Sarah's Key is a movie that discusses these issues. But overall it is very pale and not successful. The first half is a combination of history and psychology, and the second half is completely supported by psychological suspense, but because the first half has a tight rhythm and strong suspense, and the second half imposes preaching, the film breaks. This is a clever and clumsy movie, and since I haven't read the original novel, I don't know whether to attribute the ups and downs to the original author or the director. For example, Bernard ignores the emotions and thoughts of his pregnant wife Julie, who is fully involved in investigating the fate of Sarah's family in the Winter Stadium incident because of the urgent need to deal with signing a contract with China. The theme of the film: how to view and deal with the relationship between "historical scars" and "running to the future". But at the end, there is a lot of extravagance about history and the future. How powerless the so-called historical morality and accusations appear in the face of people's urgency to rush to an imagined beautiful future world.
The last third of the film is filled with a strong national consciousness. It is not uncommon for movies to reflect on the history of anti-Semitism in World War II in the present moment, and usually the protagonists are the parties with historical scars. But the film investigates history from the point of view of a French-American journalist. While many films in the past reflect on the cruelty of history from a general perspective of humanity and human beings, this film looks back at the past from a national perspective, and further, through understanding history, in today's globalization, to continue the French (or European) National memory, thereby confirming the nation's place in the current world, and believing that a clear historical memory contributes to a more "correct" future. Julie found out she was pregnant at the same time as the investigation, and her husband tried to force her to have an abortion because he wanted to start a new life and did not want to increase the burden. But Julie still insisted on giving birth to this little girl, named Sarah - this girl is a burden in the eyes of people like Bernard who are rushing to the future world, but it is a continuation of the national memory that Julie insists on.
All points are clear, but the question is: what about the arguments? At the end of the film, Julie's daughter, little Sarah, looks at the neon lights of the city outside the window, but who can guarantee Sarah's future? Returning to the question at the beginning, is the elegy of history nostalgic and the wishful thinking of the sensitive? How much influence history has on today is difficult to determine, let alone the dark memory of the nation?
Memories brought me to a trip to Israel earlier this year. My uncle, who has been a Zionist since his grandfather's generation, took me to see the ancient war site masada, and told me about "God's chosen people". And his daughter, and her Syrian boyfriend who grew up in the United States, marveled that there were so many similarities with a Chinese girl like me, and marveled that my "like an American" - the United States, has become a cultural standard. In this sense, the film "Sarah's Key" has its sharpness and sensitivity. But how long can the historical sad songs sung by those persistent descendants last, and are they like the songs of nightingales, which will always be far and near in the middle of the night, and disappear under the fierce sun?
-----------------------------
The place where the movie is deducted is the ubiquitous apple product advertisement, which in my opinion is too much Some.
View more about Elle s'appelait Sarah reviews
