Now I am more aware of why Woody Allen is called "the only intellectual in the film industry", with a trace of black humor and an approved mockery label, "Coffee Commune" still carries that kind of philosophical talk + literary style. Romantic, well-made soundtrack and nostalgic pictures, like every story he tells before, always make people fall into thoughts that cannot be calmed for a long time, lost in the distant sky; from "Midnight Paris" "Midnight Barcelona" to "Midnight Paris" and "Midnight Barcelona". "Coffee Commune", Woody Allen awakens people's doubts and thoughts about what love, marriage, and happiness are... a thought that is so close to us but lost in the depths of my heart.
In "Coffee Commune", the seemingly critique of "ethics" has been repeatedly expressed in the same previous film-why is it so absurd and contradictory, yet it has such a real texture? First of all, I don't think Woody Allen is a weird old man who simply satirizes, satirizes social norms, ridicules, and stimulates the audience. His roles range from "Anne Hall" to "Midnight Barcelona"'s Juan, Vicki, Christina, and Marina, from "Midnight Paris" Jill and Hemingway to "Coffee Commune"'s Varney and Fei Er, Bobby; in the process of interpreting the "naturalness, contradiction, and absurdity" of many characters and plots, I can feel the true reflection of each of us who are contradicted and confused in desire and reality, pursuing freedom, ideals, and love. , Sex, security and sense of being identified, and at the same time yearning for new stimulation, new experience and independence of personality, but it seems that it will never be able to get rid of the accompanying torture of loneliness and fear.
————————————— Warm-up of thinking ends and enters the topic——————————————
"Coffee Commune" has been read many times, and the words before and after the plot of the lines are considered. , For fear that the old man’s thoughts cannot be comprehended with current cognition. In general, my understanding of "Coffee Commune" is less "dramatically disguised" compared with the previous works, and the story itself is a satirical ethics that is easier to understand. In the play, Woody Allen created an extreme reality for us-love and marriage are not (and need not be) inevitable, and all contradictions and absurdities in the play are spread around this.
The before and after changes of Bobby and Varney in the play, and the finally seemingly absurd but not accidental dramatization, recombination, and then separation, try to interpret them, you must first interpret the story itself-"absurd" but inevitable . The relationship between Vanney and Bobby is real, and the relationship between Vanney and his uncle Phil is even more real. Humanity thinking has turned into a peachy joke after untouchables.) And Vanney’s choice for marriage is Phil, not Bobby. It can only be said that Vanney has his own standards when it comes to the marriage partner; and for Phil and Bobby Whom to love more, there is not much information revealed in the play, only the contradictions and struggles in her heart are revealed, so she is actually unable to make choices in the choice of love (maybe there is no need to choose at all?), this kind of humanity and ethical contradiction The same existed in the divorce struggle between Phil and his original partner Karen, and Bobby did not seem to show the extra contradictory "struggle" from beginning to end (this setting made me feel the director's faint "maliciousness" ").
To interpret this contradiction and inevitability in the play, we need to extend and think about the nature of love and marriage-in the current popularized package of family responsibilities, husband and wife status, ethical constraints, and interest in a contractual love model, we may I have forgotten, and there is no standard to distinguish "true love". Pure love is definitely not a relationship with a certain person or an object, but an act of spontaneous inclination and self-will—a tendency and desire to experience the nature of the other's life from the essence of self-life, and then to deliver oneself Secrets, ideals, physical decisions or judgments (not discussed here for the time being), there is no longing for where to come from, why not leave without a decision.
Although love affects our physiology and behavior, it is still a product of the spiritual world, because the real world reflects too much of it; and marriage-a ceremony based on social ethics, legal basis, and contract spirit It itself is a product of the civilized world: the monogamy system, the status of husband and wife, and the sharing of property can all prove it. As for it is a ritual, it is because of its influence on us. Apart from strong psychological hints, there is nothing. . (No matter how sacred aura is given to it, it cannot fill the original gap between each other, but can only temporarily suppress each other's turmoil and estrangement, so it is very ironic that contemporary youth are poor, and the whole family has to do it. Lifetime events: marriage itself, not love itself ~ are trying to bypass the truth that should be faced, to pursue a grand ceremony, an illusion of seeing flowers in the mist, and a hope for a happy future). ~
Then take the nature of "marriage" and "love" to extend a real question, how many people can still love after the other person leaves themselves (even after they become other people’s husbands and mothers of other people’s children), Instead of asking for a loving response? (This is definitely not a disgusting thing that advocates "sacrifice and dedication" for love, but it is necessary to emphasize the one-way nature of love) We really cannot go to marriage because of some problems-we cannot find a guarantee in the real system, but we The life, experience, and the growing experience and sincerity that have been delivered to each other will not disappear or become false, and will even continue in another way. The beauty of love lies in the fact that we witness/complete the growth of each other (self-world) in the process of experiencing life (real world) together, and then unite and unify with TA (TAs) and TA's world.
