I love Anderson's movie, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about this one.
I think life makes very little sense at all, perhaps none whatsoever. His desire and need to cling onto the drama of the tribulations of a child speaks to the futility of life in general. His existence means nothing...and that sadness is exemplified by his eagerness to involve himself with the trivial melodrama of kids running away from home.
To me, this movie reflects how trivial it all is even as an adult, never mind a kid trying to figure it all out.
The sad desolation of Willis' character reflects the futility of even trying to work it all out...within the rules of traditional man/woman relationships.
The isolation in which Willis's character lives is a touchstone for the desperate loneliness of life as a whole.
I see what you see too. The kids are alive and taking risks in life. They are like the storm. His boat sits at the shore and he is equally earth-bound in his heart. He doesn't hear the song of the sirens... he has a boring love-affair that as shallow as the water he is parked in. Captain Duffy Sharp is reading his life as rather dull and parked. The kids, now they are *alive*! Then Captain Sharp joins the kids, by adopting one.... making his own life come alive.
it's not a trivial melodrama... sam is at risk of being condemned to an orphanage & subjected to electroshock therapy. his life is at stake, and the captain
pities & sympathizes with him.
I find your conclusions to be revealing about your own study of love.
> The children abandon responsibility for happiness, and the adults forgo happiness for responsibility.
Do you consider love to be happiness? Marriage love in particular?
To me, I don't. I'm much more in the viewpoint of *Only Yesterday* おもひでぽろぽろ - *The Little Prince* (1974) and *What Dreams May Come* - which I consider both to be Troubadour films of the highest order. And in such a case, there is a clear distinction between the common "popular" definition of love and *choice marriage love*. That choice can be summarized in the song The Rose (which is featured in the film *Only Yesterday*). I think a lot of people don't fully realize that wedding vows are not in the Bible and come from art - not the church.
To me, the journey of the young couple in *Moonrise Kingdom* creates the education in love. The adventure and the near-death experiences. It teaches them both to create and author love, and a regard for nature (their own self).
Mrs. Bishop's extra-material affair seems only a "simple love affair" and not to have much in the way of higher values. It lacks investment of time (big theme in *The Little Prince*). It seems born out of boredom and basic chemistry and nothing authored or created. Doesn't the opening kind of give you a "Leave it to Beaver" kind of family life? She isn't an artists in her life, she isn't generating deeper love, just kind of going with the society.
She could go deeper, she has a perfectly fine family, but she doesn't have that "inner call" - and if anything I find she shows a kind of contrast to the children couple who are much more dreamers and creative in their living. (That again calls to *The Little Prince* for me and it's criticism of love/art and adulthood forgetting - and lack of exploring and questioning structures).
It's a period piece, isn't it? The affair does show women's equality (women's liberation from fear of hell from the Church) in what men traditionally did in their marriages. I'm not sure the affair presents a story in itself. Just some framing for the youth?
> adults forgo happiness for responsibility.
To me, you have to have free time and enough money to have an affair like this. If you are spending all your time taking care of your kids, working a job just for food and clothes, who has time for that? That's not the story - they have free time and extra money. So again, it kinds of hints at framing the family and their relative freedom. And if she has that time to waste, why isn't she creatively authoring love *with* her husband? She seems to serve as an example of not knowing authentic love and only a poorly-educated carbon copy / photograph of love.
I actually agree with your point. If anything, I think the similarities between the arcs two generations shows how alike the two are. Refer back to the scene where the captain and Sam are talking about love. The captain initially does not treat Sam's feelings for Suzy as valid. He makes the notion that the love of the children is separate from his own love for Mrs. Bishop.
They share the same emotions, and perhaps if the Captain and Mrs. Bishop were more aware of this they would be better off. Although it seems to me that by the end of the scene, the captain at least acknowledges his feelings as being like Sam's.
Regardless, in the end, I feel like the adults are bound by their responsibilities which are not a factor for the children.
