Author: Pauline Kael (The New Republic)
Translator: csh
The translation was first published in "Iris"
Some are quite stupid-but to some extent seem savvy-tricks that have very powerful, almost long-term public influence. Books, plays, and movies based on them do not need to be very good to become popular: readers and audiences will respond to them. Sometimes, the concept of designing these tricks is so primitive that they are especially attractive to educated people-maybe this is because they are confused about why they are attracted, so they treat them as something These are much more complex concepts. "Frankenstein" is one of these wonderful and profitable "concepts." There is also a classic case of using this kind of tactics, the 1945 Albert Levine adaptation of "Portrait of Dorian Gray". The basic concept of the original novel is that when Dorian Gray's portrait is destroyed by the evil soul, he himself still maintains the characteristics of youth, activity and handsomeness. However, the film adaptation does not present this concept. Hurd Hatfield was never really young: his face was waxy and frosty from the beginning, and his aging was greater than that of any other role. However, in any case, the audience responded to this trick. When it was rebroadcast on TV, they continued to respond, and they were still arguing about how the filmmakers should arrange the roles and implement these concepts.
François Truffaut’s "Fahrenheit 451" is not a good movie, but the concept-quite stupid, but also savvy to a certain extent-offers attractiveness almost It is irresistible: people want to see it, and then they want to discuss how to make such a movie. Talking about "Fahrenheit 451" is more interesting than watching it. This film explores a society in which books are banned. Unlike Orwell’s idea, they are not censored or rewritten, but simply banned and burned. Book lovers will go to the woods, and everyone will write down a book, and they will become a living library. Orwell regards censorship as an integral part of totalitarianism, and this film is different from Orwell’s point of view, and we can also see some of its weaknesses. "Fahrenheit 451" was deprived of its political, predictive, and admonishing functions, as well as other types of oppression and different forms of systems and systems related to book burning. The entire film operates in the void. The advantage of this concept is that it can use book burning as an isolated and terrifying fantasy without any political context. The kind of movie we are familiar with conveys some kind of old-fashioned, politically admonishing message, and this concept makes this movie a more primitive and superficially complicated thing.
Of course, this kind of gimmicky depiction of empty life cannot convey the connotation and meaning of books: we cannot use a game-style shortcut to obtain the profound meaning of literature and wisdom. This understatement of science fiction script cannot arouse our creative thinking, and cannot allow us to understand what might happen if the book is deprived. Among the books burned are Poe’s "Mystery and Fantasy Tales" and Ray Bradbury's "The Chronicles of Mars." Bradbury also wrote "Fahrenheit 451." The original novel. This kind of decorative and slight conceit allows us to better understand the core conceit, emptiness and lack of this film. One of the book writers may finally have to dedicate his life to save a Ray Bradbury novel, which is enough to make this film a comedy. Our next move is to imagine these bastards we already know, and what works they will sacrifice their lives to save-"The Merry Family"? "The Old and the Earth Can't Be Affected by Love"? "Holy Robe Qianqiu"? "Adventurer"? "The Valley of Dolls"? We only need to imagine for a moment, we can discover how absurd this idea is. Because books make people think, it makes the authorities feel irritated and unhappy, so they have to burn all the books-why is all this? Many books do not make people think, and the printed matter itself does not pose a threat to totalitarianism. This concept of books seems to be fanciful, even somewhat like the idea of a librarian. Printed matter is as neutral as a TV screen. Therefore, we can go back to Orwell’s primitively attractive tricks, which are related to his way of looking at censorship and terror. However, the practice in this film reflects the power contained in this trick. I can swear that I heard people whispering in the cinema to discuss this meaningless interpretation of book burning. They think this interpretation Is shrewd. You might think that they have never read a book, but they are still willing to treat books as a magical thing. Of course, this is how the film teases them: it turns books—any books—into totems. For those educated audiences, this is one of the attractions of this trick, and the power may be more powerful than Some rational methods (for example, a more detailed discussion of the dangers that may be caused by the review) are more effective.
The burning of the book caused a kind of liberal hysteria, and the audience made some frightening associations: Hitler, McCarthy (who was the inspiration for the book published in 1953) and so on. A lady who teaches in Berkeley once visited me when she saw a book burning in the fireplace. She pointed to the book in a panic, and I explained that it was a book about the dirty life of a movie star, and it was written by someone else. I burned it based on environmental considerations, because The world is full of replicas of it. But she still said, "You shouldn't burn a book," and then she started to cry. It’s because of this reaction and also because we’re not burning books in a vacuum. We’re depriving people of their precious property, which will bring us away. A historical panic, we are not burning a few books, but burning the books as a whole. Frankenstein focuses on our most primitive fears, such as humans should not play God, of course, there are more complex anxiety, such as scientists may disturb the order of things; "Dowling Gray's Portrait" awakens our children The fear of the times, that is, the ugly and secret things we have done, may appear on our faces. Of course, it also deals with the more complicated fears—or jealousy—of those beautiful people. Get rid of the crime of murder, you can become ruthless and depraved, and none of this will appear on their innocent faces. The mediocre and narrow perspective of "Fahrenheit 451" will also bring our cognition back to the level of children. The characters in the film don't seem to be fully grown up, and their idea of how to preserve the books is very naive-just like in fairy tales. These book lovers use a childish perspective when thinking about how to keep literature alive. They don’t have a mature concept. They don’t know how to survive the existing literary tradition, how to write books, how to acquire knowledge from books, and even resist the country, but they can dedicate their lives for books—like playing a child’s game. That way. The literature in their eyes is like a library next door. In the end, book lovers have become a group of shy and harmless weirdos—that is, bookworms. Those American art movie audiences are more liberal than the wider public and love reading. For them, book burning can be said to be a near-perfect trick.
