How should I put it, it is a fairly old story. Humans want to expand the land and cut down forests, invade the territory of wolves, conflict with each other, and so on. But in fact, I will never refuse to read more of such a story.
Many times I can also realize that groups like the World Environmental Protection Organization that accuse deforestation in certain areas may have long since lost their original meaning, or they may have been established from the beginning to use the kindness of some people who respect nature to prevent unsafe deforestation. The rise of developed regions, because the development of human civilization has never been inseparable from the destruction of the environment, so such propaganda is quite capitalist and dark.
But if we expand our perspective a little bit, why on earth can we occupy the living space of other creatures for our own selfish desires?
Recently, I have been reading "A Brief History of Humanity" intermittently, and the more I read it, the more I feel that the author's love for him is smart and complicated, but he hates him for being selfish and arrogant. It makes him not like a human being. I think his central idea is to tell self-righteous us: "You're nothing but an animal. No one agrees with you to rule the world, and you won't survive long." Although the size of the brain and the erection of the body The evolution process of the creature is indeed wonderful, but it is not a token that can control the survival of other creatures.
But on second thought, what if this book was also the product of capitalist tactics? It's just that he uses this interesting and philosophical way to make people unconvincing.
It is the law of nature that the strong eat the weak. If other creatures have the same or stronger power as humans, they may not destroy the home we built, and they may not hunt us and other creatures, and then make exquisite delicacies. .
Speaking of the movie, the contrast between the freedom of the wolves and the service in the castle is too strong, and the protective oppression of women such as "this is to protect you" and "this is for your good" passed on by the little girl's father again and again. And control is too suffocating. Although I can see the father's struggles and love for his daughter (and the father's character is very full). Also, the biggest boss, the lord protector, still had his admiration for God even before he died, which was amazing. And the crowd in the castle will show disgust when they are surrounded by soldiers, but when the lord protector kills the wolf, it turns into a mob shouting kill in unison. It makes me feel that this film is trying to express a lot of complex and contradictory thinking.
And because of the illustration style, I often feel like I'm looking at a picture book, the symbolic semiotic composition, the orange-haired forest that resembles the wolf walker, and the service screen divided by chains, etc... The only thing that makes me doubt, or The question is that, according to the description of the plot, the identity of the wolf walker should be a human, not a wolf. And the wolves in the entire forest would actually follow the commands of humans so stupidly, like many puppets, they generally don't have the slightest drive of their own nature, and when a person dies, the wolf dies. Don't you think this setting is too arrogant?
View more about Wolfwalkers reviews
