This play is too dramatic and too coincidental. Of course it was adapted from a drama. And it's too classy and too emotional. He did not leave thinking to the audience, but rather preached with obvious bias throughout the text.
The movie revolves around the suicide of a woman, and death is a tragedy. It is a matter of sadness, sorrow and sympathy. In particular, the death of a young, beautiful, seemingly noble and pregnant woman deserves sympathy.
Lu Xun said that the tragedy is deliberately breaking a piece of exquisite porcelain to show you. The director not only fell, but also fell beautifully. The director used a lot of close-up shots to portray the scene of a woman's suicide, in order to express the woman's pain. The audience has to empathize with this viewing process. People have a great feeling of pity.
At the same time, the director also switched between the two scenes of the woman's suicide and the family's rejoicing many times, which undoubtedly produced a strong picture contrast and added a strong dramatic appeal. The audience almost sympathized with the heroine's misfortune and resented the family's performance.
At the same time, he also set the parties involved in the five things to be capitalists and members of the upper class. Most viewers will instinctively and unconsciously have a sense of class hatred based on their status.
In the end, the director also added the setting of inspectors that exist like prophets and ghosts, which gives the film a sense of fatalism and the so-called sense of judgment in religion.
Compassion for the suicide of beauties, sympathy for the weak, hatred of class instinct, and religious judgment.
(Excuse me, add a paragraph in the middle)
Let's see how the author can bias the audience's emotions.
Look at the role settings first.
There is one person on one side, and one family on the other. (Image of the weak)
On one side are the poor, whose parents have died since childhood, and on the other side are the wealthy of the upper class. (Image of the weak + class antagonism) On the
one hand, there are people who are smart, young, and beautiful, and have a certain moral concept, on the other hand, there are people with all kinds of real human nature. Of course, this place makes the author write very badly and all kinds of dirty descriptions. Such as the description of mother and father. (Strong contrast).
Then look at how the author gives sympathy to the heroine.
The first is the commendable courage to strike, and the second is not being moved by personal interests and refusing to call for security.
(A good feeling is a bonus, right?)
Then I'm still a young literary girl, who can write a diary and go to the beach. The lens language on the beach is particularly beautiful.
(Additional points).
Then, he refused to help, saying that the stolen money is not rare.
(Direct saintization).
At this point, most of the good audiences were completely controlled by their emotions and voluntarily gave up their ability to think rationally, unintentionally accepting things that do not require much thinking and are emotional, thus ignoring the true appearance of the plot.
This drama really tests a person's independent thinking ability. It also tests whether a person has the ability to maintain rational thinking without being affected by emotions.
Talk about the plot. The detective's line: "You are her accomplices in her death", the younger son's line: "We killed her." The author directly pushed the woman's suicide directly to this family through the mouth of the character. Then let us take a look at whether these assertions are valid or not.
The first thing, strike. Labor conflicts. The courage of a woman who spoke for the workers' organization to bargain with the factory owner is commendable. At the same time, she does not want her own personal interests, but strives for the interests of the collective, and her spirit is also commendable. There is a premise, that is, there is a group behind her who advances and retreats with her. Unity is powerful. The fact is that all the workers went back to work and no one supported her. Since she has the courage to put herself on the cusp of negotiations between workers' representatives and factory owners, is she ready to face the possibility of failure? She didn't. It can only be said that she is brave, not good at protecting herself, and lacks struggle experience. The factory owner fired her based on the consideration of stabilizing the factory situation. The dismissal is also a daily routine of personnel management. Whether it is dismissal or recruitment, it has nothing to do with morality.
But what is the author expressing? The author is clearly guiding us to understand that the factory owner’s act of letting the heroine lose her job started a series of domino-like evolutions in the heroine’s life, and finally led to the woman’s suicide. Can you understand it this way? We must know that influencing the direction of life's destiny is by no means an isolated factor, and we must not blame one individual's destiny on a certain thing. Everyone in this world, everything, every ending, is inextricably linked with various factors. We cannot open the perspective of God to know exactly how each of our words and deeds will affect each other. People are still unsure of their own destiny, how can they grasp the destiny of others?
