today we're going to take a look at Nomadland and the evolution of the travel movie
the travel movie trope has been a long established genre in film
since 1934's It Happened One Night by Frank Capra do you mind if i try you
this genre of film is often used to explore growth transition and even society in very revealing ways
but there are two films which kind of stick out from the bunch Nomadland and Easy Rider
both of these movies you might be thinking are actually quite similar they are essentially
explorations of the current American landscape Easy Rider explored drugs communes and the rise
of the hippies in the 1960s and 1970s Nomadland similarly takes a piercing look at the current
American landscape and in this case it explores the idea of nomadic living especially within the
boomer generation who've suffered through the 2008 recession having lost pretty much everything if
society was throwing us away and sending us the workhorse out to the pasture we work horses had
to gather together and take care of each other and that's what this is all about both of these films
have something in common which catapults them past transcends them past the standard road movie
into instant cult classics in both movies the directors have set their characters on the road
but without a destination look i gotta get out of here man
we got things we want to do man like i
that's right we're watching people drive to nowhere in particular
and it's flipping genius so how do they convey that these characters need to be on the road
without a destination but without telling us that they need to be on the road and without telling
us that they need to not have a destination well both movies use the idea of temptation
to show us that these characters don't desire to be anywhere else Nomadland's protagonist sees her
friend sister and eventually love interest give her the option of a life off of the road you need
a place to stay you can come over and stay with us we're worried about you thanks don't worry
about me i'll let you know i promise okay in Easy Rider the two protagonists that we follow are
tempted with an offer to stay at a commune where the people completely accept them in fact there
is pretty much everything there that they want that they desire that they've stated in the movie
that they are looking for yet in both movies the protagonists decline at these offers whether these
offers are actually giving them what they need they are not what they want i'm hip about time
but i just gotta go to put that into context in Easy Rider
we watch the two protagonists make a drug deal where they make a lot of money
and they're making their way to mardi gras i'm going down to mardi gras
their desire is obviously carnal pleasures of some sort however when
they meet the commune roughly a quarter of the way into the film and they experience
that life they're shown that they can get everything that they want from mardi gras
right there and probably a lot more yet they choose not too they end up at mardi
gras regretting their choice and then you go for the big money man and then you're free you dig
we blew it it's as if they romanticized the idea of mardi gras and what they were
about to experience so much that it could never actually live up to it in Nomadland
we see the protagonist decline all the offers of a life off of the road a life that has less
hardship but her sister says something to her that's very revealing thank you but i can't
no we're not as interesting as the people you meet out there what i'm talking about
and that's what it is it's always what's out there that's more interesting and although this is never
confirmed or denied this gives us some insight into why fern at the end of the film declines
probably the best offer she's had a space that would be her own a space that she could stay
independent but also still be near her love interest someone who obviously wants to be
around her and could potentially fulfill some sense of need that she has for partnership or
companionship in the film however as we've seen over and over and over in Nomadland this sense
of independence pushes her to stay on the road to stay on her own even though she obviously
loves to be around other people now you can stay oh good thanks i need to do laundry
yeah i might stay longer stopping in a sense then would mean that they are having to accept the old
systems and society that they had pushed against so vehemently for the entire movie
to find this new lifestyle additionally both films deal with the concept of materialism
by juxtaposing the life on the road versus the life when you're situated somewhere are you sure
you don't need any of this stuff no don't need any of it i'm good i'm not gonna miss one thing
this is beautifully highlighted in Nomadland where at the end fern gives up all of
her worldly possessions except for what's in her van because she's shedding her old life she's
finally letting go of the emotional weight and baggage that Chloe Zhao has tied to the items
and objects that she used to own in both movies by not giving the protagonists a specific destination
the filmmakers are subverting in essence the American dream by not allowing them to settle
in the white picket fence 2.4 children home and instead finding purpose and community on the road