I have always believed that movies are not a good reasoning tool, and argumentative essays are the most suitable for reasoning. What a movie has to do is to bring people a beautiful experience and emotional shock, which cannot be expressed in words, nor can an argumentative essay do it. If this premise is affirmed, then the film is clearly a failure in terms of "bringing people a beautiful experience and emotional shock". The male protagonist and his lover meet and fall in love because of sex. As far as I know, there is no beautiful and touching love story in ancient and modern China and abroad that unfolds around the lower body naked from beginning to end without mentioning the upper body at all. Usually we focus on how their upper body fits together, at least try to dilute the elements of the lower body. The film apparently gave up on that effort, which directly caused me, a very easily moved person, to remain unmoved. I even thought for a minute about whether I had been emotionally numb lately.
This is the film's first fatal flaw. Is there any essential difference between Pan Jinlian's love and Ximen Qing's love? Not so. But what made the story of Jack Roast make enough tears to make every woman rush to confess that she is not Pan Jinlian?
Telling a good love story is definitely not just about sex.
Secondly, I took a look at the screenwriter of the film, he seems to be a witness to the events described in the film, but other than the conspiracy theory that someone deliberately put the virus to kill gay, I didn't see him any more A deep description of psychological activities. The film is full of hysterical quarrels and lacks the confession of midnight dreams. If I were a witness to the incident, and if I happened to believe in God, I would doubt whether this disease was God’s punishment for homosexuality. I believe this was the wrong idea of many people at the time, and many people would also think about whether homosexuality is a sin or not. Shake up, and this film doesn't touch on that topic. You can even add a little blame to God for why he made himself gay and made his life so hard, instead of being able to live a life as peacefully as ordinary people. The film clearly shows too many superficial squabbles, mostly over the age-old theme of radical reform versus mild reform, rather than the subtle and profound psychological changes of the characters.
Finally, what I want to say is that in 2013, when a university in Shanghai organized a blood donation, the information collection form said, "Are you gay or HIV-positive?" If one of them is true, you must tick "Yes" on the form.
View more about The Normal Heart reviews
