The first thing I would like to comment on is the portrayal of runaway culture. As someone who as dealt with the system in three different states, New York, Colorado, and Oregon, I found the depiction of the police state presence farcical in the face of reality. Go to Portland, and under any number of bridges you will find a heterogeneous community of shanty towns comprised of both underage and grown adult people living there, while the police are little to no help. I can understand the forcible eviction from state/public land in the film, however, the idea that the two of them could not travel together on the bus is simply not realistic- as a mother who homeschools, I can attest that the paperwork is minimal and if a parent wants to homeschool while traveling it is hardly a matter for police, let alone finding a hesitant trucker to provide passage. I think what the film is really getting at is something more basic, something everyone goes through in coming of age. The realization that our parents wants/needs/desires cannot define us is a stepping stone that everyone must accept. Tom’s case is extreme but it is essentially the same rite of passage. The decision to depart from our parents validation in an attempt to define our own independence. I think that is why it is difficult to specify antagonist in this narrative, there isn’t one; both want the best for each other but Tom recognizes that she cannot live the life her father leads, she does however choose a life that carries out the values that her father imparted throughout in her upbringing.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.