Before I did a detailed investigation, I thought this "Square" or "Freedom Square" was a historical or documentary film, the kind that talked about social conflicts and revolutions, but I didn't expect it to be turned over in a number of science fiction film lists, which shows that it has been acknowledged to some extent. The bizarre and avant-garde.
But after watching the whole film, I feel that the filming is general and general, the plot is fragmented, and I cannot get a finishing theme and a consistent reasoning, and the characters are very vague. It can be said to be the expression of pure performance art, a series of literary sketches or one-act plays for the purpose of clarifying problems and "doing things".
Of course, the film also talks a lot about issues of concern, social tolerance, attitudes of disadvantaged groups, mass communication, public opinion, the publicity of art, reflection on political correctness, sexual power, etc. The superiority and freedom and tolerance of elite society are quite ironic and slap in the face. But I can't catch these flaws as comprehensively as the film. As some film critics say, there will be no fixed answer to the discussion of public opinions in these areas of consciousness. Everyone chooses the attitude they are willing to accept, and the most current The best/worst solution, you don't need to convince anyone. This can be illustrated by the chatter on the Internet alone. What's more, if we want to ridicule the white left in Europe, we may not be qualified, and the social gap is not the difference between fifty and one hundred paces. Perhaps the conflicts and social group reactions shown in the film are more universal views that deserve our attention.
This group of Swedes, or Stockholmers, is really typical of the "European white lotus". Work is loft, life is hygge, and after dinner, I think about how to solve social equality and rescue people in the non-free world. Innately understands others, tolerates dissent, and cares for the weak, so much so that bank robbers have to give tolerance and innocence defense. However, when it comes to personal property and living space, most people do not give up, and they will not waste their time for other people's little busyness. Of course, this is the director's intentional design, like the irony of "donate a million" and "donate a cow". People are all born equal, help the disadvantaged, and share the same rights and responsibilities. But where exactly is the "square" boundary, when to choose to trust others, and when to choose to take precautions, there is no fixed answer at all. thing. Depending on the time and place, the same choice will have completely different results. The protagonist of the film demonstrates this very well.
The instability of moral rules and the self-contradiction of social consciousness make the problems in our lives full of uncertainty and difficult to solve effectively. But the bottom line is that humans are too good at lying and self-deception, which has led to so many trust crises. In the beginning, helping passers-by to act bravely immediately became deceived. The employee who proposed the stupid plan vowed to let the boss send the threatening letter alone, so scared that even the car was scratched. He was very generous to the homeless people, but he was very generous after recovering his mobile phone wallet, regained his confidence in human nature, and taught his daughters to be honest and polite, but in the face of the evidence and accusations of the angry boy, he was full of denial and denial. Instead of asking for help from middle-class passers-by, he was helped by foreign homeless begging. But all of this has not allowed the male protagonist to let go of his hypocrisy and pretentiousness, and he cannot tell the world his true desires and thoughts. In all kinds of pretense and wishful thinking, he chose to retreat and be weak and self-preserving. Such a middle-aged man will be somewhat unlucky. He was scolded by various questions at the hearing, the aunt's soul tortured "How do you have sympathy for the disadvantaged?", and the reporter "is this the ceiling of propaganda?" Forced political correctness Leave him speechless. It was boycotted by Jews (rabbis) and Arabs (imams) in the newspapers. The last person who was so annoying was probably Hitler.
Submission to weakness and refined egoism are the boils of civilized society that leave us powerless and disintegrating in the face of violence and barbarism. But civilization itself, whether it is also a virtual standard set by humans for itself, will be easily disintegrated. The play-in-play arranged by the director here is also the most intense and climax of the whole film. The amazing "jungle scene" at the opening dinner broke the distance between civilization and barbarism, and made an art discussion film almost change. A cult B-level film. The savage played by Oleg here is shirtless and makes weird noises. The audience's attitude at first is curious and a little pitiful, as if they are facing a mentally handicapped person, and then the savage continues to tease and provoke the audience, resulting in some people not being able to. They did not leave the seat, and the other audience members in the audience could not do anything in the face of this impermanent anger and wildness, because the audience status implied that they did not need to do anything. You need to be silent in front of you and wait for someone else to become a target." This is the law of the jungle. It was not until the savage tried to rape a female guest that they could not bear to stop it and smashed their fists at the savage angrily. Oleg here is an actor, an artist, more like a work of art, his movements, expressions, uncontrolled, and a walker with carved human legs are full of artificial designs, he can even represent the director, to express him The sarcastic indignation and incomprehension of modern civilization. But here I prefer to regard it as art itself, which is the most primitive and ancient way of expressing itself without modification or processing, such as appetite, violence, and sex. Modern society attempts to explain this kind of art, but in turn, it is deconstructed by this art, and people become panic and angry. The battle between civilization and barbarism has been staged many times in the modern 20th century, and even today, barbaric animality is still infesting human society in different forms. But for a long time, we can draw a conclusion that civilization does not have an advantage over barbarism. Only when fear exists, it is possible to discuss civilization with barbarism, and the way to generate fear is mostly the demonstration of violence or direct use.
