Familiar masks were torn off at a dinner party of friends, and the constantly appearing "sharp material" met the audience's psychological expectations: cheating, gays, mother-daughter hatred, contradictions between mother-in-law, daughter-in-law and son-in-law... The sound of "morality" fell to the ground One after another, everyone has their own secrets. It's a pity that the characters in the play make it impossible for the director and screenwriter to fully use their imagination to express the secret "beautiful". There are a lot of details hinting at the secret of each family at the beginning. For example, the Lehrer and his wife were sitting on the toilet lid and peeking at the cell phone information, and the other went back to the back room and took off his underwear under the pretence of forgetting his cell phone before going out. The usual mutual suspicion of each couple is also revealed in the overtones of the conversation before the game starts - "he always turns off" "he always has the phone screen down". The most interesting idea of the film is that although the mobile game is like the lunar eclipse that everyone enjoyed that night, forcing the people in the play to look directly at the embarrassment when their privacy is exposed, the big and bright full moon at the beginning and end of the film shows that: Everything is back to normal, and they will go on with their lives. Whether the marriage of the three couples can survive does not depend on this night. It is well known that no one can present all of themselves to another person, or even to themselves, with complete transparency. If you have to break the tacit understanding and look directly at the truth that you are unwilling to accept, you can only play a game and treat it as a joke. The boundaries of privacy and freedom, the boundaries of marriage and emotion, to what extent can the two not interfere with each other? Or, in the face of conflicts between different life values, how to resolve them and how much consensus can be obtained? This kind of question is not within the scope of ordinary people's thinking. In the final analysis, it is a matter of practical choice - even if it is perfect, the other party can completely ignore it and turn away. The biggest secret is the human heart and human nature. Sometimes even if it can be explained, it is difficult for people to understand. Even if it can be understood, it is mostly unacceptable. Even if it is accepted temporarily, it may not be immutable. The problem is not whether it is concealing, but simply unable to be frank about everything - the only plastic surgeon in the film who did not expose the "suspect of cheating", who would dare to say that he has no secrets in this regard? The director's deliberate "blank" is just to remind us that what the game exposes is only the tip of the iceberg. After watching the movie, the audience knows more privacy than the people in the play (such as the cheating affair between the "scumbag" Cosimo and the psychological consultant Eva), and the people in the play must also understand: the hidden secrets of mobile phones are not only cheating, but also cheating. Not all secrets are hidden in the phone. Husbands and wives, friends, are just the "perfect strangers" we can meet. However, being unfamiliar is no big deal. Respect for privacy is a prerequisite for any relationship to be maintained for a long time, trust is not built Based on "no secrets", but an appreciation of each other's personality, temperament or "soul". When people are indeed vulnerable, they choose to cheat when they feel weak or tired in their marriage. Even if they are not judged from a moral point of view, it is not a choice worthy of defense. People have more choices. and save yourself. Choice has always tested people's bottom line and revealed people's ideals. It also stirred people's emotions and tested people's will. Whether you are worthy of the other party's trust and worthy of the other party's frankness or not depends on what kind of person you are and what kind of person the other party can accept. I trust you, not because you have no secrets with me, but because everything you have made me sure you deserve my trust and that your privacy won't hurt me. I also don't need to explore all your secrets, not because "it's hard to get confused", but because "I believe in you." It is also impossible for me to know all your secrets, because you have your own independent personality, so "I respect you". This cycle of interpretation sounds very "subjective," but where to find an objective tool, resorting to a polygraph to ensure all kinds of intimacy? Fromm said: immature love says "I love you because I need you", mature love says "I need you because I love you". Likewise, trust is a cause, not an effect—although building trust takes a process. Perhaps, in the end, all trust is actually rooted in "love" (not only love), and this kind of trust cannot be guaranteed to be blind and reliable. Being maliciously deceived by the person you trust the most, you can only blame yourself for missing out. Human nature inevitably has a dark side, but I still believe that on the premise of mutual trust and respect, people can establish a very close relationship. Compliment each other's individuality, tolerate each other's shortcomings, and maybe even create some kind of happiness together, and appreciate and understand each other even in the smallest details of life. This is a true and virtuous circle, like the warm light of the sun rising every day, rather than the seemingly beautiful moonlight at night. There is only one main scene in the entire film, which uses dialogue to advance the plot and portray characters. This structural presentation requires us to maintain a high degree of attention when watching the film. Every detail has a "narrative" value, and the density of the lens language is quite large. Therefore, this film is not a "family ethics film" describing ordinary life. It seems to be closer to a "thesis defense". In terms of form and connotation, it shares many elements in common with the classic film "Twelve Angry Men" . In any case, the problems they reveal are unavoidable and must be faced by everyone, and the attitudes and solutions to these problems are also constructing "What kind of person are you?" Focusing on "derailment" can attract audiences, but it also limits the thinking space of the film. It may not be cheating that affects the quality of ordinary people's marriage the most, and marriage may not be the best platform to express the secrets of human nature. However, don't be too demanding for such a well-hearted movie. Well, let's be very frank and ask the people who are very important to us (in Jung's words: their names are always in the book of our destiny, and getting acquainted with them is like remembering them again): Will you believe me? In fact, sometimes there is no need to ask such a question at all, because we trust our own inner answers.
View more about Perfect Strangers reviews