To quote a netizen: Today was in a bad mood, and a customer came over to buy things a bit difficult, so we had a fight. The customer encountered a traffic jam on the way home from a taxi, and had a conflict with the driver again. When she got home, the landlord told her that she was going to increase her rent, but she was upset. He was overtaken by someone on the road when he drove out, so he speeded up the car in a rage, and eventually the car crashed and died. So, I am guilty, the taxi driver is guilty, the landlord is guilty, the person driving past her is guilty, and everyone is guilty. Is this what the inspector or the author wants to say?
The second thing, at 28 minutes and 29 seconds of watching the movie, you can clearly see the sarcastic smile of the heroine in the dressing mirror. Suppose you buy a tattoo in an underwear shop, and the other party laughs that your chest is too small to hold it, and you look at a bag in a bag shop, and the waiter looks contemptuous to you and thinks you are a poor man who can't afford it. What's your mood? In short, the heroine did not perform her duties as a salesperson. Of course, it is undeniable that the daughter actually does not have to ask the shop to fire the heroine. I really cannot agree with such behavior. It's just that the daughter had been in a mood of depression and anger at the time, and she magnified the so-called humiliation. No one can live as faultless as a saint. People are not always correcting their words and deeds in the midst of mistakes, do they?
We should be kind to people around us, but will you become shy from this? Are you afraid that one of your unintentional actions will bring disaster to others? If one day you give someone a bad face and make someone commit suicide, will you be incapable of avoiding the conscience?
But the problem is that in real life, we cannot accurately predict how behaviors that are good to us will affect the lives of others. And what we think is evil may not necessarily bring negative effects to others. Suppose, suppose that the heroine gets a better job opportunity after leaving the job, and has since reached the pinnacle of her life instead of staying here as a waiter? How does that count? The so-called good cause may not necessarily lead to good results. However, we saw that this mistake made the role of the daughter regret from beginning to end.
The third thing is that the heroine ran into her son-in-law while wandering around in the palace bar, a place where fireworks are right and wrong, looking for some potential possibility. From then on, the heroine was taken up by her son-in-law and became his mistress. At first it was out of love, and then due to practical reasons such as class differences, they couldn't achieve a righteous result, so they had to break up.
Moreover, during the period of being fostered, she did not continue to work during the six months. After receiving the break-up fee from her son-in-law, she did not use the money to learn technology to find a job or do a small business, nor did she use her son-in-law’s relationship to find a job in society, or directly work in the son-in-law’s company or factory. She didn't do anything, she played at the beach for two months. Then the money ran out, and she went back to the palace bar again, letting herself fall into the street again.
In this paragraph, I want to express that although the direction of a person's destiny is influenced by society and the people around him, it also depends on one's own initiative. If you have a little more control over your own destiny, you may end up completely different. Therefore, human destiny is a combination of many factors, and misfortune cannot be simply attributed to the responsibility of others. You can't blame society for the so-called backing, ha ha. But the author has been making such efforts.
And, speaking of the responsibilities of others, the son-in-law pulled the woman out of the hands of others, gave her food and drink, supported her for half a year, had food and shelter, and enjoyed love. The son-in-law finally gave her a sum of money. It can be seen from the film that the son-in-law is actually very good to the heroine, and the purpose at the beginning is only to help her, without malicious or evil thoughts. So whether the author or the inspector, why does he criticize the son-in-law? Didn't the son-in-law give each other a marriage? So the men and women who broke up are sinners?
The fourth thing, the heroine first agreed to sell sex, but when the heroine's residence was ready to trade, the heroine refused. Then the younger son raped her by using alcohol. Later, when she wanted to, she would ask the younger son to go there, and when she didn't want it, the younger son could not go there. Sometimes the money is collected from prostitution and sometimes the money is not collected. The heroine is with the man who once raped her, and is pregnant. Did the younger son run away? No, the younger son said, let's get married, but the heroine refused. The kid said, accept my financial help. The heroine also refused. You can say that the heroine has a strong moral view, so powerful that it can be used to kill herself and her children without doing things that violate her principles. But what about her before? Isn't it ethical to sell spring? To be the mistress of others is not against morality? Is it not against the principle to accept the support and money from the son-in-law for half a year? If she didn't meet her youngest son, but other clients, would others offer her a marriage? Will others give him money? The youngest son did take advantage of the wine, which was just a small mistake. What's more, he wanted to marry a woman subjectively, and he even broke the law to steal in order to help this woman! ! At the same time he was attached to this woman emotionally. The youngest son has no ill will towards this woman.
