These are Gould's words at the end. Reminds me of the debate style of one of the contestants in the story of strange flowers recently - "standing in the center of the world and calling for love". And I feel the same way about this passage in the film, but also a sense of moral kidnapping. This is my first time writing a movie review, and I don't want to write too prose. So let me argue with a few brief arguments.
1. The director is also the father character in the film. He fired a somewhat clever female worker who stirred up the workers' emotions, and it was reasonable. Unless there is only one factory in the entire British Empire, which monopolizes and squeezes its workers, I can think of no other reason to think that the manager is at fault. Other factories give 25p, but you don't give me. Hehe, those workers who are on strike can go to factories with high wages! No one is stopping you! Then the factory manager can't stand it any longer, and will naturally raise the wages of female workers. This is the role of market regulation. So when the boss confronted the female worker, he confidently said, I gave the market price, which is reasonable and reasonable. Look, those female labor unions you instigated came back! In my opinion, on the contrary, those female workers violated the spirit of the contract when they were incited, and maliciously went on strike after the factory received a large order. Yes, maliciously.
Second, there is nothing wrong with the factory director's wife. Because of her social welfare work, she certainly can't just casually give donor or taxpayer money to a liar. When a person tells a lie, then it is difficult for us to believe that she corrects and defends. Therefore, from the perspective of the factory director's wife, of course, it is not easy to donate to her. But why do you say that there is nothing wrong with the lady, because she has a small mistake that she did not investigate carefully, but easily told the person who asked for help that we have reached the result, and you should not be donated. But think about it again, if I spend my time with someone who lied to me to find out if what she said is true or not, is it the people who are in line behind and who need to be donated will have to wait. So, this little mistake is still open to question.
The above two arguments illustrate the cruelty of that era and the cruelty of society. But if you think about it carefully, now, 2016, 100 years have passed, isn't the society just as cruel?
3. I think it is the remaining three who are at fault. The degree of error is from small to large, sister, brother-in-law, brother.
1. Sister is because of "jealousy", why do you put quotation marks? Because I don't fully agree that the writers are just using jealousy to give my sister a hat, at least that's not how the actors act. When the already sensitive sister was trying on a dress that was mocked by her mother and said it was not good-looking, the waiter who looked good next to her smiled. Please look at the waiter's smile again. Although I am a man, if I It's my sister, I would be very angry in this situation, and I never thought that a complaint could bring such a change of fate to a person. If I knew, I might not be so mean. This is like when you buy clothes on a Taobao store, because your body is not suitable for a certain dress, you are accidentally poked by the customer service, so you are very angry, so you give a bad review to the Taobao store. But the Taobao shop owner committed suicide by jumping off the building because of this bad review. My God, I just gave her a bad review, who knew she would commit suicide, if I knew I would definitely not give her a bad review! Based on the above, my sister has made a small mistake, that is, a bit mean. But if it were me, I might complain too, sometimes people really lose their minds when they get angry.
2. Brother-in-law's mistake is that he should not split his legs and pedal two boats. Although his original intention was to help her, but it seems understandable that he was born with pity, but the reality is like this, if you are wrong, you are wrong.
3. Brother, his mistake is essentially a family environment, coddling. Otherwise, he wouldn't care about the low salary his father gave him, but reflected from the side that his younger brother's character was what his mother was used to, and his father would not give his younger brother a salary that exceeded the market price because of his wealth. Think about his later conversation with his father, saying that he would rather stay in prison than stay at home and so on. Doesn't that sound like the words of a rebellious junior high school student? Then think about the younger brother's saying that relying on that woman is better than relying on herself. This also reflects the incompetence and inner fragility of the younger brother from the side. The younger brother's mistake, on the surface, was that he didn't take on the nurturing responsibility of the woman and the child in her womb like a man.
In conclusion, based on the above three arguments, it is clear who is right and who is wrong. So my title "sin" should be in quotes. Because the family is not entirely wrong, at least I think mother and father are what the class of that era should be. The fault lies with these children. So back to the argument at the beginning of the article, I think Gould's remarks at the end of the film are a failure of the film. It fully reflects the director's narrow-mindedness, or the kind of standing in the center of the world calling for love to win the movie. A means for people to think deeply about resonance. If the director can make this movie from a more objective, realistic and cruel perspective, then I think this movie should be a masterpiece that can be thought-provoking and introspective in any era. If you think about it, we may indeed have some people around us who need our help, and their fates are inadvertently intertwined with many of ours, but don't you think this is kidnapping you?
One day, a man whose business failed came to the bank for a loan, and this loan was his last chance. But the loan conditions he provided did not meet the bank's lending requirements, so the bank did not lend him money, so he committed suicide. So God found the bank and said "Sinful Bank"! Hehe, guess what the ending is? The ending is that since then, the banks have been greatly relaxed because of the loan conditions, and the bad debts are too high, and they have closed down one after another.
One day, in the subway of Tokyo, Japan, a destitute person chose to commit suicide by lying on the track. However, the subway department found the family of the deceased and demanded compensation for the traffic loss caused by the time on the rail.
One day, in a county town in China, a patient died, and his family raised banners and mourned everywhere. So the hospital kept the family private for the sake of peace of mind.
Maybe you don't want to see the above three situations. Then, what should we do and what should the society do? This, perhaps, is where the story is thought-provoking.
View more about An Inspector Calls reviews
