A story about Russia, but also a story about all of humanity.
The director's perspective seems to be consistent with the son's perspective: looking at his father through a telescope, waiting for his father in the rain, not knowing his father's life experience, and finally not knowing what is in his father's box. This is also what the director wants to achieve: to put the audience from the perspective of the son to experience the importance of patriarchy and the lightness of paternal love.
However, the weight of patriarchy here is not centered on the son, and what's great about this film is that it also explores the weight of patriarchy (or the responsibility of being a father) on the father himself. The father in blood is not exactly the same as the father in responsibility. The sudden return of a father who is like an exile, and the subsequent trip are largely based on the re-realization of "father love" by the characters in the play A vague expectation that was overwhelmed by reality so quickly that it became a fatalistic journey.
The seemingly powerful father (or patriarchy) is actually guilty and vulnerable, too afraid to love and accept the empty moments of the past. And this is the contradiction with the father himself. The role of "father" cannot be reflected in the way of "love", and the image of "father" has to be established by means of "power".
In the end, the movie ends with a tragic ending. The father-son chase in the woods is the climax of the film. The film also raises the question: love is something that cannot be replaced by other things (such as rights, interests), but when a person loses the ability to love, how does he "return"?
Nietzsche said: "All literature is written in blood by Yu Du's love." As a great emotional tragedy, this film met Nietzsche's requirements and became "an axe that splits the frozen sea in our hearts."
View more about The Return reviews
