Looking back at the whole film, I feel that there are more points worth discussing than I imagined. The overall feeling is a bit realistic and a little fantastic, the character building performance can be described as amazing, the crossing of historical clues is also a bunker, Rebecca Sharp who can speak French (this already makes me think a lot), the Indian element is almost a flaw, mixed with the Napoleonic Wars. In the background, the reunion of 4 people in Germany, which is already a different person, adds to the sense of curiosity. The whole story seems to have gone beyond what the original author wants to convey in the book. Although the ladies who climbed the celebrity society are glorious, there is also a little-known bitterness and helplessness behind them. The flames of war have wiped out the fragile love. The two sides of money and the loss of the rose of the rose of a woman under the desire for profit... I most remember a sentence in it, everyone is actually a person in Vanity Fair, and they are actually craving something. Sharp, who pursues materialistic desires, finally realizes the beauty of the ordinary after the vicissitudes of life, aiming to imply the terrible and even the hopeless spiritual greed, which can push human nature to the brink of destruction.
It is too late to sort out a bunch of scattered feelings, so write them down first, or you will not be able to remember them soon.
The first is the whole film. After watching it, I have to sigh that the producer's traces are very heavy, and this so-called "invisible" "author" can be seen almost everywhere. I can't remember which genre in the literary theory genre is very disgusted with the author's manifestation, this work is definitely intolerable at this point. The concept of the film does not seem to have reached the realm of "the death of the author"... Although Thackeray is also from Calcutta, although Joseph Sedley went to India, although Marquis of Steyne likes to watch Indian dance, there will not be so many Indian elements. the lens...
The second is to notice the background that Rebecca speaks fluent French. In the film, it seems that someone in the Crawley family said that a real lady wouldn't speak it (French) half as well. Why is this? It quickly reminded me of Blanche DuBois who appeared in A Streetcar Named Desire, a downcast noblewoman from the South, and Rebecca Sharp, except for their different status (Rebecca was an orphan, from a poor background), they are both very connotative and based on a few points. Appearance and knowledge are used to win the hearts of men, seduce men to hang out with themselves and take advantage of men, and climb the ranks of the powerful. So a woman who understands French implies that French is the capital of her flirtatiousness outside, and she does not need to speak French to live well. Therefore, Rebecca's fluent French was originally an advantage, and it was precisely because women had outstanding advantages that she proved that she was easily exploited by these advantages or used them, and lost herself in the world of lust.
In the original book, Thackeray set a title for the work: a story without a hero, which is also reflected in this film version. Although the whole story revolves around those main characters, although there are "positive characters" and "negative characters" that we are used to define, even Rebecca is defined as a negative character and the others are just to let them suffer some hardships in the end. Or because they turned back to the shore, they still cultivated the prejudice, but in fact, this work has no heroes and no real protagonists. Each of us is a person in the work, or the incarnation of several people. Who said we never fought for a better life? Who says we haven't compromised, fought, and fought over to change our bleak family background, embarrassing financial situation, and poor relationship history? We always work hard for the sake of standing out, for a better life, for a feeling that we can grasp, even groveling and bruised. When we do something, we always hope to get a reasonable return. This seems to be a normal thing to do. Like Crawley's mom said, I should have guessed that nobody does anything for nothing. And the reason for Rebecca's final tragedy is probably too much dependence and sinking in the psychology of praying for return. When greed is taken for granted, a terrible truth is slowly approaching: loss is inevitable.
Although Amelia has a good identity and was born in a good family, her fate has also made her go through grabs and hardships. The family went bankrupt, her husband went to the battle line but died, her marriage was opposed, she was disliked and neglected... Contrary to Rebecca, she went from brilliance to downhill, and this process was not at all easier than Rebecca's sudden downturn. Fortunately, she can treat her with a normal heart, and she has Dobbin, a confidant of Lanyan who has always been there. Fate seems to be grabbing both of them. After experiencing the vicissitudes of life, the two still had a conflict. Dobbin loves Amelia in his heart, but he knows that speaking out will only break Amelia's heart, because Amelia has always felt that Osborne still loves him, and he is not dead. In fact, Osborne had been avoiding Amelia before going to the war, and he had not read the letters she sent. Because she lost her property and status, he no longer liked this woman, so he went to the battlefield; and also died on the battlefield. Dobbin bought back the beloved piano that Amelia bought when Amelia's family went bankrupt at the auction, but heard Amelia say that the piano was bought by Osborne, I can understand his mood, and the camera gave enough time to show the piano. A subtle change in psychology. From here, Dobbin, who has been hiding the most painful love in his heart, saved a lot of courage and planned to continue to hide it, but in the end he couldn't help but burst out. Because the person I love the most has said hurtful things. It turns out that she has done so many things, and in her eyes, she is neither a father nor a husband...a friend? Maybe this is just my wishful thinking and you just want me to be your friend... Speaking of the plot, it can be said that even Dobbin, who we are used to defining as a positive character, is also a manifestation of his desire to get some kind of reward in his efforts. By. We are all giving something, trying to make ourselves better, and then trying to express ourselves, looking forward to getting something in return through these efforts, even if it is a response. In the end, a seemingly inadvertent remark became the last straw, which almost overwhelmed the deep Dobbin who had always paid silently.
So there are no heroes. In fact, everyone is so ordinary. Even if they are rich, and what kind of noble titles or positions they have, there is no difference in the weaknesses of human nature. Wiki also mentioned a point of view about this film, that is, the 2004 version of this film also has a bleak ending that shows Rebecca as her greed, which is worthy of understanding and sympathy. As far as this film is concerned, it may indeed be what the director wants to express. At least from the simple analysis just now, Rebecca's pursuit of social status and money is also to add a little weight to himself, family and love, so he dares to solve his embarrassment. Female identity strives to express herself, but she wants to live a better life. In that era of tight bondage, it can be said to be "deviant" and can only accept such a fate, but after all, she is still bound by the background of her era, and has its limitations and limitations Sex is the basis for future generations to see sympathy, understanding and contemplation. But on the other hand, it is also the author's reflection, satire and scolding of the hypocrisy of people in the whole society at that time, showing their solemn and dazzling abacus. This kind of questioning is an inducing guide for us to re-examine the life problems of giving and devoting, the principle of moderation and so on.
Each of us is everyone in the film, even if we are just an audience, watching their stories, we may sneer at everyone in it, feel that love is disillusioned, or lament that life is a drama or whatever, we After all, we are still people in reality. We all live, work hard, pay, and look forward to material or spiritual rewards, more or less. It is impossible for us to become saints in the scholastic school who do not eat the fireworks of the world and ask for any harvest. Most of us are just ordinary people in order to survive. After watching the movie or closing the book, we reflect on the original voice of our hearts. The only thing we can do is learn to do it. Even if we cannot stay out of it, we must maintain inner balance. Although, it may take you and me a lifetime.
There is no way, because we are all mortals and we cannot stay out of it.
View more about Vanity Fair reviews
