Based on what the director reportedly said about why he chose the actor he did for The Boy, being that people wouldn’t want to see a child as young as in the book put in that situation, I think it will not be faithful. I can think of two important scenes off the top of my head such a squeamish director would likely cut out entirely and severely weaken the message about atrocity vs hope by doing so. I guess we’ll see.
I see what you mean there. I didn’t know they cast a 13 year old in the movie. That is worrisome.
I don’t think they mentioned the boys age in the book. Near the end I thought it was implying that the boy was starting to get into his pre-adolescent years, so I figured he was around 8-10, maybe at the end of the book 11 years old.
I’m still going to hold out hope that it might be an otherwise good movie. I’m really interested to see how they’ll adapt it.
Same. It read like a nuclear winter. (But that did not imply the death of everything to me.)
Hmmm. I’d given up on McCarthy’s newer stuff. This thread has interested me enough to pick up the book at lunch today. I’ll probably avoid reading this thread or anything else about the story until I finish the book. I just hope it is more The Orchard Keeper than All the Pretty Horses.
I’m pretty sure they grabbed some apples from an orchard at some point. Not everything was dead.
Hopefully you won’t see this post then because that’s a good idea. I went into it not knowing anything and that really improved the experience. Part of the book is the uncertainty of the state of the world.
It’s the first (and so far only) McCarthy book I’ve read and I loved it.
Pick up Outer Dark next. It’s not as cheerful as The Road (no, I’m not kidding), but you’ll probably like it well enough.
I strongly agree but, just indulging the OP for a moment, we only know the local conditions.
I would say I thought it more than a simple allegory about father and son.
I’d also suggest “ridiculous premise” is sometimes referred to as the ‘central conceit’ or a suspension of disbelief, a literary device of long-standing and high regard.
I never really viewed The Road as science fiction per se, like Dr. Who said it’s more about the relationship between father and son than it is about the post-apocalypse. The focus on the science fiction aspect is what means the movie will definitely not really be anything like the experience of the book. It could be good, it could be bad, but it won’t be good or bad based on anything other than its quality as a post-apocalypse film (which means it will be very unrelated to the book.)
Cormac McCarthy is usually fairly obscure about his books, but he’s even explicitly stated what his motivation for The Road was–it was a trip he took with his young son (McCarthy is quite old, in his mid 70s, and has a son who is around age 10 or younger) and his thoughts on their relationship.
I’ll also say that it would be very much against McCarthy’s style to engage in the sort of information-spreading exposition that would give the reader detailed information on the state of the entire world. We don’t know anything other than the very local conditions in the United States, we have no idea how much plant life remains and continues growing, what sort of species exist in the world and et cetera.
A very good friend of mine worked on this film. I trust his opinion, as he has worked on some of the biggest films to come out of Hollywood - and his comment was that “Viggo Mortensen should be, and will be, nominated for an Oscar in this film - he is that good.” Not having read the book, he did tell me that “it is probably one of the most depressing movies you will ever see, but wow - you will never forget it.”
They traveled all over to get the exterior shots - this is not fake scenery. They went for a couple day shoot at Mt. St. Helens, as well as many other desolate locations to keep it real. He told me some other tales about shooting the film that I will wait until it has been released to mention.
In any case, despite the fact that I have been warned this is not the laugh-riot of the year, I can’t wait to go see it.
Why were they going to the coast, why south – some notion of it being warmer even though the sun didn’t penetrate?
The father took it on faith that things would be better there – but he had no choice, either he adopted some kind of faith or he gave up (as did his wife by committing suicide).
I kind of saw as a treatise on the relationship ( in the USA) between poverty or disenfranchisement and faith; either you adopt a faith – a religion like capitalism or Christianity – or you have no reason to continue because nothing else is going to dig you out of the hole fate has dealt.
I thought there might have been other stuff in there as well – perhaps about adopting false Gods (like it would be better if they went somewhere else) or adopting goals that become the entire reason for continuing, but . . . maybe another day.
Last thing, speaking as a non-scientist, a huge meteorite would work for this scenario, wouldn’t it?
Great news. I’m glad they didn’t go for making it a bit more cheerful. The last comment by your friend can apply just as well to the book (if you replace “movies” with “books” in that statement), and I believe I have said something similar in the past.
Thanks for the recommendation. I thought about asking what else I should read by McCarthy but decided I didn’t want to take over the thread. It’s on my Amazon wishlist now. It looks like it’s out of print in the US but will be back in print next year.
If it’s going to be faithful to the book it’s going to have to have a lot of long shots of scenery, so it’s good that they’re putting effort into that part.
The Road is probably the only book I have ever read that made me cry.
I’d be very interested to hear about that.
Without the sun all plant life is extinguished and animals don’t know how to use can openers. By the end there The Man and The Boy witness humans eating humans.
In general, I thought the “ridiculous premise” worked way better in the book than in the film.