When I watched it, I remembered the "Crash" many years ago. Of course, that one was more pleasing. Looking at things from the perspective of each character, it made the audience think that "In fact, it is very difficult for everyone in society." A more comfortable conclusion (for too long, it is almost like this in the impression).
In "La Haine", it is more about showing the state of young people in cité, a kind of violent and hopeless resistance.
But to this day, the young people in Les Misérables have not only resisted society’s resistance to the police, but also resisted the “class” in their small society itself. I don’t see any excuses here: the bad environment of the neighborhood, being abandoned by society; the poor working environment of the police and the meager salary, etc., these are not excuses. I will not draw out the following just because these contents are shown in the film: Because...so...the conclusion. The director just showed the content truly, but these content is not even the point. What's the point? The focus is on disorder and chaos, in which the power of individual “goodwill” is too small. Young people can no longer tolerate the current situation. They have to resist all authority, no matter whether this authority comes from "outside"/"enemy" or "inside"/"our side" (they (including us)). I don't know who the real "enemy" is), but their only means of resistance is violence. It is conceivable that even if they dismantled the existing authority, it would be nothing more than turning into a new "authority" and then changing the dynasty without changing the medicine.
Violent resistance is real and powerful, but whether it is “effective” is another matter. The film also mentions the violence in 2005, but the result is no change, and the settlement after the fall has made the life of the community worse. Resistance may allow us to win some immediate benefits, but it is nothing more than begging from "above" with more drastic means to get some food, which will not help change the destiny of the lower class. We are still playing "other" games.
Only revolution can change the already solidified society. The revolution needs the support of a whole new ideology.
Why the Communist Party of China can win, apart from the external advantages of the time and place, the "harmony of people" is also very important. No matter what it is now, at the time, they completely jumped out of the framework of "changing individuals to become emperors", representing the brand-new concept of "the people stand up and become masters, without oppression or exploitation", and this concept is the people at the time. Hope. "Zhang Hua was admitted to Peking University; Li Ping was admitted to a secondary technical school; I worked as a salesperson in a department store: we all have a bright future." This sentence has now become ironic, but it was true at the time (of course I was not talking about plans at all. The economy is better).
As long as there is hope in life, which is what we often say "has a rush", society will be relatively stable. When the people do not see hope, especially not only for themselves, but also for their descendants, social contradictions and class contradictions will naturally intensify. I hope that our country will not fall into this quagmire-or if we fall into it, we can get our feet out in time.
View more about Les Misérables reviews
