In Two Flowers, Kieslowski brilliantly applies a two-tone filter, rendering the experience of the two Veronicas romantic and captivating. When we are immersed in the mood and atmosphere created by the image, there will even be a moment when we think that this kind of "psychic induction" will really happen: in a certain corner of the world, will there be an existence that communicates with me ?
As a master of realism, Keith's images undoubtedly demonstrate the power of this technique, but in "Under the Peony", the relatively more conservative technique seems to lead to a more dubious effect. While the audience is addicted to the sunlight captured by the photographer, they are full of questions about this "naturalistic" shooting: "The empty mirror is so beautiful, but what is it trying to do?" In fact, the embarrassment here is worth asking. QUESTION: Why do we seem to have no doubts about Keith's dreamlikeness or Hou Hsiao-hsien's Tang scenery, but choose Sofia Coppola's southern United States? Why is the intuitively more "closer to the real" shooting technique, but it has led to doubts about the legitimacy of the film?
Due to the recording nature of the camera, in a series of artistic means, the audience's presumptive requirements for the film are undoubtedly the most demanding. A painting can generate a story in the reverie; a story can be convincing because of the narrator's eloquent words, and as for the drama, all the special scenes seem to be referred to by the performance of the actors. Movies have no such qualifications. It can be said that its power determines its responsibility: it must be done by a director who is extremely "candid". Every action in his camera, every shot must be endorsed by "truth," whether in the real world, in allegorical records, or in the mind of the director or someone he knows well truth in. This is exactly the predicament of "Under the Peony": the director intends to point to a certain truth, but the end point of the image seems to point to a vague situation, which makes people at a loss.
The novel-based adaptation of "Under the Peony" undoubtedly retains many of its textual, very appealing elements: gender relations and power, political metaphors, castration symbols... which are inherited from the moment the film decides to stay true to the novel down. Further, it seems reasonable to understand the film as an allegory or a metaphor, given the closedness of the scenes, the functionality of the characters (close-ups of male skin), and the irony of the story. However, the director's apparent ambition to go beyond that may have done a bad thing. She is not satisfied with the repetition and reproduction of the text, and tries to add some convincing power to the film that belongs to the "movie itself" through photography and performance (both of which undoubtedly account for a large proportion of the cost), so although the actors' hard-working performance contributes There are many bright spots, and the gorgeous dazzling skills of the camera also give admirable effects, and the elegant dress also allows the audience to peek into the imagined America of the last century. However, a performance that is "close to reality" is worse than no performance." Naturalistic” photography, on the other hand, seems unnatural. Sofia Coppola needs to understand that reality has to be reconstructed by images, not imitated.
After the metaphorical power of the film has been eliminated, "Under the Peony" seems to be commendable only for its precise grasp of women's emotions and its feminist position, but the problem still remains: the audience wanders between the specific emotions expressed by the characters and their metaphors. Empathy or empathy in the gray area of sexuality is never expected.
View more about The Beguiled reviews
