The first thing that comes to mind is this.
People are what they are in anonymity.
A film with a 7.8 rating last year. Admittedly worth a look.
I don't want to discuss how the film's portrayal of Brooks' psychology is in place here.
Just wanted to analyze the design of the characters in the film. Very entertaining. The character of Brooks is enlarged from all angles, but the characters are independent and have their own stories. The director is very clever. Well-versed in puns.
Many said the focus was on her daughter Jane.
really. The last scene where Brooks dreams of Jane taking the scissors and killing him is haunting. And Brooks's inner fears are indeed related to his daughter.
But I don't agree with saying that the central character is Jane.
in my opinion. Jane is just the incarnation of evil me in Brooks. This is completely different from Marshall. Marshall was just the evil voice within him. instigate him. egg him on. But we know. If he had no evil nature at all he would not be abetted. For example, no matter how a devout Buddhist instigates him, he will not kill. Only when he has this nature in his bones will this power be aroused. And Jane is the essence of his body, and Marshall is just an excuse to convince himself. A conflict of ambivalence.
The Jane we see is very egoistic. She is willful, unruly, in her way, completely disregarding the feelings of others, as long as she is happy, and wishful thinking that anyone will accept and understand and even sympathize with her actions.
From the very beginning of the film, the audience is stunned. She dropped out. And exactly as it should be. She talked nonstop about her plans, completely ignoring her parents' thoughts, her tone was very positive, and there was no room for negotiation. She said, "Come on! Dad, you are so rich, you can't support me?!" (The other meaning of this sentence will be explained later)
Then go on. We know she is pregnant. face the parents. She said something like "It's my body!" Yes. This is my own body. I have my own opinions and my thoughts. Don't interfere.
She is not contradictory and has no guilt, she takes everything for granted and is selfish to the point of being high-sounding.
What we see otherwise is. Brooks doting on her. Totally beyond our imagination.
He was very indulgent to her. Not entirely because she was his daughter. More importantly. The great Mr. Brooks saw himself so naked in his daughter. Yes. He couldn't resist "him". He loves "him". At the same time, because he cannot get rid of this love, he is also very afraid of "him". He feared that he would one day be ruined by this brutal "him" who built his happiness on the pain of others. So in the dream, he was killed by Jane. And Jane is just a physical transfer of the inner "he" in the dream. Freud has already explained this point in psychology.
Now let's go back and look at the sentence "Come on! Dad, you are so rich, you can't afford to support me!" The implication is "Brooks, you are so capable, can you avoid legal punishment?" So this sentence After speaking, Brooks looked at Jane with deep eyes.
indeed. He kills without leaving a trace. The most amazing thing is that in the second half of the film, he has so many IDs that he can completely disguise himself as anyone. As for this. Let's think about it again, he can enter the security department to retrieve any citizen information (Tracy). how did it get here? Of course, it's money!
Next. Let's take a look at Tracy. This female detective.
In my opinion. She is the embodiment of Brooks' good self, the inner sense of justice.
The film clearly emphasizes Brooks' appreciation for Tracy more than once. She gave up a prominent family to start a career as a police officer, which she loves. She is very righteous, almost extreme so there is a slight tendency to violence. She is also very strong. Independence. Typical businesswoman. And Jane can be described as the complete opposite of two people.
This is precisely the portrayal of the successful Brooks. He also has a history of struggling from scratch. Maybe he was young and had a lot of troubles, so he helped her, so they could sympathize with each other, so two parallel lines could be set, and there could be no vulgar confrontation between cops and bandits.
nature. The well-dressed Mr. Brooks is very sanctimonious in newspapers and magazines, business awe-inspiring, admirable, admirable, and naturally a little personal trouble (a common problem for successful people). All or all of these are the characteristics of Tracy, and the screenwriter cleverly chose an excellent policewoman who was involved in a divorce case involving extortion. Just imagine, why must it be a divorce case designed to extort money?
Look further. Smith appears.
Ah. This silly lad was blackmailing Brooks with a photo. But he doesn't call the police, doesn't want money, the condition is to bring him. It's ridiculous, isn't it? More on this below.
Let's look at his threats and conditions first.
Brooks is under threat of reputation, as is Tracy above.
Look again. He wanted a private way. This is the same as the divorce case.
Yes. It's all purely personal trouble. But it can affect the status of life.
so. Tracy's pun identity is clearly explained.
Back to see Smith. This guy was reckless from start to finish. apprehensive. Incompatible with Brooks' maturity and sophistication. But this man is also a reflection of Brooks' mind.
Imagine a gentleman with a good personality, his hands were stained with human blood for more than two years, and he repeatedly told himself to wash his hands in a golden basin, but he still committed crimes again and again. It is conceivable how much psychological pressure he has. It has come to the point of being on the verge of twisting and collapsing. So a man in his 50s, often squatting on the ground, burst into tears. And the only one who comforts him is the one who hates me. How ironic.
His fears have a word that can be safely confirmed. He paused and asked Jane, "Do you love me?" His eyes were so confused and helpless.
And Jane answered inexplicably: "Of Course! You are my father!"
His thoughts seemed to come back, so he smiled. Father and daughter hug and kiss.
Is he asking Jane? Do not! He is asking himself, the one who hates me in his heart. do you love me Will you destroy me? If you love me can you let me go?
And Smith just magnified the fear and unease in his heart. The director used an exaggerated method, which makes people feel that Brooks is the most primitive fear and helplessness deep in his heart. At this level, the director's method is infinitely maternal. He is still a child, but his playfulness has become inferior.
Yes, in everyone's eyes, this "he" is worthy of sympathy, but immediately will be despised as "self-inflicted"! So, naturally, after killing Smith, Brooks's fear was fully amplified, and such fear made him break through. But the fear could not be eliminated, so it was directly transformed into a dream, so there was the last shocking scene of the film.
As for the two killers chasing Tracy in the film.
Naturally, that's the hallmark of Brooks' professionalism. The marksmanship is precise and the attack is vicious. As for why Tracy was hunted down, it was obvious that in the face of someone who was about to uncover the truth of the case, would you let her live? So even if the two weren't from Brooks, it was his subconscious wish. The film has never explained the origins of the two killers. This provides another support point for the design of puns.
As for the last. The two killers were shot dead. This is not a professional skill issue, but a film development needs. to the end. Brooks broke through Marshall, and the good I still had the upper hand, so the two killers killed Tracy and Brooks helped Tracy later, etc. are all around the development needs of this plot.
But just like the phone can be broken, the killer dies, but the inner fear cannot be eliminated, so there is that terrible nightmare! So from the beginning of the film, he kept praying and begging for forgiveness. And maybe dying like a killer was his final release.
Well here. Why arrange another female killer? I feel like the moral is his wife. The wife is the one who fights side by side. Give him support. Comfort him and even guide him.
If No pun intended. So is the role of his wife redundant? We can design it like this: Jane lost her mother when she was young, so she completely inherits her father's killing characteristics! Wouldn't that make the psychological portrayal more vivid?
This character has few appearances, but it is not optional. We see her vanity in the opening scene, is this another side of Brooks?
On the other hand, she seems to be a normal person in this family, is it a contrast?
In short. The role arrangements are very clever.
The whole movie is full of flavor.
recommend.
View more about Mr. Brooks reviews
