Vinterberg, understandably having grown up in a commune, doesn't properly establish the hippy commune lifestyle. Probably because to him, that's just what he grew up with. He assumes you already know (and I do) but most people don't (or haven't thought about it) so the film feels severely lacking in world building. If this movie were an essay the first paragraph with the hypothesis is missing. Tell us a little bit about the ideology behind the choice in lifestyle; you did it beautifully did with Druk! Without it, the dramatic, emotional and ideological arithmetic doesn't quite add up. Have Ole tells us a bit about his left wing literature! Not to mention, Vinterberg shares nothing of the drug culture that the hippy lifestyle so adamantly relies on. Squash any human instinct/desire with a physical simulation; that's the hippy way. Feel unhappy: drink. You don't get that spark from learning something new? Just take a smoke and you'll get that spark relearning things you already know. Everything is material for the hippy, everything superficial. Real emotions always denied because we have pills for that! This film severely lacked a proper set up of that world in the first half.
That being said, this film develops into a deeply pertinent and important message. He perfectly diagnoses the problems with a hippy approach to a family structure. And I know this because my own family was a victim of this way of life. The mom in the film is my mom. The dad is my dad. The people in the film are from 70s Denmark, and my parents are from 90s LA. And while we live miles apart, the way of thinking leads to the same outcomes, and I have to repeat: Vinterberg perfectly diagnoses the problem with this type of thinking. While the woman may be the one suggesting a free love lifestyle, it's ultimately the women who will always suffer. The patriarch is to blame because he is the leader, whether or not he rhetorically offloads his duty to others.
The institution of marriage protects women, as their prospects of love virtually become null and void once they become old and ugly. The man however can remarry. This is why marriage exists. My parents were stupid enough to never make this observation and like in the movie, my mom ended up hooked on pills and alcohol while my father ran off with his tight new muse. And if you think the corporate world has any interest in supporting old women, think again.
That being said, this film develops into a deeply pertinent and important message. He perfectly diagnoses the problems with a hippy approach to a family structure. And I know this because my own family was a victim of this way of life. The mom in the film is my mom. The dad is my dad. The people in the film are from 70s Denmark, and my parents are from 90s LA. And while we live miles apart, the way of thinking leads to the same outcomes, and I have to repeat: Vinterberg perfectly diagnoses the problem with this type of thinking. While the woman may be the one suggesting a free love lifestyle, it's ultimately the women who will always suffer. The patriarch is to blame because he is the leader, whether or not he rhetorically offloads his duty to others.
The institution of marriage protects women, as their prospects of love virtually become null and void once they become old and ugly. The man however can remarry. This is why marriage exists. My parents were stupid enough to never make this observation and like in the movie, my mom ended up hooked on pills and alcohol while my father ran off with his tight new muse. And if you think the corporate world has any interest in supporting old women, think again.