The Road

While watching this movie I thought to myself that it was good I had already read the book. This was because the movie is agonizingly desperate and sad--often times it was just too much to absorb or handle in such a large dose. You can't put this movie down like you can with the book. Unlike the book being beautifully written, in an almost poetic prose, which distracted the reader from the subject, the movie is not beautifully shot. In your face is desperation, agony, and death.

I can understand why this movie was shelved for a year. Do not go into it looking to be entertained, at best look to be intellectually stimulated. This is no popcorn movie.

"We are not gonna quit. We are gonna survive this." The Man

Survival is the ultimate motif of the Cormack McCarthy Pulitzer The Road. And so too is the film adaptation, faithful to the original while adding what McCarthy can't—the actualization of a landscape barren of life and humans barren of humanity. Then again, the film's failure is being even bleaker than the source, a testimony to the power of the imagination.

Except for a father (Viggo Mortensen) and young son (Kodi Smit-Mcphee), who represents the hope of the human race as the story assumes the trappings of allegorical, post-apocalyptic literature and film where the desolate outside mirrors the lonely inside of the humans, not all of whom are willing to carry on the good fight. Suicide becomes a leitmotif, a companion to hope as if out of a Bergman film, an escape from the horrible aftermath of devastation never explained. So much the better because allegorically there are numerous ways for us to ruin our earth and our spirits. Not the least of which could be nuclear or cannibal; the former does not make an appearance while the latter is omnipresent.

Director John Hillcoat has emphasized more than McCarthy the role, by flashback, of the wife/mother (Charlize Theron), but overall he has taken dialogue directly from the novel and stayed true to the bleak landscape where the sun doesn't shine and the trees fall intermittently like humans giving up the ghost.

The gray tones and beat up humans are like those in most post- apocalyptic films; however, as in Children of Men to a lesser extent, the focus is on how to survive, not even how to avoid death. In both cases, it's up to the young ones to "carry a fire' (the mantra of The Road), itself a metaphor for the strength to survive:

"Everything depends on reaching the coast. I told you I would do whatever it takes." The Man

I just got home from seeing "The Road" and my stomach is still in a knot. I never read the book and therefore won't be making any comparisons. I'll simply comment on the film.

I can't imagine the performances being any better from any of the actors, starting at Viggo and working my way down to the smallest roles. I can't imagine the bleak post-apocalyptic world being portrayed any more realistically. I can't imagine the general feeling of sadness, desperation, hopelessness, terror and pain being captured more accurately. If that was the goal, the people involved in the making of this movie did their job magnificently.

Having said that, it isn't for everyone. I saw this movie alone because I had a feeling my wife wouldn't be into it. It's tough to watch. However, in the midst of this recession brought on by greed and materialism, I think it's a movie that everyone of age SHOULD see in order to put things back into perspective, if only for a day.

I had a lump in my throat through most of the movie and was desperate to get home and hug my two boys through most of it as well. I also felt like downsizing our entire life in terms of the unnecessary "stuff" we have. I imagined how many homeless people wander the streets right now with that feeling of hopelessness and desperation. What more could I ask from a Saturday afternoon at the theater? It's this kind of movie that helps maintain a degree of integrity in the film industry among the inaneness that surrounds it.

vm's character in this film really cheesed me off.

instead of teaching his son how to survive in this environment, at every turn he shielded him from the harshest lessons he would need to stay alive--like reading the signs cannibals leave, or letting him see what would happen if he was caught, and teaching how to commit suicide instead of learning to kill. and he did that, i suppose, because he was trying to protect him emotionally instead of physically.

now i know most of you reading this will be offended, but that's because a modern-day, middle-class mentality and morality won't transfer to this inevitable future time.

the child was born into this future, and it is the only reality he knows. now, most Americans believe that children will be emotionally wrecked if faced with death, but a few years ago the bbc ran a reality show where several families were put on an island and forced to live in a self-sufficient manner. when it came time to slaughter one of their small flock of sheep, the parents had a long discussion about how this would traumatize the children. when they were told that one of the sheep would be put under the knife so they could have meat to eat, the children's reaction was one of excitement--they wanted meat.

children are highly adaptive, and when they are brought up in a post-apocalyptic world, then that is their norm. the child's present day morality did not ring true. now, i understand why the author needed a character of this type. the child is a stand-in for the reader, who is shocked by the brutality in his environment. but he is the wrong character to put this load on. this point ruined the movie for me. if there had been another character, one who had been alive in the old time and was kept alive by vm, then i would have bought into the premise. it was a huge hole in the plot line.

the character neither deserved redemption, nor saving. but he and his boy received both.

i think the story would have been far better if the boy had gone native, and vm had been appalled at what this dying world had made of his son, and he longing for the old time to come back to heal the boy. but this would have been a less sympathetic story, and it wouldn't have sold many books, and it wouldn't be a big Hollywood movie starring vm and robert duvall. but it would have been more truthful and less wishful. why sugar coat an apocalypse?

and if vm is looking for an Oscar nomination, then he shouldn't use the old 80's surety and lose thirty pounds for a role; instead he should do what most of the Hollywood heavy hitters have learned to do, and this plays all the way from the golden boy's beginning through the contemporary: play a defective, be the lead in a holocaust movie, or the most recent, contemporary "sean penn" guarantee--kiss a boy.

Just got back from seeing THE ROAD.

I had been very impressed by the novel and was concerned about how it would be adapted. The tone of the novel is almost unremittingly bleak and a 100% faithful adaptation would be very difficult to watch.

I'm happy to report that the film is very good indeed. It solves the problem of being unendurably depressing by concentrating on the emotional impact of the unspecified Armageddon, rather than the day to day fight for food, shelter and so on. So while at times it remains very upsetting it is shot through with hope rather than despair. I always felt the end of the novel was somewhat out of kilter with the rest of it but in the film it seems quite appropriate.

I think the film is more about the collapse of civility rather than civilization: for a film that shows the last remnants of mankind struggling to eke out an existence it is remarkably concerned with relationships. That's probably why the exact cause of the catastrophe is left blank: the film isn't really about the end of the world so much as the end of society. It's an interesting companion piece to NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN in which an ageing man sees nothing but horror in the modern world. In THE ROAD a man convinces himself, for the sake of his son, that humanity will abide even in the face of appalling conditions.