worry about, clean 1.7 million in hand. Moss goes back to his wife, tells her to give two weeks notice. They both move out of the country, and start a new life.

reply

He didn't really know about Chigurh until he found the transponder.

There wouldn't be a story, but Chigurh's weakness was his momentum. Moss should have known Chigurh would have responded to the transponder. With Chigurh coming at him, he could pick the spot and nail him from ambush with the shotgun.

Moss was handy with a scoped rifle so his options would have even been better. I liked the story the way it unwound, but Moss running with the cash didn't seem in character. His main strength was that he thought he was up to anything and was presented as a worthy adversary to Chigurh. Mano A mano Chigurh would take him out. Moss was a trained sniper and he should have triumphed thru deceit and ambush.

The real question in my mind was would he come back for Carla Jean. I mean with that kind of money...in the eighties...he could have had a lot of women. She was cute, but she was basically a Wall-Mart checker and even if he did come back, the best she would have had to look forward to would have been a Home Depot checker.

reply