#Alberto scorfano has so much bullshit surrounding his past these yes/no objective questions would have me talking myself in circles

[brunosaderogatory]

What do you think happened to Alberto's father: did he abandon Alberto, or was he killed by a fisherman?

It depends upon which approach you want to take.

Taking everything available into consideration—the movie, the short, the novelization, the interviews, tweets, special features, golden books, deleted scenes, concepts, production notes, etc.—Alberto was abandoned. Purposefully. Alberto’s father was a horrible person, and if he happened to have died after leaving Alberto on the island, he absolutely had it coming because he did not have any plan on coming back.

Taking only the depicted canon—the movie, the short, the novelization, and the books—into consideration, it is entirely up to interpretation.

Art is subjective, meaning, regardless of the author’s intent, it is up to each individual audience member to create their own impression and understanding of the art.

Not the movie, nor he golden books, nor the junior novelization, nor even the short Ciao Alberto is there any indubitable, concrete, objective evidence that points to Alberto’s abandonment being purposeful. Yes, he eludes to how he thinks he was abandoned because he was a bad kid, but we don’t know if he was ever told that. We don’t know the origin of most of his behaviors.

Alberto’s father could have been killed. Alberto’s father could have planned to come back. Alberto and his father could even have had a good relationship. Alberto clearly looked up to him, after all, and he absolutely wished for him to come back. But he could have just as easily left purposefully, had a horribly abusive relationship, and all that warmth could be from just Mere Exposure Effect.

Really, we don’t know much of anything about Alberto’s past, and the only way to truly study his character is to rely upon the word of the creator. But, again, art is subjective. Therefore, it’s what you decide so long as it does not actively go against what is being depicted (for example: arguing that a painting of a red dog is depicting, instead, a blue cat; arguing that a death of his father negates some trauma of his abandonment).

Personally, I tend to take the artist’s intent into account. But by all means, if you want to argue that it was all just an accident, go ahead! I’d love to see it, and I would very readily provide my own evidence towards that theory.