Morning:
6°c
Andrew O'Hagan's rating
Film version of The Road is a disaster
By
Andrew O'Hagan
8 Jan 2010
Cormac McCarthy’s novel The Road is a real tour de force and a thing of beauty.
It works pretty perfectly at the level of its sentences, building a picture of a desolated world and an essence of human closeness that might struggle to survive when all else is gone.
It is a highly literary work, biblical in its cadences and naked in the way it approaches its theme. It was rightly praised on publication in 2006 and will stand the test of time.
The film version is a disaster. While borrowing the book’s classy sonorousness, and sticking close to its atmospherics and plot, it somehow fails to raise itself above the ground.
Like Mad Max on Mogadon, the film is enraptured with its own depressiveness, coming on like the worst New Year hangover you’ve ever had. It had no choice but to be bleak, but somehow — unlike the book — the bleakness is here weighted down with cliché.
I can’t explain it — Joe Penhall is a very gifted adapter, John Hillcoat is an interesting director, Viggo Mortensen is a fine actor, and the material, as I said, is first rate — but somehow the film trudges damply along and is relentlessly grey.
I think the challenge resided in the extreme literary nature of the thing. McCarthy is often adapted, and sometimes quite effectively (All the Pretty Horses, No Country for Old Men), but this time the effort to do justice to the book has proved overwhelming.
It’s a greater challenge, too, because the material is about as tied to its original voicing as Waiting for Godot. (Imagine what a film of that might be like.)
Things that the prose can do very quietly and devastatingly are approached in the film only via horror-film mechanics, assassins and cannibals seeming to appear not out of any mysterious, dehumanised conditions but from the halls of Central Casting.
This won’t stop many from finding the film to be a noble simulacrum of a great book. Oscars and plaudits are likely to come its way, but looked at without prejudice, the film is a case study in how not every literary work is suitable for film adaptation.
What was poetic in the novel often seems pretentious on screen; what was tender and slow in the book often seems icky and ponderous in the film.
Every film project is a dream of possibility and there is talent and hope all over The Road.
But for me the film turns out to be a study in stagnation, not revelation, and a disappointing, unexpected example of how the best road is sometimes the one not taken.
Details are correct at the time of publication - please check with venue before booking.
Reader views (11)
I just watched the movie and decided to check out what other people thought of it.
Personally I have never seen a movie capture the sense of loss and fear that a genuine apocalypse would create if you were left in a similar situation. Every other apocalypse movie tries to turn it into an 'adventure' or thriller - with 'exciting' editing and CGI. That kind of fakery can be great fun - but it is really refreshing to see a movie that is quietly spoken and unfolds without those standard 'hollywood logic' formulae. The fact that it 'seems' to go nowhere is so important to the feeling it creates (though in actual fact, there is clear purpose given to the whole thing).
The movie is ultimately hugely life-affirming and is clearly designed to make us appreciate what we could so easily lose. An absolute masterpiece and I have not even read the book.
The reason our multiplexes are full of such big-budget, shallow, ADHD plagued, formulaic, totally artless 'entertainment' is partly due to reviewers that think the art of film reviewing is all about whwther it is 'a good night out' or not. Well - sometimes we want to be challenged beyond that.
- Gary, Bucks, 24/08/2010 13:00
Report abuse
scotty, you're so right, a shocking one nomination for The Road. What the hell was all that about?! And as for the other of my other hotly tipped choice, Brothers, nothing. Even the brilliant Let The Right On In and The Prophet have been obscenely overlooked with one a piece.
Although with Avatar and Inglourious Basterds doing well, I feel a degree of vindication and would suggest, 1 all, after extra time.
As for being likened to a student, thank you, after nearly 15 years working in the film industry both here and in Hollywood, it's good to see I don't come across as a jaded and cynical.
- Simon, london, 22/01/2010 14:45
Report abuse
no Simon, I wouldn't be surprised at how many directors actually do get final cut because I *know* how few really do. certainly at studio level.
and I have to say your circling prose lacks incisive clarity or real meaning. student waffle might be closer.
Given the conspicuous absence of this film in todays BAFTA nominations (despite your confident assertions) perhaps we should take your anonymously claimed credentials with a grain of salt?
Mr O'Hagan 1, Simon 0 it would seem. 
- Scotty, london, 22/01/2010 00:59
Report abuse
Scotty, when I write that all that matter is the directors interpretation, I refer to it in the context of someone reviewing a film. It is a pointless excercise dismissing a film because you perferred the book. As to why directors don't get final cut, you'd be surprised as to how many actually do, especially outside the Hollywood blockbuster model. (And as for the Weinstein stories, unfortunately, I don't have enough space to explain here, but it comes down to selling your control for exposure).
As for your comment, good = like. Isn't that really the only judgement we have for valuing art? The alternative, to remove emotion from the equation, reduces us to nothing but a spectator, someone happy to view/review with a degree of distance and emotional detatchment, reducing our appreciating to that of a technician/
- Simon, LDN, 15/01/2010 13:49
Report abuse
I agree with the reviewer. it should have announced itself as 'Based on an idea by Cormac McCarthy'. Where the book is subtle the film lays it on, and other parts it just makes up. Oh, and spare me the flashbacks to Charlize Theron ACTING. The transition from book to film can be done - see 'No Country for Old Men' which was superb.
To sum up, if you liked the book, don't see the film and if you're thinking of seeing the film, read the book instead.
- Row H In The Centre, No Popcorn, No Distraction, London, 15/01/2010 12:45
Report abuse
A dead on review of this dismal attempt at literary film making. I could not recommend this film to anyone... And those that rave, simply fill in the blanks with their own imaginings...
- Ivan, SK Canada, 12/01/2010 01:22
Report abuse
If as Simon claims, all that matters is the directors version of the film, perhaps he can explain why so few directors get final cut?
there is a difference between "I like it" and "it is good", a demarcation not necessarily in evidence in his comments.
- Scotty, London, 11/01/2010 10:08
Report abuse
Mr. O'Hagan, There is necessarily a difference between book and film.
Either review the one or the other. making a mess of trying to make your idea of what the film should have been, is so totally unfair to the Actors, Director, Writer and those involved in making this film such a superb recreation of what we could all find would be the end of all things.
Mr Hillcoat has done a fabulous job of translating this story to the screen,
and Viggo Mortensen as the man is an absolute coup de force, and if his performance does not garner a top award, Shame on the people who hand these out.
The Boy, Kodi is a revelation of a young man who I am sure willl leave his mark on the film world in the future.
I think,, Sir that if you could write a review as well as Mr. Penhall adapted this screen play, you might find your place in the sun.
The boy Kodi is amazing
- Efron, Mission USA, 09/01/2010 04:33
Report abuse
The book was pretty dire itself and has only been lauded because of the literati have just discovered Apocalypse Fiction. There have been much better novels that didn't rely on overly stylish writing to get there points across...
- Jason B, London, 08/01/2010 20:24
Report abuse
Rubbish. Utter rubbish. As a bafta member I have seen this film three times. And it is brilliant on many levels. Too many film critics believe that they should review their version of a film and not the directors and I think this is the case here. O'Hagan has already decide what he wanted the film to be and has disregarded that of the film makers. This will win heavily at the both baftas and the oscars, along side, Brothers.
- Simon, LDN, 08/01/2010 13:56
Report abuse
Poor review Andrew O'Hagan. Constantly comparing a film to a book is pretty pointless... both are different mediums and a film director should be entitled to interoperate the source material in their own way to produce a new work. Judge a film for what it is, not what you wish it had been.
- Paul B, London, 08/01/2010 13:54
Report abuse
