Robert De Niro, 77, was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award by the American Film Institute as early as 2003, and since his debut, he won the New York Film Critics Association Award and the National Film Critics Association Award for his debut with Martin Scorsese's "Poor Streets and Alleys". After that, he can either become a fierce gangster in the movie, or he can play comedy roles in similar works such as "The Boss Leans Over" and "Meet Your Father-in-Law".
In the not-so-recent "The Irishman", de Niro's character for the first time made a certain degree of integration and mixing of his past style of work - an elderly "painter", an unacceptable father. In terms of pure family movies, De Niro's better performance is the "Journey to Heaven" to be reviewed today.
The film tells the story of the elderly Frank in the short period of 8 months after the death of his wife, gradually found himself and the children closer and farther apart, the most obvious manifestation of which is that the most recent family gathering was actually broken by four children at the same time, the carefully prepared good ingredients were wasted, and the dinner party was canceled. In order to bring himself closer to the children and find the real reason for the alienation, Frank embarks on a journey of "raiding" the four children despite the doctor's persuasion. However, as well, all of them add difficulty and confusion to the "quest" of the elderly. The old man was hospitalized in the picture of returning home, and when the children gathered in front of the bed, they still did not see the figure of the most beloved young son, knowing that at this time he was told that the young son had died.
It is such a film that integrates "road movies" and "family films", but the reputation in China and North America shows a big difference. Most of the viewing feelings given by domestic audiences are gathered at the level of family and parent-child relationship, while foreign audiences look at this film more in combination with local culture and family concepts.
However, such a film that integrates elements such as family conflicts, life and death, and the search for reconciliation, the directivity of its ending is not the warmth presented by conventional family movies. The article then analyzes from the three angles of protagonist positioning, ending essence and theme presentation, and this "Journey to Heaven" that makes many viewers tear up is trying to express which aspect of "parent-child".
The "widowed" old man played by De Niro does not single-time through plot promotion and retrospection to shape the character, but through a short dialogue and scene to fill in a relatively complete and rich three-dimensional image - not simply a father, but also a person everywhere in life. He has his own principles and methods of getting along, as well as more stubborn and subjective judgment standards, which can be seen after combing through a few paragraphs.
The first place: communication with passers-by
While the old man sat in the car and asked the female passers-by across from him to guess his profession, the passers-by were irritated by their inability to give the right answer (or simply not interested in the question, which could also be understood as "zero patience" with strangers), but the old man always showed pleasure in it — his pleasant experience was all based on subjective feelings, completely disregarding the actions and reactions of others.
In fact, from this point, it can be intuitively seen that this old man is a very self-centered person. Moreover, in the movie, there have been many direct and indirect descriptions of the communication between him and his wife, the most obvious of which is that the children will communicate with their mothers in a timely manner about their recent life and their thoughts, but the old man as a father knows nothing. This means that his children and his wife both turn off "communicating with him," and the old man whose wife was alive has always attributed this simply to "your mother understands you better, so you don't tell me anything", but never considers whether there is a problem with his ability to receive information and send signals.
Second place: Painter v.s. Painter
In the movie, when the younger son talks about his dream, the first reaction of the word painter in the old man's cognition is the painter, and he also chooses to express his reaction for the first time and does not shy away from his own ideas, but completely ignores the fact that the child wants to express "painter". Although there are many words in the English language that cause ambiguity, the old man's subjectivity can be glimpsed. Moreover, the behavior shown is only a figurative expression of personality, and the pressure caused by the old man's tyranny and arbitrariness on the children is also reflected in the later plot.
What is even more poignant is that after learning of her young son's death, his hallucinations and imaginary conversations are enough to show that she has always known where her problems are, but has never made any changes. It wasn't until Aiko's death that he was willing to admit his mistake, but it was too late.
Third: Charity to the Wanderer
The old man's act of kindness seemed heartwarming — both for the beneficiaries and the audience. But the old man's sudden "you should say thank you" was very maddening, especially the wandering teenager standing opposite him. Even ignoring the fact that the teenager himself seems sensitive, the old man's demand for feedback and affirmation is enough to see his strength and authoritarianism.