What's more, there is a completely compromised way of accepting money, which is to accept the man's support, give birth to the baby, and have a job opportunity in the future, and then make money back to this man. Why commit suicide? Is suicide worthy of the fetus in the abdomen?
The fifth thing, the heroine went to the relief agency to apply for relief, but failed to pass the qualification review. First of all, we must make sure that, as the verifier, does she know the heroine? Are there any personal prejudices? She is just doing her job, she thinks the heroine is not credible, and she thinks she does not meet the eligibility requirements. There is absolutely nothing to blame for her behavior on the moral level.
This is the same as an interview. If you failed the interview, can you blame the examiner for not knowing the eye? You don’t think about it, maybe it’s a problem with your way of expression, even though you are telling the truth. You didn't get the job, so you starved to death. Do you have to blame the examiner?
In fact, there are too many subjective factors in the heroine's behavior in the film, such as being strong, such as ridicule, such as not taking precautions when living in a comfortable life, such as not accepting marriage, not accepting funding, such as not being good at expressing, such as suicide. Speaking of suicide, does it have to be suicide? Must die? Her desperation is hard to convince. These things she experienced were simply not worth mentioning in the face of real suffering. There are no people in this world who are worse or worse than her, are they dead? Furthermore, is suicide the best way to solve the problem? She still has a life in her stomach, can she die so selfishly? However, her personal choice of behavior ended up causing others to bear the crime of killing others... Is this okay?
5 people, 5 stories are finished. Who is guilty?
But when they heard about the "suicide" of the heroine, they were very sad and blamed themselves. They also called to confirm, and when they learned that no girl had died, they breathed a sigh of relief. They all have sufficient conscience, so they did not lie or conceal it when communicating with the inspector. In front of their own conscience, they felt that they were responsible for the girl's death. When they know that they did not kill a life because of their "fault," they are naturally happy. However, the director "intentionally sinister" mixed their happy scenes with the girl's suicide scene... So the audience's perception was completely biased...
Inspector's final monologue with a similar question is actually what the author wants The subject of the expression. People do not exist in isolation, they should take responsibility for others.
But I have two questions about this movie. One is that I think the author uses these stories full of coincidences as arguments to prove his view that "people should be responsible to others, because in your opinion, a small maliciousness may affect the life process of others". In my opinion, this process of proof is not convincing enough. His argument cannot fully support his argument. Because these five short stories are actually too coincidental and too far-fetched.
My second question is: the author puts too much emphasis on the role of morality. And the author's argument is too vague. It seems to be a good word, but it lacks practical operability.
Because how do people define that their behavior must be good? It is very possible that his seemingly goodwill will eventually lead to evil results. It is not impossible that this is possible. People cannot stand on the height of God to predict what they are doing must be right.
At the end of the movie, what blood and fire curse-like threatening words are used to induce people to be good is indeed a bit too ideal. Some spectators talked about the World War I in 1914. Said this is the punishment God brought to mankind. I am speechless. Historians can tell you that the cause of the First World War was this and that. But it is by no means such an idealistic thing. Some movie friends even shouted, people are doing it, the sky is watching! The doomsday judgment will come as soon as possible! If we really rely on these idealistic things to regulate the behavior of people in society, then there is no need to invent laws, let alone enforcement agencies, and no state machinery to do anything. Just waiting for God or God to clean up these evildoers? ?
The spiritual core conveyed by the film is absolute self-discipline of morality and religious judgment. In my opinion, this is not the most important force for maintaining fairness, justice and harmony in this world. Laws, systems, and good game rules are its solid guarantee. Religion and morality can only play a supporting role and cannot be used as mainstream tools.
