Pseudo genius worthy of sympathy

Before talking about Frank, let's talk about Van Gogh. Van Gogh was a genius, in other words, Van Gogh was eventually hyped as a genius. However, most art historians will tell you that Van Gogh's mental illness hindered his artistic creation. In other words, Van Gogh's painting ability has no causal relationship with his psychological problems. It's not that it's because Van Gogh suffered from anxiety and depression (or epilepsy, or Meniere...it depends on which theory you believe) that he achieved his talent for painting. On the contrary, Van Gogh was originally inspired by color performance, and his mental illness prevented him from focusing on creation, and even died young (suicide).

Frank is in a similar situation to Van Gogh. The only difference is that I don't think he is a Van Gogh-level genius (if Van Gogh is really a genius... I have reservations on this point). To be honest, the movie did not treat him as a genius at all. Some characters in the movie regard him as a genius, but whether he is a genius or not, the movie itself is not conclusive. But after watching Frank, many people should understand this movie as a literary story about "not being understood by the world and full of innocent geniuses, changing themselves to cater to the world, and finally returning to the basics". In my opinion, this is actually a story about how a person who had hoped to become a genius was ruined by a mental illness in the future of music. In the end, he can only enjoy himself, but it is actually not bad.

Before I saw it, I always thought this was a story about a "genius who is not understood by the world". A neurotic Peter Pan who is unwilling to grow up, unwilling to take responsibility, but uses a kind of innocence to attract the surrounding people who have lost their innocence. There is a sense of satisfaction in him. The first half of the movie is indeed such a story. A group of hipsters who don’t have to work, eat and wear magically, are tortured by some metaphysical "first world problem" all day long. But the second half of the movie slowly began to combine this independent kingdom that only exists in the band's perspective with the real world.

I think most people will sympathize with the maverick Frank and his companions, and some will have resentment towards Jon. But what's wrong with Jon? Frank's friends built a fictional world centered on Frank, who didn't know why, and the foreign Jon just pierced this layer of window paper with affection.

So Frank, who took off his headgear, could only defect to his parents. The band that lost Frank could only sing in a deserted bar. Jon faced the real Frank, a mental patient with a happy family, a promising but mentally ill. Pseudo genius dragged down. Everyone saw the true self in Jon’s mirror: no talent, a lot of problems, no independent viability at all, and a few music fanciers who had unrealistic fantasies about their own value.

In the end, Frank and his friends returned to the castle in the sky that they had built. However, if you don't consider livelihood issues (most movie characters don't consider these), what's wrong with having a happy life?

===

I can't help but risk the world and say: The music of this movie is really terrible. Sorry, whether I am a layman or I don’t understand the spirit of indie music, I really can’t appreciate this kind of music that doesn’t even have a tune, and the soundtrack is also all kinds of screaming. . . Please, doesn't it mean that mixing unmatched sound effects is a genius?

View more about Frank reviews