The story of "American Animals" is very simple. It can be summed up in one sentence, that is, "four American middle-aged and second-year young men robbed the library of the University of Kentucky and were eventually arrested." We often see similar stories in large and small legal programs and people’s livelihood news.
The director uses a semi-documentary approach to tell the story. The film is roughly divided into two parts: character interviews and scene reappearance. In the character interview part, the director found the four young men who robbed the library back then. Of course, after a long time, they are now middle-aged. Borrowing the mouths of the four of them, I restored the whole picture of the "library robbery" back then and told about my own mental journey. The director also invited the librarian who was kidnapped that year, as well as the parents and teachers of four young people, to make an external evaluation of the robbery and their children and students. In the scene reproduction part, the entire process of the event is visually restored through the performances of actors such as Evan Peters and Barry Keogan. The character interview paragraphs and the scene reproduction paragraphs intersect each other, and the plot of the movie advances in the midst of narration and discussion.
one
"Change" is the main issue discussed in the film.
Spencer, a young man who loves painting, faced the interviewer's question "As a painter, what kind of person are you?", he was speechless.
He has a perfect family, his father is an engineer, his mother is a housewife, and his parents have a harmonious relationship. He has entered the university smoothly and has a bright future. He believes that this kind of life that cannot find any shortcomings has stagnated his art path, because he can't find the meaning of art or the meaning of life.
He is eager to change. The reason mainly comes from the following two aspects.
On the one hand, by reading the materials of artists such as Van Gogh and Monet, he found that disasters in life have shaped them into painting giants, and he is eager to experience a similar life. On the other hand, the restlessness and irrationality of adolescence convinced him that he is unique and that there is something waiting to happen that makes his life meaningful.
The film does not directly show us Spencer's picture album. All we can see are the two self-portraits of Spencer at the beginning and the end, as well as the library drawings and some small models he drew in order to implement the crime plan. Unlike Van Gogh or Monet's self-portraits, Spencer's self-portraits are expressionless, hollow, and even without color. This is exactly the portrayal of his heart: no matter before and after the crime, he has not found the answer.
The train of life did not go to the exit of light, but turned sharply and crashed into the trapped quagmire, until he saw the suffocating reality-he was just a mediocre person. Spencer's imitation of Van Gogh, Monet, and Audubon is just a ridiculous parody in form.
Sports student Warren's desire for change stems from disappointment in life and depression of meaninglessness.
On the face of it, Warren is a middle-second young man: he has wild and long hair; he has a funny tattoo with "a Tyrannosaurus rex wants to turn off the fan" on his body; he goes to the warehouse to steal food and is called "save the food." ; Learn to robbery by watching "Hitman" and "Falling Dog"; I want to be a person like Shawshank and bring his wealth to end his life on a boat in the Caribbean.
We will equate him with a lunatic who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality.
But Warren has a seemingly deeper understanding of life than Spencer, and he often acts as Spencer's life mentor in movies. When Spencer wanted to join the fraternity, he told Spencer, "Go to his fraternity. The reason for letting you into the fraternity is that one day you will walk into an office that you never want to enter and meet someone you never want. People you meet, hold the expectation that he can give you a job you never want to do." When Spencer wanted to give up the plan, he asked Spencer, "Which'future' are you worried about? That's it. The "future" that is no different from other people? In that future, you are so busy to get the shit that others tell you you should get? And those idiots will tell you that once you get it, you will be very successful ?"
Warren's childish demeanor contrasted with his utterly pale and funny. His principle is not from his heart after a long battle, but a psychological cover for escaping from life. He has worked hard to enter the sports team since he was five years old, but he doesn't know the meaning of all this. His father told him this life creed: Those who give up can't win, and those who win don't give up.
We can foresee that Warren's life is like being wound by his father, always striving to "win". But "winning" doesn't make sense. Winning this game and the next one is like a hamster that runs forever on wheels, back and forth.
