i've seen the movie and one thing puzzled me the most:what was in that box? i know this is not the most important issue about the movie but i'm curios ,what was in that box?????
it was the diamonds from resevior dogs or his soul.
shareI say the box is the reason why the father disappear for 11 years. I've lend my Ukraine friend this beautiful movie and she told me that the father is very likely to be a member of a Russian gangster. The scene where the father encourages his boys to beat up the thief, was a typical Russian gangster method to toughen young or inexperience gang members. Well, this is also applicable to gangsterism around the world.
Anyway, going back to the box, my friend told me it is very likely to be diamonds 'cos the Russian gangsters has always done diamond-dealing in the black market. However I believe the director try to explore the complex relationship between the father and the sons. Having said that, audience who have complicated relationship with their father or son could totally relate thmeselves with this film. Like other users comment, the box is a mere symbolism, metaphor or whatever you wanna call it. I also think the director try to add a sense of mystery about the wee box.
Show this movie to a Eastern European friend and they will able to explain it to you in more detail than most of us who come from different parts of the world.
We never find out what's in the box because it sinks to the bottom of the lake with the father who it represents; a treasure the boys will never know, but one whose sacrifice becomes imprinted on their souls
shareThere was a screening of this movie at my college, and the director came to speak to us. A man in the audience asked the same thing, and the director told us the story of when the movie won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. Konstantin Lavronenko said, in response to seeing the Golden Lion, "A-ha! Now I know what was in the box."
shareWell, we are not meant to know what is in the box, it doesenn't really matter what it exactly is anyway...
shareJust finished it. I think the box had something to do with his work that kept calling him. Probably something illegal and exposing to his past that he maybe wanted to reveal to his kids. But we shall never know. Kind of annoying that we will never know though. Curiousity is killin me!
The end of the world doesn't seem so bad now that you're here.
Based on his earlier reference to having eaten too much fish, I would assume he lived on this island for the majority of his absence. The question becomes why? In any event I believe the box contained mementos that helped him through the period away from his family.
I thought from the get go the father cared for his sons and partly due to his tough personality and having not been around them during their adolescence created conflict and misunderstandings.
Ultimately, I feel the Island is more so the mystery than the contents of the box.
"Ultimately, I feel the Island is more so the mystery than the contents of the box."
Obviosly his kids' innocence.
sharePost this here too.
There is no clear cut way of doing things, it always, *always* depends on the narrative and the point of the story. A full resolution and a story coming full-circle has just as much impact in one story, as an ambiguous, mult-choice, questions raising ending has on a different one, and you arguing one's merits over the other, regardless of which one, just shows horse glasses.
I will argue that for the audience not to know what was in the box was a bad script choice. I would also argue that hinting t the father's history, without ever concreting anything was a bad touch. This was very much a film about two children's perspectives, as an adult, you cannot have that perspective. You can't emphatically be put into their position, because you don't have their weight of history and expectation. All you can do is observe, and as an observer, you should be privy to more of the real facts, to have a better understanding of the father's behavior.
I understand that the children are not able to comprehend their fathers actions, but I, with my adult mind, should be able to. Not to judge him necessarily, not to make him good or bad, but to know and try to understand what he did, and why.
I find that many times pretentious people look for depth where there is laziness or forced mystery just for the sake of controversy and propagating the myth.
What is in the box, has relevance for the story and for our rounded more complex and profound understanding of said story and character motivations... not showing it, or really, not even deciding on it, is cheap. And calling it out as it is, does not make the rest of it any less impressive or the emotional journey any less poignant... but the box either shouldn't have existed, or should have been opened underwater, where we as the audience can see its contents and have a closure to our catharsis. Otherwise it's literally just a Red Herring. Which it was.
The father hints at being more behind him than his behavior would suggest, when Ivan loses it and runs away, and the box should have been my reward, for diligently following and trying to understand his actions throughout. Not the kids... they don't need to know. Their growth and trauma as adults will come from not knowing, but as the observer, I should know.
Still, fantastic movie. It's very hard to believe that this was a debut, and I found it even more surprising when I saw that he didn't write it. I felt it was such a personal film, drawn from such an emotionally unique place that I find it amazing that it was the cooperation between writer and director... I really thought it was an uniquely personal piece.
!No IMDB idiot may respond to this.!
thank you. you have helped me via this explication.
We'll obviously never know. The film raises more questions than it answers. It makes you think.
share