[Writing and writing in the morning, you just look at it-there is no polishing of the text at all, it is just blowing water in the vernacular]
If you think about it, you still have to participate in the film critic contest...otherwise, how can you get enthusiastic and cheat fans? [Spoilers included below] After "Mother" has been a bit disappointing, I began to think that Hollywood and Netflix restricted him, but now it may be that the fascinating director is too obsessed with skills and ingenuity, but has given up social criticism Complexity. Class similes and criticism are not worth singing praises, because they are the fixed goals of a certain type of film. Whether such movies are good-looking depends mainly on 1) whether the criticism is in place, and 2) how to present this kind of criticism?
Then, 1) Is "Shi" critically in place? Not really. It is not to show the class gap, the film has completed the task-the parasitic relationship we see in the film does not have a deeper "social meaning", but simply, it is just a "parasitic" in the literal sense: Take Order something to eat and take something to drink--but this kind of parasitism is too much like a "physical need" (of course, some people might say that the "parasitism" of the people at the bottom is to meet the physiological needs?), but the "physical need" does not reflect To explain the social product of "class".
If Feng design this "class difference" to be progressive-for example, the bottom people parasitize the upper class, and the upper class is parasitic on the corrupt national bureaucracy, subsidies and environment, or it is designed to be circular-the bottom people parasitize the upper class , But the upper class also parasitizes the reverse blood sucking of the people at the bottom, or is designed to be glocal-the bottom parasites the upper class, the upper class parasitizes the "hegemonic benevolence" of the Americans...all this kind of duplex The social and economic parasitism will enrich the meaning of "parasitism" itself.
And the current "parasitic" is too literally "parasitic"; it does not deal with the complexity and solidification of class problems at all, but simply shows poverty itself-even if it shows that "the wise son of the poor family has worked hard to obtain it." Good grades will also be easily wiped out by the family background of a rich girl with mediocre aptitude." What about the first class dilemma? In a sense, it is not as good as "Snow Country Train". The class metaphor of "Snow Country" is of course more explicit and straightforward, but at least it also gives an explanation of the ecological pyramid system of the same version of Thanos. "Parasite" even this. Too lazy to enrich.
So 2) How to present this criticism?
There are many kinds of criticisms, such as the clumsy Ken Roach-style criticism of "Desire": All misfortunes are brought to one person in extreme circumstances-using the Chinese TV series in the 1980s, that is, Make the protagonist extremely difficult, in order to make the audience feel empathy and tears, and then extend to the criticism of the entire (capitalist) system: this method is almost the same as the Weibo public knowledge around 2009. I won't say much about it.
Relatively smarter ones, such as Thailand’s "Genius Gunners", the exam cheating film packaged by the spy war, the final point is actually a question of class, you can’t say how exquisite she is, but at least the combination of business and social criticism is not good. Rigid, straight giving is also straight, but at the end of the story, it can be regarded as straightforward.
The biggest problem with "How to Criticize" "Post" is that the whole story is too strange, it can be said to be open-minded-you say it is absurd and ironic, and it is not so absurd and ironic that it cannot be used to return to absurdity. Look at the whole critique with the logic of "Song Kanghao". You say it is three points. In fact, Song Kanghao's parasitism failed to sublimate the theme at all. You say it is a microcosm of society. Such a bizarre story cannot "microcosm" society at all.
The two groups of parasites in the film are more like a parallel relationship-they have no difference in essence, but group A replaces group B. The "parasitic" of the Song family is not a progressive and escalation relationship of the maid's "parasitic". (The "parasitic" at a higher level), the second is not a complementary relationship (mutually beneficial "parasitism"). In the end, Song Kanghao's own parasitism is even more low-level-that is, he went to the refrigerator to find food in the middle of the night, even a girl The servants' "helpers-parasites" are not as good.
In essence, the second half of "Send" is a melodrama that seduce the audience to continue watching with a weird and bizarre plot-the core of the story is no longer criticism, reflection, satire, or even laughter and curse, all of the film The core of is completely driven by a literal "underground parasitic" that is bizarre to almost impossible.
Then we have to ask the third question, 3) Why is "Post" still good-looking? Why did Cannes choose "Send"?
Let me answer the last one first: Cannes’s brains are not broken for one day or two days-Jiu Cang gave an example of "The Wandering Dipan", the year before last he chose "Square", and the year before last he chose "I am Black"... these These are issues that often arise in small groups and celebrity selections. Of course "I Am Blake" may not be so bad (at least better than this year's Ken Lodge's "I'm Sorry, I Miss You"), but Cannes is indeed only slightly better than the Venice Festival in terms of moving eyes. My friend has an opinion. Although Palme d’Or often makes mistakes every year in Cannes, it rarely makes extreme mistakes. The main reason is that the selection team is too strong and the rate of nominated films is high. It can be said to be a bit of a head-"Ji" is fully in line with this characteristic, it is so skilled in director skills, plus it does not far exceed "Ji"'s competitors in the "artistic" considered by the judges, plus a small group "election" The uncertainty, finally...
Then to answer the previous question, why does "Post" look good? This is very clear. Bong's "Memories of Murder" and "Mother" were based on literary genre films. When "Han River Monster" was transformed into a pure genre film (but did not give up distrust of the state system), it was in "Snow Country" and "Yuzi". A genre film of distortions that make peace with Hollywood.
To a certain extent, "Send" combines the technical proficiency of the Hollywood industry of "Snow Country" and "Yuzi" with his own film technique proficiency, as well as his ease of use in genre films-so that the film is very " It looks good", but the deep-seated compassion, powerlessness, and direct-to-reality criticism in "Killing" and "Mother" is gone.
This is the crux of "Parasite" is good-looking but not good-looking.
View more about Parasite reviews
