
NOTE: While I allude to certain things that occur in the film, I think I've avoided explicit plot spoilers. But if you prefer not to know anything about a film before seeing it, you may not want to read this.
Let me make this clear: I’m someone who watches movies that other people shrink from, the ones that most people say are “depressing” and avoid because they expose the dark corners of the human soul. I avoid most mainstream “feel good” and blockbuster movies because those are the ones that depress me, so far are they from real life and real feeling. I love art that makes me feel something deeply, whether it’s joy, hope and inspiration or sadness, pain and moral horror. And yet even I found The Road almost too much to bear.
About halfway through, I walked out to tell the staff that the sound was too low, and that it was hard to hear the often-whispered dialogue. But, I added with a grim chuckle, I’m not even sure I want to hear it. And I wasn’t sure I wanted to go back into the theater. But I made myself go.
I can’t say I’m sorry to have seen the film, because what it does, simply, is make us realize how much we have and how easily we could lose it. Taking place several years after an unspecified apocalypse that has destroyed all animal, insect, and most human life as well as all vegetation, it portrays an utterly gray landscape in which nothing can grow, everything is dead or dying, and the few remaining humans have already scavenged virtually all the stored food. Most have now turned to cannibalism, which they pursue with bloodcurdling efficiency and not the slightest trace of human feeling or regret.
The exceptions include the two heroes of the film, an unnamed man and his young son, played with heartbreaking honesty by Viggo Mortenson and Kodi Smit-McPhee. Adhering to a moral code that the father calls “carrying the fire,” they attempt to retain their humanity as they push on through the wasted landscape towards “the coast,” where they hope to find…well, we’re never really told what. We don’t know if this apocalypse has devastated the entire world or only the U.S., and it seems they’re not sure either. They live on the hope that somehow there might be something better "down south” on the coast, and so that’s where they head. Along the way, they scavenge for any food that might have been overlooked, fight off a series of cannibal attacks and occasionally find some small solace and relief, such as when they make contact with a harmless elderly man (Robert Duvall, reliable as always) or an intact survival shelter with a cornucopia of stored food.
After they have gorged themselves in that shelter, I heard a woman behind me whisper to her companion, “My stomach hurts,” which seems to me the perfect description of the film’s effect. One way or the other, The Road will make your stomach hurt, because whether you are watching the characters eat themselves sick, or escape yet another cannibal attack, it feels utterly real.
Humans have always feared some sort of apocalypse, but in a post-nuclear age, with the threat of bioterrorism and the knowledge that a mere meteor could send us the way of the dinosaurs, we know for certain what earlier generations could only speculate about: Our existence could end in a flash. Even worse: We could be one of the survivors in an utterly changed world. And the way humans behave in this film is the way we all secretly know it would unfold. If you have any complaints about your life, see this film and you will come out silenced. It will make you realize how much we have, and how easy it would be to lose it all, including our humanity.
It’s a good thing to be reminded of, but in the end, the film left me with an unanswerable question: Why go on in a dying world, with no hope of rescue or long-term survival? The Road gives the central character the motivation of living for his son, but why raise a child in such a world? What does the son have to live for? If anything, isn’t this an act of selfish cruelty? The father teaches his son how to kill himself, in case he is facing torture and death from the cannibals, but we are never shown any evidence that there’s an alternative to death, which seems inevitable in some painful form. The old saying that “where there’s life, there’s hope” seems utterly pointless in a world as gray and dead as our moon.
Not having read the Cormac McCarthy book it’s based on, as The Road edged towards its close, I wondered how this vexed question would be answered, as it seemed to me that the author had painted himself into a corner. And sure enough, after immersing us in this futile, terrifying world for two hours -- a place in which most humans have turned into animals, and even our hero father and his son have started to wonder if they are still “the good guys" -- we are wrenched from it by a quick resolution and a happy ending. Having taken us to the brink of a pointless void, and having questioned the very nature of our humanity, the writer loses his nerve, supplying the audience with an easy “out” that strains credulity, in an apparent attempt to reassure us that human beings are really good at heart. Call me a cynic, but I think the cannibals would win in the end.
A warning or a promise: Unlike most movies that leave your head the minute you leave the theater, The Road stays with you. As we left, ordinary sights became grimly and even terrifyingly evocative: The shopping cart of a homeless man (like the one the father and son push through the dead landscape), an inexplicable pile of shoes in front of a house (which conjures one of the scariest scenes in the movie), the sinister implications of the “house-cured bacon” on the menu of the pub we went to afterward to have a beer and discuss the movie.
