Mark Osborne's choice to retell the text of The Little Prince in a "story within a story" mode is perhaps the least surprising attempt yet. Just think, for such a fairy tale that is literally popular all over the world, what is a more secure (and profitable) way to present it than "peripheral package"? The basic story and core concept of "The Little Prince" do not need to be changed. Just adding a "real world" story to the outside of this storybook will not only allow the old text to have a new way of telling, but also allow " The act of telling” itself is integrated into the film, becoming a meaningful signifier, poking directly at the people in the audience. When seeing a "little adult" who follows the operating order of capital society quickly "reverse growth" into a "little child" after reading "The Little Prince", how could it not happen easily to the audience as a "come here" What about the empathic response?
And it turns out that the little prince who said "Maybe there are five thousand flowers just like you in the world, but only you are my unique rose", and the little prince who said "If you tame me, we will need each other." The fox that is gone" is just two big bowls of chicken soup. Of course, I never doubt the level of writing and depth of thought of Saint-Exupéry. In fact, the original book of "The Little Prince" should be a literary work with deep reading. Its reference to growth is not simple at all, and it even talks about death in difficult ways and emotions. But "quote"-style golden sentences always suit people's appetite, so when the film version that does not simply refer to growth is put on the screen, many viewers seem to forget the same difficulty and embarrassment that also exists in the original book. , but slammed it down, accusing the production team of meddling with the innocence of growth.
The movie "The Little Prince" is certainly not pure, but it is indeed pure. The smuggled goods carried by Osborne were also carried by Saint-Exupéry. When the film first started with a shot of the city overlooking the city, most people should have thought that behind this circuit board-like cityscape must be the content that countless movies have tried to wake up the audience - boring and self-righteous. business city life. The "dehumanization" of commercial capital is shown "flawlessly" in this animation, and this is the innocence of the film, when the contradiction is so extreme magnified - those white-collar workers in the office with uniform movements People, mothers who strictly plan their lives into minutes, passers-by who will be surprised to call the police when they see their underaged children, and big bosses who even buy and sell stars—the choice of value is no longer a problem. Interestingly, this is the trick used by Pixar and DreamWorks to lure audiences into growing up narratives, and this French-American co-production uses this ruse to persuade people not to grow up.
If the romanticization of contradictions and themes is not easy to detect because of the usual tricks of animated films, then the "Little Prince" cannonballs with obvious realistic criticisms wrapped in the sugar coating of personal growth memories should be relatively easy for audiences. see you. The protagonist of the outer story, the little girl, has a process of "misrecognition" of the protagonist of the core story, the little prince - mistaking Mr. Prince as "the Little Prince". Of course, it turned out that she was not wrong, but the difference between the two is not only in the distorted growth after the title change, but also in the difference in identity: the little prince is the only person living on a small planet, he is his own world and Mr. Prince is a "social screw" (not uttered in the pride of socialist rhetoric), a small black spot in some larger structure. From the perspective of the overall structure, he is no different from the other, and can be replaced at any time, the "oneness of the rose" is no longer a truth. And social development—a word Osborn would surely say with a smile—is a far-fetched joke, like the narrative of growth.
So, when the little girl used the pilot's old plane to bring the little prince back to the little planet he belonged to, Osborn not only gave "The Little Prince" a happy ending to the original book, but also closed a developmental narrative: little The prince belongs to his planet, belongs to his rose - even if this rose can only be watched by heart now. At this time, it is naturally time for Mr. Prince to change back to the little prince again, "misrecognition" becomes "identification", and the task is successfully completed.
However, what should grow still has to grow. It's just that "instrumental rationality" and "development concept" are rejected in the deepest part of a living individual. In the center of the universe surrounded by rose bushes, time is not measured in centuries, years, minutes, and seconds. Calculated, only one day to see the romance of 44 sunrises.
View more about The Little Prince reviews
