MovieChat Forums > The Rover (2014) Discussion > This is not a post-apocalyptic story.

This is not a post-apocalyptic story.


This is not a post-apocalyptic story.
The world didn't end.
There's still a semi-functioning national coin and a valued American Dollar.It's suggested that China is still going strong.
Most thriving local shops are in the hands of Chinese/Asians. As is the case in a lot of developing countries in Asia and Africa.

So, globally, capitalism is still thriving.
What's shocking for (our) caucasian/Northern/North-American/European eyes is that the collapse, mentioned in the intro, happened in Australia, a "developed" country.
In fact, the Rover's anarchic backdrop is an everyday reality in developing countries.
You have these so-called soft states, great at targeted repression and clientelism, where there's only order in the capital. The rest is chaos.
Like The Rover's Australia, these states get their quick revenue from mining. Tyical warlord-cleptocracies: farming or service industries are too long-term to care for.

This is just a white man's Third World country. Like some Afrikaner nightmare.
I'm thinking of present-day Liberia, where ebola ravages the population and its (weak) institutions. Or Somalia where Al-Shabaab knocks on Mogadishu's door.


The only thing missing was a reference to UN-refugeecamps or some bags of UNAID lying around to prove my point.
Not trying to start a discussion here. Just -erm- giving my point of view.

reply

The film is set 10 years after the end of civilisation. Summed up in 10 words, you should try it sometime.


reply

I agree with the OP. It's just a Western collapse. And for the American dollar to be worth more money, it may even be limited to an Australian collapse.

reply

I think it is more than an Australian collapse. There are Americans and others there looking for work in the mines.

reply

According to the director it was the end of civilisation.


reply

you're arguing with the nit-pickers. The ones who argue 28 Days Later... is not a "zombie" movie and Star Wars is Fantasy, not Sci-Fi. In a way, I get what they are saying, but if you want to get all technical, then 99% of post-apocalyptic films are no post-apocalyptic because there was no biblical apocalypse. They fail to see that PA is a genre- a style of film.

I have no problem when people want to argue semantics like this, but at the end of the day nothing ever gets solved. You're both right, you're both wrong. Who cares? Did you like the film or not? That's what matters. I loved it.

Maybe they meant Guy Pearce's character's POV- maybe Eric felt like his world has ended- his own personal Apocalypse. So it's post-personal apocalyptic.

reply

Here you go, my friend:
"Australia. Ten years after the collapse."




(edit: you used 11 words.)

reply

The film is set 10 years after the end of civilisation.


Unless you prefer to listen to the TV and watch your radio, the opening scene explicitly states "Australia: Ten years after the collapse", referring to a financial collapse. Not necessarily the fall of an entire civilisation because we don't know what's going on back in the more densely populated capital cities - like where the soldiers were threatening to send our protagonist.

They died because ... it's in the script

reply

As I said in the other post, the director said it was the end of civilisation.



reply

Dude, it is with a Z. CiviliZation.

reply

Dude, it is with a Z. CiviliZation.


err Dude...

it can be spelt either way. In British English its spelt with an S.




"Fiery the angels fell; deep thunder rolled around their shores; burning with the fires of Orc"

reply

You mean proper English? ;)

reply

Of course its proper...i was just being polite.

😀




"Fiery the angels fell; deep thunder rolled around their shores; burning with the fires of Orc"

reply

There's Queen's English, you know, from the country where English originated (i.e. England). You didn't seriously believe American English is the only English, did you?

reply

Dude, it is with a Z. CiviliZation.





Dude....Put down your crayons....Americans have their own 'special' way of spelling. Ignorance is the Mother of Invention in the US of A, just because you don't know how to spell a word you make it up with your own particular brand of phonetics.


Excellent movie with the usual good performance from Guy Pearce. Somewhat surprising was the brilliant acting from Robert Pattinson. Surprising because I've not seen him act before and have never watched ( nor will I ) the Twilight movies which branded him as a handsome hack. I'm sure his role will go a long way in shedding this unfortunate label. Pattinson was simply outstanding. Kudos to him.

reply

Ignorance is the Mother of Invention in the US of A


Don't post anymore.

reply

I pity the fool who is so insular he doesn't know that most of the world spells it as "civilisation". One more of those words Americans changed spelling of, with NO GOOD REASON.

reply

I'd like to read the article you're quoting from. Do you have a link to it?

reply

If it was the end of civilization, there wouldn't be an organized military or commercial transport(remember the long ass train?).

reply

The director said it was the end of civilisation, he should know.



reply

It doesn't matter what the said. What happens in the movie makes it a fact.

He's a bad director of he wanted to portray a world where there was no more civilization, because he left civilized structures/systems in place.

reply

Of course what the director says is fact, what is in the final product is down to the director, and he is a good director. It is just the setting in which the film takes place, just as with a film set after the First World War,


reply

Actually what a director or any *artist* produces is subject for interpretation and reading much deeper than what they say in some video bite, or the distribution company puts on the cover. Often artists aren't even aware of things that were ruminating in their head (or that of their collaborators/scriptwriters) when they started the project.

