Listen, the roar of the machine, the whisper of the body.

Grayce 2022-01-18 08:01:03

"Ada, what's the matter" is a movie in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's a pity that we didn't know some historical background about the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina before watching the movie, so I didn't particularly understand the specific war situation involved in the film. Kind of situation. But fortunately, this movie does not lose much of its books. The focus is still on the discussion of the good and evil of human nature in war. Such a discussion will appear in any complicated war situation, or, in a more precise wording—— It will repeat itself catastrophically again. Of course, this film cannot be regarded as a particularly outstanding war film. Its topic selection and cutting angle are very novel, and the presentation of refugee camps is also very design. So the first half of the film gave me a big surprise. I look forward to it. A more amazing story, but in the second half of the story, the trend is almost becoming more and more routine. Once the local armed forces appear, you can almost guess the final ending of the film. From the loopholes in the plot and the immaturity of the filming techniques, it can be seen that the director should have just started to make the film not long (I checked afterwards, this is indeed her Virgo), and many passages in the film It can be seen that the director is actually very talented and thoughtful, but these thoughts are too scattered, she is not sure how to completely put these careful thoughts into a war film that attaches great importance to rhythm. For example, after Ada took his family to the UN camp, he inserted a reminiscence of the Ada family’s carnival in a bar to connect the family’s wish of "getting out from here, every day for the holidays" in the refugee camp. But this memoir paragraph is too redundant to be placed here. The timing of the emotions that it tries to render is not right; the information implied in the memoir paragraph is not explained in the second half of the film, and in this scene The characters that appear will not show any arcs of characters in subsequent plots. The director has arranged this kind of slightly sensational passage in the film more than once, and always pointed the camera at the face to take close-ups. It seems that he wants to use the most direct and rude way to let the audience remember these because of the war. People who have suffered annihilation. But this kind of processing method just exposed the director’s inadequacy in characterization. She let us remember these faces, but she only presented these faces, and did not use specific and detailed plots to solve these deaths. The person is reduced to a full-blooded person. So I want to say that the biggest failure of this film is that the director failed to reach a unified agreement on the form and theme of the film. The eagerness for quick success in the form made the film lose the opportunity to restore the small person to a plump individual. In terms of the theme, the most important theme that this film wants to explore is actually the essence. Personal demands in the control system. Ada's request is simple. She hopes that she can let the UN military open a back door for her through the convenience of her position, so that she can protect her family. The subtlety of Ada's character lies in her multiple identities: United Nations staff, translator, local resident, mother, wife. Except for being a mother and wife, the rest of her identities were imposed on her by society (to be more cruel, they were forced on her by the war). When she complained time and time again to the UN peacekeeping forces and asked them to protect her family, the social identities she possessed became a burden on her instead. We—I mean, those of us who call themselves modern people, of course, can have very good reasons to refute Ada’s various backdoor behaviors. Her actions undermine the fairness and credibility of the system and hinder the normal operation of the system. The system of modernity requires such individuals to sell and sacrifice their own interests for the benefit of the system, and to clarify the boundaries between public power and private demands to the greatest extent. But this kind of logic is difficult to establish in the extreme dilemma of good and evil. Whether the kindness in human nature and selfish love for the sake of relatives should always give way to the so-called duty of being a member of the system. And whether the rationality and powerful force of the system are really effective in the face of extreme evil in human nature. Ada keeps trying to break the rules of the peacekeeping forces, hoping that her husband and children will survive, but the final goal of the general who cleverly uses the rules is to slaughter the refugees. Before she was able to rescue her relatives, Ada rarely wanted to take the initiative to rescue other refugees. But when her relatives are out of danger for a short time, she can choose to take the initiative to help the pregnant woman who gave birth (this is as a compatriot, an individual, a mother's help, not as a United Nations interpreter). In terms of this detail, we should not slander Ada’s demands as completely selfish love, but should reflect on why the system and the system cannot even protect the most basic private demands of people such as protecting their families. The entry point chosen by the film is really very room for discussion, but it is too paved and too big to be able to portray other characters except Ada. As a result, the emotional motivation of the protagonist of Ada has also changed very much. Vague, it's hard to make me empathize. United Nations staff, translators, local residents, mothers, wives. Except for being a mother and wife, all other identities were imposed on her by society (to be more cruel, it was forced on her by the war). When she complained to the UN peacekeeping forces time and time again, asking them to protect her family, the social identities she possessed became her burden. We—I mean, those of us who call themselves modern people, of course, can have very good reasons to refute Ada’s various backdoor behaviors. Her actions undermine the fairness and credibility of the system and hinder the normal operation of the system. The system of modernity requires such individuals to sell and sacrifice their own interests for the benefit of the system, and to clarify the boundaries between public power and private demands to the greatest extent. But this kind of logic is difficult to establish in the extreme dilemma of good and evil. Whether the kindness in human nature and selfish love for the sake of relatives should always give way to the so-called duty of being a member of the system. And whether the rationality and powerful force of the system are really effective in the face of extreme evil in human nature. Ada keeps trying to break the rules of the peacekeeping force, hoping