I’m puzzled. Almost everything I’ve heard from people – even otherwise thought-provoking respected film critics – is that John Hillcoat’s film of Cormac McCarthy’s wonderful novel The Road is really depressing*. I think that the problem might be that there’s a lot of looking at the obvious images on the screen (a defeated, broken, decaying landscape) and rushing to a conclusion because there is the odd perception that the first thing that comes to mind (or the first emotion that is awoken in the viewer) must be the primary content. I find this odd, since there’s so much more there, and it shows up only slightly below the surface.
In fact, I’d go as far as saying that The Road is up there as one of the top three “feel-good movies” of 2009, if that term was ever worth using. Yes. Feel-good. This is a term that is mostly used for some of the (and I am being generous) often pointless (not to mention frequently vacuous) pieces of fluff that get released each year with some sort of “happy message” that is so much on the surface and so saccharin as to make one cringe even looking at the poster for the movie, never mind the trailer. I’m making a bid (in vain, I know) to be a bit contrarian and point the term in a somewhat different direction. I genuinely think that The Road is a wonderful window into the humanity at its most powerful and beautiful, with love, despair, trust, faith, doubt, and hope all on display (if you care to see them), staring you unflinchingly in the eye. To be powerfully reminded that we are capable of many of these things, often at the same time, even in the most terrible of circumstances makes me feel good. How better to examine these things than to strip away everything else – the cushions of normal society’s goings-on, the anchor of having some idea about what the future might hold (including where your next meal might come from), the codes about who is friend or foe, the moral certainty about who’s “good” or “bad” and which you yourself are, and more. This is what McCarthy does so well in the novel (while writing it with beautiful spare prose) and the team of filmmaker John Hillcoat and screenwriter/playwright Joe Penhall really got it and explored very closely (not to mention lovingly and movingly) the relationship between the two father and son, with that as a backdrop. (The casting and performances were wonderful, as was the cinematography, by the way. Nice to see digital effects used so well in combination with real camera work that it is subtle and utterly invisible.) By the way, I strongly recommend a read (probably better after seeing the film, if you have not read the book) of Hillcoat’s detailed thoughts about the process of making the film, expressed in a diary, some of which were reprinted in the Telegraph here.
The movie was extraordinarily successful at bringing a novel -one that is even more about the internal than usual- to the screen while largely hitting the same key chords. It well worth going to see, and I am sorry I did not see it sooner in order to mention it to you before it vanishes from theatres. Don’t be swayed by what your buddy might have said, or some glib soundbite you heard about it. I recommend ignoring these (sometimes surprisingly) hasty or shallow opinions being tossed around and take a leap of faith and go and see a movie that gives you way more depth and delight than any 3D glasses will supply.
-cvj
*Ah yes, following the lead of a listener to Kermode and Mayo last week, I did indeed show up at the box office and say “One for The Road”, for a delightful private giggle.
All good.
Note that the title “It’s a Feel-Good Movie!” was (if not overly clear) referring to the… movie. Not the book. (Although I am impressed with how much of the book is in the movie, they are different things, different media, and so forth. For me, the beauty of the book’s writing is an uplifting thing in itself, which is of course not in the book. Take Blood Meridian as another example. How can anyone write such utterly dark scenes in such delightfully engaging and starkly beautiful language? That’s McCarthy for you.)
Best,
-cvj
Well I stand corrected good sir. (Or at least I stand informed of an intriguing viewpoint to consider.) You know, I probably shouldn’t have gone to see this by myself on Christmas Eve. My poor timing may very well have led to my initial negative impression.
One element that stood out for me in the movie’s favor was the quick (blink and you’ll miss) shot near the end where the clouds over the ocean partially give way to some hopeful blue sky. You DEFINITELY do not get that in the book, which leaves you with the impression that the Boy’s new “family” will grimly solider on but die eventually with everyone and everything else. The only blade of hope about the future one seems able to take from McCarthy is that the Man imbued enough sense of love and caring in the Boy that IF he is able to survive the perils and starvation ahead he will carry a piece of man’s prior goodness with him and impart it to others.
Actually, I take the same data and look at them another way. In a world that is dying and clearly about to end, I actually would not be surprised, given what one often sees of human nature in relatively _good_ times such as these, if almost everyone degenerated into a state of awfulness. Now they really don’t meet that many people over their journey that they are sure about one way or another, so the statistics are not so good to make a judgment, I’d say. That they _do_ eventually meet a good person, even just _one_, is a wonderful thing, especially given that you must count them (the protagonists) as well among the good. So you see a glass entirely empty except for a tiny drop, and I see a drop that could mean there’ll be more drops because there’s so much room in that glass for there to be more in there somewhere! Yay! 😀 This all makes me feel way better than most formulaic cookie-cutter over-audience-tested products coming to movie theatres that get called “feel-good”.
-cvj
*potential spoilers ahead*
Dunno about Per but my reason I’d never call the book a feel-good anything (and assume the movie’s somewhat similar on this) is because ok, the boy is bringing out the good side of the man through his innocence but NO ONE ELSE shows a remote shred of humanity, excepting the one showing up the last few pages and maybe the old man. I suppose you could point to the father’s love to care for the boy as well, but then you have to recall what happened to his mother… And it’s not like for all this the boy is happy, several times he says how he wishes he was dead and wants to kill himself. Yay? Are we talking about the same thing here?
I suppose the best way I can explain my feelings about this work is I have a very basic belief that people are fundamentally good, and The Road operates in one where this is as far from the case as possible. Like ok, one or two people are good but their world definitely isn’t a good one, so I’m just never going to be able to relate to it without a huge amount of pessimism that would ruin any “feel-good” messages that may lie therein.
🙂
Playfully challenging the narrow perception of the term’s definition, my friend. The film makes one feel good about humanity (apparently that was also the intent of Amelie, although I confess that I mostly just wanted to slap Audrey Tatou, all the way through the film). So why does it not qualify as a feel-good movie? Just because there were some dark images?
-cvj
Hi Clifford
I read the book some time ago and really liked it. In fact, I liked it so much I bought it as a present to more than one person. I also really enjoy the movie.
But listen. Its not a feel good movie ok 🙂
For example, the Straight Story or perhaps Big Fish, or why not Amelie, now those are feel good movies (which does not imply them being shallow). But the Road? No. That is not a feel good movie. Of course, the driving force of the starving father is love. But desperate struggle in the name of love is not really what normally goes under the definition feel good. Just because one can trace genuine positive emotion does not imply that the feeling is good regardless of circumstances.
Nevertheless. Outstanding book AND outstanding movie.
All I know is when I read the book while it was definitely good in the couldn’t put it down sense, it left me with a seriously depressed and pessimistic outlook for a few days that I really don’t care to repeat. Doesn’t sound like you got that from reading it though, so how do the two compare?
(Fun fact: whenever a movie is filmed in and around Pittsburgh like The Road the offices always share the same floor of the building as those where my dad works. Which is cool cause he’s seen everyone involved in these projects, but depressing when you realize where you grew up is the best depiction Hollywood could find for a post-apocalyptic world!)
I really liked it too, though I haven’t read the book. Heard a nice interview with Viggo Mortenson about it on The Treatment — worth a listen if you have a little time (http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tt/tt091216viggo_mortensen).