Movie vs Book

     Having both read the book and watched the movie "The Road," I can now analyze the similarities and differences between McCarthy's (the author) and John Hillcoat's (the director) decisions. Even if it isn't always just like the book, I enjoyed the movie despite its unsettling nature. Surprisingly, the movie went by really fast much like the book did, which I didn't expect. However, I think I was more invested since it was very accurate and I knew where in the book each part of the movie was.

**********

Similarities:

    Right away, I was shocked by how accurate the dialogue was in the movie so I could easily pinpoint each event from the book. The movie also did a good job at reflecting the simplicity of the dialogue between the man and the boy. Both the movie and book rely heavily on this dialogue to portray the relationship between the man and the boy and follow the plot as they travel. 

    In the movie, Hillcoat does a great job at making these conversations between the two characters a crucial piece to the morality of the story. The boy is always the one making sure that they are still the "good guys" and carrying "the fire" within. The movie is able to show how the boy is always trying to convince the man to help the people they come across on the road. Both of their emotions are portrayed perfectly in the movie, such as when they are arguing about leaving the thief behind and taking his clothes (the only thing he possessed).

    Another part of the book that the movie did well was how burnt up and empty the world is at this point in time. The world looked just as dead as I pictured it while reading the book, which helped the storyline develop. There was no direct sunlight because it was hidden under clouds and ash in the air. The movie almost appears to be black and white at first glance, which shows how Hillcoat did such a great job capturing the bleakness of it all.

    Both the book and the movie do an excellent job of highlighting how sad the story is. Even having already read the book, when I was watching the movie I still felt emotional at certain parts even if I knew they were coming. Such as when the man nearly shot his son to save him from suffering a terrible death, or when the man died at the end.

    That's another aspect of the movie that was similar to the book: the importance of saving his son to the best of the man's ability. He saved his son not just by keeping him alive as long as possible, but also by being willing to shoot him with their last bullet remaining to save him from suffering horribly if he were caught and eaten/tortured by the "bad guys."

    It's a very emotional scene when the man is holding the gun to the boy's head while they hide from the "bad guys," waiting to see if he needs to pull the trigger to save his boy. The terror in the boy's eyes was reflected well in the movie, along with the father's hesitation since it seems like a crime to kill such an innocent angel, who doesn't deserve to live in such a horrific world.

Differences:

    Unlike several other movies that have been made based on novels, "The Road" is one of the most accurate ones I have seen. Therefore, most of the little differences between the book and the novel aren't very important and the overall meaning and plot of the book remain the same. Many are interpretation differences that are mostly insignificant. There is only one change that I think could have been a little more meaningful had it been done like the book.

    This change would be where the boy met the new man after his father died. In the movie, he met him on the beach three days after his father's death, rather than on the road when he finally left his father's side in the book. I like the version where he meets him on the road since it circles back to what the road symbolizes. Especially since everything that happens to them on the road evolves their character.

    It isn't a very significant change, but since the road represents perseverance it would make more sense for the story to end on the road rather than the beach (like the movie did).

    In addition to meeting the man on the beach, the father also died on the beach rather than in the woods like the book. Again, this isn't a major change but I think I prefer the way the movie did it instead of the book for this part. The beach seems more peaceful of a resting place than the woods, even if the sea is no longer blue, the burnt-up woods wouldn't have been any better. It's also meaningful since they had finally reached the coast, which was their initial goal throughout the novel.

    Another difference between the movie and the book was made as a way to integrate the flashbacks more naturally into the movie. In the book, they were scattered toward the beginning to give some backstory of the boy's and the man's trauma. However, in the movie, the flashbacks of the women are really the man's dreams. This change makes the story less choppy so we learn this backstory without interrupting the present day. We still learn mostly the same information in a more natural way, so I agree with this interpretation of it in the movie.

    One thing that was excluded from the movie was when the man was exploring the boat in the ocean. It shows him swimming to it, but not his actual findings. I wish they had added the scene with the flare gun and the boy since it was actually a heartwarming moment. The boy was excited about it and they shot it at night "to celebrate" what he found on the boat for them to use. But in the movie, the man has the gun but it isn't highlighted/important since the thief came while the man was on the ship so he's distracted by that when he reaches the shore.

**********

    Overall, the movie was very accurate compared to the book, which made both works meaningful. On second thought, I wouldn't say I "enjoyed" it since it's not my type of movie and it is very dark, but I respect the amount of effort that went into it in order to keep McCarthy's and Hillcoat's styles similar. I would recommend either one to anyone who knows what they are getting themselves into.

