****SPOILERS GALORE**** I've just finished watching the road, and I'm more than a little disappointed. Leaving aside the finger-pointing re-write ending, what I missed most were the little things, the small exchanges between the man and the boy, the coke can sequence being the most obvious. In the novel, one of the most poignant lines comes from the boy as he tries to share the can with the man, who initially refuses to partake. The boy says something along the lines of 'It's because I won't ever get to drink another one, isn't it?' In that one sentence McCarthy sums up that gap between what the man knows he has lost and what the boy has never experienced, but is slowly coming to realise once existed; a better, 'road'-less world.
I also lament the omission of those little examples of the mans resourcefulness, examples of how this terrifying new world has shaped and honed his senses; from the finding of the morels, the apples, the residual oil, his whittling of bullets from wood, his jerry-rigging the gas burner so they can take it on the road, his penny-drop moment which leads to the discovery of the flare gun. Even the nagging feeling that leads to his discovering the hidden trove of food and supplies was brushed over a barely noticeable 'Wait, what was that I just stepped on?' moment. We never know what the man did in his previous life before this tragedy struck, but from the novel we get the feeling (or at least I do) that he's probably a well-educated, white collar guy who's had to step up to the plate in order to ensure his and his families survival.
I can't go without mentioning the thief sequence. In the novel the thief didn't spare the boy, he came upon their things off-page. In the film he's portrayed much more (sym)pathetically and one is almost compelled to side against the man; after all, the thief didn't kill or try to eat the boy like almost everyone else we've encountered so far; he might be a 'good guy', surely the punishment meted out to him was too harsh.
This theme is further hammered home in the ending, where it's made clear to us that the dog (and the rest of them) are the same group who were heard above while the man and the boy were in the bunker / shelter. Indeed, the second boy is the same boy glimpsed early in the proceedings, though the window of a dilapidated building. If only the man had listened to the boy on those two occasions and trusted that the others might be 'good guys' then maybe he wouldn't have had to die, and ultimately, fail his son. None of this is in the novel, McCarthys theme is much more subtle than that, it's closer to 'what are the implications of maintaining your sense of morality when everyone else around you has forsaken theirs'. In the end, the mans love for his son is such that he can't bring himself to kill him, even though he knows that his son will most likely suffer a shockingly brutal death, but such is his love he can't bring himself to do it. He's fated to be the ultimate good guy, no matter the cost.
In closing, as much as I hate to be one of those people, I must recommend the novel over the movie. If this film made you stop and think even just a little bit, and you've not read the novel, then you really should.
I also lament the omission of those little examples of the mans resourcefulness, examples of how this terrifying new world has shaped and honed his senses; from the finding of the morels, the apples, the residual oil, his whittling of bullets from wood, his jerry-rigging the gas burner so they can take it on the road, his penny-drop moment which leads to the discovery of the flare gun. Even the nagging feeling that leads to his discovering the hidden trove of food and supplies was brushed over a barely noticeable 'Wait, what was that I just stepped on?' moment. We never know what the man did in his previous life before this tragedy struck, but from the novel we get the feeling (or at least I do) that he's probably a well-educated, white collar guy who's had to step up to the plate in order to ensure his and his families survival.
I can't go without mentioning the thief sequence. In the novel the thief didn't spare the boy, he came upon their things off-page. In the film he's portrayed much more (sym)pathetically and one is almost compelled to side against the man; after all, the thief didn't kill or try to eat the boy like almost everyone else we've encountered so far; he might be a 'good guy', surely the punishment meted out to him was too harsh.
This theme is further hammered home in the ending, where it's made clear to us that the dog (and the rest of them) are the same group who were heard above while the man and the boy were in the bunker / shelter. Indeed, the second boy is the same boy glimpsed early in the proceedings, though the window of a dilapidated building. If only the man had listened to the boy on those two occasions and trusted that the others might be 'good guys' then maybe he wouldn't have had to die, and ultimately, fail his son. None of this is in the novel, McCarthys theme is much more subtle than that, it's closer to 'what are the implications of maintaining your sense of morality when everyone else around you has forsaken theirs'. In the end, the mans love for his son is such that he can't bring himself to kill him, even though he knows that his son will most likely suffer a shockingly brutal death, but such is his love he can't bring himself to do it. He's fated to be the ultimate good guy, no matter the cost.
In closing, as much as I hate to be one of those people, I must recommend the novel over the movie. If this film made you stop and think even just a little bit, and you've not read the novel, then you really should.