Score: 1;
Key words: a strong country has a correct culture;
1, can only give 1 point at most;
I don't know how many people's first impression after watching this film is that it is the best movie they have seen in recent years or even in recent years. Indeed, the subject matter and expression of this film can easily give people the impression of "the best foreign language film of the year". Regrettably, for me, this movie is more typically the worst movie ever.
2. American cultural kidnapping;
Let's talk about the language of the film first; this film is a Lebanese film, but whether it is the dramatic structure, the way of expression, the religious/moral aesthetics, and the cultural ideology, they are all too American. The cultural output of a small language does not have a completely independent context, or even the tone of the big cultural circle (Hollywood). This is the most disgusting and sad thing in terms of culture.
Structurally, through a small conflict between Christians and Palestinians, the complex national politics/national history theme of Lebanon is refracted/moved. This kind of framework arrangement itself is not new except that it is not new. It's just that it's too industrialized to promote a dramatic node such as "I'm sorry" and a fist into the story, and to make a strict time and structure arrangement. For many years, this is the unstoppable drama assembly line of Americans. Reflected in the viewing experience, the portrayal of family, and the understanding of politics, this film is really of pure American blood, and the more I watch it, the more Hollywood.
Embracing the structure of Hollywood naturally cannot escape the way of expression of Hollywood - the process is ups and downs, the ending is happy, and it is full of American fantasy. In fact, if it were that simple, a war in the Middle East would not be far off. In addition, I personally dislike the "benevolence, righteousness and morality" style debate in the court scene in this film. It looks like two big belly/suits and leather shoes are discussing why beggars fight over a steamed bun. It seems that Hollywood screenwriters are very willing to use their own worldviews to explain issues such as war/history/religion, and by the way, preach about "American human rights". It seems that with human rights, there will be no war in this world.
A Lebanese movie, no matter how you look at it, is American. Speaking of which, it's not necessarily all bad. At least one thing is good, mature film skills, so that the film's theme is highly completed. In other words, only an expression as mature as this film can be worthy of or hold the heavy theme of this film. However, behind everything that looks like that, it just expresses a little uncreative cliché, and it also loses the simplicity it should have. I don’t know if anyone is like me, the real expectation of this film is not the mature and advanced film skills, but the real social pulse and the temperature of people’s livelihood in Lebanon, as well as the artist’s understanding and care of the situation, even if the film technology is very rough. . Unfortunately, the film is gorgeous, the characters are very formulaic and symbolic, and there is no warmth as a person. We can remember him as a Christian or a Palestinian refugee, but we can't remember him as a person first.
Say something off topic. A well-structured film may look good subjectively, but the quality must not be high. Just like the world we live in, there are no identical leaves, no identical faces, no one person or one thing develops according to the established pattern, which is why it is colorful. I still think that the characterization should precede the structure arrangement. No vivid characters, no matter how wonderful the structure is, it is not a good story. (It can be a good fable) For example, in this film, the characters are addicted to symbols and have no soul, and the whole story looks like a magnificent shelf. In particular, the situation reflected in this film is definitely not what the Middle East really looks like, and it can't even reach the fur. Instead of digging into a real person, it's just a whimsical attempt to wrap the beliefs and politics of the Middle East with American-style romance and fantasy. This is the first reason I can only give this film 1 point.
3. Superior and powerful Christianity;
Powerful nations preach powerful Christianity everywhere. This is a question that has a lot to say, but can't say. I can understand the hatred/jealousy of the so-called "Gentiles" towards the Jews, and I can also understand the resistance/panic of the Jews towards the "New Covenant". As an Oriental, I have very complicated feelings towards Christianity; and as a liberal arts student from Chinese philosophy and Han colleges, I have more complicated feelings towards the "Bible".
Christianity is inherently superior, coupled with the strong position of Christian countries in cultural export, this situation can even be said to be strong. It is an "aristocratic religion" that maintains the priority of Christians and guarantees the superiority of "God's chosen people". I can only understand it this way, because language cannot dissect religion, it can only refer to facts. For now, the Jews are indeed strong and the Christian countries are indeed strong, this is a fact. And everyone knows that the root of the Middle East problem is religion. This film avoids all religious problems, and it is just a matter of avoiding the important ones. It is not a sincere expression in attitude. This is the second reason why I can only give this film 1 point.
View more about The Insult reviews