This also explains why Warren is so concerned about "robbing". He was disappointed in everything, disappointed in the divorce of his parents, disappointed in the established path of life, and disappointed in the place of life. "Snatching the book" was a ray of light, which made him think that the trajectory of his life would be different from then on. It is a pity that the light is too strong, making him blur the bottom line of morality and conscience.
two
The director is pessimistic about this "change".
From the character point of view, although Spencer is the one who initiated the robbery, he is the most passive in the entire criminal team. His attitude towards "change" is ambiguous and contradictory.
He proposed this idea to Warren the night before, and the next day he repented and persuaded Warren to face the reality. But Warren preached a little, and he got on the thief ship with half pushing. When Warren was going to the Netherlands to meet a buyer, he persuaded Warren to face the reality, but he was still sent to the airport on time the next day. When the first robbery failed and Warren was preparing for the second robbery, he told Warren face to face that he was going to give up, but then he still participated in the second robbery.
On the one hand, "change" tempts Spencer, as if he can prove his life-saving straw, so he hopes that the crime plan can proceed smoothly. On the other hand, he has many worries. Factors such as family, academics, future, morals, and rationality have turned into a counter-force, desperately pulling him back to the right track of life, so he hopes that insurmountable obstacles will appear in the implementation of the plan. This sense of tearing made him confused and painful.
We can see that Spencer was almost pushed away by Warren, and he didn't know much about the whole process: Warren was absent-minded when setting up the task; during the two robberies, he was only in charge of the lookout; the first time After the failed robbery, he felt better than ever.
Although Spencer has repeatedly advised Warren to face the reality, he himself is not willing to accept this meaningless reality. So he had so many opportunities to stop all of this from happening, but he still let things develop in a worse direction. Personality decided that Spencer could only be a bystander watching the fire from the shore. No matter how strong his desire, he did not dare to go beyond the thunder pond too much. He could only watch the flamingo that symbolized his dream disappear into the dark night. From this level, Spencer is like the epitome of most young people who are confused and unable to change reality.
And Warren is an actor. Although he does not admit that he is a leader, he is indeed the core of this four-person gang. He has an almost paranoid yearning for his attitude towards "robbing". He doesn't have the painting skills of Spencer, the meticulous thinking of Bossak, and the financial resources of Chase. What he has is lofty ambition and fearlessness.
He made Spencer change his mind time and time again, actively learning how to robbery, proactively contacting buyers, proactively forming a team, and planning a second robbery after one failed robbery. Without him, things wouldn't happen at all. Every action he takes (including absenteeism) is a struggle against life and oppression from the adult world.
Warren seems to have the initiative in everything, but when things are moving in his unpredictable direction, he still shows the real side-stupid and cowardly. He promised to "kill" the librarian by himself, but he deceived Bossack to help him. In the process of transporting the Atlas of Birds of the Americas out of the library, he became hysterical because of the lack of strict planning and the various conditions. Full of swear words; finally vomiting nervously into Chase's car.
Warren has never been able to change this disappointing reality. Before being arrested, he robbed a book in the supermarket and yelled at the guards who came after him: "Are you the fucking capable?" I think this is more like a self-swearing, which means that it is true to reality. Give in, be harsh on one's own incompetence.
As for Bossac and Chas, their idea of participation may be similar to that of Spencer, expecting something to happen to prove their difference. But the unsteady conviction and the divided team spirit provided a footnote for this doomed robbery.
At the end of the film, the four real-life protagonists face the camera and bow their heads in silence. They have paid a heavy price for the madness of the year-they wasted the best youth in their lives in prison. They have resisted the day-to-day life, and life also gave them a resounding slap in the face.
In the interview, Warren said: "You have always been taught this: What you do is important, you are different. And you can always point out some things that can show that you are different. You are different from everyone else. But in fact, these things are not important at all, and you are nothing special."
three
The movie also shows us an interesting phenomenon: the uncertainty of human memory.
