To those of you who have seen this acclaimed Russian movie, and the best film by Andrey Zvyagintsev in my opinion, what do you think the father was more? Or were those two aspects not necessarily mutually exclusive and he was both?
shareThe movie is multi-layered and heavily symbolic. Many pieces on it but this an edifying one: http://www.ijors.net/issue2_1_2013/articles/mcSweeney.html If the margins are a problem simply copy and paste into notepad or anything else.
shareBut then some of his acts are abusive, especially when he hits one of them across the car.
shareIf memory serves, and to answer your original question, the father didn't have bad intentions whether you'd call his behavior abusive or not. (And hitting a child today would be deemed abusive.)
shareBut then isn't all abuse bad? And therefore that makes him a bad man? But then was it really abuse? Or are some forms of abuse worse than others?
shareAll abuse is bad, but intentions matter. And as I said before, the movie is multi-layered, symbolic so your question in terms of this man isn't really important.
Since audiences are denied that obsession of commercial cinema that produces ‘closure’ in The Return, readings tend to turn to religion, mythology and allegory/metaphor. Several commentators refer to the father’s behavior as ‘abuse’. I’m not sure that is helpful. There is no evidence that he wishes to harm his sons. On the contrary he wants to build relationships but his approach is wrong for the context. In Russian terms this might be a commentary on masculinity, on the failure of the rigid military/ideological discipline of the Soviet Union – or it may be a commentary on biblical themes whose potency is re-emerging in modern Russia. I don’t as yet have a strong view on any of these possibilities.
It would be difficult to dismiss the father's abusive tendencies, misguided as they were. It is important to understand the film's context, set twelve years after the fall of the Soviet Union, which was, despite its virtues, authoritative. The father is a product of that environment, and his mannerisms and masculine tendencies reflect a society that views patriarchal values as vital in shaping man the creator. The film can be viewed as both a critique and affirmation of the director's own biases and upbringing, where such an authoritative approach to masculine cultivation can be viewed as an insufficient or unhealthy mode of transforming boys into men.
The film functions extremely well as both as a metaphor for Post-Soviet malaise and religious parable. There is an interesting, albeit subtle, moment of clarity towards the climactic argument in the film, where perhaps the father realizes that his approach to discipline may be too stern. This epiphany culminates in his sacrifice, as he metaphorically falls for Ivan in a depiction highly symbolic of Christ on the cross.
It is highly suggestive that the feminine has made the boys weak throughout the film, as the boys are raised by their mother and grandmother. The valid criticism, however, is where the father has been. The father is as much at fault for who his sons are today as much as their mother is, if at all. The film leaves this open to interpretation, however, and arguably this lack of information is not important to The Return's overarching themes.