The story roughly tells the story of a poor boy and a rich girl who end up living happily together after going through all kinds of hardships. It's a bit like the male version of Cinderella. The difference is that in the original Cinderella story, Cinderella married a prince and turned into an aristocrat; in this story, the infatuated princess finally married a charismatic poor guy, starting with Spiritual aristocracy. Of course, saying "spiritual aristocracy" seems to exalt her a bit, but my intention is not to praise her bravery, but to criticize this world that advertises freedom but creates class.
Of course, this is an old-fashioned movie anyway. A man falls in love with a woman, pursues, catches up, and the two fall in love madly—this is the first stage. Then the "hypocritical and rotten bourgeoisie" forces representing the old forces began to step in and obstruct. To eliminate this beautiful love, the roles of "true, good and beautiful" and "false, evil and ugly" -- "good people" and "bad people" are simply opposites. The extension of the mind - being successfully shaped by the director here and seems to have been shaped successfully, so the two parted, as we could have foreseen, amid hysterical squabbles and different fates, this is the second stage. Then the grand historical background is inserted, Noah went through World War II, Allie finished college and got engaged to a wealthy officer. When the audience was constantly sentimental for this "non-human and non-human" and regretted for this pair of Gone with the Wind, The director arranged for them to meet again. This is the third stage. In the end, the two overcome all difficulties and finally live happily together-difficulties include the relationship between the two (such as whether to write letters, such as whether they still love or not), the problem of Noah and that widow, the problem of Allie and his fiancé, Bourgeois patriarchal intimidation issues, etc. Of course, in order to make the story more touching, and as a classic trick of Hollywood movies, the story must be told in the way the parties tell it. What's more tragic is that the gray-haired old Allie has lost her memory and can only think of the past from time to time; but Noah is determined to stay by her side. In order to set off the old Noah's love for Allie, the director designed the following details: He tirelessly read stories to her to restore her memory, and even dared to rebel against the laws of medicine, believing in the miracle of love; the amnesiac Allie's attitude towards him He was rude at times, but he had no complaints; all the children came to persuade him to leave, but he remained unmoved, and said that where my sweetheart is, where is my home; the doctor checked his body and found that he was very healthy, suggesting that He was there for Allie's sake; the paramedics warned him not to do crazy things, but he just wouldn't listen and ran off to see Allie dying in the middle of the night; he's talking about Darling and Sweetheart On the side, which woman would not be soft-hearted; in the end, they held hands and lay beside each other and returned to the west together; and so on.
Several times I was moved to the point of sweating.
Of course, it is not without my heart trembling, especially the scene where the two are about to part, it really makes my heart feel like a knife. It is no secret that at that time my indignation against the evil and anti-human bourgeoisie arose in my heart. But I immediately switched to looking at the plot from the director's point of view - ah! The appearance of the typical image of the bourgeoisie will definitely make the story very beautiful with twists and turns, and it will definitely make the audience's heartache, resentment, pity and affection mixed together, and it will definitely show the director's fashionable and progressive leftist stance! After thinking about it, I was vigilantly aware that the director brought my ideology back to the era when Marx was very popular a hundred years ago.
But clumsy places always make people suspicious. In this war for love, the biggest enemy is undoubtedly Allie's family. But Allie's mother, who was fierce one minute ago, suddenly returned the letter the next minute and took her daughter for a ride to see her old friend? Why does Allie's dad have no say? Even regardless of these, from another perspective, if there is no compromise between Allie's mother and fiance, it is almost impossible for the two protagonists to be together. Does this mean that the director still pinned the hope of victory in this war on the bourgeoisie On the discovery of one's own conscience?
Another line also puzzled me. A few minutes before Allie accepted Lon's proposal, Lon said meaningfully, if you marry me, then you will have lost a life-long battle of defiance against them. This is clearly encouraging Allie to continue fighting! Is this still like a marriage proposal? ! However, the strange thing is that the marriage proposal actually succeeded. This line, which I thought was a classic and unusual line, became more and more incomprehensible because it unfolded in a scene that I couldn't understand.
Of course, I also criticized Noah's speaking style in old age and how he behaved in a different way when he was young. But too lazy to discuss it.
In fact, one of my favorite episodes in the whole movie happened when the two of them were going through the storm in the dilapidated house. At that time, Noah was about to enter the state, and Allie said, I know I said I wanted you to make love to me, but I think you are gonna talk me through this. After Noah expressed his confusion, she said again, I 'm just having a lot of thoughts. But right away I said Never mind. But after a few seconds I couldn't help but ask, what are you thinking right now? Did you know that this was going to happen when you brought me here? Immediately after Noah said No, she was skeptical. So Noah finally admitted saying Of course I thought about it.
After a few words Allie finally said the heavyweight I just don't understand how come you are so quiet. I'm going crazy over here, but no, with you, everything's fine. You don't have a care in the world? But even she realized that she was wrong because I wanted this to be perfect.
I don't understand why the director inserted such a dialogue here, but This does not prevent me from interpreting it. Allie actually means, I'm going to have sex with you, I'm so excited that I'm going crazy, how can you be so calm? You've already anticipated what's going on right now, right? Did you bring me here on purpose?
What a vivid case of love and sexual conflict. When Noah is determined to take Allie there and realizes what could happen, is he showing love or mean animalistic lust? But Allie didn't realize that this was going to happen. It wasn't that she was afraid of having sex with him, it was just perfectionism, and finally she couldn't help but ask. In her imagination, the best love does not exclude physical intercourse, but this intercourse must be clean, simple, passionate, happy, and from the heart, rather than premeditated. She thought that we should be like teenagers, with uncontrollable passion in play, so she undressed. It shouldn't be like now, when I'm nervous and confused by all this sudden, you're calm, as expected, all your attention is easily focused on the sex itself . How can this be so? No, no, I can't accept it.
Or more generally, what is pure love? If pure love tolerates sex, can it tolerate sexual desire not only from hormones but also from the cerebral cortex? Is it true love that is based on instinct? Is it hypocritical to fall in love with reference to the love manual? Is love only for animals? Or is there really no such thing as true love?
We know that the old Allie has amnesia, but Noah is still moving "people" to love her and take care of her in every possible way. But my mind began to turn to another question: What is the object of love? Some people say that this is too simple, the object of love is of course the opposite sex of the right age. But I always feel that this idea is not rigorous. If the object of love is a combination of spirit and flesh, can falling in love with a dog or a fish be considered love? Or simply a physical body with certain functions (such as speaking, thinking, moving), then falling in love with a house, falling in love with a wisp of wind, falling in love with a pair of jeans, if the love is deep enough, can it be regarded as a result? love?
Of course, we can also say that the object of love should be a combination of soul and body with certain identity characteristics. The body can see, but the soul cannot see directly. The identity characteristics should include species, age, gender, temper, etc., which makes the object of love narrow - the age-appropriate young and opposite sex. But I have a question again, are identity characteristics always the same? Obviously not. For example, today TA is very gentle, I like it very much; tomorrow TA is in a bad mood and will be very irritable. Is there no reason for me to love TA? Today, TA still remembers the bits and pieces of our past, how much I love TA; but one day TA suddenly lost his memory, and TA's identity characteristics changed greatly. From this point of view, why should I still love TA? Isn't this love deceiving itself? Because what you love is just the past TA.
The more you think about it, the more confusing it becomes. Put it on hold for now.
Finally, given that the picture is not bad, give it four stars.
View more about The Notebook reviews
