In the backstory, the dad promises the mom on her death bed that he will always put his son first.

Then, comes the inciting incident.

A decade later, desperate to keep his smothered teenaged son, a gifted guitarist, from leaving him, father and son make a deal: the father will try for the comeback of a lifetime if the son agrees to be his caddy for the summer,

Wait a minute. ?Isn’t this breaking his vow to always put his son first? ?Also, what’s so wrong with the son wanting to leave home? ?Isn’t that what children are supposed to do, grow up, get their wings and fly off from the nest? ?And isn’t that what parents are supposed to do, not only let them fly away, but prepare them to do so?

A movie audience can only buy into the action, the plot, if they also buy into the motivation intrinsic in the inciting incident. ?And I’m having trouble with the motivation. ?The father seems to be breaking his vow, holding his gifted son back ?from his own future for purely selfish reasons.. ?And what’s in it for the son that he would agree to postpone his future in order to satisfy his father’s own narcissistic cause?

As I understand the concept, I can’t buy into, can’t accept the father’s motivation — it’s not a reason for me to root for him. ?Rather, it’s a reason for me to root against the father. ?He wants to recapture his past even if it means manipulating his son into renouncing his future.

Who’s the target audience for this story? ?Are young adults going to want to watch a movie about a father who’s holding back, “smoothering”, ?his son? ?Are parents going to accept the father’s me-first , son-second attitude?