The first thing to do is get all thoughts of Pixar, Aardman et al out of one's head. The narrative of this film does not follow conventional Hollywood lines, even though a superficial understanding of the plot can be attained in this way.
The story is of a male bear who makes a living with a portable peep show illustrating the adventures of a male adult bear, who is dragged away from his family and off to the circus, escapes, and is reunited with his family. The male bear in the peep show is clearly a representation of the male bear running the peep show. But does the peep show represent his own life? At the start of the film, we see him doing minor repairs on the peep show before setting off to work. The house is otherwise empty and it is very early in the morning - far too early for his wife and son to have left the house before him.
So what is going on? Is the bear relating a complete work of fiction in the peep show? Is he giving a distorted view of what happened (i.e. it was his wife and son who were taken away and he was left behind)? Did he really escape but his family had left the house when he returned? Was in fact all of it true and there were other reasons why the mother and son were out of the house before him that morning?
The film allows all these interpretations. For those who think there cannot be a happy ending, look carefully at the film. The marital bed has clearly been slept in by two bears. The kitchen chairs are pushed back as if the son and the mother had left them like that (if they had gone, the chairs would be pushed neatly under the table). The son's room is tidy, but maybe the son is a tidy young bear). Perhaps the bear's melancholy expression is triggered by memories of what he almost permanently lost, rather than of current loss.
The point is that the film is *meant* to hold these multiple explanations. There is enough evidence to support lots of different arguments, but not enough evidence for one explanation to be conclusive. And that is the whole point of the film. It is meant to be unsettling. The film is a clear allegory of life in Chile under Pinochet, where opponents were routinely executed or exiled. Families were left uncertain what happened to loved ones, and, tragically, many still are in that awful position of uncertainty. But for some there were happy endings - many people who were exiled did return after Pinochet's fall, and were reunited with their families.
It is this sense of melancholy and uncertainty and the multitude of outcomes that the film brilliantly evokes.It is small wonder that this film has also been warmly greeted in countries with similar experience of repressive regimes.
What I found particularly poignant was the young bear who saw the peepshow, and for whom the whole thing was clearly just an adventure story. Perhaps that is as it should be - burdening future generations with too much worry and regret is unwise. But there is an added pathos that what is an adventure for the cub is clearly a huge emotional burden to the older bear.
I think this is one of the finest allegories ever to be filmed.
The story is of a male bear who makes a living with a portable peep show illustrating the adventures of a male adult bear, who is dragged away from his family and off to the circus, escapes, and is reunited with his family. The male bear in the peep show is clearly a representation of the male bear running the peep show. But does the peep show represent his own life? At the start of the film, we see him doing minor repairs on the peep show before setting off to work. The house is otherwise empty and it is very early in the morning - far too early for his wife and son to have left the house before him.
So what is going on? Is the bear relating a complete work of fiction in the peep show? Is he giving a distorted view of what happened (i.e. it was his wife and son who were taken away and he was left behind)? Did he really escape but his family had left the house when he returned? Was in fact all of it true and there were other reasons why the mother and son were out of the house before him that morning?
The film allows all these interpretations. For those who think there cannot be a happy ending, look carefully at the film. The marital bed has clearly been slept in by two bears. The kitchen chairs are pushed back as if the son and the mother had left them like that (if they had gone, the chairs would be pushed neatly under the table). The son's room is tidy, but maybe the son is a tidy young bear). Perhaps the bear's melancholy expression is triggered by memories of what he almost permanently lost, rather than of current loss.
The point is that the film is *meant* to hold these multiple explanations. There is enough evidence to support lots of different arguments, but not enough evidence for one explanation to be conclusive. And that is the whole point of the film. It is meant to be unsettling. The film is a clear allegory of life in Chile under Pinochet, where opponents were routinely executed or exiled. Families were left uncertain what happened to loved ones, and, tragically, many still are in that awful position of uncertainty. But for some there were happy endings - many people who were exiled did return after Pinochet's fall, and were reunited with their families.
It is this sense of melancholy and uncertainty and the multitude of outcomes that the film brilliantly evokes.It is small wonder that this film has also been warmly greeted in countries with similar experience of repressive regimes.
What I found particularly poignant was the young bear who saw the peepshow, and for whom the whole thing was clearly just an adventure story. Perhaps that is as it should be - burdening future generations with too much worry and regret is unwise. But there is an added pathos that what is an adventure for the cub is clearly a huge emotional burden to the older bear.
I think this is one of the finest allegories ever to be filmed.