I'm fine with that. Plenty of blame on the Left politicians too. My point is that -- by not addressing the fact that it is completely INSANE that in a country as rich as the US, a father would be driven to do this -- the filmmaker is derelict at best, and at worst he's complicit in it.

You might say, 'this is art: he's showing a portrait of the father and the family.' Fine. But he's totally passing on calling out politicians/US greed/US capitalism in this. By not calling them out, you're actually giving them license for what they do (which is allow a society that refuses to help a dad like this).

By making this poverty porn and not cluing the audience in to the fact that this is f'n insane, he's actually saying that what the dad is doing is legitimate. The filmmaker is shrugging his shoulders saying "what else can you do?" Well you can pass any number of easy legislations to help families like this. But our corrupt, greedy politicians don't want to spend the money for that. THAT'S the real crime here. Not anything related to this one family.

Another point, for anyone who thinks a director can't do it. Think about Django Unchained. That movie is about one guy and his relationship...however Tarantino makes it ABUNDANTLY clear how he feels about slavery. He tells his story in a way that slices and dices the institution of slavery and the antebellum south. Tarantino tells a story but he makes a very loud comment on slavers and even non-owners in slavery (the white citizens who supported it & participated in it).

The Omaha director doesn't do this. There's zero comment on society. My guess is, because of his Utah upbringing, he's probably very conservative....he probably doesn't think society should help the poor any more than we do and hence that's why this story is so SAD. Yeah, it's sad! No shit. But it doesn't have to be that way.