(———— Digest this sentence, and try to overcome the exclusivity of sex, read the following words carefully————)
This combination and the same love experience are the most real, not to be tested, no It will disappear because you become someone else’s wife, groan on someone’s bed, and have someone else’s child. It will only become the past because you take back your secrets, your trust, and cut off the connection. In the vast sea of people, there is the soul closest to me; in the cruel and cold world, there is the tenderness that belongs to me; I and this world are inseparably connected-this is true love, completely and marriage, without any cause and effect True love.
At this point, if someone still thinks that Varney chooses to marry Phil, it means that he doesn’t love Bobby. I am touched by your IQ and surprised at the depth of your integration with secular ethics. We can wash and sleep.
Then Varney The derailment after the reunion with Bobby can also be explained. After struggling, they chose to face themselves (the truth) and the sincerity they once had. I think this recombination of starting points does not mean to each other’s family. Infidelity, loyalty must be specific I don’t want to discuss, but loyalty should be true to oneself in order to have a responsible attitude towards love; Bobby is undoubtedly responsible and loyal, although there is a seemingly guilty conscience to give away his wife Huahe’s answer to his wife’s dreams did not directly admit to cheating "Well, dreams are dreams. Hmm?", but this is his personal choice of power or privacy. There is no difference between confession and concealment. He just loves both. Woman; since then, the "true love" was dramatized by Woody Allen and packaged in the "absurd derailment"-while subduing the old man's performance techniques, in the development of the plot, he once again understood Woody's kind of worldly derailment. The "respect" of ethics, the "gentle caressing" of the inverse scales of Muggles.
In the final shot, when the New Year is approaching, although the two choose to separate in reality-in order to respect each other's other love, in order to respect each other's chosen family, in order to respect this ethical morality, their love is still free Yes, reunited in the bell.
In the end, then the problem comes. In the end, we will find that Woody Allen seems to have created a fact for us. Bobby, Varney, and Phil all love two people-absurdity only exists in an ethical perspective, but truth There is no contradiction in the perspective of love, and who to love and who to love do not work in principle.
I think Woody Allen’s sarcasm is not to deny the meaning of ethics. The meaning of ethics is to ensure that everyone under the system has the happiness he deserves (lower limit), but it should never become your pursuit of true self-happiness ( (Upper limit) obstacles—should not be contained and protected in this social ethics, and because of fear, repress one's true inner feelings, that is: the prison of the mind is a cage, and the place where the mind resides is the strong city.
Conduct some necessary discussions on related extended issues, so that we can better interpret and get closer to the ideas expressed by Woody Allenhi. In the instinctive needs of human beings, there must be (in some way) an urgent desire to combine with this world (others) to overcome the root of all fear-loneliness; loneliness can make people feel overwhelmed by their own world and unable to grasp everything. You can only let it go until you can't feel the existence of "I" life; just like how uneasy and dangerous it is for people to feel different, alienated from the group, and isolated from the world; only to understand how people are afraid of loneliness and fear of being disconnected from the world Only through contact can I realize that “love” is the only way for people to survive. People cannot survive without love. The focus of Woody Allen’s works on themes of love and humanity gave me a sense of the old man’s attitude towards the world. With kindness and his unique humanistic care, Woody Allen used dramatic performance to package all kinds of extreme "truths", "gentle" tore apart the real humanity that was hidden under the cover of secular ethics and social norms. When we When facing up to one's own needs nakedly, there is no shameful filth...
—————————————————————————————
"Coffee In the Commune, there are also some satires about formalism, religion, and high society, which are also Woody's consistent style, so I won't discuss too much. Here I will interpret some other impressive (love) typicals:
The love of eldest brother Ben Dorfman, a highly popular character, a typical high-energy "giving love", he is considerate of his family, defends his own happiness, and treats his own world (family is a part of his world) Responsible for being faithful to the end with one’s own cognition, and feeling one’s love and strength in the process of “giving”, this is the most important component of humanity, which is in contrast to the brutality and bloody magnified in his nature. Bloody crime has nothing to do, his love is more real and reliable than most of us in reality-not because of his brutal style of shooting at a disagreement, his ability to move his hands and never moving his mouth, and his loss of "humanity" from a moral point of view , But the high degree of symbiosis, union, and unity between his love, his behavior, his world and reality itself, which makes his love solid and powerful; it is no wonder that he can be cared for by such a "high level" of love. The thick charm of love attracts. It's a pity that he violated the bottom line of the social structure: the law is supreme. Finally, pay tribute to the justice, pay tribute to the eldest brother, and hope that he will no longer be poisoned by violence in the next life.