I recall an interview with Almodovar, who certainly thought about what *he* wanted to discuss with each picture, who accepted that people finding new readings of his work was interesting - not 'wrong'.

The director in this case might have thought he was just producing something that spoke of an end of 'civilisation', but his own sense of civilisation might be so myopic or singular in its vision that civilisation evolving meant, to him at least, the 'end' of civilisation.

Remember rock and roll music heralded the 'end' of 'civilisation' some forty years ago...!

reply

"This isn't a complete collapse of society—it's an inversion of present–day global power dynamics." - director

take two seconds to read maybe instead of just spreading misinformation cause you're an idiot who loves to hear himself talk

reply

How can you hear yourself talk on a message board, chucklehead?



reply

The train had armed men guarding it. And if you go to e.g. hinterland of a troubled African country, there will be organized military, but it's really not what you call a civilization.

reply

The film is set 10 years after the end of civilisation. Summed up in 10 words, you should try it sometime.


No, if I remember right they say 10 years after the collapse. If it's the end of civilization in general, then why are they still taking US dollars.

For whatever reason, Australia had a government or economic collapse, at least that is my take. There is a limited infrastructure, there is a police force (if actual police or military I'm not sure but regardless they do capture people for crimes and were going to send the protagonist to Sydney for I assume trial) and so forth.

Like the OP explained, this is more akin to what happens in many third world nations. My example might be Zimbabwe, take a look at their hyperinflation. I think right now they won't take their own money, it's worthless literally. They only will take US Dollars, Euros or South African Rand. But Australia is still functioning, albeit VERY poorly as a nation or at least they have some token government still in the setting of the film, at least in my opinion. WHOM is in charge might change every few months at best, but it is still somewhat of a nation in the setting.

reply

10 years after the 'collapse'. It doesn't mean civilization has ended. A few things are clear: There's still a currency. US dollars are prized meaning that the US is probably relatively intact if not doing well. The few military units seen in the film are well equipped, but where they are seems to be relatively remote too, hence probably the small numbers of soldiers seen. It 'could' mean that in another 10 years, things will get worse. We're not told what happened. It could be an ecological collapse, massive epidemic.

Pierce's character says a few times that things don't matter anymore...ultimately it's an unknown.

reply

The script had ten words. You'll have to try for less if you want a summary.

reply





reply

From the movie's own website:

The near-future of THE ROVER is one in which a steady but catastrophic Western economic collapse has reduced Australia to the status of a dangerous, resource-rich third-world country, where a brutal social order now reigns. It is not the devastating aftermath of a single unforeseen cataclysmic or apocalyptic event. It’s a dark future vision of a world despoiled by some of the very real forces and systems at work all around us today.

This timeline shows what it might look like if under-regulated, rapacious Western economies destroyed themselves from the inside. Browse news accounts of the West’s steady economic decline and the shifting geopolitical landscape. Sort by topic, or scroll through all five categories of archived news coverage.


It's not the "end of civilisation", unless you're using some weird interpretation of the term. Maybe "the end of civilisation as we know it" in terms of balance-of-power, general wealth, etc. Civilisation is more than a healthy, consumer-driven economy and ready access to conveniences.

reply

You seem to be informed so that is rather refreshing in itself . Most people don't know the fighting groups in Somalia . Nor do they know how vunerable and weak healthcare infastructure is in Liberia and Sierra Leone because of previous civil wars . Kudos

reply

The media made it, uncorrectly, a post apocalytic story.
David Michôd felt angry and disillusioned when he saw how indifferently the 1% looked down from their Ivory tower at the consequences of the bank/economic crisis in the entire world. That was one of the reasons why he wrote the script of The Rover.
Unlike post apocalytic films this film is very realistic and similar situations take actual place indeed in several countries. I guess that's why many feel uncomfortable watching TR. People prefer to be entertained, not held up a mirror to them. It is frightening how thin the layer of our civilization is and how quickly it disappears once times get very tough.

reply

The 1% are the reason Michod can write, direct, distribute, and be paid to make a film telling a story he wants to tell.

I like your point about the fragile nature of civilization. I often think that when enjoying a perfectly nice meal in a restaurant, surrounded by people that all know to be seated, use a knife and fork, say 'please' and 'thank you' and calculate a tip. Then, one customer causes a ruckus or loudly complains or has a fight with their significant other right there in public, and what a change it brings to the room. It doesn't take much to upset the rules we have all obeyed. There is a saying amongst today's "preppers" (they seem to be rehashed "survivalists" from the '70s) that goes: "We are all just 3 meals away from anarchy."

reply

I need to correct: don't think David actually mentioned the 1% (I like to call it that way) but the ones who have the power.
The situation in The Rover is extreme, but it isn't difficult to imagine IMHO that good manners, empathy and especially loyalty will disappear quickly once existence becomes tough or in a state of surviving. It's each on their own, rules thrown overboard. That's what you see in some countries in Africa. In a much lighter form it's noticeable also in countries where the economic crisis strikes hard.