that her husband and children will survive, but the final goal of the general who cleverly uses the rules is to slaughter the refugees. Before she was able to rescue her relatives, Ada rarely wanted to take the initiative to rescue other refugees. But when her relatives are out of danger for a short time, she can choose to take the initiative to help the pregnant woman who gave birth (this is as a compatriot, an individual, a mother's help, not as a United Nations interpreter). In terms of this detail, we should not slander Ada’s demands as completely selfish love, but should reflect on why the system and the system cannot even protect the most basic private demands of people such as protecting their families. The entry point chosen by the film is really very room for discussion, but it is too paved and too big to be able to portray other characters except Ada. As a result, the emotional motivation of the protagonist of Ada has also changed very much. Vague, it's hard to make me empathize. United Nations staff, translators, local residents, mothers, wives. Except for being a mother and wife, all other identities were imposed on her by society (to be more cruel, it was forced on her by the war). When she complained to the UN peacekeeping forces time and time again, asking them to protect her family, the social identities she possessed became her burden. We—I mean, those of us who call themselves modern people, of course, can have very good reasons to refute Ada’s various backdoor behaviors. Her actions undermine the fairness and credibility of the system and hinder the normal operation of the system. The system of modernity requires such individuals to sell and sacrifice their own interests for the benefit of the system, and to clarify the boundaries between public power and private demands to the greatest extent. But this kind of logic is difficult to establish in the extreme dilemma of good and evil. Whether the kindness in human nature and selfish love for the sake of relatives should always give way to the so-called duty of being a member of the system. And whether the rationality and powerful force of the system are really effective in the face of extreme evil in human nature. Ada keeps trying to break the rules of the peacekeeping force, hoping that her husband and children will survive, but the final goal of the general who cleverly uses the rules is to slaughter the refugees. Before she was able to rescue her relatives, Ada rarely wanted to take the initiative to rescue other refugees. But when her relatives are out of danger for a short time, she can choose to take the initiative to help the pregnant woman who gave birth (this is as a compatriot, an individual, a mother's help, not as a United Nations interpreter). In terms of this detail, we should not slander Ada’s demands as completely selfish love, but should reflect on why the system and the system cannot even protect the most basic private demands of people such as protecting their families. The entry point chosen by the film is really very room for discussion, but it is too paved and too big to be able to portray other characters except Ada. As a result, the emotional motivation of the protagonist of Ada has also changed very much. Vague, it's hard to make me empathize. Difficult to establish. Whether the kindness in human nature and selfish love for the sake of relatives should always give way to the so-called duty of being a member of the system. And whether the rationality and powerful force of the system are really effective in the face of extreme evil in human nature. Ada keeps trying to break the rules of the peacekeeping force, hoping that her husband and children will survive, but the final goal of the general who cleverly uses the rules is to slaughter the refugees. Before she was able to rescue her relatives, Ada rarely wanted to take the initiative to rescue other refugees. But when her relatives are out of danger for a short time, she can choose to take the initiative to help the pregnant woman who gave birth (this is as a compatriot, an individual, a mother's help, not as a United Nations interpreter). In terms of this detail, we should not slander Ada’s demands as completely selfish love, but should reflect on why the system and the system cannot even protect the most basic private demands of people such as protecting their families. The entry point chosen by the film is really very room for discussion, but it is too paved and too big to be able to portray other characters except Ada. As a result, the emotional motivation of the protagonist of Ada has also changed very much. Vague, it's hard to make me empathize. Difficult to establish. Whether the kindness in human nature and selfish love for the sake of relatives should always give way to the so-called duty of being a member of the system. And whether the rationality and powerful force of the system are really effective in the face of extreme evil in human nature. Ada keeps trying to break the rules of the peacekeeping force, hoping that her husband and children will survive, but the final goal of the general who cleverly uses the rules is to slaughter the refugees. Before she was able to rescue her relatives, Ada rarely wanted to take the initiative to rescue other refugees. But when her relatives are out of danger for a short time, she can choose to take the initiative to help the pregnant woman who gave birth (this is as a compatriot, an individual, a mother's help, not as a United Nations interpreter). In terms of this detail, we should not slander Ada’s demands as completely selfish love, but should reflect on why the system and the system cannot even protect the most basic private demands of people such as protecting their families. The entry point chosen by the film is really very room for discussion, but it is too paved and too big to be able to portray other characters except Ada. As a result, the emotional motivation of the protagonist of Ada has also changed very much. Vague, it's hard to make me empathize.

View more about Quo Vadis, Aida? reviews

Extended Reading
  • Jany 2022-03-25 09:01:19

    It's so heart-wrenching, it's a movie like "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" that I can't bear to watch a second time. The tearing, entanglement and inability of Ada in it, lead the audience to despair step by step. It is hard to imagine at least two such horrific genocides in 1994-95, one in Rwanda ("Hotel Rwanda") and the other in Srebrenica. Maybe there are more human tragedies that I don't know about, and that's the power of the medium of film.

  • Ariel 2022-03-15 09:01:06

    Can talk about lost survivors, bystanders. The only people left to clean up the rubble and build a new life are women. There is no difference between war and life.

Quo Vadis, Aida? quotes

  • Aida Selmanagic: General Mladic is looking for a civilian representative from among you in order to negotiate with him. Are there any volunteers?

  • Aida Selmanagic: We are on the list!