Lars von Trier challenged today's bottom line of political correctness with a essay-style film. I can understand the polarizing reaction that this film caused after its premiere in Cannes, because the "flower of evil" created by Duras von Trier is really hard to judge.
The origin of Part.1 JACK
The protagonist is named JACK, which in itself has room for multiple interpretations (the movie's name was originally taken from a British lullaby of the same name). In addition to reminiscent of Jack the Ripper, the most notorious serial killer in history, there is another reference that I think is more important, which is undoubtedly revealed in the first case. Jack also means "jack." The jack that can never "lift" a car after being repaired is a clever metaphor: Jack is probably an incompetent person.
So it can explain why he started to kill and why all of the four cases he described were female victims. Jack's first murder was completely impulsive, and this impulse to murder came from the violent words of the victim with a broken mouth and annoying: "You don't have the guts to kill even if you look at you." So, he raised the bad jack and killed her, just like he finally committed a rape without lifting it. He got pleasure from this and started his 20-year murder journey.
After Jack recounted the four murder cases, Virgil said a very harsh sentence: "Why do you always pick stupid women? Because you think you are superior to them." I think the more accurate statement should be because of impotence. Jack, who is inferior, needs to kill those women to gain a sense of superiority. But obviously Jack's self-esteem and narcissism will not admit this, so in the next 20 years, he will kill artistically, even religiously.
Completion of Part.2 House
Chinese audiences with a majority of atheists are unlikely to imagine the impact of this film on Western audiences with Christian beliefs. In fact, I think Lars von Trier still took care of it when he created it. Otherwise, the title would not be House, but Cathedral.
From the beginning of the movie, when Jack began to discuss the architecture of Gothic churches, Lars von Trier had already revealed his true meaning: Jack wanted to build not only a house, but also a church, a religious temple. , It's just that the materials of this temple are corpses.
Prophets, miracles, rituals, doctrines... Lars von Trier implies all the elements of the birth of religion in this movie. Chapter 1 explains the origin of Jack, which is the awakening of the prophet; the heavy rain in Chapter 2, is the appearance of miracles; Chapter 3, the family hunt, is a ritual of sacrifice and sacrifice; Chapter 4 Regarding love The complete denial of, represents the destruction of old values; finally, in Chapter 5, the doctrine is finally completed.
In Jack's teachings, there is clearly a shadow of Nietzsche's philosophy. He denounced general morality, believing in the lamb's morality instead of denying the tiger in the human heart. It is hard not to remind people of the "master morality" and "slave morality" mentioned by Nietzsche. The last person to distort Nietzsche so much was Hitler.
Lars von Trier drew strong accusations for saying "understand and sympathize with Hitler" in Cannes, so this film can be regarded as his counterattack. If the use of corpses to build temples and corruption to create art is not enough to shock the world, using massacre to create idols is simply shocking.
From Hitler to Mussolini, from Pol Pot to "The Who", the production of these "idols" was all accompanied by the massacre of extinction of humanity. But according to Jack, that is only the necessary material for making idols, just like the noble rot fungus necessary for making wine. If you have a little understanding of religion, you will definitely know the meaning of wine in Christianity: it represents the blood of Jesus.
Christianity believes in "the incarnation", while Jack, who believes that material transcends the spirit and holds value after death, pursues "the incarnation" in the opposite direction. The last house (temple) built of corpses is a symbol of his "Tao". Jack's inner confusion for 20 years suddenly became clear at this moment.
No wonder Virgil said in the movie that Jack is an antichrist, what Lars von Trier tried to create, is the most unique antichrist in film history!
Part.3 The most beautiful in the evil
If the movie ends when the house is built, "This House Is Made By Me" might really be a work in defense of the Nazis. But at the end, Lars von Trier filmed a surreal version of "The Divine Comedy", allowing Virgil to take Jack on his way of no return to hell.
Jack saw the other side of heaven in hell. The strange thing was that it was exactly the same as his favorite scene in his childhood-it was a peculiar scene of harvesting life while praising life-which made Jack reveal for the first time that he belongs to a normal human being. Expressions. But is this a real paradise view? I think it was the heaven that Jack imagined, or the illusion of heaven that Virgil wanted him to see. In the end that leads to the deepest part of hell, does Virgil really just want Jack to take a look? Maybe he knew that Jack would inevitably choose to destroy himself, so he did it deliberately. Because he knew that Jack would take the risk after seeing such a paradise. God's punishment is not enough, human tools are incompetent, and what ultimately punishes evil is the sinner's own sins. This is really a great irony.
Virgil has a meaningful line here. He pointed to the broken bridge and said: "There used to be a bridge connecting the two sides, but that was something from my previous era." What was the era before Virgil? This famous poet in history lived in a period when Christianity was about to rule Europe. The era before him was naturally the glorious ancient Greek and Roman civilization. At that time, heaven and hell were separated by a single line, and they were almost one. The advent of Christianity completely separated heaven and hell.
I think this is the final question of Lars von Trier: What is the difference between heaven and hell? Can the most evil produce the most beautiful? Can destruction create art?
Art is undoubtedly an important argument for this essay film. Gould’s playing fragments have appeared several times (perhaps because Gould’s favorite Bach is a devout believer, and the subtle use of counterpoint in Bach’s works is like a perfect architecture, which is the ultimate expression of the combination of art and reason) , William Blake’s paintings are flooded with them (also a devout, but the paintings with obvious mysticism tend to contain unspeakable darkness), and the scene of Delacroix’s masterpiece is reproduced in the last section of the river crossing. The most absurd and terrifying thing is that Jack claims that he is also creating art, as if all the killings in the world are "art".
Virgil said that Jack was an abuser, why not Lars von Trier? He is abusing the audience, and even more so, is abusing all mainstream values. The most fascinating concept in the film is undoubtedly that the brightest light becomes the deepest darkness in the negative film. If Jack is the negative film, and "This House Is Made by Me" is a "revelation" filmed with a negative film. "Record" is the ultimate beauty that Lars von Trier intends to create from the most evil.
For such works, it is foolish to make any value judgment easily, or it should be said that the value judgment of art is inherently a stupid thing. Lars von Trier did not cause evil, he just chose to look directly at the darkness of human nature, because hell is always there.
View more about The House That Jack Built reviews
