Maybe I am getting old, because I keep seeing articles written glorifying doing bad things. Such as this and sneaking into paid venues -- because "mhy fun" and "stick it to the man" without realizing that people following even the most simple of the rules is what makes any society work.
And some people breaking those rules is what makes society tolerable.
Breaking into concerts?
Breaking into homes?
Assault?
Murder?
Assassinating politicians?
Overthrowing elected governments?
People breaking rules is what makes society collapse.
Many revolutions involved assault and murder (from the French Revolution to Cromwell).
May 68 was all about "overthrowing elected governments".
In the punk era "breaking into concerts" was routine -- and a way for poorer kids to afford seeing some bands they liked.
(There's a very nice scene in Cinema Paradiso for how kids/teenagers would also break/sneak/into cinemas to watch the film free -- or watch more adult films, a huge part of the old Italian culture, also common in other European countries).
Could the poor kids not have mowed lawns, or done handy work around where they live to be able to save up money to buy the ticket properly?
But even so, breaking laws and rules simply for enjoyment is not the path to sustained enjoyment. The path to sustained enjoyment is discipline and focus, not instant gratification of breaking the law, which in the long run will probably just make it even harder for said person to experience real enjoyment.
I don't buy your argument that because your life is shitty you can do shitty things.
The rich kids didn't have to do those things, so why should they?
That was intended as a lesson in civility, but it's actually a lesson is servility and injustice. Those were just as good kids as any other, they just happened to have born into the "wrong" (ie poor) parents.
Hopefully at some point in a future society we would see the less access by those poor kids the same way we see segregation today, and not just ask "why couldn't they mowe lawns" to get the same thing the rich kids got doing nothing.
(Though the real answer is that those poor kids in 40s-50s Italy probably already worked much harder than "mowing lawns", and they still had their priorities, like helping feed their families.
(Not to mention it was deemed OK by the society and seen with understanding, they weren't stuck-up on commercialization like other cultures).
It reads as a story where you want to hear 'what happened next?'.
Those who take inspiration from it we need to worry about wether or not the story is written.