Meaning of Work as a Whole (p215-end)

     Due to a great deal of foreshadowing, McCarthy's readers are most likely able to figure out at least part of the ending of this book. Leading up to the end, the man grows sicker every day as he begins to cough up blood more frequently. The worse it gets, the more the reader can assume that he is going to die in the end. His illness overtakes him and his death leaves the boy alone in this post-apocalyptic world to survive on his own. However, it is unexpected (at least for me) that the boy is not entirely alone after his father's passing. Almost immediately after, he comes across another man, who is part of a smaller group trying to survive much like him and his father were.

    Like his father had taught him, the boy is very hesitant to trust the stranger and holds his father's gun at the ready upon first meeting him. But the stranger is able to convince the boy to drop the gun after continuously reassuring him that they are the "good guys" just like his father was. As we have seen throughout the novel, the boy is the father's way of staying in touch with the moral part of his soul; only killing/harming others when absolutely necessary. 

    I did find it odd though, that almost immediately after his father died the boy disregards his father's last wishes to keep the boy safe. The man tells him that he "needs to find the good guys but [he] can't take any chances," (278). However, at the same time, it reflects the differences in their characters. The boy is definitely unsure at first since his father had taught and influenced him to be, but it doesn't take much convincing to get the boy to willingly go with this new man.

    From a survival standpoint, it makes more sense for the young boy to be with at least one other rather than by himself since he would most likely die shortly after being on his own. But from an analytic point of view, the boy has been viewed as a religious figure by his father throughout the novel; an innocent angel. Metaphorically being the closest thing to God as anything else on earth, we as the readers trust that the boy is able to tell the difference between the "good" and "bad" guys.

    His ultimate fate is unknown since once he says goodbye to his father, the boy's ending is mostly up to the reader to decide. We hope that this group is the "good guys" and that the boy survives, but we don't know much about his future.

    It is interesting to note that the boy meets the new man while on the road (I have analyzed this road as a symbol of perseverance in my earlier blog posts). The boy's desire to push forward for his father's sake leads him straight back to the road since he decides to keep going rather than give up. Everything that has happened on this road has given their quest meaning or a new view of their goals.

    They come across a man who has been struck by lightning, who the boy desperately wants to help. But the man reassures him that there is nothing they can do to help so they have to continue. This is the beginning of the boy's understanding that they can't help everyone and have to look out for themselves first.

    Ely, who they met on the road earlier, left the man wondering if the quest was worth it since they very well could be close to the last beings on Earth. The man believed in God because of his innocent son, but Ely made him question this belief slightly as his days became worse (170).

    The thief snapped the man back into reality in terms of not letting his guard down and reminding him that his number one priority is their survival.  Although at this point, the man knows that he is going to die so he is doing his best to leave his son with the best chance he can to continue the journey on his own. So much so that he initially steals the thief's clothes and shoes, leaving him with nothing at all (257). The man's actions reflect the importance of survival and what lengths he'd be willing to go to save his son.

    One thing that this novel seems to highlight, is how survival instincts will almost always win over the common good. The boy is really the only truly innocent soul in the novel, but even he learns that staying alive is often not accompanied by kindness. The man teaches the boy what he can before he dies, and reminds the boy to "do everything the way [they] did it," no matter how the boy may be feeling about it (257). He comes to understand what is at stake, but still remains the innocent angel on the inside.

    Showcasing the many ways that one can react under such circumstances is a major takeaway from this novel. We see how some will resort to cannibalism, murder, theft, and abandonment to save themselves (which I have explained in previous posts). The book isn't suggesting that we should physically prepare ourselves for this type of event because it could come at any moment. Instead, it is analyzing the survival instincts that we all possess and how these instincts will show themselves when our lives are at stake.

    As the boy learns how to survive, the reader learns with him as this idea is developed throughout the novel. Much like him, we learn first hand how brutal some desicions they have to make are, such as when they had to leave the man in the road after he was struck my lightning or leave Ely behind because there was nothing they could do for them.

    Overall, I believe that, in a grueling way, this novel shows the reader the extreme things that someone would be willing to do to stay alive and protect their family. Even though these actions may have once seemed unfathomable when the world wasn't in such a horrible state, they have now become a crucial part of their survival. The moral part of this book is also important since the man and the boy have to survive in a way that still makes them the "good guys" in order to keep the connection between the two of them because that is the only good that they have left to hold onto in this world.