When Spencer and Warren first joined the "Fence" men on the street, the memory of this best friend had a disagreement: Spencer recalled that the person was a man wearing a blue or purple scarf and a ponytail. Middle-aged man, and Warren recalled that the man was a well-dressed old man in his fifties. At the end of the movie, Spencer denied the previous memories. He was not sure whether he had seen the man wearing the scarf with his own eyes, nor could he confirm whether Warren had actually been to Amsterdam.
Similar situations have appeared many times throughout the film. For example, who on earth was Rachas into the group? Warren thought it was Bosak, and Bosak thought it was Warren. For another example, Chas suspected that Warren's visit to the buyer did not exist at all, and Warren had fabricated it. This kind of uncertainty even makes the audience wonder whether the truth of the matter is as it is as they see it.
This is a normal human physiological activity, but it is also a kind of cunning of the director.
There are many logical loopholes in the movie, such as why disguise is not used for the second robbery (Warren explained that this can avoid attracting unnecessary attention, but wouldn't it be easier to be caught by the police without pretense?) For example, as a student at the University of Kentucky, I didn’t even know that there was no exit on the B floor of the library. Most of the loopholes can be understood as the stupidity of the four little boys who have no criminal experience, but there is a big loophole in the latter part of the movie that is unconvincing.
It stands to reason that the library with a large number of valuable books should be a forbidden area full of surveillance cameras. Warren and Bosak had such a fierce physical conflict with the administrator in the library. After kidnapping the administrator, the two were delayed for a long time because they could not find the key. Before leaving, Warren still Smashed the glass and snatched Darwin's writings. When we watched this passage, although we sweated for the two of them, the tension mainly came from the shaking hand-held photography and the fright of the two of Wobo themselves, but there was no source of external pressure—the alarm did not sound. , The guards were not dispatched. The two transported the library out of the library.
Four people robbed them openly without any disguise. Two of them were students from the University of Kentucky. Recognizing the four of them should be a breeze. In follow-up news reports, we saw that the police did not confirm their identities. The four not only went to New York to sell the stolen goods grandiosely, Spencer even went back to the school to live. The event finally came to light because Warren used the same email address to book the library and contact the buyer.
Did all this go smoothly?
There is a possibility that the security system of the University of Kentucky and the local police collective IQ are offline, and another possibility is that the following things are not like this. I prefer the latter.
Let's go back to the beginning of the story. After Spencer told Warren about the idea of robbing the library, the director arranged such a scene: Warren parked his car in front of the supermarket and Spencer went in to buy things. At this time, the real Warren actually sat next to the actor who played Warren. The actor asked Warren: "Did you remember this way?" Warren said: "It's not the same. If Spencer's memory is like this If it does, then let’s see how it develops.” This sentence is like a signal, telling the audience that the following things grew out of Spencer’s memories and mixed with the memories of Warren, Bosak, and Chas. Half-false, half-truth, no one can tell.
The whole movie is like Rashomon. If you switch to the main perspective of Warren, Bosac or Chas, you will get a different version. The uncertainty of memory not only provides a reasonable explanation for many bugs in the movie, but also increases the fun of watching movies.
Four
When the movie was about to end, the librarian who was kidnapped came out to speak. After so many years, she has forgiven four people. She commented that they are selfish, unwilling to make solid efforts to change their lives, and unwilling to change their lives by helping others. This is the interpretation of the word "change" in the adult world. But this comment often doesn't work in the youth dictionary.
Many people ridiculed them as "idiots" and "beasts", but I think the director's attitude is not like that. His purpose in making this film is not purely satire.
They were just a group of American animals who wanted to prove that they were not mediocre. We can see that they are not bad in nature, but they do not fully understand the laws of the adult world, and their animality has not been completely restricted by the rules and bottom line of the adult world. They are in a period of self-recognition, and they don’t know how life is. What's the meaning, what's the way out in the future. "Robbery" is the most offensive thing they can do within their cognitive range. It is a process of trial and error and compromise for them to enter the adult world.
Welcome to follow the personal public account "Sea Cat Canteen iSeaCat", and update film reviews from time to time.
View more about American Animals reviews
