I don't think we're meant to agree with everything done by the father or the children. For example, in the beginning of the movie, when they are all sitting around the campfire at night, the children do a lot of surreptitious checking of the father's facial expressions. I think that is meant as a subtle sign that the father is overly controlling. I think the stealing of the groceries is another thing that tips us off that the father in the story is very flawed and we aren't necessarily meant to agree with everything he does.
At the same time, the way Christianity was shown did not seem as balanced as some of the other elements, and I agree with you in all the places you mention it. Not that moviemakers have to focus all their effort on getting Christianity right, but when they insult it with caricatures, that is annoying and pointless. I think it saps the scene of its energy.
I think it was also unnecessary. I think the whole idea of the movie was that the father removed his family from mainstream society because he felt powerless in the regular world. Even though the family was obviously very intelligent and capable, I think the father conveyed a sense of someone who has repeatedly been defeated and decided the only way to win is to quit the game. He looked so defeated when the kids were taken away from him, and I got the impression that his conflict with the grandfather and all of the anti-capitalist swagger was a microcosm of him feeling like he was up against stronger forces that were squashing him. So if they had played out the situation in the Church that same way (that the grandfather, socially connected and financially powerful, had co-opted a resource, the priest, that should have been on the side of the father and children who were the immediate family of the mother), then that would have fit in, I think, with their big theme.
reply
share
spacecomedy (1971)
3 years ago
That's a thoughtful take. I think cutting the Christian-mocking scenes would've greatly strengthened the film, which did have a lot of good things to say. Anytime a film paints an entire group with a broad brush it usually weakens the film.
The interesting thing is that the way the family was living modeled a lot of Jesus' teachings (respect for nature, the importance of quiet contemplation, rejecting material goods, etc.).
There were a lot of aspects of Ben's parenting that were admirable, but, you're right, his decision to withdraw from the world (instead of say, trying to run a soup kitchen) did convey a defeatist mindset.
But I always appreciate a film that makes me think and this one certainly did that.
reply
share
Iffy762 (1331)
3 years ago
I agree about their modeling a lot of Christian teachings. And it seemed like the funeral was Catholic. The film portrays a family with six kids; Ben and his wife probably lived a much more Catholic vision of marriage than a lot of professed Catholics.
I also was interested in the one son who fell on the cliff. It was the same son who looked like a deer in the headlights when he commented he wished they would just do normal things like Christmas presents (instead of Noam Chomsky day) and the father said, well defend your point of view. I felt like that son basically didn't fit in with the family and wasn't as strong/smart/agile as the others in the family, and not really suited for an essentially Darwinian lifestyle in the wilderness. So even though the father left society so he wouldn't have to be defeated by the stronger forces of capitalism, his son felt defeated in the lifestyle chosen for him by his father. So I really liked the insight that added to the film.
I would say overall I liked the film and thought it was worth the watch.
reply
share