On the first day of school registration, there was nowhere to go after eleven o'clock, so I walked to the Pompidou Square and visited the permanent exhibition. I just like some beautiful paintings or eye-catching installations, and I am really incapable of accepting works that are too bizarre, so I go to some places very fast. But because I have a friend who is studying media art in Japan, she likes these installations, and she really likes them. She thinks that when she sees it, it will arouse some unspeakable emotions, not the one who takes a selfie in front of a contemporary art work and sends it to her circle of friends. I’m a kind of girl, so I still won’t make a 100% negation of contemporary art – after all, it just doesn’t resonate with me now, how can it be said that it is a piece of shit? (However, the "work" of Marcel Duchamp, such as his famous urinal, is nothing to compliment...)
It happened that the film was released at 2:30 in the afternoon in the Archives. After reading the introduction, it said that it was a satire of modern art, so I happily pulled the male ticket (a person who can't stay at the Pompidou for more than ten minutes) to watch it. , as a result, the two and a half hour movie made him feel on pins and needles. When he came out, he was angry, saying that more than two hours were wasted in vain, and the director himself was the kind of person he satirized.
I disagree with his views. After all, I always force myself to watch art films, which is more inexplicable than this. When I watched "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", I had trouble concentrating when I watched it, and it was boring, but after reading it, I had an unforgettable aftertaste. I don't know if this film will also give me this aftertaste, even though it is not as beautiful as that film. But in any case, I don't think it's a waste of time, and I have been thinking about it for two and a half hours: What is the real significance of the so-called civilization and art? What is the meaning of this? Teaching, sarcasm, warning, or just a simple catharsis of personal emotions? If it is catharsis, is there any limit to artistic expression? What is the bottom line of art? Does it take on the moralizing part? Is there evil art? As human beings, how much of our behavior is driven by civilization, and how much is the element of human nature? When we're helping someone, do we really count on nothing in return? (Impossible) Is everyone narcissistic? Is it necessary for us to pretend to self-reflection (after reflection, but not change it), or simply to obey our heart, admit and accept the inevitable existence of our evil and hypocritical side?
For this film, I think the director himself belongs to this mode - self-reflection with a pretense of self-reflection, and will not change after introspection. So why make such an embarrassingly self-irritating film? In the final analysis, it is still a sense of superiority with self-identity status and thinking ability. This is understandable, after all, movies that can make people think are meaningful existences. (Movies that are simply hilarious are like candy.) There are a few scenes that are quite impressive, and I'll record them here before I forget them:
1. The female reporter at the beginning of "profession".
Asking some boring questions in a panic, Christian also pretends to answer in a high-level manner, and the final article will be interpreted by readers in various ways. (It's like some tricky movies, the director himself didn't even understand why he wanted to make this scene.)
2. Christian's self-intoxicated appearance after saving people.
Personally, I feel that this scene is very distorted, and the truly refined bourgeoisie should be more sullen. For example, secretly check to see if anyone is looking at you on the street, or pretend to be busy and move on. At least not as dramatic as in the film.
3. Ruined buildings in the square.
It forms an interesting intertext with the opening of "The Sweet Life".
4. The little black brother stared at the mobile phone in the office and looked excited.
It felt like he was an intern with nothing to do. Reminds me of my old days as an intern. . . same.
5. The bed scene.
No foreplay, female lead, Christian is truly a self-centered person. In addition, he was afraid that the female reporter would use his stems and leaves (fog) for other purposes, and insisted not to give it to him, and it was really funny that the condom was finally pulled to a super long part.
6. The cleaners accidentally sucked the "art" away.
What an irony of contemporary art, as if I almost sat on an ordinary-looking chair at the Pompidou today, and it turned out to be an exhibit.
7.Christian saw the report about him and the square after the press conference.
Is the media a whistleblower or an accomplice?
Others have been almost forgotten, but the main line feels very boring. The final apology is indeed the kind of person the director has become his own irony. After apologizing, does the person become sincere? Won't.
The interesting thing about people is that they are capricious.
View more about The Square reviews