Civilization and order are of course very important, but they are not so indispensable. After all, they are all man-made things. Without order and civilization, human society will fall into chaos, but chaos does not mean extinction. The destruction of the old order will bring about the birth of a new order. For the establishment and survival of civilization, we have also constructed many things, laws, religions, rules, morals, categories, economies, institutions, etc. These rules and orders undoubtedly make our society closer and more efficient, but they are not the laws of the universe From the beginning to the end, and constantly changing with the changes of human society. Therefore, our society can not only have order keepers and maintainers, but also need destroyers and dissidents. A good ecosystem must involve decomposers. Just like a good stock market, it needs short-selling institutions and a good society. The environment needs negative news. Although they are savage, rude, unruly, and difficult to control, they can help us examine the crisis risk of the entire system and give us a shot. And the establishment of each order standard will inevitably produce a distinction between pros and cons, and those who use the order to help the public and private, "sages will not die, but thieves will not stop", so firmly believe in a rule and order, there is also the possibility of being deceived by it. Civilization and barbarism, order and chaos, belief and doubt, have been confronting each other since the birth of mankind. Any monistic choice may fall into error and imbalance. In fact, we humans do not need to set so many standards for the world. The dialectical balance of the world needs to be acknowledged and accepted.
But human beings have a problem that is difficult to change. From the time they ate the forbidden fruit and were expelled from the Garden of Eden, human beings have endless discriminations, and use this discrimination to divide the world into limited areas of distinction, and use good and evil to be superior and inferior. Inferior standards are used to construct imbalances and promote the uniqueness of the world. Although most people follow the law, they don't fully believe in these standards, misinterpreting it from time to time to confuse it and violate it. In order not to fall victim to the standard, to avoid the cost of following the order, human beings deceive, forge, peddled complacency and hallucinations, and with the development of society, the tactics have become more and more sophisticated. In such a balanced repetition of contradictions and conflicts, human society has moved from primitive ignorance to modernity, which is precise, rigorous, complex and restrained. But even in modern society, the civil society of excellent Nordic countries such as Sweden cannot solve the contradictions between people and groups, and the inherent disunity and incongruity in the world. Therefore, we can see that modern society is one after another artificially set frame space. There are many small spaces within a large space. There may be overlaps or exchanges in the spaces, but these structures themselves are to show differences, Separation and differentiation mean that rights, abilities, and means of subsistence are not equal or shared. This is probably the so-called square. The square statement in the film is a sheltered sanctuary for sharing rights. It seems to have the expectation of resolving conflicts, but it is constructed in a way that is no different from the existing rules of society. It is fictional and limited. Some people will believe it, some will doubt it. In a tight world built up of squares, modern human beings are more and more restrained and cautious, like a canary in a cage. Even food and excretion need to be considered a lot, but they are still happy to call it Civilized order.
It seems like an illusion to expect adults to lead the world to a better state. After all, we people have been immersed in the rules of the world for too long, and we regard them as the basic laws of the world. Keep building the rules and breaking them again and again. Perhaps compared with our children, it is more difficult for us to understand and appreciate the essence of the world. We do not cry when we are hungry, we do not laugh at the sea and the sky, we do not paint our clothes in our favorite colors, and we do not speak loudly. Express your love and anger, and feel the most basic beauty of ordinary things. And the education of the next generation that we are thinking about is nothing more than writing all kinds of rules into books, allowing children to repeat, repeat, and adapt to make them become people with orderly rules, and put more basic and more practical things are ignored. How to get food, how to deal with hunger, cold and fear, how to adapt to the changes of day and night and weather, what is life and death, how to learn to be brave, to ensure your freedom and health. For many things, adults do not have more answers than children. Even though they know a lot, they are always choosing proven, effective and useful experiences, passively accepting the social settings, and still fearful and hesitant about the unknown. We are far from imparting hope to the world and belief in ourselves to our children.
If human society has a better choice, and there is indeed a brighter future, then compared with our present, there is probably a lack of something more real and pure, understanding and agreeing with the dialectical balance of the world, and gradually dispelling the fictional The rules limit us to accept the naturalness and diversity of human nature. Otherwise, our children will still be full of confusion, we ourselves will still have no confidence in society, and our lives will go round and round, and we still don’t know where to go. If this world has faces and God has expressions, maybe just like Oleg in the video works, he looks at us with a primitive, rough, confused and deep eyes like a pouting child with undeveloped intelligence. We also have to wonder about the absurdity and unnaturalness in our lives. Society is square, conditioned, and needs constant explanation, while nature is invisible, vast and boundless, waiting to be discovered. With the development of human society today, many things may not be able to be reversed, but for those who are not afraid of changes, social progress and revolution are often just a reconstruction of a way of thinking, a rebellion from above. If we can reduce the sense of superiority, stop striving for false social attributes, and encourage more true human nature and desire, and the pursuit of freedom and vitality, then our world will not be able to surpass, but it will be enough to return to the original.
View more about The Square reviews
