What kind of values ​​does this film want to express?

Anthony 2022-10-28 17:17:28

First of all, I don't know how to evaluate this movie. The reason why I choose "OK" can only represent a neutral attitude and cannot represent the real intention. The difference and the good are too simple here. After watching the movie, I resisted the urge to read other movie reviews, which would affect my original understanding of the movie. A family of four, husband François carpenter and wife Teresa sewing, and going out for picnics on weekends, life is not luxurious, but it is peaceful and happy - this is true happiness. If this film, like "Days and Nights in Tin Shui Wai", expresses the ordinary life of ordinary people, it is also in line with the title. What is "happiness"? Isn't it calm and sympathetic in plainness? ! But the film needs conflict and contradiction to express the theme. So the husband had an affair. Different from ordinary affairs, this husband is very honest, confessing to the third party Emily that he loves his wife as well as the latecomer. In the husband's words, "she met before you let me, so I married. If I met you first, I would marry you." The wife and the third party were quickly placed on the same emotional scale. As for the wife, she has not been left out because of the affair. In the same words of her husband, "I have 10 arms to hug you, is there less now? There is not one less. And I have grown new arms to hug others." The husband must think that he is not cheating on anyone, that with his honesty he can do what he wants, and that his wife will accept whatever makes him happier because he loves him. Undoubtedly, this husband is selfish, he loves two women, so he also requires both women to accept this reality at the same time and love him as always. He never considers his wife's feelings, she is only a part of life to him, like the husband said, they make love, he always takes the initiative and dominates, and his wife is willing to do so. This subordination model makes the husband not really respect the wife as an equal family member. For this third party, I was "a little jealous" but never wanted to take the wife's position. It was a typical third party mentality - I wanted to intervene but felt guilty. And when the wife committed suicide, she was "a little sad and a little happy", which is also a very common emotion of a third party. Suddenly it reminds me of the relationship between Thomas, Teresa and Sabina in Kundera's "The Unbearable Lightness of Life". Thomas is also in love with two women at the same time, and the characters of Teresa and Thomas also have certain characters. This kind of affiliation, Thomas has an urge to take care of Teresa. A typical description is that when Thomas sees the baby in the cradle floating on the river, he thinks that she is the incarnation of Teresa. And Sabina is a completely different woman from Teresa, independent and open, but also attracts Thomas so much that she can't stop. The difference is Sabina Knowing Thomas before is not a third-party role. Then, after the wife learned of this from her husband, she forbeared her husband on the surface, so that the husband could continue to enjoy his double icing on the cake with peace of mind. As a woman, unknown because of humiliation or despair, she threw herself into the river. This is a more understandable result. Love cannot be shared, and women cannot bear to share their husbands with others. This woman takes her husband's love as the only reason for her life to continue, and when she learns that her husband's love is not the only reason, her reason for existence disappears, and her life disappears with it. At this point in the film, I think it may be a turning point, in order to express the creator's true intentions and values. Generally speaking, a wife sacrifices her life because of her husband's affair. Such a big change will make her husband have a big change in his behavior, at least he will feel guilty and reflect on his attitude towards marriage and love. But this is not the case. After the burial and the discussion of the raising of the two children, the husband did not show more guilt and guilt except a little sadness and continued to return to the third party, as if the wife's death was used to fulfill His later love, it seems that the appearance of his wife is a superfluous person. Even later formed a family with a third party, and the family of four went out for a picnic as usual. The picture is exactly the same as the beginning of the film. The family atmosphere is happy, the wife is replaced by a third party, and the children's biological mother becomes a stepmother. Other than that, there is nothing at all. Variety. In addition, the film also has questions about other narratives. For example, the wife committed suicide. When discussing the raising of the child, Teresa's mother once proposed to raise her daughter's child, but didn't the mother want to explore why her daughter died? Why did the son-in-law have the urge to continue the string so quickly? And the kids, can they really get along with Emily like their own mother? Does the child have no sense of discomfort, fear, or insecurity about losing his mother? Neither the mother nor the child—those closest to Teresa—showed no sadness and mood swings, like it never happened? The atmosphere of the whole film has always been harmonious and relaxed, without any conflict between people, telling such a tragic story in cheerful music. The film starts with a family of four walking hand in hand in the wild, and ends with a family of four walking hand in hand in the wild, I can't help but wonder: what exactly is this film trying to show? Or does it hide sarcasm that I just don't see? ! After ps, I read other people's film reviews, which first confirmed my feeling. The director expresses the meaning of happiness through different angles. In fact, I don't really understand it. After reading the film review, I can contact the film to understand a little bit.

View more about Le Bonheur reviews

Extended Reading

Le Bonheur quotes

  • Émilie Savignard: Now I'm here. I'm myself, I mean.

    François Chevalier: I like that about you. And it's the same for me. I can't say I'm different since I met you. On the contrary, I'm even more myself.

  • François Chevalier: You know, I met my wife when I was in the service. It was love at first sight. We married when I got out. Had I met you first, I'd live with you.