This movie was recommended to me by a familiar teacher when they met in a bookstore,
(I always feel conflicted with movies based on famous books, because I don't want to disappoint myself.) He
said that in recent years, there is only one "Lust, Caution" (directed by Ang Lee) that can touch his soul.
I laughed and said, "Teacher, for most people, Lust, Caution can only touch the softest part of their body, but you can only touch the soul, it's really not easy, haha..." The
teacher looked around and smiled. I stopped and said, "Don't talk nonsense..."
And after watching this film, unfortunately it really touched my soul. The theme of the film (and also the theme of Schlink's novel) involves the fundamentals of ethics. Question: Is there any absolute good? Maybe we need to go back to Plato's Meno and ask Socrates, because we still can't answer that question today, more than two thousand years later. Do we still think we are qualified to criticize Hannah for being "bad" when we realize that we are not capable of answering this question? Two nights ago, I suddenly received a text message from a long-time friend saying that he "can't understand Hannah", and that's precisely because you are also sitting on the jury seat (like all of us), and you can't put yourself in the shoes. Hannah thought. Since good and evil are inherently paradoxical concepts that do not stand up to scrutiny, can we say that it is not good for Hannah to do her duty? However, people are accustomed to putting the guilt of history on a few people so that they can escape without doing a deeper reflection.
Writing this, I can't help but think of the "Liu Haiyang Sulfuric Acid Throwing Bears" incident in 2001, when the author was in high school, and the teacher in the class arranged for everyone to write an essay on this theme. I remember the title of the essay written at that time. It's "Wittgenstein and the Bear", what makes me tired and even angry is that almost all of them call themselves defenders and judge Liu's "moral lack" with a noble attitude. Why do we have to put it on the line? What about rendering this a moral event? Why are we accustomed to judging others without reflecting on our own qualifications? Why do you say that Liu throwing a bear with sulfuric acid is "moral corruption" and you feel at ease when you sit at the dinner table at noon and nibble on chicken legs? Is it simply because one is a naked act and the other is "the veil of civilization"? Or just because one is big and the other is small?
So I think any "moral preaching" is useless, the important thing is not to tell us what is "good" and what is "evil", but to always remind ourselves that we don't know what good is, all we have is "The Heart of Fear and Forbearance". And I always feel that those guys with good people stickers are often not good things, like Lei Feng, like Yue Fei, it is well known that Lei Feng had the habit of writing a diary during his lifetime, and most of Lei Feng’s deeds we know today are from his own diary (of course There are also many "red stories" written by later people), from which it can be seen that Lei Feng knows what he is doing too well, and he does good things purely for the sake of doing good things. Then put it in the most prominent place in the dormitory, so that the roommates can find it and then publish it on the company's blackboard newspaper - this is by no means the real goodness, the real goodness is that you don't know what you are doing is a good deed, and it is all up to you The mind has absolutely no utilitarian purpose, that is, the so-called "yin virtue" of Buddhism. And Yue Fei is the sinner of the people. "Thirty years of fame and dust and soil, eight thousand miles of road, cloud and moon." Almost everyone knows that the Southern Song Dynasty's struggle against the Houjin was purely a slap on the stone, and the stubborn resistance was nothing but labor and wealth. However, Yue Fei made senseless resistance for his own fame and provoked the Jin Bing to kill, I don't know how many innocent lives were injured, but fortunately, the prime minister of the court Qin Hui, regardless of his reputation and reputation, did his best to stop Yue Fei's recklessness. act. The merits and demerits of history, what is right and wrong, and who knows?
Nonsense, beside the point...
View more about The Reader reviews
