I'm really ignorant, and I started watching the first two years when others watched popular. The hindsight. I only watched two movies last semester. When I was at school, I thought, I must write it down when I go home. Bean's Holiday and Schindler's List.
"Bean".
Went to the school website to find a movie that day. I've always been quite wary of comedies, and I finally made up my mind to spend an hour watching this fabled film. To be clear, I wasn't ready to read it and started to get a little distracted.
Bean's face is the laughing point in itself. According to reports, he was originally mentally handicapped, but he has come to where he is today thanks to his own efforts and the care and love of his family. really not easy. Even so, I felt a little sick to see him wink. But soon became numb.
Anyway, he will always encounter good things that fall off the pie. One by one, the scenes flowed, and the plot unfolded in turn, and a certain feeling of mine became stronger and stronger.
After reading it, send a text message to harass M and ask her how she feels. When I told my experience, she said she didn't think so. My mother said that I always look at people and things from the dark side. I don't think the word "general" can be established. Isn't the definition of "the dark side" that she said has her standpoint? So I defend myself and point out the injustice of her argument. What I saw in Bean was what made me immediately want to communicate with M, not write it. I have a lot of fashion that I haven't figured out.
The shock of "Bean" is: complete tragedy.
Where did it start to go wrong? First, his grotesque disgusting look, deliberately made to be funny; no sound, just a jumble of throaty noises. Like seeing something dirty. Such things make me intensely unhappy and afraid. Second, his unreasonable behavior. Pour seashells into an elegant lady's satchel - if it were me, I'd be scared to death if I felt something soft and slippery in the bag, so I understand the lady's scream ——
Leaving the judges at the station, and my son waiting in the car alone, still feels incredible when I think about it now.
Bean does countless stupid things in this film, things that cause trouble to others, things that ordinary people think are funny things. But I think it's all sad things. I have always felt that a person has the highest value. His personality, privacy, and behavior have their freedom, but there should be a limited range. I haven't studied liberalism carefully, but I've heard Rousseau's "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in bondage," or you may have heard "Man is a free man in an unfree world." I consider myself one of the prerequisites of freedom is not to hurt others. From this point of view, Bean is too self-respecting. When thinking of limitations, I was thinking about how the category of "harm" should be defined. There is no absolute no harm, people are different, if you are kind, in others it is likely to be considered harm. I have to admit that the limits I give are too subjective, not specific, and not sufficient as a criterion for judging human behavior. As far as the act itself is concerned, I think at least the imposing actor should be conscious. For example, Bean dumped seashells into other people's bags. Judging from the plot unfolded in the movie at that time, it was undoubtedly a deliberate act for himself. Assuming that the audience has long ignored Bean's "differentness" as a problem, his behavior has nothing to do with IQ in the current situation, and he has the ability to bear the consequences of his behavior. Yet he did so. Besides, the bean in our minds is not just a fool, which I will talk about later. The director obviously designed this plot as a joke, and in the history of the Bean series, the joke is the selling point. I think it is very inappropriate: no matter how you think about using humor to make people easy, your methods and methods must not be based on the inconvenience and difficulty of others. Maybe I made a mistake at the beginning. The purpose of other directors is much deeper than my "relaxation". They use comedy gimmicks to entertain the audience. To put it bluntly, it is the public who spend money on consumption, and the public buys laughing fruit. Who cares what is the reason for the humanity that brings the laughter, don't preach like a moralist. I also questioned myself with the same sneer.
However, after much thought, I decided to defend my position. It is precisely because the public only pursues post-labor consumption in order to gain a momentary "relaxation of the soul" that the ethics of film has increasingly become an issue. I seem a little worried, don't I?
There are a few bright spots in the movie, I'll start with the first one: the judge's son is really handsome~~~ With shiny black hair, fair skin, and beautiful eyes that look forward to life, it seems that he speaks Italian or French . What a handsome boy! (Stunning and nympho ING... It turns out that the charm of the beautiful boy is really so great! The stunning and nympho are over) Because of Bean's stupidity, he was forced to separate from his father, which is really pitiful. Watching him go from glaring and disdain for Bean to sharing the same fate to going to the art district to perform and earn phone bills to find his father, I finally felt that the true face of comedy appeared. The two really cooperated perfectly. Bean's song "My Sun" and the perfect performance of the boy, I tried my best to control the urge to laugh and knock on the table, and I regretted why I was in the voice room... I haven't laughed so easily in a long time. Isn't that what comedy is supposed to be like? Show the joy and beauty of life to others, caress every viewer and listener with the beauty of freedom, enter their hearts like spring breeze and rain, and try to heal spiritual wounds with warmth and thoughtfulness. Comedy as I understand it looks like the above. It has nothing to do with utility, and is dedicated to teaching people to calmly strive for the most precious thing in the world: love. (Thinking of Nietzsche's views on comedy, the beauty of the fullness of life, and so on... but he took tragedy as the right solution to the equation of the world of life.) I saw comedy in my own definition in Beans, and confirmed Watching this movie is not a waste of time.
