What is the desire of people to act? It is the fear of nothingness, so people always find things to do for themselves. Fortunately, there is indeed a template for reference in human life, which is what people call "happiness". As for whether it is Really happy we don't know. You will find that people still do some useless work and find unnecessary trouble for themselves. Take things in the university as an example. Those activities, even learning, can be summed up in one word. But people have to do it, because if you don't, how do you pass the time? It is to look very busy, in order to give oneself comfort that there is no mediocrity and waste time, and create an illusion of resistance to nothingness. Look, I stand on the opposite side of nothingness. In this way, people can live, paralyze themselves in the busyness, and forget that there is still nothingness. You can’t think about this problem carefully, as long as you think about it, you will find that everything is meaningless, because we have death, and death makes everything meaningless, anyway, it will eventually die out, leaving only abstract memories, even There is no actual carrier. There are very few people who can leave traces in history. The masses of the people have a great role in promoting history, but they will never be remembered. History is the history of a few people, the history of princes and generals, but it has never been. history of the people. Humans act out of fear of nothingness, and the same goes for history, but what human beings do not realize is that nothingness is invincible, and human beings are always defeated. After wasting time, death will eventually take everything away. In other words, death is invincible. Don't tell me what to leave behind. It is based on the existence of humans. The extinction of dinosaurs is a good example.
One explanation is that one of the two Veronicas represents the soul and the other represents the body. The dead one is the soul, the living one is the body, so it can explain why the physical Veronica cried when she learned that there was another her, not the other Veronica, but herself. , or his own soul, because his soul is dead, and only the body is left, which also reflects the theme of loneliness and loss. Where does the body go when the soul is dead? The dead soul may also represent spiritual nothingness. Of course, the plot in the movie is fictional. It reminds me of a sentence in "Velvet Goldmine", the music is the mask, while I in my chiffon and taff varda the message. Music It's just a pretense, under the gorgeous clothes is my real talk. Imagery is a metaphor for the real idea behind it. In other words, it was because until this moment she really realized that her soul did exist, which was different from the previous "feelings", which had no basis in reality. However, at this time, her soul had already died, and her body had fallen into complete loneliness. even desperate.
This kind of obscure literary film is worthy of being a literary film, everything is bland, and it is boring to watch, but after watching it, the impression is quite deep, completely different from the industrial flow film, you will forget it after reading it. I'm not trying to discredit a specific movie here, but I really want to give some examples. Sorry, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Marvel, especially those action movies. I don't even remember how the conflict was provoked. ...I don't know if it's just me, of course I know there are people who remember it, but a popcorn movie is a popcorn movie after all. It's over, unlike these literary films with great stamina.
What attitude should we hold towards metaphors? Do we just know that this is a metaphor, or do we need to figure out what the creator is metaphorically referring to? This goes back to the question of language. If language is invented to allow people to understand each other, then metaphor is superfluous and goes against the original purpose of language being invented. If there is a metaphor, the receiver needs to guess. The question is should I spend time and energy guessing? Or that when a movie shoots an item, it just wants to show that item, nothing else, just like Lu Xun’s writing about a tree may really be just a description of a tree, stating facts, or it may be a piece of shit. Word count, or contextual description or something. Basically, the point of view that can be determined is that if you really want to guess, it may be based on your mood. It is because of your interest. When you have no energy, you will not guess. It is what it describes. Metaphors are actually very difficult to define. After all, no one knows what the metaphors are, and maybe even the creators themselves don’t know. Relax, there is nothing to tangle, just follow my own understanding. I believe that I still have the freedom to understand the text.
One paper proposes to analyze the film from a "mirror" perspective. I don't know much about Lacan, but after reading that comment, I feel quite interested in the mirror image theory. "I" is regarded as "other's other", so this "other" establishes a relative As for the mirror image of "I", I understand it this way. Because there are "I" and "Other", there will be mutual influence between these two individuals, which is why "I" should reshape itself in the relationship with "Other". The next step is to explain the mutual recognition process of "self" and "other". It is gradually clear that the integration of "self" and "other" forms a "subject", which is also a reason for the alienation of "self", because there are Without the "other", the "self" can no longer be the "self", and the self must survive in the other. The “subject” finally integrated carries the self and the other, that is to say, the self and the other no longer exist independently, but are displayed in the form of the subject, which is a process of growth. This subject has a clear cognition of the self and the other, and makes a choice, and ultimately establishes that "self". Having said so much, in fact, I do not understand, so I can only try my best to explain.
