I completely agree. The shortcoming is 100% a product of the book though. The book was insurmountably good. The movie could never pass it or make you satisfied in any way.
As for the moral omissions, that really irritated me, the baby and the bodies were supposed to show the depths of humanity’s fall from grace. Its baffling that they took it out because it was a key image from the novel and one of the most memorable parts of the movie. Maybe they felt as DeNiro did in What Just Happened?, where he tried to erase the scene where they shot the dog in the face because it would be too controversial and disgust the audience
Overall you’re completely right about it being enjoyable but leaving a space for more satisfaction
Mike beat me to it, those moments are essential to the book and I can’t comprehend why they were cut when everyone knew it would be dark and gritty.
Now it’s just dark.
From someone who hasn’t read the book, I don’t think I could have taken more bleakness! ;-) I loved the film though, I thought it was horrifying and very affecting, I was riveted throughout. The performances were excellent, even the kid was pretty good.
The attempt to create realism between father and son seemed like the most polished and practiced part of the whole film. If the narrative structure would have been as polished, the film would probably have been longer, and better, and the film definitely felt like it should’ve been longer. The entire second half felt jarring, and seemed to push through the scenes which, in my opinion, should’ve been given the most care and exposition.
Plus, the voice over narration at the beginning sucked and was unneeded since everything he says it eventually told throughout the story. And the lame make-up scene for the baby’s death was poorly told, and the actors looked like they were chased out of their SUV. The delightful music in the second half was also a good way to take the audience out of the scenery and the actual story.
My friend was pissed that 2012 could get away with being 160 minutes while The Road had to cut down the emotional evolution of specific scenes for the entire story to feel as complete as the book in order to encompass some stupid 2 hour rule. This is a good example of how much hollywood really knows about stories (which they go on and on about as being the most important part of a film) and how to tell a story on par with a piece of literature. Hollywood basically made this into a teen novel, as they do with all of their work that costs more than they can afford to lose.
How did Hillcoat get the rights to make this movie? I thought that the Proposition showed more guts (ha) in its depiction of violence than the road.
My overall feeling is that the editors got to this movie and stripped it of its bleakest moments so that audiences wouldn’t leave feeling absolutely depressed. It definitely should have been longer, a little slower, and more developed.
They took out a lot of those necessary scenes showing the depravity of the survivors but they also didn’t allow for the scenes to linger. There were just a bunch of short scenes after the other and it didn’t allow for as much immersion as the book does. That said, I think it was a lot better than it would have been in most filmmakers hands. Hillcoat is a talent to be looking out for. Also, he got the job on the movie because the producer that bought the rights saw The Proposition and thought Hillcoat was the perfect man for the job.
I seem to be the only person who read the book first and still really appreciates the movie for its own merits. I thought that there doesn’t seem to be any need for hammering home the ‘humanity = shit now’ point in a two hour film when you’ve got the hunting scene, the captives in the basement, the constant sexual threat against the boy. I thought Hillcoat managed a lot of material well and people who wanted everything from the book to be present are always going to be disappointed.
I just saw this. 2/5.
My two stars are for the script (which is mostly from the novel) and the acting (which is mostly good), but the film fails massively due to the lack of a stylistically bold director and a horribly sentimental score that undercuts it at every chance.
McCarthy did something wonderful with the novel—he stripped down the language and narrative until there was almost nothing left—it’s as sparse and as bleak as the landscape the characters wander.
The film does nothing to reflect that. It feels like it wants to be Oscar-bait, except it’s in no way mainstream enough to have a shot.
By not having the balls (or permission, which is almost as bad) to choose a style that did the same thing as the language in the book, it feels like anything else. At least he could have shot it verite, but the best thing to do would have been to keep the camera as still as possible for as long as possible, and let the viewer settle into this apocalypse.
Without a score the film is immediately much better, but the score is only one of the problems. It’s not a film that you make to be Oscar bait. It demands a director with a vision to match the author, and that just didn’t seem to happen.
Wow, of all the things to pick on in The Road, the last thing I would’ve imagined would’ve been the score. I thought Nick Cave & Warren Ellis were the perfect choice, and I really enjoyed its subtlety, I’d hardly call it sentimental.
When you have a shot of someone crying, having the score ‘telling’ you it’s sad is not unsubtle—it’s hand-holding, and definitely sentimental.
I wouldn’t say it was overtly ‘telling’ you that the scene was sad, it wasn’t running counter to the narrative but in this case I think that wouldn’t have been appropriate. It was appropriately morose, but not ramming the emotions down the audience’s throat.
I thought it was a piece of shit. As an adaptation. As a stand-alone work. Shit.
Mortensen did what he could, though.
Either way, the end result is a warm fire next to the cold, dark cellar of McCarthy’s work, and as such is completely inadequate.
A shame. Whether Hillcoat is not up to the task or he was restricted, the result is a movie not many are going to want to see, and those that do will be disappointed.
That’s a failure.
And I still hold that the score was the single worst thing—the bit that contributed most to the film’s disconnect. Talented musicians notwithstanding.
Either way, the end result is a warm fire next to the cold, dark cellar of McCarthy’s work, and as such is completely inadequate.
I haven’t seen the movie, the book is is easily McCarthy’s warmest, most tender work to date: a love letter from father to son.
Apart from omissions from the book I have yet to hear a cohesive argument against The Road. Even if one were against the score that hardly qualifies it as a full on failure.
You have to judge adaptations on their own merits, or else you fail to take into account the shift in mediums. Take The Long Goodbye. That’s a film that completely departs from the source material in every manner, yet it’s a successful adaptation in my eyes because it’s a great movie.
So naysayers, what exactly did you not like about The Road other than the disconnect between it and its source material?
Gringo—I was making an ironic point about style—not substance. We agree about the book.
I think the score is a bigger problem than you admit, Joshua. When you have a film that depends on the mood it can create, which should convey the desolation and hopelessness of the world around the characters, and the score is distracting, laughable, melodramatic bullshit; there is a big problem. A film like this needs to convince of the world it portrays, and the character’s struggle we observe. Both of these points are drastically undermined by the music.
Another big problem is the flow. While I don’t want to bring the book into this too much, McCarthy’s novel flows thanks to his eloquent prose. The film needed to find either a way, appropriate for the medium, to recreate a feeling of flow, or to take artistic liberties and try something else. Instead, the film is just an awkward sequence of events, with strained attempts at emotional poignancy.
Argh, I have to go to school. I shall return.
I agree with what Adam says. I’d also add how the film pulls its punches on some of the books harsh and most essential moments, namely the baby, that really set the tone and help you understand just how far survivors have fallen.
Also, I thought the vitamin water was absolutely hilarious.
It’s funny that people are attacking the score, because leaving the theater one of the first things I discussed with my friend was just how effective I found the score to be, especially in comparison with something as perfectly fitting but abrasive as Cave & Ellis’ score for the Proposition. The score for the Road is as appropriate for this film as The Proposition’s was for its film; understated, subtle, and broad minded, I never felt like anything was being rammed down my throat, neither a need for attention nor a need for counter-intuitive artistry.
I never considered the flow a problem, not even for a moment. I think the film has a kind of non narrative oriented fluidity that works much better than I would’ve expected. Rather than forcing the nomadic nature of the plot into standard structured ‘events’, it was much more tense and elliptical, unconventionally eschewing the mainstream audience’s need for hugely defining moments and instead focusing on the silences and miniature events. I mean, Hillcoat has enough of a cohesive vision to not beef up Duvall or Pearce’s parts even considering their star power, instead using them to the best of his ability for several minutes and then letting them move on. That should at least say something about his ability to be uncompromising in service of the production.
I’m similarly enthused with the book, but once again, in my opinion adaptations owe nothing to their source material whatsoever. (See Cronenberg’s Crash, Blade Runner, Long Goodbye, The Godfather)
I hate being that guy that throws out the cliche’ we’ve all heard 10000000 times before, but in the case of The Road; I actually believe this to be true…
The film will never even come close to holding a candle to the book because the novel is about language. Like the letters that form words that I am using right now. Film is based primarily in the medium of visuals, and despite the fact that The Road is beautifully descriptive, what is really impressive in the novel is the typography alone. It is as if the novel has been written by someone without the concept of language (no punctuation, ect.) and I have absolutely no idea how that aspect of the novel (one of the most incredible and important parts of it) will be translated to the film [my guess is not at all].
JUST GO READ THE BOOK
Kenrick, have you read “A Canticle For Liebowitz”, by Walter Miller?
W: But Hillcoat didn’t have the ability to notice that Pearce looked completely ridiculous with a mouthful of fake teeth. He could hardly talk, for God’s sake.
Kenrick, I’ve read the book. And it’s brilliant. But while the book is brilliant in terms of its prose and word usage, I consider the film excellet on its own terms of composition, acting, narrative fluidity and all the things that separate the two vastly different (and at times incomparable) mediums.
Josh, I didn’t really think he looked particularly ridiculous. In fact, I consider the makeup another one of the film’s strong points.
Joshua, we are on opposite sides on the score, obviously. I disagree with all of your points. I must admit though, that the usage of Duvall and Pearce was one of the only times I admired Hillcoat’s choices.
I should mention that the day I saw The Road, I also watched Precious. And Precious was better.
I thought Duvall was a bright spot in the film. The man can do so much with a tiny, tiny part (I’m thinking of his work in Sling Blade here as well).
Pearce was wasted, though, given nothing to do behind my kid’s Halloween fake teeth.
To be honest I thought Garret Dillahunt and Michael K. Williams were the real stand outs among the supporting actors. The moment when Williams is abandoned naked on the road was one of the film’s most poignant scenes.
I agree with you on that, Joshua. Williams is a stunning actor.
i just saw it last night. i have to say, i really wanted to like it, but it was not all it could have been. if i look at the film honestly and wholly apart from my admiration of mccarthys book, it is a fine film, but i think that few of the positive things about it have to do with hillcoat and more to do with the nature of the original story. apart from the performances (mortenson, duvall, and williams) and some good but sporadic cinematography, i didnt feel there was anything spectacular about the film. the cave and ellis score was good to listen to but i felt it was far overused and very often misplaced in the film resulting in a compromise of the emotional impact it was capable of. i realize im reiterating a lot of the things everyone else has said thus far, but i cannot deny that with viggos performance, the scenes toward the end were hugely effective for me. perpaps it was my connection to the book. in the end i think this story is not a movie but forever a book.
Travis
I saw Hillcoat’s The Road last night and while I was glad to see how faithfully it stuck to McCarthy’s book, I couldn’t help but feel like there was something missing…
Perhaps the story just doesn’t make for a good movie adaptation?
Is the shortcoming a product of the story itself?
Also, how did you feel about the ‘moral’ omissions from the film (eating of babies, charred people on the road)…did it soften the story to much? Should it have been more grim?
I really enjoyed it overall but for some reason, I wasn’t completely satisfied.