Many good movies will have a strong sense of shock when you watch them for the first time, but you can only watch them once, and watch them later, when the freshness is removed, it will become boring. My own experience, the most typical example of "American Beauty", was shocked the first time I watched it, and the second time I watched it again.
This film, the first time I watched it, gave me a shock that was hard to forget, and I couldn't get rid of the mysterious feeling in the film for a few days. I think the first is the enjoyment brought by the film's image language - the movie lens, sharp and beautiful, not to mention that I watched the 35mm version. Secondly, it is the unpredictable nature of the plot. I don't know where the director is going to take it. The unexpected turn at the end caught people off guard and couldn't digest its meaning.
Also, I thought of it later, in the narrative, it is not what is said, but what is not said. Where did the father go, I don't know, why did my father come back suddenly, I don't know, why did my father take them out, I don't know, what did my father go to talk to about business, I don't know, my father dug out a box on the island, inside What is it, don't know. At these times when we were all expecting answers, he died suddenly and all the answers disappeared. Before this, we can probably watch the confrontation and tension between the two brothers and the father as bystanders, but at this moment, we are suddenly substituted into the two brothers' perspective, as if the father reprimanded us all the way, and in everything When there was no answer, he suddenly disappeared, as if he never existed, but he left a deep imprint on our hearts.
When watching this movie for the first time, the above techniques of the director are enough to make us fall into the ground.
Last night was the second time I watched it in its entirety after five or six years. Before watching it, I was a little worried that the wonderful mystery would disappear the first time I watched it. However, after watching it, I found that even though I knew exactly where the story was going, even if I knew what trick the director was playing, after that climax, I was still completely stunned. The power of the movie is still there. Although not as strong as the first time.
The second time I watched it, I was more calm, and I could notice some of the possible metaphors. First of all, it doesn’t matter whether there are metaphors. The review of Rules of the Game inevitably mentions a metaphor for the situation in Europe before World War II, which is true, but I can ignore these and simply enjoy the film itself. I don't need to know what the movie says, I just enjoy the beauty of the movie itself.
Of course, this does not prevent people from doing some interpretation games. An authority suddenly appeared and suddenly disappeared. Does this authority refer to the Soviet Union? I don't think so. I think a more reasonable view should be that this is some thinking of the director on the relationship between father and son, and there may be some imprints of his own, his father, or his son. ——In my impression, he seems to be a scumbag.
In addition, I noticed that some of the taste of Tarkovsky was not strong, but it was there. When I first saw it, I didn't know anything about the tower style, but now I look at it again, and I can notice the deep water surface, the burning charcoal with red light, and the struggling fish...
This kind of movie is my favorite contemporary movie. It's like a sharp blade, cold and deep, without any sloppiness. It's also like a poem. I can't guess the meaning of it. .
I've seen all but one of Sarkinsev's films. This one is my favorite after all. The second is "Irina", which is also the kind of single-handedly deep, "No Love to Tell" is okay, but I finished it after reading it, and there are not many things left. As for the "Leviathan" that was well received back then, I went to the cinema to watch it twice, but in the end, I couldn't like it.
View more about The Return reviews
