The father's original intention was to go along with his wife's thoughts.
Take kids away from the (sick/conform/hypocritical/rigid) mainstream society.
Seeking to carve a trail in popular culture and independent thought, hippie and poor, a mournful comedy.
The children he raised and educated did not read under the school's exam-oriented education, but the children were well-read, multi-language, astronomical, geography, and literary knowledge in their minds, and they also had a strong ability to survive.
An 8-year-old girl can vividly explain in her own words what high school children can't memorize.
They don't know the symbols of pop culture - Nike, Adidas. No electronics, no games. Not sleeping indoors, but under the stars, in the wild.
But the kids don't have (normal/like fish in water) social skills, and the grown eldest son is so nervous about kissing a girl that he gets down on his knees to propose, ready for a lifetime of responsibility.
In the eyes of children, especially young sons and daughters, the father is like the omniscient authority, the perfect thinking giant, the king of action. Take them to conquer the biological chain in the jungle, take the sharp knife as a gift, and take them to the world of the jungle.
However, this father is equally irritable, authoritarian and unworldly. In front of the children - in the paradise kingdom he created, why doesn't he symbolize the mainstream culture?
Why don't children's confusion, rebellion and confrontation symbolize independent thinking?
Every time he educated the children, he called it "training". Because he had no money to buy food, he went to the supermarket to steal it collectively, which was called "the task of saving food" by his father.
They reject the shackles of religious beliefs and do not stick to collective gatherings of worship. They want to define their own life and death, to decide their revenant-like fate.
The conflict happened during the trip to his wife's funeral. The children finally moved from the mountains and jungles to the modern civilized society, and they were curious about the convenience and greasy here, only to find that they knew nothing like "idiots". So they tried to fight against their father's "ideology of independent existence" and wanted to fight for their own freedom and rights.
Barrage comments on fathers - "Even parents have not deprived their children of the right to choose, and they are seriously ill"
So empathy - traditional education, does not deprive children of the right to choose?
We always stand on the opposite side of our own mainstream values and criticize, no matter who or where we are, we try our best to maintain the concepts that are rooted in our hearts. Life is like a blank sheet of paper, genes may not be changed, but all the patterns after that are attached to the skin of each of us like a cover.
We all thought it was "correct".
Even, in real life, we all avoid the use of "true" and "false" answers to true-false questions. They are all saying "this is hard to tell" "this is not right or wrong" "different angles have different answers"...
But when there is a person who can tell you what he believes is a clear answer, confident without being aggressive, it is rare. Just like when you ask for advice, all you never want to hear is "this decision is yours", what you want to hear is "I suggest this or that".
A clear answer is a responsibility. The ambiguous answer, which looks like tolerance, is actually abdication.
For any kind of behavior that challenges authority, rules, is full of fighting and disdain (as long as you avoid hurting others and endure a lot of yourself), even if it is ridiculed by the vast majority, even if it is a practice that I cannot understand temporarily, I will always appreciate it. Accord without being flattering.
Then I want to ask myself, which is more worthy of appreciation, escaping from social rules, breaking social rules, or making rules after conquest?
View more about Captain Fantastic reviews
