The Tunnel is adapted from a 1961 short story by Alice Glaser, The Tunnel Ahead. It holds to the major plot points but it takes many liberties with the details. All adaptations distill and distort details, but this one loses a major element in doing so.
As for details. In the original story, the car is far more cramped (the father is hunched over with his knees at his chest, his son also struggling to find space in the car). The car space in the film is luxurious. They have more space in there than people do now. There are also two more children in the car in the short story. As we go, narrations describe many aspects of life and restrictions on travel that further illustrate the ways in which this society is - literally and figuratively - crushing its inhabitants. There are some changes that make sense to a modern perspective, such as making the brightly colored cars and buildings uniformly grey and boxy. But it's not just the details that are lost. The characters undergo a transformation that changes the whole story.
In this version, the father and his family are expressly sympathetic, which is a key change from the perspective of the original story. The film presents the family as passive victims of a dystopian existence. They don't want to take this gamble, but it is the only thing they can do to get home. In the short story, the father spends a great deal of time within his internal monologue and through dialogue with his wife defending the practices and policies of the dystopian government. It is heavily implied that he voted for the policy when it was the subject of a previous election, as did the vast majority of the public. The film takes some of this, and externalizes it. "Population control without discrimination", is a line of dialogue that the husband delivers in the short story. The short film takes the line and puts it on a sign above the the Tunnel, simultaneously absolving him of his complicity and adding to the sense of a faceless oppressive force that exists outside of the family's control.
Both versions end with the same major event: the car ahead stopping traffic just as they are about to get out of the Tunnel to ratchet up tension, and their narrow escape as traffic resumes and the doors close just behind them. But the protagonists deal with the resolution in very different ways. The film presents them as horrified during the finale, and deeply relieved to be on the outside when its over. They silently resume their journey home, both parents deeply shaken by their experience. The short story, however, reveals that the father gets some perverse thrill from being in the Tunnel. He is excited when it appears as if they may be stopped within it. And once outside, he cheerily begins planning their next trip to the beach - to his wife's dismay. He is a complicit part of the dystopian society that we are horrified by, that we as readers feel he should also be horrified by. And that's why it works. Dystopias rely on not just the apathy of some, but the approval of others. Nazis didn't rise to power just because people didn't care, they did so because people cared very deeply and were passionate in their support of the Nazi regime. It had convinced them that they were on the right side of things, that they had the only real solution to all social problems. The real horror isn't the Tunnel alone, it's that people approve of the thing and justify its use. That is the point at which a government can do anything. It is not an Evil Empire passing edicts that are opposed by all citizens, it's just the policy everyone supported coming to fruition.
Portraying each character as a passive victim takes a major component of the original work out of the calculation. It's still an enjoyable short film, well made with solid performances. But it's hallow when compared to the weight of the original story.
As for details. In the original story, the car is far more cramped (the father is hunched over with his knees at his chest, his son also struggling to find space in the car). The car space in the film is luxurious. They have more space in there than people do now. There are also two more children in the car in the short story. As we go, narrations describe many aspects of life and restrictions on travel that further illustrate the ways in which this society is - literally and figuratively - crushing its inhabitants. There are some changes that make sense to a modern perspective, such as making the brightly colored cars and buildings uniformly grey and boxy. But it's not just the details that are lost. The characters undergo a transformation that changes the whole story.
In this version, the father and his family are expressly sympathetic, which is a key change from the perspective of the original story. The film presents the family as passive victims of a dystopian existence. They don't want to take this gamble, but it is the only thing they can do to get home. In the short story, the father spends a great deal of time within his internal monologue and through dialogue with his wife defending the practices and policies of the dystopian government. It is heavily implied that he voted for the policy when it was the subject of a previous election, as did the vast majority of the public. The film takes some of this, and externalizes it. "Population control without discrimination", is a line of dialogue that the husband delivers in the short story. The short film takes the line and puts it on a sign above the the Tunnel, simultaneously absolving him of his complicity and adding to the sense of a faceless oppressive force that exists outside of the family's control.
Both versions end with the same major event: the car ahead stopping traffic just as they are about to get out of the Tunnel to ratchet up tension, and their narrow escape as traffic resumes and the doors close just behind them. But the protagonists deal with the resolution in very different ways. The film presents them as horrified during the finale, and deeply relieved to be on the outside when its over. They silently resume their journey home, both parents deeply shaken by their experience. The short story, however, reveals that the father gets some perverse thrill from being in the Tunnel. He is excited when it appears as if they may be stopped within it. And once outside, he cheerily begins planning their next trip to the beach - to his wife's dismay. He is a complicit part of the dystopian society that we are horrified by, that we as readers feel he should also be horrified by. And that's why it works. Dystopias rely on not just the apathy of some, but the approval of others. Nazis didn't rise to power just because people didn't care, they did so because people cared very deeply and were passionate in their support of the Nazi regime. It had convinced them that they were on the right side of things, that they had the only real solution to all social problems. The real horror isn't the Tunnel alone, it's that people approve of the thing and justify its use. That is the point at which a government can do anything. It is not an Evil Empire passing edicts that are opposed by all citizens, it's just the policy everyone supported coming to fruition.
Portraying each character as a passive victim takes a major component of the original work out of the calculation. It's still an enjoyable short film, well made with solid performances. But it's hallow when compared to the weight of the original story.