For discuss it you will. That’s the other warning. This is not a film to see alone, because it will generate questions you need to ponder, such as whether you would fight to survive in such a situation or not.
On that, I confess that I’m on the side of the main character’s wife, who we see only in flashbacks (added by the screenwriter, said my partner K., who read the book). Pregnant when the event occurs, she survives long enough to see her son grow for a few years, but ultimately despairs and chooses to die, and she wants to take her son with her, rather than leaving him to whatever horrible fate awaits him. That would be my choice, too. A quick and painless death on my own terms. The fact that the father cannot make this choice for his son is morally questionable.
And then there’s the ultimate question: If you did choose to try and survive, on what terms would you do so? It’s easy to say you’d never resort to cannibalism, but human beings have done so throughout history in situations far less dire than years of progressive starvation. You may never have stolen anything in your life, but what if stealing food or a blanket or water would save you or your family? Would you really value the life of a stranger over your own? Would you love your family more by keeping them alive, or helping them die?
If these are the kinds of questions you like to consider, The Road is the film for you.


Salon.com
Comments
Susan, without being explicit (for those who haven't seen it or read the book), my partner K who read the book said the ending is substantially the same in the movie. It's hopeful within the context of the movie, but you're right - it's not like everything gets better. Still I felt it played sappily and that it both strained credulity (for various reasons) and also left unresolved the questions the film raises.
My husband read the book and warned me of its contents so I have avoided reading it. We'll see about the movie.
Survival is a human instinct and I think this book examines that to some extent, but of course, not everyone chooses to live.
Deborah, yup. Whenever people tell me that they'd never do X or Y, I always think, Right...you've never faced anything that would push you into that behavior.
Steve, yeah, it's a strange movie for the holiday season! and I think they held off releasing it for nearly a year, probably because it's a hard sell. I think it was now or never. Fall is "prestige movie" season when serious dramas that they think will win awards get released in time for year-end eligibility.
Lea, you cracked me up!
Emma, I've stayed away from reading McCarthy despite all the praise he gets, because his books/stories seem to have almost nothing to do with women (The only people I know who like them are men).
Rated.
And if we can destroy a world, maybe it is the meteor that ought to be afraid. Gravitate away, wee friend!
Great review.
There are images from the book that will probably never leave my mind, but I still thought it was worth reading.
With regard to emma's point about McCarthy possibly "mellowing", I believe he recently became a father again (at a fairly advanced age), so maybe that has something to do with it.
Same issues arise in the days after your son dies, too. Your world and you have died inside, and you ask yourself why or how to keep living.
Why? Sometimes it's just that you have others you cherish who want you to live. Not that you yourself want to. Or that you think life is worth living enough to risk losing them, too. They don't want to die, nor do they want you to. Simple, selfish inability to cope with more pain, yours or theirs. So you don't die.
How? You don't think about tomorrow. Tomorrow won't change the facts, or maybe it'll be better--may it will dawn somehow, or maybe you'll be dead. Today is here, so you do what you can with it, because someone else needs you to. Live, go to sleep, dream of better days, live, ...
The choices, if you have the luxury of coherent thought, between becoming an animal, "keeping the fire" of human compassion and imagination alive, or chucking it all, are about who we are. Animals that evolved a spark of compassion. Those of less evolved conscience will survive without the spark, as beasts. Maybe others whose dreams go dark will go that way, too. The rest of us must align our paths with hope and seek strength in unity. I try to believe that I am still among the "rest of us".
Kathy, they're very different. The Road makes No Country look like a Marx Bros comedy.
Patrick, to me they seemed like zombies, too. I was having lots of "Night of the Living Dead" flashes. It may explain why zombie movies, while seemingly so improbable, are so powerful -- we can too easily imagine humans acting that way for other, more plausible reasons. And we're terrified of that. I always say the thing that most terrifies me is mob behavior in humans. Zombies personify that.
Deven, if you're short on emotional energy, don't go near this story!
Stellaa, you know, I've always loved apocalyptic stories, too. But this one is on a whole other level, as you may feel from having read the book. I guess I like Apocalypse Light.
Ablonde, see above!!
Lonnie, I don't want to overstate the positiveness of the ending - but it's jarring in the context of what's gone before, and doesn't hold up, for a few reasons.
Jeanette, I've read about one image (the baby) that's in the book that didn't get into the movie and I'm glad it didn't. Just reading about it in a news story was enough to have it haunt me!
Nuriah, I'm so terribly sorry to hear you lost your son - that's tragic. I can imagine that it causes you to question all these same things. I do see a difference, though, in losing a person and losing the entire world and any possibility of a future, as this movie portrays. Personal tragedy can be overcome, when the world is still green and living, and other people are still behaving like humans and offer the possibility of connection. I think, though, that this movie may serve as a metaphor for how life feels when you are grief-stricken or extremely depressed -- the world can feel utterly gray and hopeless then, even when it's not.
Dcvdicken, Lord of the Flies was one of those formative books for me. I first read it in junior high school and again a few times after and it really haunted me. I think the question of what we would each do under extreme circumstances is a fascinating one, and reading that book was the first time I really pondered that.
Neil, yes, death is inevitable. But at least we get love and joy and pleasure and connection and the chance to do helpful things for other people or make art or any number of other positive, productive things along the way towards our death. In this movie, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, like that. There's only barely subsisting in a blighted hopeless world. I couldn't see the point of going on living if there's neither anything in the present nor in the future to make it worthwhile.
Lisa, you're a first then! I know many avid women readers who've given McCarthy a whirl since he has such a good rep as a writer, but they all said that even though they admired his craft, there just wasn't anything in there for them to relate to so they didn't end up enjoying his work. But I've known several men who love his stuff.
Joseph, I just saw The Passenger again on DVD with my partner, who'd never seen it. I saw it alone when it first came out and I was so young, I confess I didn't "get it". I enjoyed it much more the 2nd time and we did have some interesting discussion afterward.
TT, ha! good one.
T. Michael: thanks! As I said, the ending apparently is quite similar to McCarthy's, although in translation to screen, I suspect the staging and acting make it seem more hopeful and schmaltzy than he probably intended.
Casey, I get that the story can be read as allegorical -- or as a warning of where we could easily end up for various reasons, including several of our own making (I tried to indicate the latter in my review). I disagree with you, though, that our world is already "hell". It contains much suffering and we're definitely fouling our nest and endangering our future, but we're far from having destroyed the world completely, as the film and book portrays. I think the film actually points out just the opposite: how rich and wonderful and full of possibility our world still IS and thus is a spur to do everything possible to maintain that and prevent its death. I seriously doubt McCarthy thinks the world is already utterly destroyed, although I believe he may feel very worried that it's heading that way. To me, that's a considerable difference in authorial intent: one is a declaration of hopelessness; the other a call to action.
I don't know the book or film (probably won't/can't see it--I have a weak stomache for the things you describe, surprisingly). But my response to the basic premise you outline is that I think the cannibals would win only in certain parts of the world. In certain parts, people are more of a mu**erf**ker than others.
His whole point was that the world mortality rate always holds steady at 100%, that we've always feared both our own personal death, and we've always feared the End of the World. (Look at how many religions deal with the question of the last days.) And yet people keep on going, because that's their nature.
I read the book in a weekend and could not put it down. Then I couldn't forget it for a loooong time. It truly haunted me.
I keep books around forever but "The Road" went to the thrift shop immediately. No. Way. was I was going to read that again. And I couldn't think of a friend who would "enjoy" it.
Maybe because I have a small child, and the emotions were too powerful, the choices too grim to contemplate. I don't know, but it was relentless.
Karin, I watch a lot of Holocaust movies, too (and read memoirs about it). And I still had a hard time with this one.
Ghost, I'm not quite sure what you mean...what would be the difference in some parts of the world?
Leeandra, no, I've never read that speech but I'll look for it. Sounds interesting (esp given it's Vonnegut!). I do know that people have always feared these things - -as I said in my review, it's just that we now know there's at least a few ways we could go, very quickly and completely. I don't at all question "going on" with life knowing that - I question going on with life after the unthinkable has actually happened and there's no real hope. Big difference!
Donna, I love the term "thoughty"! Fair warning that I'm stealing it - -assuming Steven Colbert doesn't get to it first...
Procopius, I would get it if there was some indication that's what they were looking for -- that's the theme of most apocalyptic movies: looking for the "good" survivors you can band with and start over. But there's no hint that's a possibility, at least in the movie version of this tale. It's all bleak.
Critical, thanks for sharing your experience of reading the book. I could imagine that actually having been worse - -I often find what I imagine while reading is far worse and sticks in my head far longer.
Misha, thanks. And I laughed at the idea of "apocalyptic groupies"!
And then think of that Donner party, from the 1840's, stranded on a mountain pass in a blizzard--they began to eat the weak, dead, and dying. I'm sure it seemed reasonable at the time. But then again, I doubt there was a vegetarian in the lot.
Isn't this how we all have to live our lives?