I quickly put the above aside. Because later, Mr. Bean began to carry forward his habit of doing stupid things, and harm the French people one by one. When he was lucky enough to meet a girl, my irritability eased a little. When the actress' girl was heading to Cannes for the film festival and picked up Bean in the car, she showed no displeasure. Although Bean's "normal state" is still endless, he helps the girl drive and I sweat it for her. It's too scary. Later, the two teamed up with the teenager to go to Cannes and took a group photo on the bridge on the island. The three laughed happily. Later, the boy and his father met unexpectedly, and Bean became the protagonist of the film festival. The girl who was not valued by the director became famous because of the video tape that Bean took casually. The smile of the boy was enlarged and fixed on the silver screen. I also laughed then. He smiled really brightly, remembering the comments that T-Bag was a man like a flower, Orz. But at this moment, I feel that the boy is a gorgeous blooming flower. Youth is bright, sunny, clear, sincere, full of beauty that touches people deeply. That big smile and hug illuminated the believers who settled in the darkness like sunshine, telling the supreme gospel.
Is that salvation? No, after turning my head, I realized that the above is the last sensational section carefully choreographed by the director. The traces of contrived are too obvious. However, most people don't hold the director's cunning so harshly, do they? - Comedy, what do people want to do? What are we going to do. Unfortunately, I seem to "always" dig something "instinctively". Having said that, I am quite wary, or rather, somewhat hostile to comedy. Is it just because I'm so demanding of comedy that the current comedy can't meet my demands and is forcing me to go its opposite? So I love tragedy? Like many people, I have my own, albeit immature, standards for judging tragedy. Maybe the bar is low, because I've seen far more good tragedies than light comedies.
My confusion in "Bean" is: how can it be? Talk to M about this. Bean is an ideal, free from society, he doesn't follow moral and behavioral norms, he wanders on the fringes of society - and that's the problem. In the film, he does what he wants, society and us moviegoers agree and recognize him, we allow him to cross the line, he is forgiven, we tolerate him as absurd (and better, naive) as an individual and exist. That's what actress girls and people on the street who give money to beans and teens do. We are either laughing or annoyed by Bean, and we have left a very reasonable room for it in our hearts. So in the end, "the sun, the beach, the sea, and the bean, at that moment, I feel that it doesn't matter, it's all beautiful." (Friends, roughly so) In fact, the tragic factor has all come out -
when the fool The lingering heaviness gradually crept into my mind after the episode of Beans Beside a Golden Field Because There Was No Car Started. He was troubled, so he started destructive behavior, pure natural behavior, restlessness. I'm scared to see this. Is it evil? At this time, he showed the completely real face of a mental patient, and I think it is unfair to blame good and evil. He is incapacitated. Then there is my boundless association - the legal treatment of mentally ill criminals. Pathological and humane justice. How can the bearer of the patient's irresponsible behavior be spared the permanent harm brought about by the opposite of justice. Unfortunately, I only have the ability to think about these things, but I can't think further.
Another point is said above, how is the ideal bean possible? He's just a man in a movie. Imagine the existence of similar people in reality. Could they possibly get the indulgence that Bean enjoys from us? We can think about it from another angle, that is: what are the advantages of bean? Why did he win our love? It's not hard to get an answer if you ask honestly. That's what I have sorrow for. I sympathize with Bean and hate Bean, I admire and appreciate actresses, and teenagers. —Okay, finally got what I had to say — but tolerance. I praise tolerance, it is the most mellow old wine, the most melodious melody; it is the most tacit guardian, the deepest concern, and the quietest appreciation. The light of kindness reflected by tolerance is not dazzling, she just firmly holds your hand, neither guiding nor guiding, she walks with you.
But you'll take the whole life to meet with her.
What a pity.
Huh, seems like it's over. Shengsheng interprets "Mr. Bean's Holiday" as such. It's not true, or I'm too horny. Fortunately, a long-awaited task was finally completed.
Postscript: One of the reasons for posting this is to rethink the connotation of "tolerance". Some people say that tolerance is nothing more than a reward given by the strong to the weak. Only the weak demand to be "tolerated", and the weak have nothing. Humans should worship the will to power (or Nietzsche's term) to ensure their own development and the continuation of civilization. I think it makes sense in reality, but to reconstruct society according to this procedure, to eliminate the weak, and to despise the weak - can you hold this "power" all your life and keep the strong forever? The cowardice, darkness, and obscurity in human nature are terrifying, and how terrifying is the dazzling light that has been transformed everywhere after removing this cowardice, darkness, and obscurity!
View more about Mr. Bean's Holiday reviews
