Blog 3. further on up The Road
So, after our discussion today about ethics, morality, good people and bad people, "the fire" and other heady issues about existence, let's move on to the BIG question (the question we raised about these kinds of films on the first day and the question we will continue to pursue on down the line). What is the revelation that this apocalyptic story leads its viewers to see? Think about this in terms of the film's final scene. What do you make of the ending? What does the arrival of the family mean for this story that pretty clearly indicates that living in this dying world will be excruciatingly painful both physically, emotionally and spiritually?
This merits at least a couple of hundred words, don't you think?
This merits at least a couple of hundred words, don't you think?
The boy, who strikes me as the only character who truly holds onto hope throughout the entire movie, is the only character who finds a true resolution. His father, who definitely does everything he can to keep his son alive, still doesn't expect them to live for much longer. When his son asks if they are going to die, his father doesn't say no because he thinks they never will... He says no because starvation is a slow death, and so they are already on the road to death as they speak. The boy isn't giving up on life, and he doesn't count down the days until his death like his father does. His nightmares show that he is afraid, and you only have fear when you want to protect your life. The revelation in the movie must be that hope, or the "fire" inside of us, is what keeps us alive. The boy fights for his life, even after his father dies, and he finds a loving family that takes him in. It seems completely unrealistic considering the boy's perilous situation on the beach. But his innocence and "fire" prevents him from looking at the negative in every situation, like his father. Perhaps with wisdom and experience comes negativity.
ReplyDeleteWow, really had to pick an easy question, didn't you? Anyways, I'm incredibly torn right now. So let's break this down. On the one hand, I think its easy to default Isabel's view that the ending is a clear hope for the boy. In this case, the "revelation" would be the strength of the human spirit; even in the worst situations if one doesn't give up hope one can triumph. The family at the end contains everything the boy ever wanted: a dog, other kids and a mother, along with a new father. Yet at the same time, I cannot help but consider how different his life will truly be with his new family. Yes, it will be better, compared to his other life, but it will still be miserable; life in "The Road" is one of the harshest existences imaginable. He will still have to struggle for for food and will have to be on the defensive, or else risk being a victim to the roving bands of cannibals. The boy simply exchanged one family for the other; that did not really help the state of the world. While there is hope simply in the fact that this family is one of "the good guys," my question is still this: how long can this new family remain "good?" The boy and his father were getting close to becoming "bad," as evidenced by the father forcing the thief to strip. Ultimately, I think that while the directors probably want us to view the ending as hope, I don't agree with them. I think that the boy and his new family, just like him and his father, will be searching for a Green Place that does not exist. The world is broken -- but they cannot fix it. The true revelation of this movie is that sometimes the odds are just stacked against you and you have to surrender -- or else risk endless suffering.
ReplyDeleteWell, this is difficult… I think the “revelation” is that (short term) hope is still possible. The boy remains hopeful that all will be well and he is found by a (seemingly) kind and welcoming family. We are lead to believe that they will help him mainly with one image: the dog. If the family was starving and cannibalistic, they would have at least eaten the dog by then. The ending is impactful, bringing hope, but not the good kind of hope. It brings the kind of hope that will be inevitably crushed. I am happy that the boy now has some non-cannibalistic company, but I also believe that they will all die in the end. There are not enough resources for all of them. With the family, the boy will just have to suffer longer in that world. The family brings both a glimmer of hope and eternal despair.