And just like with life, the questions are left unresolved in the book/film...I like that.
i too gravitate toward these sorts of films and novels, but i am nervous about seeing this in a theater. the novel was such a private experience, and i am not sure i can stand the soul-flaying experience of the film in public. still wavering...
and thank you for this review .
I read this book and totally regretted it - the writing itself is fine, but the actual reading was so depressing that I felt as if I had been tortured by a Dementor...literally the first book I ever bought that I considered throwing in a dumpster. (Of course I didn't do it...so I donated it to the local library...)
That's not to say that others won't enjoy the book... although "enjoy" seems the wrong word...how about "appreciate"...?
I am especially appreciating hearing people's experiences of reading the book -- it sounds like it had a similar but even deeper effect as the movie had on me.
Ghost, I'm sure that many vegetarians and vegans can't imagine eating any meat much less human flesh no matter the conditions, but honestly, I think that's highly unlikely. Human beings in starvation conditions throughout history have eaten anything they could get their hands on, not just any type of animal or insect but stuff like wallpaper paste, steamed off wallpaper, pieces of wood and their own shoes and clothing. Starvation is a condition inexplicable to those who haven't experienced it and makes people do all kinds of things they can't imagine from the comfort of normal life....
There's an excellent depiction of this state in James Clavell's great short novel, "King Rat" which is based very closely on his experiences as a prisoner in a Japanese POW camp during WWII. But even that vivid a depiction of starvation-- and eating rats and other things as a result -- is nothing like experiencing it for months or years on end. I heard Clavell interviewed once and he said that for 10 years after being a POW, he was so traumatized that he never went anywhere without carrying a pound of rice and a tin of sardines, as he knew he could survive for a month on that.
Sueinaz, you make my point very succinctly: "the extent to which desperation can change anyone" - the only question is how much we will change. I firmly believe we can't know that until it happens.
Lorelei, ambiguous yes, but again, as played out, all too soft focus hopeful about humanity. I think the filmmakers may be the culprit here -- I think the way it was played out onscreen may have softened McCarthy's ending.
Myles, yes, as someone who's read a lot of Holocaust memoirs, it's an apt comparison. But there are many other instances in human history where people have been in similarly dire circumstances, and it goes on today in many parts of the world that we hear little about.
KM: this is a beautiful summation: "It leaves you aching for everything and nothing" -- perfect description!!
Vern, any mention of Dementors gets a thumbs up from me. It's become one of my shorthand phrases for despair.
Test audiences in Walnut Creek suggested an ending where they wake up, it's all a bad dream, and then they go shopping for Christmas at WalMart, overjoyed by their lives in 2009.
Ordinary people have resorted to cannibalism surprisingly quickly, albeit of the already-dead. There's a great, profound and very moving documentary about the Andean plane crash in the 70's in which survivors cannibalized the remains of those who died in order to survive for over 2 months in extreme conditions before they were rescued. It's called "Stranded: I've come from a plane crash in the mountains". It's a very famous incident, which got sensationalized right afterward, and the survivors didn't want to talk about it until this documentary was made a few years ago and many of them told their stories to the filmmaker. It's the exact opposite of a sensationalistic movie -- it's a profoundly spiritual movie -- maybe one of the most spiritual I've ever seen. And the religious beliefs of the survivors played a role in choosing to do what they did. If you think it would be utterly wrong to eat the flesh of your dead friends and relatives, this movie might possibly change your mind. For example, can you imagine that those friends and relatives would rather you do that than starve to death?
Actually it's interesting to compare, because after a very short time, the Andean survivors had just about as little hope of rescue or relief as the survivors in the The Road - their plane went down in a very remote area of the mountains and as it was a white plane in a field of snow, it was nearly impossible to see, and rescue efforts were called off after a week or so, as it was assumed they'd died already. If anyone is interested in survival stories, I highly recommend watching it, and it's not gross or grisly at all, really.
"The fact that the father cannot make this choice for his son is morally questionable." I disagree. You are implying that your choice is the right one and all others are wrong for moral reasons. It could be flipped that your choice is morally wrong. I don't think it is a moral choice.
I would also argue that survival is a biological need and has nothing to do with love.
And on a related note, I've been enjoying getting caught up on your in-depth analysis of the "Mad Men" series. Those essays of yours should be published with the DVD release of the series.
Well done.
Marcelle, I don't say it's morally wrong. I say it's "morally questionable" (as you accurately quoted me as saying). That means I think it's a point worth debating and not an obvious good. So I don't think we disagree.
MJ, what a lovely double compliment - thank you!!