However, its concept is still interesting.
Regarding this story, there are two perspectives of interpretation, fertility and life.
If you are from the perspective of fertility, then undoubtedly, it seems to have become a bad movie about class, rich and poor. For example, rich people have the right to reproduce.
Pascal Laugier didn't need to make a big fanfare at all, and then re-turn this old ruined mortar again.
But it is precisely because of this kind of morality that has been around for a long time that many people have preconceived a one-sided interpretation of this film.
However, don't forget that the film actually has four protagonists, and the narrator of the story is not Juliet, but the dumb woman.
The perspective of this film belongs neither to Juliet nor to the biological mothers; it belongs to the children.
A person gives birth, reproduces his own genes, and dismisses his loneliness. The beneficiaries are her and his spouse; accordingly, he needs to take care of the child in exchange for these benefits. However, how many people only enjoy the benefits one-sidedly; under the banner of "reproductive rights", young individuals are deprived of their right to decide their own destiny.
The power of a person to decide to give birth or to raise "another" life, and the power of a person to decide his own life, are in conflict with each other from the very beginning. And social morality, to a large extent, only tends to maintain the former. The director wants to question this kind of moral hegemony through the child's perspective.
In the film, the little boy's attitude towards his fertility and caregivers is undoubtedly neutral. He trusted Juliet and took the initiative to embrace his mother; he obeyed his mother's instructions and trapped Juliet, and felt sorry for what happened to Juliet; but after he was placed in the third home, he seemed to forget his biological mother and Julie. Ya.
The birth mother and Juliet are different from each other. The birth mother denounced Juliet for “brainwashing the child so that the child would forget his mother”. But what did she do? She beat Juliet in front of the child and told the child that Juliet was a demon. Isn't this another kind of brainwashing? After seeing her child living happily in Juliet's house, she still chose to take him back. Is this for the sake of the child or for her own benefit? In her great oath of "willing to do everything possible to give to her children", is it for her children's interests or her own interests? She questioned that Juliet had never been a mother and did not understand her mother's feelings. However, does a mother understand the child's feelings? After all, it's just doing one's own selfishness in the name of love.
Juliet firmly believes that there is no hope for a child to follow this mother; the sacrifice of subjective will has no practical significance. But she saw that the child was not disgusted with her biological mother, and after she rejected her separation from her biological mother, she still insisted on sending him out. Is this really the best decision for the little boy? At the end of the film, the mumbling of the dumb girl shows that this is a question that "others" cannot answer.
In this debate on the "others" of reproductive rights and parenting rights, only the little boy himself is aphasia.
There is a word in philosophy called the Facticity. Everyone's birth and environment are actually an individual's very helpless and passive situation. Those who can determine the "the Factiticity" of others should be like walking on thin ice and carrying a heavy burden. This heaviness is not only in considering whether a good environment can be provided for this new life, but also in being extremely cautious to "replace" this new life hypothesis, is he "willing" to be born?
But in fact, just from the audience's reaction, how many people have paid attention to this issue?
In the movie, the narration also clearly illustrates this point. That small town is not only material poverty, not only spiritual deprivation, but more importantly, it has too many "unwelcome lives".
Why is that dumb girl angry? Because, she knew that another life like her had been created irresponsibly; and this life itself was almost powerless to decide how to decide her own destiny.
No one listens to the voice of children; they are kidnapped by various ethics and aphasia in the conflict of interests of "adults"-those who are passively or actively giving birth, and those who are incompetent or powerful to nurture.
Obviously, whether the rich have the right to reproduce or whether everyone is equal before giving birth is not the core topic of the film. Like the little boy, in the mute girl's narrative, his "three mothers" have no distinction of status. And the mute woman suddenly spoke. This completely illogical change is a clear indication. The voice is an unmistakable symbol of the right to speak. This clearly implies that she was deprived of the right to speak, only then. Be controlled by yourself.
The film was misunderstood and underestimated, but once again, this world, like that symbolic town, has too many lives. Under the great banner of "human reproduction", they continue to be born and silently Aphasia and being determined; no matter whether they are poor or low, they cannot escape the fate of "aphasia".
View more about The Tall Man reviews