ReplyDeleteYes the boy finding the family is supposed to be a happy ending. But let's be honest, it’s not that happy of an ending. The dad is still very much dead and, if we’re being realistic, the whole family is most likely going to die at the hands of one of the gangs or starvation. It’s simply not sufficient to try to support a family, especially one with three kids in the post apocalyptic world. There’s no food for miles and miles, and as a whole they are weaker with the children present. The fact of the matter is that even if they truly believe that they’re “carrying the fire” and are the “good guys”, they’re most likely going to die a brutal, violent death, or end up starving to death. So what’s the revelation here? Is it that there is always hope in this world, no matter what? If I’m being honest, it doesn’t seem like there is too much hope in the world. The way the dad and the boy had to survive and the dad’s eventual death make it pretty clear to me that there really isn’t hope for a better life, it’s really an absence of hope that is present throughout the movie. Just looking at all the grayness, at the futility of the dad and the child’s actions, it seems like there is nothing left to live for in the world. And maybe that’s why this movie did so badly in the box office.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of hope -wether it is beneficial or detrimental, is a recurring theme throughout The Road. Both dad and son kept up hope throughout most of the movie. However, while by the end of story, the dad had lost hope and turned into a "bad" person (not wanting to give the old man food "because he's going to die anyways" and forcing the man on the side of the road to strip), the son kept up hope. This saved his life in the end, because he lived long enough to be found by the kind family (even though they were following him and his father). He kept "the fire", which I think symbolizes hope in this movie, while his dad was driven insane by the chaotic, dreary, and cannibalistic world around him. The revelation in this story is that while there is an easy way out of this post-apocalyptic world--death (or in most cases, suicide), it pays off more to keep hope, because hope is what drives us to survive. Even if you die trying to survive, hope at least gives us the possibility of survival. It is better to have a chance than to have no chance at all by your own hand. While everyone wants to survive, some people were not determined or brave enough to go through hell to get there. But hope, for a better life or just for survival, is what instills some of that bravery and determination in us. In other words, hope is the key to survival; it gives us incentives for us to keep going.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these films about post-apocalyptic worlds lead the viewers to see that even in hard times, love and trust can really help you through it. Even though the world has lost its balance between nature, people have the choice to balance their emotions and continue to live as they want. In The Road, some of the surviving humans have created groups that hunt down other people and eat them. Even though they are hungry, I cannot understand why they torture people in this way. The humans in the basement of the house that The Man and his son went into were going to be eaten, but they were also starving and some had their arms or legs crudely amputated. The people who forced them into the basement were not giving these humans any dignity. Not only were they to be eaten, but they had to suffer injuries from their captors. On the other hand, The Man and The Boy are able to survive without murdering others. It is much harder for them to survive, but The Boy feels that if they ate others, this would mean they were bad people. At the end of the day, this choice to not eat others means that they could die, but their conscience would not allow them to do this. The Man and The Boy have to trust each other. They have to be aware that even though their starvation means that they are largely uncomfortable, their love to each other is more important, and can overpower their hunger. At the end of the movie, when The Man awfully makes the man who took their food and supplies return it, we can see that The Man has lost his love and trust in others. The man did not murder The Boy, and this proves that he is a good person, but The Boy's father still forces him to return the food and give them his clothes. Everyone in this post-apocalyptic world is trying to survive, but The Man completely stole from him of any chance of surviving. The Man said that he would die eventually, but The Man and The Boy too would die eventually. The Man and The Boy should have helped him, because he was trying to survive just as much as they were. The love and trust between the characters is important in the ending. The family comes and tells The Boy that he can come and live with them. I believe it was good they waited for The Man to die, and then come and help The Boy. To me, in a religious sense, they acted as guardian angles to The Boy. They waited for him to be able to live as much of his life with his father, and then gave him the opportunity to come and live with another family. Even though the post-apocalyptic world is very hard to survive in, you can decide that you want to at least love others and trust them to protect you. The Boy could have decided not to go with them, but because he chose to travel with the family, he has the ability to be able to love them and be loved.
