I'm asking this as someone who's seen both the movie and read the book...

I'm asking this as someone who's seen both the movie and read the book, and who thinks that it's about as good of an adaptation as is possible. Hardly anything is lost in the transition.

But, one thing that I do wonder about is whether all of the themes of the book came along with the adaptation. The biggest one being moral fallibility.

Like, the biggest point that McCarthy made in the novel is that, of the three (Moss, Chigurh and Bell), Chigurh was the most moral of them all. Bell was a coward, both as a sheriff and as a soldier in Korea, who let people die because of his hesitation and Moss was a thief (whether the money was ill-gotten or not, it wasn't his to take) and who killed innocent people in the collateral damage with Chigurh. While Chigurh is far from innocent, he never portrayed himself as anything else. He didn't try to shroud his actions or shy away from them. He was up front and honest about who and what he was.

Does that moral complexity completely come through in the movie, or was a lot of it left by the wayside in the adaptation process?

I really got the sense that McCarthy began writing the book as a screenplay and halfway through said fuck it and tried salvaging a novel out of it. I don't really recall the book really touching on anything that you mentioned, in fact I would say that the book for the most part doesn't delve into anything of the sort. The movie does a far better job at telling the story.

basically this

Granted, the book was still damn, but all the movie needed was the longer dialogue moments and a couple of extra scenes and it would have been a damn near perfect translation to film.

i dont see morality as playing a part at at all desu, they all have their own motivations and etc but i dont see any of them being moral or having a moral code.

Did Anton Sugar have autism?

He didn't, he was just Satan incarnate.

McCarthy is all about this, the emptiness of morality and the infinite depravity of the human animal.

The main message of this movie is that the human mind that tries to rationalize is always a step behind the human mind that just DOES.

>Like, the biggest point that McCarthy made in the novel is that, of the three (Moss, Chigurh and Bell), Chigurh was the most moral of them all. Bell was a coward, both as a sheriff and as a soldier in Korea, who let people die because of his hesitation and Moss was a thief (whether the money was ill-gotten or not, it wasn't his to take) and who killed innocent people in the collateral damage with Chigurh. While Chigurh is far from innocent, he never portrayed himself as anything else. He didn't try to shroud his actions or shy away from them. He was up front and honest about who and what he was.

you dumb as hell nigga. Yeah sugar had principles that he stuck to, that's about it

McCarthy really likes the idea of evil as a tangible force of nature or in human form

i think mccarthys entire reason for having sugar get hit by the car was to dispell this theory and reiterate that nobody is immune to fate/chance

does anything ever harm The Judge in Blood Meridian?

>anton is the most moral

youre fucking stupid. Based on what you said he's the most HONEST, but he's far from the most moral

No, not long term, but some people have suggested the epilogue is supposed to be his nemesis coming for him.

no hes pretty much pure metaphor

agua

Shiggers a murderer. That's worse than thief. Here's the list, ascending to worseness.

>stealing
>assaulting
>murdering
>killing millions of Jews
>raping

it's not reasonable to say Chigurh is the most "moral", especially when you haven't defined a moral theory by which he most exceeds

most you could say is that he isn't dishonest

I guess Im retarded but I thought this movie was pushing the theme of nhilism. Everything thst happened felt like the result of a bunch of chance happenings without rhyme or reason.

rape is worse than murder because they have to live with it

>Like, the biggest point that McCarthy made in the novel is that, of the three (Moss, Chigurh and Bell), Chigurh was the most moral of them all.

You must have autism or something.

Bell is clearly the most moral of the characters, despite his flaws. I don't really know how you come to the conclusion that Chigurh is the most moral out of the three. I honestly don't. He is a psychotic killer.

it presents the idea that people arent immune to forces outside their control, but it doesnt reject morality or purpose.

Chigurh wanted to shy away from the fact that he was just a murderer with the coin.
As long as he was killing someone he felt deserved it or used his coin in times when he didn't know, he could convince himself that he was an agent of fate and therefore right and just.
It's not a coincidence that we see him at his most vulnerable (hit by a car) right after Carla Jean tells him to fuck off with the coin.

Well OP you have been thoroughly BTFO and are basically a confirmed retard at this point. What's your next move?

Yeah, I know. Every day I think to myself: Boy, instead of getting raped and getting to still hang out afterwards and watch anime I wish I was throatslit and dead in a ditch hahaha that would be my preference

>Chigurh was the most moral of them all

I think this is something that people really didn't understand, in fact most people took the opposite from the movie and described him as "the most evil character ever" etc.

He gives Moss a chance to just give him the money and save his wife, Moss refuses. That's the only reason he killed her, because he promised he would. And even then he gives her a coin flip change to escape.

There are a lot of little things in the book that maybe didn't make it to the film. The way he thinks, he isn't really evil. He is just really consistent. For example when he goes to kill the drug boss in the high rise he deliberately loads shot that wont break the windows because he doesn't want glass falling on people in the street. Things like that in the book you cant really explain in the movie without having him literally say it which is lame.

He was not evil. Moss didn't have to take the cash. He could have just left it there. The second he took the drug money he became part of that world.

No, but the judge is literally not human. He is a gnostic archon.

>the most moral of them all
All three of them had a moral code they obeyed. There's no "most moral"

It's like grace, either you have it or not

He likes it for narrative reasons, because say Blood Meridian would become just a bunch of happy accidents if Judge wasn't personified.

How do you read it like that? Chirgugh sees it as cause and effect, Tom sees it as fight of good and evil where he is too weak to carry on, cowboy sees it as a chance to get rich. its all in the characters pov.