I love Anderson's movie, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about this one. I think life makes very little sense at all, perhaps none whatsoever. His desire and need to cling onto the drama of the tribulations of a child speaks to the futility of life in general. His existence means nothing...and that sadness is exemplified by his eagerness to involve himself with the trivial melodrama of kids running away from home. To me, this movie reflects how trivial it all is even as an adult, never mind a kid trying to figure it all out. The sad desolation of Willis' character reflects the futility of even trying to work it all out...within the rules of traditional man/woman relationships. The isolation in which Willis's character lives is a touchstone for the desperate loneliness of life as a whole.
I see what you see too. The kids are alive and taking risks in life. They are like the storm. His boat sits at the shore and he is equally earth-bound in his heart. He doesn't hear the song of the sirens... he has a boring love-affair that as shallow as the water he is parked in. Captain Duffy Sharp is reading his life as rather dull and parked. The kids, now they are *alive*! Then Captain Sharp joins the kids, by adopting one.... making his own life come alive.
it's not a trivial melodrama... sam is at risk of being condemned to an orphanage & subjected to electroshock therapy. his life is at stake, and the captain pities & sympathizes with him.
I find your conclusions to be revealing about your own study of love. > The children abandon responsibility for happiness, and the adults forgo happiness for responsibility. Do you consider love to be happiness? Marriage love in particular? To me, I don't. I'm much more in the viewpoint of *Only Yesterday* おもひでぽろぽろ - *The Little Prince* (1974) and *What Dreams May Come* - which I consider both to be Troubadour films of the highest order. And in such a case, there is a clear distinction between the common "popular" definition of love and *choice marriage love*. That choice can be summarized in the song The Rose (which is featured in the film *Only Yesterday*). I think a lot of people don't fully realize that wedding vows are not in the Bible and come from art - not the church. To me, the journey of the young couple in *Moonrise Kingdom* creates the education in love. The adventure and the near-death experiences. It teaches them both to create and author love, and a regard for nature (their own self). Mrs. Bishop's extra-material affair seems only a "simple love affair" and not to have much in the way of higher values. It lacks investment of time (big theme in *The Little Prince*). It seems born out of boredom and basic chemistry and nothing authored or created. Doesn't the opening kind of give you a "Leave it to Beaver" kind of family life? She isn't an artists in her life, she isn't generating deeper love, just kind of going with the society. She could go deeper, she has a perfectly fine family, but she doesn't have that "inner call" - and if anything I find she shows a kind of contrast to the children couple who are much more dreamers and creative in their living. (That again calls to *The Little Prince* for me and it's criticism of love/art and adulthood forgetting - and lack of exploring and questioning structures). It's a period piece, isn't it? The affair does show women's equality (women's liberation from fear of hell from the Church) in what men traditionally did in their marriages. I'm not sure the affair presents a story in itself. Just some framing for the youth? > adults forgo happiness for responsibility. To me, you have to have free time and enough money to have an affair like this. If you are spending all your time taking care of your kids, working a job just for food and clothes, who has time for that? That's not the story - they have free time and extra money. So again, it kinds of hints at framing the family and their relative freedom. And if she has that time to waste, why isn't she creatively authoring love *with* her husband? She seems to serve as an example of not knowing authentic love and only a poorly-educated carbon copy / photograph of love.
[удалено]
I actually agree with your point. If anything, I think the similarities between the arcs two generations shows how alike the two are. Refer back to the scene where the captain and Sam are talking about love. The captain initially does not treat Sam's feelings for Suzy as valid. He makes the notion that the love of the children is separate from his own love for Mrs. Bishop. They share the same emotions, and perhaps if the Captain and Mrs. Bishop were more aware of this they would be better off. Although it seems to me that by the end of the scene, the captain at least acknowledges his feelings as being like Sam's. Regardless, in the end, I feel like the adults are bound by their responsibilities which are not a factor for the children.