What I saw before just turned to the film reviews about this movie and I don’t think I can agree with it, so I want to review it myself
(⚠️Spoiler warning, recommended to eat after watching the movie
(Besides, I don’t know how to read this one before I watched the movie.
Serenity, I think it’s better to translate it as "serenity" than "sounding waves". Because this film is about a child in a family where his father is violent, looking for inner peace.
At the beginning, Patrick’s eyes cut into the world of Plymouth Island. It is just a game with the entire island mentioned later in the film, echoing a world imagined by Patrick.
There is a scene in the film where the father (I forgot to call it, he is the male lead) (I will say that the father is the male lead, and the other will call him stepfather) wakes up with a pool of water on the table, and then wipes it off with his hands. Synchronizing with the son of Patrick, this shows that the father is the incarnation of the son in the fantasy world, and the father is the son.
The "justice" tuna in it, I don't think it is the "idea of killing a violent stepfather to get justice" as mentioned in many comments, on the contrary, it is something that suppresses the urge to kill him. It refers to legal justice, which cannot satisfy Patrick's impulse to discipline his stepfather.
First of all, I remember that there was a line "If I don’t fish, I’ll kill you." Patrick's statement when stepfather asked Patrick why he was fishing all day). This shows that fishing keeps him away from the idea of killing and helps him escape the idea. Fishing and the urge to kill are not the same thing.
And after the male protagonist wanted to kill, there have been NPCs to obstruct the male protagonist, so that he "go catch fish, don't kill."
Among them, "Mr. Rule" also gave the male protagonist a fish finder, so that he can accurately locate the "justice" tuna, but the male protagonist felt that it was boring to locate it, and it was better to be unknown.
"Mr. Rule" is the "little angel" in Patrick's mind that persuades him to "be good". This "Mr. Angel" is Patrick's morality. He knows what to do and what not to do, and he knows to punish others by relying on Of justice of the law. The fish finder he gave was a legal procedure. By following the formal legal procedure, justice can be sought, and Patrick does not have to kill.
The male protagonist refused.
I think this is because Patrick (previously said that the male protagonist is the incarnation of Patrick in the fantasy world, they are the same person) knows that going through formal "justice" (legal procedures) will not bring the results he wants. He is running away. Moreover, he has been catching "righteous" tuna, but he has been unable to catch it. People in the small town always said that he was catching "tuna in his head", indicating that he wanted to sanction his stepfather through formal channels, but he didn't want to let him. He ended up very well. Because the existing laws cannot give the stepfather the punishment he deserves (or the punishment that suits Patrick's will), but the punishment that fits Patrick's will (should be his death) cannot be achieved through legal justice, but his sense of morality makes He felt guilty and uneasy about not going through the legal process, so what he wanted to find was a way to put his stepfather to death without violating the law and justice (just tuna) which does not exist, so it is called "the tuna in the brain" .
Plymouth Island is an island where everyone knows everything, that is to say, everyone in it is Patrick, at least a certain part of Patrick. If the male protagonist is the representative of Patrick's most mainstream and strongest consciousness and ideas, and the part that is ultimately put into action, other NPCs are the incarnations of Patrick's more tributary, more difficult to realize, and subconscious ideas. Before thinking of this, I felt incomprehensible when I looked at the inconsistencies in the words, deeds and thoughts of the NPCs inside. From this perspective, their inconsistencies were actually the fighting between Patrick’s own subconscious tributaries and how to persuade his "action self". Tangled and repeated.
He was still upset when he finally decided to kill, and he didn't fully convince himself.
If I remember correctly, the NPCs in the town still don't seem to agree with him to kill. Even if he agrees, there is still evidence that he is uneasy. (After watching for a while, I can't remember some details)
When he was about to kill, Lucky (a child) suddenly ran out. The male lead was startled and asked him to avoid it. When the hostess said that she wanted to seal Lucky money, she said that she couldn't do this to the child. He deliberately talked to Lucky when he was killing, and seemed very natural, acting like "It's all my stepfather who wants this rod, it's none of my business." Trying to make Lucky think that this is what the stepfather wants, not that the hero wants to kill.
This actually showed that he was still suffering after killing. He didn't fully accept the idea that he could kill like this, even though the little angel "Mr. Rule" had disappeared. ("Mr. Rules" found the male protagonist at the beach and talked to him. "Mr. Rules" said that your inner desire is the rule. Everything in the camera, he disappeared out of thin air. The male protagonist is talking to the air. The male protagonist is determined to After the murder, "Mr. Rule" only had one shoe he wore, which was photographed on the beach and rolled into the waves.
Patrick was upset about his final killing from the idea to the implementation. But his idea of killing has never faded. Only intensified.
This film shows the psychology of a son who grew up in a (reorganized) family where his father was abused and his mother was weak and unable to resist. (The reorganization is bracketed because most of the mental activities can be established without reorganizing the family, and only a small part depends on it)
He blames his mother (obviously you can leave, you can leave with Patrick, but you don’t do it), he has love for his mother, and he has sympathy for her that is suppressed by blaming her, beautifies his dead father, and treats the original. The illusion of a beautiful love between parents, the belief that oneself should take the "father's responsibility" to protect the mother and himself, and the hatred of the abusive stepfather, loneliness, and the use of laws that cannot truly protect the safety of himself and his mother. ......
This film uses many symbols and metaphors (maybe inaccurate words, I am unprofessional, I know what I mean) to express its connotation. The "psychology" mentioned above is mentioned in the film (at least I think so). I think there should be others, some that I can't remember, and some that I haven't seen.
I can't remember the feeling of watching this film at the time, I just remember watching it at Hathaway, neither amazing nor boring. After I finished writing this film review, I didn't seem to think of anything that I wanted to complain about, so I would rate it four stars.
View more about Serenity reviews