However, even on the level of science fiction horror stories, the film failed. I think part of the reason is that Truffau is too "artist" and he cannot take advantage of the vulgar possibilities in the material. He didn't provide us with rhythm, suspense, enough emotions and the noisy orgasm that followed. He is too tasteful, he will not do what a stale director might do. When the character of Oscar Vernell read his first book "David Copperfield," the director's approach was similar to that of Warner and MGM in the 1930s. If you can't imagine this, then how can his face become a proof of victory and show the glory of mankind's search for freedom in the dark? Well, this is a bit ridiculous at first, and others might do better than Ruffer-he did nothing after all. Truffau is very cautious and does not want to make himself too conspicuous, so the scenes in the film are not dramatic at all, so we have to figure it out for ourselves, to understand why Vernell enjoys the reading experience, because he has to enjoy it all the time. Go down. We will soon understand why he is so obsessed with books that he is willing to kill people for them. There is no doubt that there is clearly an adulterous love affair between Vernell and the girl who entices him to study. However, Truffaut did not provide any character relationships to help us define these roles. If he feels that it is wrong to provide too many descriptive passages when making this type of film, then he can at least give them enough action to define their role in the story, right? He asked Julie Christie to play the two roles of wife and female writer at the same time. This is a long-established movie cliché, and there is not much difference between the two roles. If she can't show her expressive power when she interprets the book girl, just like she interprets the stupid wife who doesn't read a book, then she will not be able to give us a deeper understanding of the meaning of books to human life. The language of this female scholar is monotonous. She did not show any curiosity or imagination. We can't see how books help her. Why can't she have some vivid features that echo the books? This way we can understand why Vernell had to respond to her suggestion and read a book. And should he also have something different? Only in this way can he prove that he is a heretical candidate. In this film, of course, some people who retain the breath of life are needed. Some people may say that people are actually unable to have the kind of life described in the book. If this is the case, then those who love books should have some "signs of life "NS. Shouldn't they say something different from others? Shouldn't they get more happiness from language? Wouldn't they betray themselves because of the language they use—and their love for the richness of language? The director wants to keep a low profile, which is good, but he had better do it more subtle. He can't just step back behind the scenes, as if he thinks it is vulgar to push the plot in one way or another. In this case, film criticism has become a rewrite of the film: we can usually see his original intentions, but we must ourselves give things enough meaning and connection. Therefore, when the film ends, we will start to talk about how we might make this film ourselves.
There is a little "touching" in the film: those who have no books will lose their memories, so they will have no past and history. They will be obsessed with the language of the past: the chief book burner (Cyril Cusack) is very witty, and he has found evidence of the meaninglessness of books from the resistance of the writers. However, these moving effects did not last long, because they were really not enough. This film is so listless that we see everything that those "fancy" thrillers lack-Truffaut gives us enough time to notice the inconsistencies in the film. People already know how to read: so why teach them? Why do those bookmakers hide libraries in towns instead of smuggling them into the woods? (Do they have a secret library where books can be borrowed?) Why should the protagonist show his guilt to his peers, if this matter will not cause any results? Why should there be hostility between Vernell and another firefighter (played by Anton Divren), who has never been a functional element in the film's structure? Why is it so easy to escape to the woods? The actions that appear in this film often have nothing to do with the subject. Well, if they are clever, then we can at least accept them. But they are not so. Of course, if the film has a rhythm, if it develops purposefully, if the emotion in it surprises us and arouses our interest, then all the loopholes in the plot can become holes or vents in the film. why not? It is true that this is Truffaut’s first film made in the studio, and also his first color film (slowing down the shooting speed and the shooting process has become more complicated), and it was produced in the UK, using British technicians use English as their working language (although Truffaut does not speak English). This way we can explain why the timing and word change of the dialogue in the film are not accurate, and why the script sounds like it was written by someone who has not read the book. In other words, he has been uprooted and parted ways with his former counterparts. The business environment made him a refugee, and he had to face schedule pressures in terms of shooting speed and efficiency. In the 1930s and 1940s, those European geniuses who entered Hollywood faced the same pressure. Therefore, we may no longer be able to expect the spontaneity in "Shoot the Pianist" and "Zu Yu Zhan". And romantic sex too. But can't we at least see a little bit of aura? Truffau wants to make "Fahrenheit 451": Even if we can understand the language and technical barriers, why Why can't his films be more imaginative? Why did his thinking become so boring? Why have the characters become so boring, and their situation has become so mediocre and awkward? Why is the film so incomplete? The guess I can provide is that because of Truffau’s adoration of Alfred Hitchcock, it has betrayed its own talent-his talent is to show the richness of life, and for him he has become The successor to the greatest French director, Jean Renoir, was a logical thing. However, on Hitchcock’s commercial throne, he became a damn fake—his passion and sensitivity will hinder him from sitting on the throne (Roman Polanski and dozens of other directors will He arrived on the throne before). Truffaut cannot use Hitchcock's techniques because they are designed for something that is strictly controlled and subject to a large number of restrictions, and they are designed to force the audience to respond (and, of course, they must also be enjoyed by the audience). Hitchcock is the master of a miniature field: even his interesting perverted ideas are only two-dimensional or three-dimensional. And Truffaut's talent does not lie in constructing a small artificial world around some trick-like plots. What he is good at is to open up this huge world, to make his movies in a relaxed, tolerant, free and easy-going situation.
View more about Fahrenheit 451 reviews
