As the Earth crumbles so does human nature. The planet is no longer sustainable for both human life and human nature. The grayness and deterioration of the natural world, as represented by the falling tress, reflects the deterioration of mankind and the morals by which people live. Viggo Mortensen's character only assumes the worst in people because for the most part, that is all that is left. He does not have the luxury of giving people chances because he has his son to protect. In contrast, his son (played by Kodi Smit-McPhee) chooses to assume the best in people until proven otherwise. In a way Viggo Mortensen's character had the potential of being just as corrupt as the rest of mankind, but his son forces him to reevaluate and reflect. For example, when the man steals everything from Kodi Smit-McPhee's character when he is sleeping, Viggo Mortensen's response is barbaric and inhumane. Sadly, the man complies even though he knows he will die because what other choice does he have in this world. There is so much uncertainty in the post-apocalyptic future. I think that this is reflected in some of the plot when the characters do something but you never see the outcome. In the same situation with the thief, the boy forces his father to return the clothing. When they get back, however, the man is gone so the boy leaves the clothes along with some food. The audience never sees what happens to the man or his clothes. Does he pick them up? Did he die already? Does somebody else find it?
This film reminded me a lot of
Children of Men in regards to the lack of children. When Viggo Mortensen's character and his son come across the old man, the old man is delighted to hear a young voice again. He never thought he would ever hear the sound of innocence and the sound of promise again. After watching
The Road and
Children of Men, I realize that children are vital to the stability
of society because they represent the promise of a future. In such conditions shown in
The Road, children give people hope that there is a chance that the future may be brighter and better. Like I said earlier, I believe Viggo Mortensen's character could have become just as barbaric as some others in this society. Due to his responsibility to his son, however, he teaches him how to be good and ethical. His son keeps him grounded just has children keep society grounded. There is an inherent responsibility to pass on the best of people in order to create a better future. People need to pass on "the fire": the inner capacity to be good in everything you do even despite the trying environment. At the end of the film, the audience is left relieved at the fact that the boy found another family. For all we know, they could be cannibals, but for some reason, the fact that they have children makes them trustworthy; of all people, they would best understand the importance of maintaining "the fire".
It's interesting that you mentioned the lack of children in both movies, which I didn't think of, and agree with how you connect children to hope; in both films that's what children often represent. I thought too that without his son, the Mortensen character would probably easily have resorted to the extremes most of the men around him already had. I thought the man at the end is really creepy and doesn't seem trustworthy, and looked like a cannibal. Maybe that was intentional to keep the feeling of total uncertainty there in the film. I think you bring up another good point that there is an inherent responsibility to pass on the best in people; after civilization evaporated, the worst came out, so I guess that's reason enough to have faith in societal contracts and hope the world never devolves into something like shown in The Road.
ReplyDelete