Why do we have sympathy for the heroine? That's because she did have a miserable personal fate. And the real culprit of these encounters is not these 5 people. The basis for the tragedy of this female worker to no longer occur should be these:
-------------------------------
There are complete labor laws and organizations that protect the rights and interests of workers. With an employment contract, then capitalists cannot fire workers at will. Workers have legal and effective means of expression and channels for proposing reasonable remuneration. Of course, until now, this problem has not been solved yet. But the solution to these problems must not rely solely on religion or morality, but must rely on laws and systems.
Women should have a sense of independence and self-improvement, and cannot rely on men completely, otherwise, once financially cut off their confessions, their destiny will no longer be controlled by them.
Workers should not be left on the streets when they become unemployed. A mechanism for unemployment relief and security should be established and improved.
When reviewing the qualifications of the recipients of relief, we should eliminate the influence of human factors on the review, and there should be a set of more objective and scientific evaluation standards. It should be based on facts, and the interference of human factors should be eliminated. Don't be too personal. The qualifications of those who really need relief cannot be excluded because of the preferences of a certain member of the review team.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Extended reading.
－－－－－－－－－A
few more words. The detective in the play and the screenwriter obviously metaphors it as a god-like existence. Some people say that he wants to see human confession.
I want to say, how can the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and supremely good God conduct such humanity temptations on his creatures-humans? How could he not know the result of the temptation? There is nothing new in the sun. Such temptations may have been conducted countless times in the past few thousand years. In 1912 AD, was he still trying? What does his creation look like, wouldn't he know? Does he have to stand by a woman and her children, and use their deaths to make people reflect on them? Excuse me, is this price too great? And did he finally see what he wanted to see again?
－－－－－－
It doesn't matter if a movie drags our emotions and makes our Three Views deviate. It is even more terrifying that public opinion is biased by people with ulterior motives. Especially like the modern self-media era, Internet users are a group of people who are easily emotional. A few years ago, smashing Japanese cars, KONY African Boy Scout videos, and recent Facebook and Wanwan facial expression battles. It's all so.
Or invite the public to look at their emotions, right
---------------
---------------
point of view (the following is actually already in the above I have expressed it, a bit repetitive.)
Brainstorming time:
We are not God, we cannot open the perspective of God, so that we can know exactly what changes and effects our behavior will have in the future.
In fact, the fate of the heroine in the play does not necessarily follow this evolutionary path to the dark. We can assume. The heroine died alone because of the betrayal of the workers. (Hey, by the way, why doesn’t God judge these workers? They agreed to go to work, so the heroine was fired. If the workers share the same hatred, they will resign collectively without a raise, or the boss fires the heroine. If they also resign collectively, maybe the heroine’s ship of fate will go in another direction, so, yes, these workers are also "guilty", haha. But this is just a joke.) Out of the factory and entered the clothing store , And suppose it came, and she was once again complained by the eldest lady of "Sin House" and expelled. Then her fate will have many possibilities. What if she finds a better job after leaving this job, and then she embarks on the peak of life? How should the movie describe the influence of people on others? It's not impossible that the so-called stalemate will be a blessing in disguise. Suppose again that the heroine is desperate and goes to the palace bar to look for opportunities. What if she didn't meet her son-in-law, but someone like Jack the Ripper who kills prostitutes? Then she won't die soon. There are countless possibilities in life.
A kind of good cause does not necessarily produce good results. For example, if you give a subway beggar 1 yuan, in your opinion, this is your kindness towards members of the society. Does this 1 yuan help him or harm him? It is possible that he will call his family with this 1 yuan, and he will be picked up by his family to celebrate the New Year. It is also possible that he feels that money is easy to make and people are easy to deceive. Since then, he has embarked on a path of no return. He has started a career of professional begging and stopped working or started to cheat.
By the way, the last sentence, this morning I saw a film friend write a film review like this, she said: Oh, my back got cold after watching the movie, because she also complained to a waiter 2 days ago. She is so worried! ! Oops, so kind and lovely bean friends. In fact, another way of thinking. The complaint seems to be a bad thing to the other party, and bonuses may be deducted. However, the waiter started to restrain his behavior by being complained and changed his work style. Will he make his work better in the future? Can other customers also get better service? Right?
to here. Thank you all for reading!
View more about An Inspector Calls reviews