From the above details, it can be seen that the reason why it took so much ink and effort to shape this character is to make his negative images of subjectivity, self, authoritarianism, and arbitrariness gradually become complete. Such personality is very common in life, but to put so many negative traits on a person is to plaster the character with a layer of fatalism from the perspective of "character determines destiny". The departure of a loved one is predestined, the estrangement of children is the general trend, and all this is because: from the very beginning, there was a big problem in the old man himself.
At the end of the film, the old man knows and accepts the fact that his young son has died, and he also gets the arrival and companionship of the remaining children in a new round of family gatherings. But the story ends with a shot between the old man and the paintings left by the late young son, which once again reminds the audience of what the old man's "Jackie Chan" who had been stubborn for many years got.
Looking back at the whole plot, several of the old man's children have their own family problems and personal problems - a marriage that seems to be on the verge of breaking; a depressed career choice that is not willing to retreat to the second place; and a same-sex life model. It seems that there is no way to get the old man's approval, and some of them can't even ask for basic understanding. Imagine if the old man wasn't seriously ill? If not the youngest son who died? In the face of these established facts, it is not known whether the old man's own consistent mode of thinking and principles of doing things will cause one family war after another from house to house. It is particularly noteworthy that all these circumstances were learned after the old man crossed the United States alone and without authorization, and visited his children privately. That is, he obtained this information "on his own initiative", and none of it was actively informed.
The old man finally gave up worrying with his children, largely not because of change, but more out of fear of continuing to lose, afraid that things would not be controlled, afraid that the hard-won warm scene would once again vanish. From the beginning of his conversation with passers-by, it can be seen that the family has always relied on him as a wire worker to maintain his life, and the children's achievements today seem to be due to his financial gains. From beginning to end, he ignored the inner feelings of his family, and the little kindness of "your mother's turkey has been roasted very hot" (but I don't say it) is already his limit. Such a mindset is difficult to change, and the biggest concession he can make is the aforementioned "no longer more true".
Will the children become accustomed to communicating with their fathers because of their brother's departure?
Will the old man change all his thoughts and actions because of a family affair?
Will the family's default patterns for decades change overnight?
The answer is clearly no.
So the film ends with just a meal and doesn't pay any attention to the rest of other people's lives, because some things are not destined to happen from the beginning, and they won't last long. From this point of view, the "gentle cruelty" of "Journey to Heaven" is relatively realistic, and it looks more realistic than the script that changes everyone and wears out all traces.
Speaking of which, it seems that most of the muzzle of the gun is aimed at the problem of the father's generation. But the message of the film itself is not biased, and the four children as children have their own problems. As a father, after seeing through these problems, he chose to leave the last decency to his children and to himself - not to say broken, to leave a letter to everyone. This approach reflects the father's own strengths and the relatively fragile self-esteem of the children.
Communication is a two-way street, whether it is from everyone's memories or the old man's dreams, it can be seen that when these children were blocked from communicating with their fathers at a young age, none of them took further action. Only the younger son has been working silently over the years to try to prove himself to his father, but this is only an action-oriented and results-oriented communication method, not a timely and effective communication in language.
Fathers certainly have their own problems, just like everyone has more or less "can't talk" to their parents. Press the mute key at this point? Or pick the right time to keep trying? This is a question that the film leaves to every viewer who is a parent and a child.
In particular, the impression david's legacy that appears at the end of the film is a patchwork of wires between the poles. This shows that as a child, the father's work and contribution to the family are seen and remembered. The resonance between parents and children is innate, and who closes the door of their hearts again and again? And who gave up family affection after one or two ineffective communication? If a relationship comes to an end, is there really only one party to take responsibility for?
After seeing his son's painting, the father's pretending to be calm was obviously shocked in his heart - the things he had always hoped to be recognized and understood had never been forgotten or ignored. There is no inherent estrangement and misunderstanding, no matter what the ending, it is caused by the joint action of the double reaction. The same is true between parents and children.
The increasingly elderly De Niro quietly transformed, from the seemingly strong but helpless father in "Journey to Heaven" to the man who protected his family all his life in "The Irishman", but finally got a contemptuous sentence from his daughter:
"From whom did the harm come from?"
These themes of the film or the side plot of the film, all emphasize the importance of timely communication often more than the so-called "effectiveness". Just like the original English title of the movie "Journey to Heaven", "everybody's fine", no one wants to go to the end, no matter how long they haven't seen each other, no matter how many misunderstandings there are, no matter what questions they ask when they say goodbye, they always get a polite and alienating reply like "I'm fine".