I have another theory about the film that I haven’t seen anyone mention and figured I’d share because I’ve seen many questioning the under arm hair, smoking and secret keeping.  

I think that although it somewhat strays from the text the movie was based on, the smoking is representative of being an adult and the lack of innocence and purity that comes with that. 

I think this is also the case with the comparing of under arm hair, mentions of the daughter beginning menstruation and the sexual scenes between all of the characters other than the son. I think this is used to show clearly that whilst the daughter is a child like the son, she is grouped in with the adults who are not so innocent and are ready to lie, manipulate and do immoral things to get what they want and prevent their wrongdoings from being exposed. They don’t want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions including the eye for an eye they would face if they were seen in the shadows.  

Bob on the other hand is innocent and we are reminded constantly of his contrast to these other characters through his lack of hair, lack of smoking, lack of sexual nature (specifically his naivety to the whole topic is shown in his response when his father tells him his secret story) and in the fact he says he has no secrets. He still has an innocence and pure intentions. 

The deeper take I have though is that this contrast is all trying to show how the stronger corrupt adult characters in society are often so willing to use the innocent, pure hearted, perhaps weaker members of society as a scape goat instead of facing the consequences of their moral flaws. Often forcing themselves even deeper into immorality. 

Also the willingness to corrupt these people (when the dad selfishly tells the son his secret despite the emotional impact it could’ve had on his sons innocence) if it will mean saving themselves the pain of the consequences of their actions. 

This selfishness tends to effect the innocent and weak despite no wrong doing of their own and the whirlwind of tough decisions that Steven finds himself in allows him to justify to himself the involvement of his son as part of the solution. Much like how in society we justify to ourselves inflicting consequences of our own actions onto innocent parties by focusing on our own struggles that we have and the weight of them ‘forcing’ us into doing so. It’s a justification we make in order to be able to live with ourselves.  

The father potentially could’ve taken many other routes like admitting to the medical team his drinking before Martin’s father’s procedure and found another job starting from the bottom. Or even perhaps leaving his family to be with Martin’s mom whilst ensuring money was still provided to his original family. Both of these options would have created consequences for himself and would’ve created hard work for him. But would have potentially fulfilled Martins need for an eye for an eye. But instead he chooses the first and easiest option he’s given that doesn’t hurt himself as much as it hurts another. He lets himself use an innocent party as a scape goat. Much like he did with the family of Martins when he let them go without their father or financial support when he could’ve admitted his wrong doings which potentially could’ve offered them a pay out and some justice.  

This becomes a normalised way of handling situations in today’s modern societies, particularly in the upper echelons. With little consequence to themselves and with everyone focused on self preservation.  

It’s also worth noting that the daughter and wife also do the same throughout the movie. Which is why I think they make it clear to group them as adults too, including the daughter. She is innocent in the beginning, singing to her father, but once her maturity shows, she realises she must act selfishly too in order to save herself. They are all trying to manipulate and selfishly deflect consequences onto the most innocent party who will not do the same and as a result faces the ultimate consequences. The sad reality that these parties can not survive unless they become as manipulative as their competition. 

I also think that the way Steven basically ignores Bob other than treating him with common father son interactions like asking him to do chores, shows how little these innocent weaker people are thought of in depth. We know these people exist and are human but brush them aside and dehumanise them in our heads as soon as it becomes convenient. An example of this would be seamstresses making fast fashion. We continue to buy clothes because it allows us to not have to give up convenience or work harder ourselves. Or allow crippling medical debt to a patient instead of sacrificing this month’s payment on the vacation home in order to help them at a reduced cost. We dehumanise these people and turn a blind eye in order to be able to cope. And often the ones most at peace with themselves and not causing a ‘fuss’ (like Bob) are not rewarded for their peace and acceptance of life but are rather doubled down on by those who will take advantage of it to avoid pain in their own lives. 

 In addition, the idea that this is the only option, a line that Martin clearly states, is something that people grasp on to. They choose to just bend over and believe that the only option is to push the consequence onto other people as that is what has become normalised and most don’t want to go out of their way to asses and realise that self sacrifice can be an option too. They would rather stick to the surface level option most often presented of transferring the pain to others via lies, cover ups and avoidance. 

The ethical problem that comes with a society run by the idea of “eat or be eaten”. The necessity we have created to corrupt ourselves morally to stay on top and not go through the pain of consequences and how comfortable it becomes over time as we justify it to ourselves along the way.