How to show suffering?

Torey 2022-03-30 09:01:11

This film is the biggest violent incident in Norway after World War II. 77 people were innocently killed, including a large number of young students. It can be said to be a horrific murder disaster.

The film is relatively restrained as a whole, and the description of the story is calm, including the murderer and the victim, there is nothing particularly sensational, but after showing a humanitarian disaster of crazy murder, this film can't find the point. The director lacks enthusiasm for both crime and justice.

In addition to showing the whole process of killing, arresting, trial, and recovery from beginning to end, the film is content with a lifeless narrative.

An emotionless feature film that seems to have only one word: boring.

In contrast, the outbreak of "Blind Mountain" is even more shocking. The final blow, let us see the moment when normal people are driven crazy.

The killing at the beginning of the film is simple, direct, and has no aesthetic sense of violence. The students heard the gunshots, started to run, and were suddenly knocked down. They were so scared that they could not breathe. No one could predict whether they would be alive in the next second. I can only run away, call the police, cry, and suppress my voice.

This passage is the scariest and the ugliest, showing us the absolute horror of violence. But since then, the movie has become a backwater. We can't find the answer, we can't find the gap to find the answer.

The film uses CCTV's way of reporting suffering, and uses positive stories to show its attitude towards suffering.

Is he mentally ill?

The court arranged for him to have two psychiatric examinations, the first of which was found to be paranoid schizophrenia, and the second was deemed normal. If the court decides that you are mentally ill, you will be admitted to a mental hospital, and you may not be able to get out for the rest of your life. On the contrary, according to the judgment of normal people, he will stay for a maximum of 21 years, and then he can be released from prison after passing the safety assessment.

Mental evaluation is a relatively subjective thing, and it is difficult to see the truth. For a super rational person like Breivik, he can pretend to be crazy and sell stupid, or he can pretend to be crazy and sell stupid without knowing it. In the end, the court denied that he was mentally ill, most likely due to political influence.

And Breivik himself abandoned the path of defense of mental illness in order to make a serious political point. If judged to be mentally ill, it's nothing more than a sociopathic killing, and if it's normal, it's easier to lead the conversation to politics than mental health.

Between politics and madness, in an instant.

He kills for political views?

What the film does not show is that the young people on Utre Island are not ordinary people. They are elites, members of the Labour Party Youth League, and even the Prime Minister has to give them lectures. According to Breivik, they will run the country in the future. The reason why he chose to blow up the government and slaughter Yuta Island is that his political view is to kill those in power and launch a coup d'etat. In his eyes, these people are not ordinary people, but political targets.

In his eyes, these labor parties are all people who harm the country and the future of European civilization, so they must be eliminated quickly, and the roots must be eradicated. So, if Breivik is not mentally ill, he is indeed waging a political war, an action based on his political views. This kind of action is similar in nature to leftist revolutions and Islamic terrorist attacks in history. They both use violence to demonstrate rational political ideas.

Norwegian law charged him with murder and terrorism, just a trial within the current legal framework. But there is another dimension to his behavior, and that is political movements, especially the relationship between politics and violence. For these political views, the court could neither judge nor obliterate them, but allowed Breivik to defend himself in court. In a modern democratic society, countering his political ideas can only give way to discussions and debates in public spaces.

Mr. Bag also defended in court that he did not kill, but his dissatisfaction with realpolitik led him to break the law. His actions were also political, and in the end the state devoured him. In this case, it was Breivik who shook the country and acted as a car, and it was ultimately a piece of news.

Violence is silent, but how much is unspoken behind the violence?

How do they deal with violence?

The film shows a lawyer, a victim, and makes this point from the perspective of both of them. Lawyers fully follow the court's neutrality principle to defend criminals and find the most suitable defense angle. Emotionally, he did not agree with the client's actions, but he was very sincere. Because of this case, even his daughter could not go to school.

The strange thing is that he can defend the client in court. His daughter was expelled for no reason. Why can't he take up legal weapons? He also said that children and grandchildren are fighting against the violence of the right wing, isn't it embarrassing?

The victim is the mayor's son, how can an elite fight back? From frustration to testifying on stage, his eyes are more not hatred, but contempt. He's still struggling with his self-traumatizing journey, and it's too late to face the demon. Or, moving towards a normal life is the way he faces it.

He stared at the criminal again and again, but he never saw the other's face clearly. What is this scene? On the battlefield, people don't know each other until they kill each other. In a country, you must know what the person who killed you looks like, because everyone can be the next one.

View more about 22 July reviews

Extended Reading
  • Ethyl 2022-03-26 09:01:14

    3.5 Although on the whole, the central idea of ​​"we can fight terrorism if we still have love" has become less and less convincing, but the film of Green Grass is compared with the same theme in terms of technique and gradual brewing of emotions. The "Patriot Day" of "Patriot Day" is a bit higher: if there is a need for a summary statement, it will be more natural to appear in court than the sudden emotion when the police arrest the bad guy, and it will not cause any embarrassment. This movie has already made the far-right aspects quite clear. It would be better if the political attitudes of young people’s summer camps were said more, such as whether the local Labour Party is more democratic and liberal, rather than the number one enemy of the far-right. — What about the communists? ?

  • Shaina 2022-03-25 09:01:22

    The appeal of the 65/100 story is online, and I cried several times during the viewing process, but the angle of Green Grass's portrayal of the whole incident did not make the film play a clearer logical context than the incident itself, and it was even slightly cliché.

22 July quotes

  • Geir Lippestad: You can't call the Prime Minister. And Norway isn't on trial. You are.

    Anders Behring Breivik: Are you sure about that?

  • Anders Behring Breivik: I'd do it all again if I could.

    Geir Lippestad: You didn't win, Anders. You failed.

    Anders Behring Breivik: There will be others to finish what I've started.

    Geir Lippestad: And we will beat you. My children and their children. They will beat you.