The film actually describes the dilemma of the mine.
We've all heard a story like that: a few miners were trapped in a collapsed mine, and rescuers could not clear the falling rocks in time, and they would starve to death due to lack of food. The miners finally made a decision: use a lottery to select a person, sacrifice him to become everyone's food, and let most people survive. I don't know if this story is true, but it has indeed become a tortured question of human nature and even civilization: how do we judge the behavior of these people? There seems to be only one answer: selfishness. Because the selected person was actually killed by others with a high probability and was forced to accept this fate.
The film was created on such a basis: there is an extra stowaway on the spaceship flying to Mars with three people, because there are only three people on board the oxygen, the extra person will kill everyone, what should I do? ?
If this is a math problem, it is very simple, kill one person and complete the other three. It's just a matter of counting big numbers and small numbers, right? What's more, the extra person was originally an unplanned person, and he even had to bear some responsibility for this predicament.
But the question is, if you really think of this problem as a math problem, is it still a human being? In other words, if you really take this question as a right or wrong question, is it still a human being?
If you can easily get the answer to the above question, you can only explain one thing: you just watch this film as an entertainment film, just watch it for fun.
If it's really a pleasure, there is nothing wrong with it, but please, don't talk about the "white left" or "deified humanism" tune.
If it wasn't for fun, what would you do? Will you kill that person? Can you make it?
This film is so brilliant that it uses a clever plot design to circumvent this contradiction for humanity.
If the film is a clichéd movie showing dark human nature, it will of course make three people decide to kill the stowaway. There is no problem. This is very realistic and not wrong. This is likely to happen in the real world. But in this way, it will show an extremely narrow and selfish human world. Although this human world is real, it is meaningless. It doesn't make sense for civilization.
What civilization is, narrowly speaking, is altruism. It is to make people jump out of the small circle of self and care about others and the public. And if a film emphasizes the correctness of darkness and selfishness, it is true but contrary to the meaning of civilization.
So this film sets up an ingenious link that allows the protagonists to avoid narrow humanity and show noble humanity. This link is choice: the film provides a way to solve the dilemma without killing the smugglers— -Let two astronauts venture to climb to the Kingfisher to get liquid oxygen, so that there will be extra oxygen to supplement the four people. Therefore, we see: As long as there is a line of choice, people will not kill their own kind, and people will take risks for others. This is altruism.
But then the plan failed: they lost their supplemental oxygen because of the solar storm. At this time they faced another choice. One of them had to replenish another tank of oxygen, but this time was different from last time. He had to withstand the solar storm's radiation, and he was mortal.
In fact, at this time, the most reasonable arrangement is for the stowaway to supplement, but this way the film loses its meaning: the stowaway failed to replenish the oxygen and died. He deserves it because he is a stowaway. In this case He has the responsibility; but when he succeeds, he will atone for his sins—he should.
So the film didn't ask him to replenish the tank of oxygen. The reason was that it was laid right from the beginning-he was originally a ground crew and had no professional training, so he couldn't do this.
So this risky matter can only be chosen by the other three people. This is actually another clever design: Contrary to the last time, this time the film gives people no choice-only one of the three can be sacrificed. So we see another noble manifestation of human nature: since they must die, some people will actively sacrifice themselves in order to let their companions live.
Of course, in order to show such noble humanity, the film avoids the cruelest situation in the plot: a situation where there is no choice but to kill the smugglers. So you might think the film is fake, but is it really? Whenever there is a choice, people will always choose a better human nature. Is this fake?
Just now I said that civilization is altruistic narrowly, but what about broadly speaking? In fact, it is a choice, so that each of us can make a better choice. From this point of view, the interpretation of this film is excellent.
View more about Stowaway reviews
