Hurry up and watch the film review analysis and director interviews. As a result, the director said after emphasizing how closely the film and religion are, my main purpose is to create a sense of ambiguity and uncertainty, and my interpretation of the key plot is open, you guessed it!
Do you need this? Other people's open films are based on the realism and diversity of objective life. Director, is it necessary for you to create this precedent for the gods and monsters? Other people's open-ended films are either to fit the original richness of life, or to arouse the audience's interest in thinking under the condition of giving sufficient and reasonable plots. Your openness is gross? The ghosts on both sides are killing people and the whole family takes photos and leaves. Apart from confusing people, what can they think about? Is a movie that confuses the audience in order to confuse the audience smart?
There are two passages in the movie that show that the director is really cheap:
1. What is going on with the interaction between Huang Zhengmin and Japanese dog? The director consciously created a parallel shot of the fighting between the two. He also asked Huang Zhengmin to make the Japanese dog rub his chest when he hit the nails. He nailed it here and rubbed it there. Isn't such a shot obviously inducing? When the director told the audience through the camera that this was a tense war between good and evil, he ended by saying that the two were originally a group. Of course, this kind of reversal has been used in many movies, but others can explain it clearly afterwards. But who can understand why Huang Zhengmin jumped the big rope after watching it here? Is the Japanese dog being so interactive that waking up the zombies is just to advance a subplot? In fact, the director's purpose of setting this paragraph is not to promote the plot, but to confuse the audience and make guesses. Of course, unless the director makes a sequel, no one can guess, because the director himself didn't want to figure it out.
(Intercept of the director's interview:
Q: But when the exorcism was interrupted, the scene of Qian Yuxi being punished was not shown in the movie, instead, the Japanese always appeared to be suffering. When the exorcism was interrupted, the Japanese seemed to be alive again. Did the director intend to guide him? The audience thinks the sword of exorcism is pointed at the Japanese?
A: Yes. Ah... yes.
Q: Isn't this deceiving the audience? If the director wants the audience to think that the target of the exorcism may also be Qian Yuxi, why didn't the movie show Qian Yuxi's reaction...
A: It's not Qian Yuxi, it's Hyojin.
Q: So why are the Japanese people who were fine but suddenly painful?
A: That's what I'm struggling with. There will be many people in the audience who are suspicious of the Japanese. He is looking at Park Chunbae's photos and has a certain idea. The audience will be curious about what he is thinking and what his purpose is. Before that, the Japanese said "Anyway, I said At the moment of the lines, I originally guessed that many viewers would recognize the true face of this character, and whether the exorcism scene in the back would confuse these audiences, of course, I also wanted to make these audiences confused. intention of. Because the movie of exorcism this morning showed the daily life of this Japanese for no reason, an ordinary man who came to a foreign land to buy chickens from Huang Shizheng (guest market chicken seller), and he could not understand the language. I originally borrowed these The scene hinted to the audience to make them guess that the Japanese thought when they saw Park Chun Bae's picture was to save him, so the exorcism scene was originally designed to make the audience think that the object of the exorcism was Hyo Jin, but I read a lot of comments , I found that everyone didn't have any thoughts when watching it...) Do
you see how shameless the director is?
2. Why does the nameless goddess Qian Yuxi happen to have Xiaozhen's headdress and clothes by her side when she is under serious suspicion towards the end? This is even more blatantly shameless. The first part didn't have any foreshadowing and proved that Qian Yuxi and Xiaozhen had enough contact with clothes, but to increase the suspense and confusion without answers, is it really good to come here suddenly? Director, don't you think it's a little shameless to act like this without a bit of foreshadowing?
(Look at the interview with the director again: Q: In the end, when the audience finally understands which is good and which is evil, another detail appeared in the movie, that is, three unnamed objects, one is a hairpin that fell on the ground, and the other is Park Chunbae’s coat , and the other is a knitted sweater that was once worn on the body of the deceased. Why did these three things appear in Wuming? What does it mean to Wuming?
A: When Zhong Jiu was about to turn around and go home, he was standing at about 15 Mi Kaiwai's Wuming suddenly grabbed Zhong Jiu's hand. The temperature difference between the two hands can be seen in the picture, and the sound effect also made a very cold feeling. I think both Zhong Jiu and the audience should begin to suspect Wuming. , the hairpin after that, the coat and the sweater are all confirmation of this suspicion. But why did the hairpin fall on the ground instead of wearing it on the head, because the hairpin is too conspicuous on the actor's head, although The script says that the actor wears a hairpin on his head, but the actor never wore it during the shooting, and suddenly it looks awkward when he wears it, so we just set it to fall to the ground.)
See? Someone else's sound is meant to stand out, his sound is meant to confuse. The director didn't want to do anything other than make people dizzy.
To sum up, if the viewer is struggling to figure out the answer in order to solve the mystery, you will be fooled by the director, because the director can't figure it out more than you.
View more about The Wailing reviews