Should the work be over-interpreted? This is divided into two views. If it is the theory that the author is dead, then the reader has absolute freedom in the understanding of the text, and can even interpret it beyond the author. That is to say, the author may not want to express anything, write a tree Just a tree, but the reader is free to interpret it as any metaphor. If it is to respect the creator, then the interpretation of the work is limited. The creator generally has an understanding of his own work, as well as the creation intention. At this time, it is not ruled out that the creator's intention and understanding are pure, personal Yes, views are limited. This hinders the diversity and potential space of text interpretation, which is a real problem.
Only if I choose the theory that the author is dead can I do research, otherwise I will be in a dilemma. Since the creator has nothing to express, why should I bother to interpret what the creator didn't intend to express? You must know that once a work is published, it faces the isolation between the work and the author. As an independent individual, the work can exist alone without the author, just that when we connect the work and the author, we can better understand the work This connection is useful when dealing with authors. But this does not mean that this kind of connection is indispensable, because readers are strangers to the author. If you have to understand the author to understand the work, it will increase the independence of the work. Therefore, in the work, the author should put All that needs to be expressed is expressed, so that unfamiliar readers can understand why the author wrote such a text. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, creators are free. So how should we view the interpretation of texts? Is it as an aesthetic process? Or is it a thought process? The process of understanding and enjoying?
The birth of a work is affected by too many factors, and it is increasingly impossible to determine what is "good" and what is "bad". I am confused again. Everyone’s three views are different, and what the works want to express are even more different. The so-called comments are nothing more than using my own values to see other people’s works, so in the end I decided to try my best not to. Evaluate the quality of the work. That is to say, instead of thinking about film reviews and book reviews, instead of looking at the quality of the work itself, it is necessary to investigate why the work was created and what the author wants to convey to the audience through the work. One point that I have to admit is, What today's academic circles want is over-interpretation, and what they want is "the author is dead". There is no right or wrong in over-interpretation, and art is something that justifies itself. My ability to evaluate all works has been reduced now, which is reflected in my feeling that it is not good to evaluate stars, and the more I evaluate, the more confused my thinking becomes. In fact, it means that my thinking is confused, but I think I am just struggling. What I am struggling with is how to do it better. Do I want to see the feeling, or should I understand it more thoroughly? I'm confused because I don't know how to behave.
I have also made a very popular understanding of the mirror theory. From birth to consciousness and memory, people have a "self". This initial self is actually the closest to nature and nature, that is, nature. What society binds and alienates is very selfish. And people need to survive in society. As individuals gradually realize this, and when social attributes are more and more reflected in individuals, the mirror image of "self" - "other" appears. We are expected by others. Many times we have to make many changes in order to adapt to the society. For example, an introverted person must force himself to become extroverted in order to meet the needs of the society in order to be more popular in society. Otherwise it is easy to be isolated. When I was young, I was unwilling to greet those relatives politely, and my parents and those rubbish relatives would treat them differently. At that time, I knew that if I wanted to be a normal person, I had to act, and it was true. Although I knew that acting was a fake, but it didn't work well. Those who were deceived by my acting skills were also very happy to be deceived. Yes, what they want me to be, I just show them, my self must be alienated to meet the expectations of others, so over time, the self and the other become one, and in the end, no one can tell the difference. Open who, this is the essence of growth. With the continuous development of human society, people's social attributes have become stronger and stronger, and it is difficult to see the plots of pursuit of nature in the previous literary works. In the movie, Bovey is such a pure "self", pursuing his own nature, even if he died of a heart attack due to singing in the end, he would not hesitate. Fawei is obviously the "other", giving up his dreams and soul, and compromising with reality. Most people may be like Fawei, who derives another self under the framework of society and loses his soul, only to be able to better survival. Nature has two meanings in English, which is very worth pondering. In modern society, people are indeed farther and farther away from nature, and farther and farther away from nature. Most of us are defined by society. What should we do? How to live, and even what we want to do are supervised by social surveillance. And farther and farther away from freedom...
View more about The Double Life of Véronique reviews
