first thing to admit is that "Entre Les Murs" is a relatively high-tech movie. I think even the big-name director is faced with such a choice to "put down" for himself ── placing 80% of the content of the entire film in a cramped and monotonous space like the classroom──they can't be technically. The above is better than Laurant Cantet: the rhythm control of the whole film has a degree of relaxation, selection and refinement, without a trace of procrastination and repetition, it is commendable to create many delicate changes in a single space of nearly two hours. On top of this, he made full use of the tension generated by the dialogue and the precise choice of editing to make the plot quite exciting. Anyway, I didn’t feel any burnout during the 120 minutes I sat in the theater. I watched an "art film". It creates a sense of excitement similar to watching a Hollywood blockbuster. Of course, I personally think that the most difficult thing is that Laurant Cantet's ability is the best. He faces a group of non-professional actors from middle school students. He can schedule their movements, language and body language in such a rhythm, and some group dramas cooperate like this. Compact and brilliant, and his telephoto close-up shots, under the dazzling editing, can always catch the most critical expressions and movements of these "amateur players" (actually the entire film is 120 minutes filled with these close-ups), which is incredible. I don't know how he did it on the spot and what method he used to work.
2. The
strange thing is that it is so brilliant on the technical level, but I don’t think it has any impact on the film’s spiritual level: Entre Les Murs left me with no more impression of social reality than French TV 2 every Tuesday. TV coverage of "Special Broadcasting" is more insightful. Probably because I recently watched N Chinese "17 Years Movies" DVDs, I even had a rather absurd idea when I got out of the movie theater: I just finished watching a hip hop version of "Flowers of the Motherland".
There is a large category of feature films that I have always held a great skepticism about them: they claim that they want to reflect social reality and expose social problems. I mentioned the ins and outs of this skepticism in my review of Sullivan's Travel, "The Delusional Agent" and Others. In a nutshell: a movie can only represent itself, the personal perspective of the person who created it, and basically has no commonality. The "problem" it reflects does not actually depend on the "problem" itself, but on the person who "speaks" about it, the person's personal experience, family background, ideology, the purpose of the statement, the methods and means of the statement, And most importantly, his views on this "problem" and the depth of understanding of this view.
I once saw a public service advertisement, but I don’t remember the details clearly. The main idea is to remind the viewers of the misleading and deceptive nature of video works using montage techniques under the “real” cloak. There should be three shots. The US military surrounded a building, the people in the building detonated the bomb, and the US military rushed in and fired. In just a few tens of seconds, the three same shots were edited together in a different order. As a result, everyone can Discovering the cause and effect of the whole incident, the problem to be expressed simply because of the different order of placement conveyed the opposite message.
This is actually a simple and clear example of how unreliable a picture we see on the screen or TV is, how the audience can be manipulated like an idiot by the person making this information like a puppet. On this basis, the so-called slogan of "reflecting reality" or "recovering the truth" on the screen, whether it is the people who call it out of sincere and good intentions or ulterior motives, is destined to become an empty check that can never be cashed. .
Going back to Entre Les Murs, this film, which was advertised by the paper media as a microcosm of the realities of French society, under the dazzling level of "flowers and legs" skills, all I can find are those similar to "immigration, racial discrimination," Integrating into society, youth violence..." Waiting for these familiar typefaces that everyone has read in the newspaper, they are not richer than a TV news clip at all. The plot play on this basis, because after the director's careful scheduling, editing and shooting, their social credibility has almost dropped to zero. In other words, they use technical means to visually make the audience feel that the real imitation is more realistic, the more false they are in the actual sense, and they become the veritable "La Fausse Vérité".
And when I lifted off these gorgeous "social problem" appearances and wanted to find something about Laurant Cantet's own unique feelings and opinions, what I found was zero. Except for the simple and iconic manifestations of a few scattered and sloppy leftist intellectuals, the director's own views on these issues and the causes of them are almost blank. What's more, Laurant Cantet himself is full of the common problem of this generation of French directors (even Arnaud Desplechin is no exception): because of the lack of in-depth and unique views and understanding of social issues, he is very pretentious and impetuous (it is a pity , We will never find French movies with styles like Jean-Pierre Melville or Jean Eaustache). The cheap sympathy for illegal immigrant families and the boring discussion of coffee vending machines in the film seem to be close to "real", but in fact there is a subtextual left-wing middle class's self-contained "superiority"-why am I The feeling of watching "Flowers of the Motherland" is also from this, although the content is very different, the false problem display method, the modelized problem solving method, the superior mentality intoxicated, the void created The pale "big family" atmosphere and identification with a unified ideology are so similar to "Flowers of the Motherland".
Don't talk to me about the "fly on the wall" theory of Bazan. What you observe and express is already a question mark. If you don't have your own feelings and opinions, it won't really become "mineral springs with pure water - a pot of boiled water".
3. I
have to compare the other two films "Half Nelson" and "Afterschool" that were also watched during this period.
"Half Nelson" is the best movie I have seen on the big screen this year. And look again and again.
This film is one year earlier than Entre Les Murs, and it is very comparable to the latter. It is also a young middle school teacher facing his students (also children from the bottom of society). In Entre Les Murs, those social issues that are regarded as "things" in the book: drugs, youth violence, racial discrimination, and the inefficiency of public education have retreated into a large number of characters in "Half Nelson" and the emotional connection between them The background is the motivation and fuse that stimulates their emotions and behavior. It is an aperitif rather than a main course. There is a more important implication here. These social problems, they already exist, are well-known problems, and there is no need to repeat them. The important thing is that individual people, whether they are students or teachers, in such a stressful social and emotional environment, how should they react and act as individuals who feel rich?
"Half Nelson" shows a point of view that I particularly agree with and my personal feelings. Whether it is an adult or a child, the problems we face in this society are the same. The nature of these problems is not due to differences in age. There are changes, the difference is that the way we deal with these problems is different due to differences in age. Broadly speaking, such problems are common. To a certain extent, they cannot be solved by classroom education. Everyone at any age needs to face, feel, and explore solutions.
On the other hand, Entre Les Murs, this film is ideologically a complete reaction to Half Nelson. Laurant Cantet went to great lengths to chase the details of education in every classroom, and divided the classroom into two distinct camps: teachers and students. The problems of students arise from their own and their family backgrounds. They are caused by their age, lack of life experience and some social system defects. These problems are what the teacher wants to discover and solve, and what the teacher has to face is not substantive. Social issues do not involve people's spiritual choices, but face a trivial and false proposition of how to improve their own teaching ability and allow students to accept their own opinions. Invisibly, this film divides students into two parts: educable and non-educable. It subconsciously affirms an unquestionable ideological authority represented by the school. At the same time, it is also the most important, infinitely dwarfing the problems faced. The true essence of "Flowers of the Motherland" comes from this. (Digression, this is actually the result of my observation of elementary school education in France. This education system is exceptionally perfect in the construction of knowledge structure and the inculcation of capitalist ideology. It alone lacks emotional guidance and education for students, and teachers do not Emotional communication is cited as one's own responsibility).
In "Half Nelson", the young teacher even withdrew from the school due to his own weaknesses. He and his students are a kind of in-depth perceptual contact. Both of them are not perfect, nor can they be perfect. It is not an education and The relationship of being educated is a process of understanding each other and experiencing each other's feelings. This perspective makes the emotional power of the entire film abruptly enhanced. At the same time, it also conveys one of the most important values: what we are facing is not a safe that can be opened easily in the classroom with only knowledge and moral indoctrination. The unlocked code is a softening effect produced by emotional and spiritual communication. This is the only way to solve the problem.
The mentality of the two films is higher and lower at a glance.
"Afterschool" is also the competition for Cannes this year, and it is the same subject for middle school students. Although it may be much weaker than "Half Nelson", its narrative is equally peculiar, from the inside out, and it is the result of a closed student's inner world observing the surroundings. It also reflects a fatal flaw in Entre les murs: this Palme d’Or movie actually failed to construct any character’s inner world. All characters are scribbled and masked under the “real” coat. That's awesome. This is actually a common problem with most film festival films.
4.
Finally, we have to question this popular criterion for judging films.
A film like Entre les murs, even if it does not delve into the problem in such a deep perspective, conveys such a hollow and rough feeling, but because it captures a "gimmick" theme that can "exploit" the feelings and opinions of the public, plus perfection The same film skills can also become a model for film production.
This is a good film in the general sense, but when we go back to watch those Palme d’Or films in the 1950s, 1960s, and even 1970s, the gap is really stubborn. The result of the industrialization of "art films" is that all films with the hat of "art" will sharpen their heads and self-disruptive limbs and be embedded in the system model. Looking around the award-winning films of several major film festivals in the past few years are all so. It may not be a bad thing for this industry and system (it actually became a business in the end), but it has really played a blocking role in guiding the way of thinking, emotions, and opinions expressed in the film. There are fewer and fewer movies with new ideas and high emotions that we can see. Instead of that, I might as well go to Hollywood blockbusters to be more enjoyable.
View more about The Class reviews
