I'm not saying this in any offensive way, and I respect your interpretation as that is a clear form of good art, where there is some form of clear intention behind it, but it can also become something different based on individual perspective. However what you just said is a huge pile of forcefully interpreted bullcrappolla. You re grasping at straws good sir, and again, I respect that *you* have this particular interpretation and it's quite a visionary one, but the film does not offer you this. It's like you interpret the Bible and see what you want.
Within the film's narrative and themes, the father has no reason to be false, he has a reason to be a metaphysical representation at the most, but not false.
I really dislike when pretentious people throw around Michael Bay and Hollywood if somebody expresses a differing opinion. Much like a bent steak knife, being different, doesn't always men being better or even as useful. And you people throwing around how other didn't get that something was profound simply for being different, is just as bad as people claiming it was not good enough, just because it wasn't explained.
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.
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.!
reply
share