I really liked this movie, I thought it was very entertaining. The philosophy behind it was great for the movie, but I felt that one thing was missing. The one thing that would have brought it all around again and wrapped it up nicely is if the western guy (sorry, I forget names) killed Perlman's character with a gun. That would have cemented the story of the war and violence as "coming around again".
shareThey established throughout the movie though that guns didn't exist in that environment, so it would have been a big contradiction.
This is where we fight, this is where they die.
I don't understand how killing Nicola with a gun would have meant war and violence was 'coming around again.' I know you're quoting from the movie but I think you missed something. Nicola is the very representation of evil. The fact he's in power means evil has already come around again.
He and his gang shakedown businesses and terrorize the people to the point businesses fail and the people train secretly to fight against repression. We're told in the narrative that turmoil and strife are part of man's nature. The current strife is brought on by Nicola. When his regime is taken down, a level of peace will be restored - at least for the time being. Since the circle of strife is endless, we can assume something or someone else will come along to disrupt the peace.
By the way, in the beginning of the narrative, we're told all guns have been banned but, clearly, there must still be some guns around. When the Drifter first goes to the casino looking to get in on the card game, he's asked what he has of value. One of the possible items mentioned are 'bullets'. It stands to reason if there aren’t any guns there would be no need for bullets. Therefore, if bullets are so valuable, it must mean there are also guns around to fire those bullets.