Moss' moral code seems very lackadaisical not much better than sugar's. Moss doesn't show any remorse for all the death and destruction that occurs when he trys to escape thru the town with the money he took.
On the other hand Moss goes way out of his way to bring water back to the CGF for a heroin dealer who he had no part in harming.
That leads me to wonder what are Moss' principles in this regard?
Lackadaisical means "lacking enthusiasm and determination; carelessly lazy." When Moss experiences the influence of conscience, several highly specific conditions prevail, which don't in the other cases. As a result of these specific conditions, he becomes very determined indeed, with not a sign of laziness. That determination does result in careless behaviour. Yet he is also torn about it, so he doesn't act with enthusiasm.
Determination without enthusiasm -- great work by McCarthy and the Coens.
Dmaria misses the source of Moss's guilt. According to him Moss could only feel guilt if he actually shot the guy. But most anyone else who watches the scene of Moss and Aguaman can tell right away what Moss ends up feeling guilty for. This quality is totally absent from all other scenes of death and destruction involving Moss.
Moss's moral code isn't remarkable. What is remarkable is that it takes particular circumstances to get it fired up and exerting an influence, otherwise it's fairly dormant. Evidently, Moss is not well connected to conscience and needs certain stimulae to be connected to it.
I was really hoping someone else would chip in besides larks and give their comments on what is Moss' moral code?
shareI'm glad Dmaria didn't respond to the points raised. I'm also hoping someone else will chip in. Anyway, Dmaria can grumble. I'm going to wander down to the marina for a while, do a little sailing this afternoon.
shareHis moral code, if you could call it that, moves him along like a bag in the wind to whatever suits his whims.
Unlike Bell, Moss is too dim to realize when he is outmatched and outwitted. He probably thinks himself some kind of badass, like Sugar, because he was in the war. But his participation in the war couldve been a welder in the motor pool for all we know. I would venture to guess he thought he had outsmarted everyone until the moment when he was shot in the chest by a Mexican he never saw before, or even considered existed.
At least Sugar actually has some manner of principles that he follows, while Moss gets innocent bystanders killed and puts his wife and mother in law directly in the crosshairs of Sugar and a Mexican cartel. His moral code tells him he can take something thats not his. It tells him he is smarter and the ultimate badass. It tells him he is the good guy. But he is actually just a dumb redneck from a trailer park in the middle of nowhere.
At least Sugar actually has some manner of principles that he follows
That doesn't make him better in any way. Eichmann at least followed principles, too.
Chigurh follows evil principles and kills innocent people deliberately without a second thought. So at the end of the day, you have someone getting people killed on purpose and another getting them killed accidentally, due to recklessness. Of course, Moss directly kills no one (except maybe the gangster in the Del Rio parking lot) while Chigurh directly kills many over this period of time.
It's not a moral code that tells Moss he's smarter and a badass, it's prideful self-delusion. I think you're right that his moral code tells him he's the good guy.
Both Chigurh and Moss are ace opportunists. Parasites, really.
Well done by the Mouse. One sentence is practically poetic. The Mouse says that Sugar actually has some manner of principles while Moss' (moral code) gets innocent bystanders killed and puts his wife and mother in law in the crosshairs.
The Coens create a convincing character in Moss except when this character goes back to the CGF. It contradicts all the other incidents that establish his M O.
Dmaria thinks human beings and dramatic characters are like robots with programs that make them act consistently even when contexts are different. That's Mother Goose level. McCarthy operates a little above that. He invented a convincing character who behaves according to ordinary human psychology, and the Coen's were faithful to that conception.
Moss is a little deaf when it comes to conscience. It takes certain conditions for it to get through. Chigurh has no conscience. His inconsistency is caused by another factor.
I've given my position I feel no need to repeat it one hundred times. I've explained why larks is wrong.
I thank the Mouse for his excellent post. I wish other people would post, anybody but larks.
Dmaria's explanation is mistaken. I've explained why he's wrong about Moss's character and about the relative influence of the contexts in which he finds himself.
Dmaria wishes to run away from inconvenient fact that in no other scene is there equivalent context to Aguaman in terms of its effect on Moss. He can't see that the Moss character needed specific conditions for empathy and conscience to affect him later.
The funny thing is that Dmaria actually agrees with me that Moss doesn't have the strongest moral sense. The Goose is in a flap but it's unnecessary.
The Mouse gets it, many others get it, larks doesn't get it. I'll explain it one more time.
The Mouse ably lays out moss' character, his nature. Moss is very selfish and self serving. He has no principles. He treats everyone with callous indifference. A good example of his callous indifference is when he has contact with the heroin dealer at the CGF. That is moss' nature. People act according to their nature.
Larks says since moss spends about 60 to 120 seconds in contact with the guy in the truck it changes his nature. Moss nature becomes soft and nurturing. Only this one time. The rest of the movie he follows his nature.
This sudden change in nature is absurd. It is doubly absurd because it just so happens moss acting so totally against his nature by bringing the water causes a plot swing that sets up the rest of the film. Quite a coincidence.
Dmaria claims Moss has no principles, but that makes no sense because Moss is seen struggling with his conscience back at the trailer then returns to the CGF with water to atone for his mistreatment of Aguaman.
It's funny to watch Dmaria contradict himself. On the one hand when Dmaria wants to claim Moss has no principles, he pretends his return to the CGF didn't happen. On the other, Dmaria will acknowledge his return, but only when he wants to say it doesn't make "sense" and isn't "logical."
I've mentioned that Dmaria can only see one piece of context in isolation at a time. Here, for example, he only mentions time. Because Dmaria can't see more than one piece of context in isolation at a time, he assumes 60-120 seconds must be an identical experience in every circumstance.
That is unfortunate, but as mentioned the Moss scene with Aguaman has qualities that are unique, that aren't shared in any other scene. It is this scene's particular collection of qualities, in combination with the qualities of the aftermath scene at home, that provide the specific conditions necessary for conscience to gain dominance and spur Moss to action.
Moss certainly acts according to his nature. Dmaria and I actually agree that he has a weak moral sense. The Goose gets himself in a flap for no reason. That makes no sense, and it isn't logical, but it is Dmaria acting according to his nature.
I explained what is going on but larks just doesn't get it. Everyone else does. Vyper being the latest example. Larks desperately tries with an elaborate overblown theory to put lipstick on a plot device but it's still a plot device.
shareDmaria seems pretty urgent about this, but I acknowledged that the scene serves the plot.
As for the justification for the character's behaviour, Dmaria didn't counter it, he just insisted it's wrong, and appealed to a non-existent majority. I say that's thick lipstick on a thin argument.
Is there any way I can get larks off the thread I started? He's like in the movies where the guys apartment window is a few feet away from the elevated subway track.
shareWe thank Dmaria for his initiative. However, conversation on this public board is open to all. Fortunately an OP can't censor anyone for expressing a view they don't like.
However, Dmaria always has the choice to use the Ignore function. Press it, and he need never see another Whatlarks post in this thread.
If Dmaria doesn't choose to ignore on his own or with help from the Ignore function, then you have to think he isn't as opposed to my posting as he wants us to think.
I think Moss has a moral code that says drug money is free if you can get away with it. Probably most people would feel the same way. Moss, however, overestimated his own abilities in being able to get away with it. Taking the water back was the stupidest thing he did, especially because he should have known the guy would probably already be dead, and the guy needed medical care even more than water. The logical thing to do would have been an anonymous tip to the cops. Furthermore, the drug dealers were endangering a lot of people with their traffic, and basically deserved to die.
He did not mean to endanger anyone, but was blinded by the money and what he thought it could mean for himself and his wife. Realistically, if he had not gone back and had hidden the money and laid low, he might have gotten away with it. Also, even though he knew bad dudes would have been looking for the money, he could not have anticipated anyone like sugar, who would hunt him to the ends of the earth whether he got the money back or not. I think he represents an almost average person, who had military experience and hunting abilities, but was not quite a match for a ruthless monster.
Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam
î‚ž
Realistically, if he had not gone back and had hidden the money and laid low, he might have gotten away with it.
Actually he'd likely have died sooner, because he wouldn't have discovered the transponder.
Leave it to larks to try and get this thread off topic. I've had some excellent comments on Moss' moral code by other posters not named larks.
Larks phoney logic is interesting. She comes up with a conclusion that she has to justify moss going back to the drug dealer in the middle of the night thus putting himself in the jackpot and giving the plot some place to go. Yet moss doesn't have this outbreak of conscience for anybody else in the movie except for the scumbag drug dealer.
Why do you write like that?
shareI think Moss was probably a hell raiser and not unknown to police, but for nothing major. When Wendell asked Bell if he thought he was involved in the CGF, Bell wasn't sure but kindly doubted it. I think he did have a moral code but got himself into extraordinary circumstances.
Chigurh, on the other hand, seemed to be a sociopath lacking any moral code or empathy. Everything was a game to him.
Sugar didn't harm or kill the GSO. He didn't kill the kids and he didn't kill the obnoxious desk lady at the trailer park.
Sugar could have kept all the money but in the book he returned it. To keep a promise he went out of his way to kill CJ. He could have chilled out instead and watched the Texas Rangers baseball game. Notice that scene with CJ he was taking no enjoyment in it but he promised.
Best answer! I agree.
shareHonestly? Moss is a dumbass. He is wily in certain respects, but completely careless and reckless in others. What careful man would return to the scene of the shootout to deliver water when he could just as easily have called police/911? What careful man would simply look at one stack of bills in the valise and none of the others? What careful man sits ON the be in the line of shots fired through his hotel room when he could have crouched behind the bed, giving him both cover and concealment?
Moss is stubborn, bullheaded, and completely incapable of accepting feedback/critique. And it cost him not only his own life, but that of his wife.
Good post by coen. Doesn't it get to the point especially with the water that moss isn't a dumbass but a completely unbelievable character?
shareI think that's a fair assessment. Wily yet careless and reckless. I'd add a slight change to the last bit: Moss was capable of accepting feedback/critique, but it took a lot of pressure to bring him to awareness of things.
For example Wells was able to get through to him and wake him up (momentarily), but it took springing on Moss what should have occurred to him from the start, that Chigurh (or any of the bad guys) would figure out where she was and go to Odessa.
I've observed that Moss isn't the most aware character. One way this plays out is with his wife - ie human relationships. He seems to get fixated on his own game and miss larger context. The forest for the trees, as they say.
Another example is him flirting with the pool siren, losing his focus. Another his him telling CJ he's going to hide her and kill Chigurh. That with her gone Chigurh can't touch him, but he can sure touch Chigurh. That's so naive: he has no way of tracking Chigurh and no way to ensure CJ's safe. He fixates on Chigurh but gets bushwhacked by the Mexicans. Not on his radar.
That flaw undercuts the wiliness, bringing the careless/reckless part to the fore. No one sees what's coming, especially a guy with Moss's vanity and lack of awareness. Those traits go hand in hand; Wells had the same problem. Thought he was The Man, but gets bushwacked right on the stairs of his hotel.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson