So after returning to China, I still haven't forgotten this movie. To be honest, I didn't think of Gone Girl at all when I watched it and after I watched it, I agree with someone in the short comment that it is more like Lou Ye's "Floating City Mystery". I also agree that some people in the short review think that the original work is a feminist elementary stage work. I haven't read the original book, but in the movie, it can be seen that men are more facial-faced, especially the ultimate scumbag Tom, who feels like a scumbag for no reason, a role set for scumbag.
The story is a little bit bloody. Rachel is drunk and constantly rides the train past the house of her ex-husband and her current wife Anna. On the way, she sees Meg, the female housewife in another house, as the incarnation of perfect love. However, the reality is messy and ironic. Rachel's terrible ex-husband turned out to be Meg's lover, and he missed and killed when dealing with extramarital affairs. It is conceivable that the three lines in a novel narrative will be a word game that constantly changes the narrator and narrative perspective.
However, I still think that the director took beautiful pictures of Rachel and Meg in the story. Although Rachel is a hopelessly drunk alcoholic most of the time, when she sees that she pours whiskey into a water bottle to hide the fact that she is drinking, while constantly painting the Meg and various scenes she sees, these details make the character appear Tangible and real. As for Meg, it is not just a sex symbol in the movie. Although this character is not as plump as Rachel, it still has her narrative perspective, as well as her own lens language. Of course, in the movie, Meg's story is also narrated by Rachel. The most impressive thing is that Rachel went to the gallery to see a painting Meg once guided, saying that Meg is an intensively private person with a warm heart. In general, the director initially tried to enrich the story with different character narrations, and hide the identity of Meg’s lover until the final reveal, but apparently the final film can only show Rachel’s perspective to the greatest extent, while Meg and Anna’s play It looks slightly pale.
Therefore, the success of the trailer lies in the unity of the narrative vision, that is, it is mainly Rachel’s perspective, while the feature film is more chaotic. After all, this is not a Rashomon movie that tells the "human truth is unknowable" due to the limitation of discourse. What it wants to express is the growth of women.
The story of three women and a scumbag did not let me read any potential connotations of feminism. To be precise, my sluggishness in feminist research is a position of my own choice. I deliberately avoided events that made me feel gender dilemma and gender dysphoria, and tried to do things that made me "feel" to escape the gender dilemma, such as reading a religious-related social science book, such as studying Dostoevs base. In an era when people are easily called "straight male cancer" and "feminist bitch", I simply evade and simply don't want to think about my plight. Sometimes I feel like a "basement man", hiding in my basement, but I can't forget the sounds of the outside world, imagining talking to those sounds, and cursing viciously at the same time.
However, I can feel that the film tries to show a certain kind of connection between women, which is not based on intellectual discussion, but a kind of spiritual ability. For example, when Rachel saw the painting guided by Meg, she could feel the pain in Meg's heart. She didn't know that Meg had lost a child, and Rachel herself was begging for a child and couldn't. In this regard, in terms of my personal movie-watching experience, I think the movie is more successful. At least, after watching the movie, I drew the first sketch of a female body in my life. Sometimes, the beauty of women is only felt by women themselves.
View more about The Girl on the Train reviews
