The Road is Cormac McCarthy’s harrowing story of a Father and his son as they navigate a post-apocalyptic world, trying to survive. In 2009, The Road was adapted into a movie with Viggo Mortenson and Sasha Butterfield as the leading stars with critics impressed by both the adaption and performances from the two.
Overall, the cinematic adaptation is almost a direct translation of the book, something that rarely happens when books are converted into movies. However, there are a few subtle differences fans were quick to point out. With that, here are 5 key differences between The Road, the book and the film, and 5 things the movie got exactly right.
Difference: Flashbacks Vs. Dreams (The Mother)
Charlize Theron’s performance as the Mother in The Road captured the hopelessness of humanity once the world began to tear itself apart. The difference between the version from the book and the movie is the way she is remembered. In the movie, the audience is given necessary context through flashbacks, moments before the apocalypse along with the Father grieving her death by fidgeting with his wedding ring. In the book, the Mother is described through dreams rather than direct flashbacks, giving her existence a supernatural and ghostly feel rather than the tangible version of the character from the movie.
Movie Did Right: Gun Instruction
One of the hardest scenes to watch from the cinematic adaption of The Road is the pistol use instruction scene. The Father knows that if they’re caught by cannibals or marauders, they’ll suffer every minute which is why he teaches the boy how to kill himself. With one bullet left in the chamber, the Father knows he’ll use it on his son to spare him any suffering they might endure.
As in the novel, the movie delivered a terrifying portrayal of this desperate moment. When all hope is lost, the only grace he can give his son is a quick death.
Difference: The Father’s Final Resting Place (Woods vs. the beach)
The death of the Father was heartbreaking in the book. The movie made it borderline unbearable to watch. After taking an arrow to the leg, the Father’s leg becomes infected and he continues to bleed out until his inevitable death. This is also on top of his respiratory illness, depicted through bloody coughing fits throughout the story. In the book, the man dies in the woods with his son after setting up a campsite for the night. In the movie, the Father bleeds out on the beach with the boy refusing to leave his body for three days. Though in the book, the boy also stays for three days, comprehending the fact he is alone and vulnerable.
Movie Did Right: The Musical Score
One element of McCarthy’s story that separates itself from others is its purposeful lack of detail. The idea of the apocalypse is terrifying in itself, the rest is left up to the viewer with the narration from the story only guiding the reader along.
The music from the cinematic adaption was spot-on, amplifying the sense of dread and hopelessness found in what’s left of the world. It perfectly replicated the novel’s atmosphere.
Difference: The Details of the Marauders
The marauders/cannibals are an unforgiving and vicious band of mindless monsters, enslaving men, women, and children as a means to survive. As savage as they are in the movie, they’re even worse in the book. Cormac McCarthy describes the marauders dragging catamites behind their carriages and cars before skipping to some dialogue between the Father and Son. The term catamite comes from Ancient Greece and was used to describe a young pubescent boy or girl (though it usually a boy) used for sexual desires. The difference between someone like a prostitute and a catamite is the level of degradation involved with the latter and often having them constantly available for harassment. It’s obvious why this detail was omitted in the film, but it does make these horrors even worse.
Movie Did Right: Casting
Viggo Mortenson and Kodi Smit-McPhee were an unlikely match for but ended up blending perfectly throughout the film The two were the last remnants of hope with the boy’s naive and innocent mind clashing with his experienced and cautious Father.
These two actors captured these personalities perfectly and delivered a faithful cinematic depiction of the two’s relationship from the book. Supporting performances from legendary actor Robert Duvall as Eli, Charlize Theron, and Guy Pierce gave the movie a touch of Hollywood fame for a guaranteed hit at the box office.
Difference: The Boat Scene
One scene discluded from the movie adaption is the boat scene which resulted in the Father finding the flare gun (which would come in handy later). The scene itself isn’t integral to the plot but still noticeable for avid readers of the book. John Hillcoat and Joe Penhall, the two directors of the movie, deemed the scene unnecessary and instead moved on with the inevitable death of the Father.
Movie Did Right: Portrayal of the World
Cormac McCarthy’s world after the apocalypse is a barren wasteland of burning trees, with sunlight hidden above the infinite layers of ash and soot. Director John Hillcoat did an amazing job ensuring McCarthy’s vision came to fruition.
There’s a reason the movie was nominated for Best Cinematography. The entire 111 minutes is a moving canvas with dark, bleak colors, devoid of vegetation but hauntingly beautiful at the same time.
Difference: Spit-Roasted Newborn
Just by the title of this alone, you can understand how dark the world is in The Road. This scene was omitted from the film simply because of how twisted and horrible it was. In the book, the Father and Son hear a woman give birth to a newborn with two men helping her.
In the morning, they find the newborn gutted and spit-roasted over a previously lit fire pit. It’s sights like these that were deemed too much but would have added an entirely new layer of horror to the movie adaption.
Movie Did Right: The Dialogue
Cormac McCarthy relies on dialogue for plot progression and character development, with the latter being the heart and soul of the book. The conversations between the Father and Son reveal the last glimpses of humanity, hence the recurring phrase between the two: carrying the fire (inside of us).
With this, director John Hillcoat did everything in his power to rely on the same mechanics McCarthy used, the result being a masterfully written script.