As it has been discussed here since The Rover has been released, this is a story about loyalty, one of the qualities, if not the ultimate one, needed to remain human.

reply

OP is correct, This movies world is where basically our current economic social order becomes inverted basically East becomes rich, West becomes poor.

Australia suffers but is better off than America (why the use of USD is a mystery I am thinking it is more a symbolic almost "Bitcoin" like currency used in the "wasteland")

The website fleshes it out better.

http://therover-movie.com/#timeline this spills it out a bit better.

reply

Post financial apocalypse. Mines are still going and there is money to pay a thin police force so someone is still rich. Like now with places not to visit at night only much worse.

reply

Being Australian, it is quite feasible. If Australia became a 3rd world country. Then they are not going to pay top dollar for resources.

The only issue I have is the US dollar. For the western world to financially collapse, the US would be the first to go down.

reply

Just to put all that in context, I'm writing this now in crisis hit Spain in 2015, almost 7 years after the economic collapse, which happened in 2008. Not sure what is going on wherever you all are, but I think I can shed light on post apocalyptic or just post-economic collapse.

This year, just to add to the fun, everyone is getting ready for another big dip in the economies. Oil goes down and it's usually a predictor. No it's not as violent yet as in this film for many people on this side of the recession, where the effects aren't that great by most standards, but let's face it, we need to start to prepare for futures like this in the places where it's not yet arrived. This is the best way to avoid the type of world in this film.

There's global warming which we've already seen increasing mass catastrophe, then via infectious diseases, warfare in the oil producing regions (which are now our local fracking joints too), most people I know have lost their jobs and whatever work is still out there is ultra commercial. I've seen the need and wish to learn to make the things I would one day buy, and most food I eat is grown and cooked within my close social sphere - a lot of it in community projects. You can start to see a more colourful future where you just see it from a post-apocalyptic mindset already and try and build from the rubble that was the system where there were jobs or houses for life.

The euro and the dollar, as people on this thread rightly argue, are just as faltering as the ruble, and with no clear currencies, you can't invest or save with anything and our way of living here has changed dramatically: entire families are now without jobs, evicted, or facing huge debt where just a few months ago they were maybe pushing by. So this causes a lot of fear and of course, extremism and so far mostly police and administrative violence of various types. So all that already sounds pretty bad and that's without even talking about generic species depletion and water system breakdown.

So really there is nothing left but to prioritise the kind of future you want, and try and make sure that can happen along with everyone else's positive ideas. Changing this instead of feeling the old impositions of the previous civilisation (that was going strong pretty much until 9/11) can be very empowering. So today instead of seeing ourselves as the colonial know-it-alls we can learn from today's refugee camps and slums and their urban gardens, mesh networks, lo-fi homemade tech and construction techniques: about how they make it in what we might one day find ourselves in in our European cities. Instead of ordering pizza learn to make it(making mozzarella is really satisfying if you can convince a friendly cow), instead of working to buy stuff, make it and share it. Instead of investing in banks so as to buy a house for example we could care for a space somewhere, with good garden tools and home energy generation, and organise new forms of space use that don't involve all-out buying like co-housing or a million other things. And the euro is still there, but of course it's not very useful and doesn't last very long when you have it.

So I'd say, yes, depending on your definition of "civilisation" you can argue that you live in a post capitalist time, because the recession changed things for you too- maybe even just because you went self-employed, or because . And in that case this film is post-apocalyptic, and probably set in around 2018!

reply

Living in another European country where the crisis hasn't hit as hard yet as in Greece, Spain, Italy and so (but it's on its way to get us in deep trouble too), I appreciate your attempts to deal with it changing the life style we're used to, more self-producing, less consumption.
In desolate places, with unfertile ground, it won't be easy though as we've seen in The Rover.
There have been complaints by viewers that the film didn't tell a story, that there wasn't a plot...
IMHO that is the essence of this movie! When a collapse (economic) of this degree happens, it not only takes away the future of people but also their story. To tell a story, people need to have dreams, goals they try to pursue. When the only drive that remains is to stay alive, there is no story to tell anymore, people become lethargic as is shown so well in The Rover.
If David had that in mind, he is a master in touching the core.

reply

[deleted]

I think you've been led to believe that the apocalypse is going to be something much more stark and rapid than it would actually be. Films have us believe that X happens, and it's as if a switch is turned off on society. In reality, a major societal collapse will take far longer than 10 years to fully break down. We're seeing a society still in the relatively early stages of decay. I found this film to create a much more realistic portrayal of societal collapse than most films.

reply

This is a good point, and I'd like to add to it that the word "apocalypse" itself tends to infer a dramatic and immediate event. What's being argued in this thread is mostly semantics.

reply

Australia s a third world country. Sorry.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

I've lived in Australia most of my life (born and raised here but spent a year overseas) and I mostly agree. Unfortunately we have to pay first world prices.

reply

It ll be only getting worse with time. It applies to any natural resource based economy.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply