The book and the movie generally depicted human nature as malevolent and desperate due to the lack of food and resources. In addition, the ending in the book was similar to the ending in the movie. Both, book and film, implied that a man and a woman traveling with their kids had been trailing the boy and his father. In the end, the boy decides to continue traveling with them after his father dies.
The book and the film described and depicted torture, slavery, and cannabalism. Although it is easy to judge such malicious behavior, it is also easy to understand considering an apocalypse just occurred and there was no food in sight. Very few people existed and to complicate matters they did not seem to be very well educated or skilled.
It was natural for humanity to revert to primitive behavior. For instance, the boy and his father came across a charred human infant headless and gutted in the woods. Notwithstanding, the confrontation between the father and the man who was traveling on a truck with other men looking for children or other live human beings to eat. The end result was the man's demise with a bullet in his forehead shot by the father.
Another instance depicted a confrontation between the boy's father and a man who had come across their cart filled with food and blankets on the beach. The man stole these items while the boy and his father were searching for more resources. When the boy and his father caught up to the man, he urged them not kill him and said, "you would have done the same thing." By saying this, he implied that all human beings were no longer civilized in nature.
The ending in the film did not change what I had imagined from the ending in the book because they were similar. As far as what may have happened to the boy, I think that the man and the woman had good reason to allow him to join them. I say this because the man stated, "there was a debate whether to leave or take you with us." In desperate times, I think they realized that the boy could be useful to them in providing additional security because he possessed a gun and assist in scavenging.
2 comments:
The major issue about the ending is: what are the family's intention with regard to the boy? Is there a difference in the two endings? What is going to happen to the boy? The film puts a slightly different spin on the boy's chances for survival with the family than the novel Dora.
The book nor the film specified the family's intentions with regards to the boy. There was no mention of what role the boy would play in the book or the film if he went with the family.
As far as what will happen to the boy, I presumed in my blog that the family would benefit by having an extra body helping with scavenging and providing security. In addition, the family may love the boy as if he was one of their own children.
If the following explanation of his survival is not clear, then I guess I did not get the movie nor the book. In the book, the man tells the boy that if he stays with his papa, then he will die. In addition, he would have to stay off the road. with no mention of survival chances if he comes with him.
In the film, his survival is assured by the woman. The film specifies that the boy will live if he goes with the family.
Although the book did not specify that he would live, it did imply that he would survive since the man told him that he would certainly die if he stayed with his papa. I assumed that he would live if he went with the man since he and his family had been successfully traveling along the road.
Post a Comment