"The Road" No thumbs up? (Spoiler)

[Mr. Hole the Magnificent]

So what is the story with some of the characters Viggo and his son
meeting not having thumbs, it isn't addressed, but the camera focuses
on it twice.

[Russell Watson]

In the novel they imply that it's a punishment among the cannibal
clans to cut peoples' fingers off (a relatively minor one,
apparently), though it only features once in the book near the end
when an outcast from one of the clans steals all their stuff while
they are foraging and they have to take it back. However, the guy is
missing all the fingers off of one hand, not just a thumb. Hard to say
what liberties the movie took. I have seen it yet because it isn't
playing here.

[Russell Watson]

One might also suppose they meant to imply that people gnawed their
own thumbs off out of starvation but if the movie doesn't explain it
and it ain't from the novel who the hell really knows? One would think
if they were going to make a point of showing something like that they
would feel compelled to explain it rather than make one guess at the
signifcance, even if it's from the book. that are apt to be folks who
didn't read the book but will see the film and so you would think you
could expect a bit of exposition. Would be easy to have the kid ask
his dad what was up with the thumbs and the dad explain it to him and
to th audience at the same time, done deal. And maybe they did but the
missing thumbs "ended up on the cutting room floor" as they say in
hipster moviespeak...

[Mr. Hole the Magnificent]

On Dec 4, 7:49 am, Russell Watson <russell-wat...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 19:34:10 -0800 (PST), "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
>

> <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >So what is the story with some of the characters Viggo and his son
> >meeting not having thumbs, it isn't addressed, but the camera focuses
> >on it twice.
>
> In the novel they imply that it's a punishment among the cannibal
> clans to cut peoples' fingers off (a relatively minor one,
> apparently), though it only features once in the book near the end
> when an outcast from one of the clans steals all their stuff while
> they are foraging and they have to take it back. However, the guy is
> missing all the fingers off of one hand, not just a thumb. Hard to say
> what liberties the movie took. I have seen it yet because it isn't
> playing here.

Okay, thanks.

[diggingthedirt]

Opposable thumbs were the engine of evolution. Perhaps their loss
symbolises humanities descent into barbarity.

[pray4mojo]

I had this same question and read through several message boards for
good answers. The only answers I found were incomplete or idiotic,
leaving me to assume the answer does not exist clearly in the book or
film. It seems somewhat obvious its a punishment from someone, but
its very confusing, as the cannibals would not be apt to inflict such
minor damage, and escape from them seems very unlikely. Also, the
cannibal clans are not coordinated, so this punishment would either
have to be from the same clan, or be common-sensical enough to occur
to multiple clans (and not to us, the viewers).
I considered the possibility of needing to gnaw thumbs off to slip out
of handcuffs, but of course we never saw handcuffs, and the portion of
the thumb that was missing wouldn't make much difference, so I think
that's out. There were suggestions of some form of retro-evolutionary
loss of thumbs... but there's no chance the filmmakers could be as
ignorant of the timeframes involved in evolutionary changes as those
who suggested such nonsense. There were also some rather strong
suggestions that they ate their thumbs out of starvation, which is
ludicrous.
I think you'd have to speak to some of the writers or filmmakers, as
there was obvious, deliberate effort in showing the missing thumbs as
a common-thread, making the child trust the father in the final
scenes.

[p.wa...@gmail.com]

I think at some point a clan of survivors were out of food and decided to become cannibals and hunt people on the road. Some people from the clan opposed the idea, and as a result, were cast away, with their thumbs cut off to not pose a threat to them. They didn't kill those opposed right away because they didn't complete lose their humanity yet, and killing and eating someone you know and lived with is completely different from killing and eating a stranger for food reasons.(not to justify cannibalism)

This is a common enough practice among clans of survivors that the main characters encountered thumbless people twice. (The thief and the veteran) The thief is not evil, he is just starving, and had to resort to stealing to survive, but the fact that he left the child alive shows that he might be a person that would choose to leave a clan that decided to go cannibalistic. The veteran obviously would be a candidate to go off on his own once his clan turned.

Just my thoughts. Either way I'm analyzing this way too much, and I just realized I'm answering a post from 4 years ago.