I
just read a short story of Gogol's called A Terrible Vengeance, then watched No Country for Old Men. There was some rhyming going on between the two of them, in their singularly evil central characters who seem to be able to ransack the world virtually unopposed. No Country has been called a "nihilistic" film, or at least "the Coen brothers' most nihilistic film", and I wonder how true that is, exactly. It's true that Chigurh "gets away with" his crimes, but it almost seems to be presupposing rank materialism to call that the end of the story. Amen, I say to you, Chigurh has received his reward. In fact, "getting away with" your crimes is just about the worst thing that can happen to a man, as he never has the chance to repent, never has the chance to do penance, to right his wrong. Verily, I say to you, it will be much the worse for him on the day of Judgement than had he been caught, and beaten, and hung by the neck til dead.
In Gogol's tale, the sorcerer is the last of a line of punishment for an ancestor's wicked treachery. He is condemned to be the greatest criminal ever seen on earth -- mark, this is not a blessing, but a curse. Chigurh believes himself to be "elemental", like the random chance of flipping a coin. But he is a criminal -- he is the acting, and whether he knows it or not, he is drawing the noose tighter around his own neck.