ReplyDeleteThe revelation portrayed in the film is multi-faceted. In one aspect, the film conveys the message that sometimes the best one can do in a bad situation is to focus on the good. This is played out by the actions of the boy. This is showcased in the scene with Eli; even when the boy and his father are starving, the boy shares their food. On the other hand though, the film also addresses the power of nature and destruction, which in a way contradicts the message that hope is the answer. I really believe that John Hillcoat is delivering the message that in the end, nature always wins. This is evident by the havoc ensued on humanity post-disaster--the earthquakes, fires, extreme weather changes, etc. The ending really tore me apart. It was cliché, but at the same time brought tears to my eyes. The ending makes me really frustrated; why did the other family wait until the father was dead to offer solace to the boy? Maybe if they had revealed themselves sooner, than the father would have had a chance of life. It makes me wonder--what if they were putting up a facade and if instead their true motive is to consume the boy for dinner. With that said though, John Hillcoat choose this ending for a reason; as I mentioned in class, the boy matured with the death of his father. There is no doubt that he was scared, but in his father's final hours he gave his father a sense of peace by just being there for him. Maybe I am just being naive, or should I say hopeful, but maybe the family has a slim chance for survival--the fact that all four of them are alive, and in somewhat good health means something. But then again, as Moey mentioned above, even if they pursue life in the coming weeks, their act of survival will drive them to their death.
ReplyDeleteI think that the movie is saying that it matters - life and hope and kindness matter. If it really didn’t matter - or, if the director was saying it didn’t - then why would the movie end with such a happy concept? A mother and father with two kids - and a DOG? After all the cannibals and dusty skeletons, these people stick out like a sore thumb, and they are the last impression of this world that we get. His mother gave up hope, and his father became violent and desperate, but the boy remained kind - and it was the boy who survived. This whole family has been kind enough to follow the boy and his father just in case the father died and the son needed protection. (In many ways, I see this family as a portrait of what could have been, had his mother kept herself alive and the father not become so brutal). If brutality is the only way to survive in this world, then how are these kind people doing so well? The world is hellish, to be sure, but it is made increasingly so by people who decide to rob and kill and consume. I don’t think this world be nearly so horrific if no one had resorted to cannibalism and instead everyone opted to care for the orphaned children they found. The food would run out, and people would absolutely still die, but that is more sad than terrifying. I think it’s worse to cling to a few more gristly months surviving by eating your neighbors than to die sooner, but in peace. No matter how illogical or dangerous the boy’s attempts at kindness were, I was always relieved when he tried - giving the old man food, and returning the clothing to the man they robbed (regardless of whether or not he found it) were satisfying to me. They’re dirty, broken and dying, but the boy is still trying to be humane (and my choice in wording here is completely deliberate) and it seems to work. Suspicious of the man on the beach, he asks how can he know that he isn’t a cannibal? And the man says that he doesn’t - he just has to take the chance. And he does - and it gets him a family. He’s willing to be kind, and willing to give people the chance to be kind, and at the end of the day it saves him. So, yes - I absolutely think this movie is saying that kindness and humanity matter. Maybe not in a long lasting sort of way, or even an objective one, but in these moments, it mattered.
ReplyDeleteThis movie is an excellent example of what apocalyptic movies are intended to be, a thought provokes. They bring up excellent questions that boggle the mind and put us in tough situations. There are many questions in 'The Walk'. The one that is the most prominent for me is the question of, "Do the morals and expectations that define bad and good in our modern world cross into the post-apocalyptic world that these characters attempt to survive in. As a viewer we come in with the knowledge we have learned from our world and expect it to be the same in the imagined world and we are shocked to see the differences. Most of the audience would immediately label the cannibals in 'The Walk' as the bad guys, but in reality they live in a world that is so different from ours so is it fair to judge their desperation in a situation such as the one that is presented. This question keeps begging to be answered as his son inquires if they are the good guys. We could see this as also the father questioning himself if he is doing all of the right thing to survive but remain just. In the end, we wonder how this new found family would be judged in the expectations of the decaying world.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this movie has a dark after ending no matter how you look at it. The first time I watched it, I was happy he had found a family, although they would still die and inevitably in a horrible way, whether that is gangs or just cold. The second time I watched the movie and I remember being a little confused by the wording in the end and thought that maybe it had a bit of a cannibalistic hint. Although they seem like a nice family with children and a dog, that would still show what a desperate situation they were in. This movie showed how hard life was for just them and the amount of sacrifices and risks had to be made and maybe this family was yet another example. I think the revelation might be human spirit and the ability to keep hope and not give up
ReplyDeleteMy initial opinion in the ending was that it was a terrible outcome for the boy, but now I am unsure if it is actually bad for him. My original thinking was that he would still have to live in this hellish world, and that death is better than life, so he is worse off because he is still living. On top of all that, he also has to live with the memory of his father's death. The more that I thought about the ending, the more my opinion on it changed. The boy obviously does not want to die, which is seen during the attempted suicide scenes and the scene where we see the dead people who hanged themselves in the house. There is something about him that makes him push on, and I'm not sure if it is "hope" for the future or a fear of death, but either way it makes sense that he chooses to live on. Another thing about the ending is that he gets a mother figure and a boy his age. It is implied that he wants a mother figure in his life, but we saw in the scene where he saw a boy in a window that he really wants to be with a boy that is his age. I am uncertain about the ending because he suffers his biggest loss (his father), but he is also gifted with life, a mother, and a brother.
ReplyDelete1) This is a hard question to answer because there are so many unanswered questions about the family at the end. Why were they the ones to drive them out of the shelter. Why were they following them? Why didn't they say something to them sooner? Why didn't they just let the father slowly die when they could've helped? The fact that I can even pose these questions can help me answer yours. I think some will be quick to say that this is the triumph of good and hope. The father became cold, and he died. But this family stuck together and seemingly remained “good,” and they have survived. But I wouldn't even be so quick to say that this family is good. They said they had been following the boy and his father. So every cold or “bad” thing he did, they just let slide as well. Additionally, they drove them out of their shelter (I'm assuming) and didn't tell them after that they were friendly, and they slowly let the father die afterwards. So I don't think this ending is any kind of revelation of hope or good or anything of the sort. Rather, I think the movie has a much more bleak ending than the directors were maybe going for. I think the movie is saying it doesn't matter. Not how much hope you have, not how kind you are, none of that. Even if the ending did represent hope, we’re only watching this one successful story of hope. 99% of the hope stories on this earth really ended in death, but they made the movie about this one little kid that happened to survive. The only reason general kindness works now is because a majority of humans agree on it. If a large part of the population decided to just say fuck the kind people and fought them with no bars held, they'd probably win. I mean, that's how Germany got so powerful in the first place. Hitler was relentless in his military pursuits while the allied forces in Europe were hell bent on appeasement and maintaining the peace. No mercy is without a doubt the best, easiest, and most secure way to live in a world with no society, and I think this movie is evidence of that.
ReplyDeleteI think the revelation the movie was going for was those who truly had hope, or "the fire", are the ones who will survive. This idea is represented perfectly in the last seen. The boy still holds on to the idea of this "fire" and asks the man who has been following them if he has it. Likelihood is that the man would have said anything to the boy to get him to go with him but we'll set aside that possibility for the sake of the blog. The ending was very...expected yet unexpected. Unfortunately, I heard previously that the father dies and the boy leaves before I finished the movie but I misinterpreted a bit. I thought the boy was going to leave and take care of himself, in which case I wouldn't expect him to last very long. The appearance of the man at the end threw me off a bit as I was sure he was there with evil intentions. I figured that since the boy did not commit suicide after the death of his father, this movie would likely have a more positive ending. I did not, however, expect for a whole family to show up and take him in. Yet with this family comes a horde of new questions. Why were the following the child and his father? Why didn't they make themselves known as being friends and not the enemy? Why did they let the father die before intervening in the boy's life? Why did the woman say that they were "worried" about him? We are not likely to get the answer to these questions and I'm unsure whether this was the directors original intent. Movies without happy endings don't always turn up a good profit so they may have wanted the audience to view the ending as hopeful. Though I do not believe that there is hope in that dying world. It does not look as though society will be rebuilt any time in the near future. I do believe the family gives a sense of false hope. A sense that they will survive together, if but a little while longer.
ReplyDelete