Parental love, Bobby’s parents, like most marriages in the real world, hand in hand with white-headed, unpretentious affection: no absurdity, no turmoil, no passion, and at the same time accumulated years of nagging, sarcasm, and regret, to face the subconscious. A protest against the passion, turmoil, and opportunity lost to each other in youth, a protest against fate and physique; of course, this is also a kind of happiness. It's just that this kind of love eventually develops into a kind of "symbiotic organism" individual, which can be said to be highly integrated, but it cannot be more integrated with the real world, so it is inevitable that people feel thin and unremarkable. We can’t fall in love with a person and then fall in love with her world, experience our union with the real world in the process of love union, and then fall in love with the real world we live together. It’s a little regrettable. There are still some thoughts about religion hidden in the parents, so I won’t discuss it anymore.
The love of sister-in-law comes from the agreement of their thoughts, beliefs, and consensus. This is also a common pattern of love, where each other finds a sense of recognition and security in each other. What the brother-in-law said is very philosophical, but it can only be kept at the ideological level, and cannot be more integrated with the real world. It is reflected in the sisters and brother-in-law from "the neighbour is helpless" and "the neighbour was killed by a word of his sister". It can be seen that their love, or the "abundance" of their spiritual world, still cannot deal with the contradiction of their thoughts in reality. Please digest a sentence first: "Contradictions" only exist in cognition, and what happens in reality itself can only be the answer-contradictions and pain reflect our hearts, not actual factors. The problem with sister-in-law’s love is whether people have the ability to digest or promote the contradictions that love embodies in reality. The prerequisite for this ability is a trust in one’s own human power and an attempt to touch the fear of reality. The courage, otherwise, people will be afraid to love, afraid to "sacrifice" themselves. One last sentence: The completeness of thought must be reality.
Woody Allen’s artistic sentiment-people need love, and they can’t stand the torture of loneliness and fear. In the process of integrating with the world (others), most people cannot find a suitable way to get rid of their fears, so they can only adopt the same The cost of "a group of people/a group of people" homogenization is excessive choice and loss of most of the "personality"-if I are exactly the same as others, my feelings, thoughts, habits, and opinions will be in line with the role models of this group of people. I can be united with this group of people (the world), and I can be saved without having to endure loneliness and fear... But the irony is that everyone who is born under siege is included in the template of system and reality. , How can we not forget that we all have only one chance to exist, only one time, and desire to touch and experience the world?-Woody Allen is precisely the contradiction of this human nature in his works frequently and Multi-angle display: escalating the contradiction between emotion and reason, dramatizing the truth, disguising the inevitable by accident, questioning, rubbing, and stimulating the fire of different depths that are buried in everyone’s heart, until it reaches the burning point: "Just one This movie is just a work of literature and art." We who couldn't bear this "ethical encounter" were thoughtful, but we clearly felt a commotion in our hearts: it seemed that it was not just a work of literature and art. Congratulations, if you feel this way, then you have already started your self-awareness awakening.
———————————————————————————————
Off-topic, Woody Allen’s film is generally not suitable for "self "People who have consciousness or thinking with the "world", unfortunately, most people don’t seem to realize the necessity of this. The wild criticism of the plot of the film flying across the screen and the complaints about the characters and men and women are irrelevant. It can be seen that the way defenders and fake happiness defend their happiness is plentiful saliva. I can only say: Get rid of your mother’s mental retardation-forgive me, after careful consideration, still You can only choose words that are concise and understandable to everyone. Reality itself is the most true answer. If you are willing to analyze reality, face the needs of human nature, think about love and marriage, and think about the formation of social ethics, you will not stay on the pseudo-ethical labels of "scum, scum, dog and man". .
But I can’t help but feel that “self-blown” in contemporary society is how easy it is to be despised by people and easily satisfied by the illusion in front of me — a decent wedding, a stable job, a glorious education, or the more illusory: "love forever" The promise, the much-anticipated glory, the rock-solid creed...
the prerequisite for exploring self (happiness) is whether you can accept values that are contrary to your own values, and any single-line delineation of "value" and "happiness" , Can only expose ignorance and fragility, and tolerant values are the soil of wisdom and the beginning of a strong heart-willing to understand the world and values that are different from (or even contrary to) one’s own knowledge; from here, can you prove that you are a leader Only by exploring the essence of phenomena with philosophical thinking can we be able to find what is truly suitable for ourselves in the interpretation of "happiness/self/world" from so many angles.
To pay tribute to every life, we can only exist in this world once, live with our hearts
-lion song song
View more about Café Society reviews
