This movie is relatively unpopular, let's briefly introduce the plot: Bartleby is a high school graduate, but he is faced with the predicament that he has no college to go to. In order to get rid of the pressure of his parents, Bartleby simply forged a university called South Harman Institute of Technology (abbreviation: SHIT). Not only did he set up a website for the fictional university, he transformed an abandoned mental hospital into a campus, and even actually brought in a former faculty member. Due to a technical glitch on the school's website, all students who applied to the fake school received admission notices. They adopt the teaching method of peer learning from each other, and let the students define the courses they want to learn by themselves. There are no exams, no literature reading, no papers, and they live a utopian campus life. The rise of South Harman Institute of Technology has attracted the attention of neighboring Harman College. After some investigation, the president of Harman College filed a lawsuit with the Education Bureau, requesting the closure of the three-no school. How will Bartleby face this crisis? Please find the answer in the video.
The creativity of this film is very brilliant, the plot logic is relatively coherent, the ideas are clear and strange to create dramatic contradictions, and the dismantling of contradictions is quite natural, unlike many comedies that rely on mechanical serenity to solve problems in the end. Its funny parts also basically obey the plot trend, with the exaggeration of American comedy, but it is not offensive yet. Compared with the cultural garbage of "The Hangover" that relies on curiosity and humor, this movie is already a qualified American comedy.
But only there. As a film intended to discuss educational innovation, the spiritual core of this film is fatally flawed. If the audience follows the protagonist group into the plot, these "college students" live very comfortably, without academic pressure, without campus bullying, singing every night, partying every day, it is simply an ideal and perfect college experience; but if If you look at the movie from a different angle and bring it into the parent's perspective, the content of its story is not quite right. College education is very expensive in the United States, and many parents start saving money for their children to go to college from birth. In "Friends", Chand once said to Monica: "We have two children, and then send the one we like the most to college." It can be seen that higher education is a heavy burden for American families. There is a similar explanation in this film. The protagonist's parents paid him a tuition fee of 10,000 US dollars per semester. The idealistic life of these "college students" is based on the sky-high tuition contributed by their parents. The problem is that parents' investment is so that their children can get higher education in college and have a good future in the society in the future, and these students who spend their time in fake colleges, what can they learn after four years Woolen cloth?
Innovation is not rootless water, it does not rely on talent to work. The so-called innovation is to continue to explore on the basis of mastering the existing knowledge. If a person has never mastered the basic knowledge, wouldn't it be laughable and generous to say that he wants to create a precedent in a certain field? The reason why Picasso's cubist paintings with distorted lines are sought after is because he has reached the peak of his classical creation techniques, and is qualified for follow-up exploration; and the lines of his oil paintings are crooked, probably because I can't draw straight. Taking a step back, even if a person is truly a genius who can skip professional studies and create something ingenious, how can he be sure that he is not reinventing the wheel? A man who has never seen a car invents the car all by himself, what does it mean to our present society?
If you watch this movie with the expectation of watching a popcorn movie, I think this movie is already a good masterpiece in the category of American comedy. But it is a pity that this film under the banner of "educational innovation" still can't get rid of the anti-intellectual core of Americans in essence, and it is a lustful work for those lazy scumbags. The subject matter of the film itself is actually quite good, and it is a pity to make it like this.
View more about Accepted reviews
