I heard that the box office suffered a fiasco that year.
I have probably watched this movie 3 times (or more than that). Even if it is the last time I watch it, it will still be replaced by the pain and fear of the hero "never see you again".
Obviously there is a logical loophole in the script that does not go back, but the sense of emotional substitution is extremely strong.
It was this film that made me reflect on what the "art work" really wanted to express.
I always thought that the essence of "art work" is to tell a story, and novels, movies, and even games are actually the same thing.
Therefore, to complete any successful work of art, the work of the artists is actually to rack their brains to tell a story completely, wonderfully, and touchingly (in a broad sense).
The medium of storytelling can be diversified: text, graphics, audio and video, other multimedia... these are not a matter of principle.
I originally thought so.
…
This idea is actually flawed. Of course, this loophole was not discovered suddenly after I watched this movie. I have long realized that this theory has some flaws that cannot be explained:
For example, in avant-garde art paintings, the paintings are completely incomprehensible. If he is telling a story, what is he telling?
For another example, as an independent work of art, "music" is not necessarily narrative. Therefore, music cannot be included in the theoretical framework of "everything is storytelling."
It seems that using the word "storytelling" to summarize the essential core of all works of art is still not concise enough. I have also been thinking about whether I can go beyond "storytelling" and get closer to the basic words.
As I pondered the unreasonable sad experience that this movie brought to me like a bandit, I suddenly figured out this question:
A more essential word than "story" is "emotion."
This connects everything in series:
You think stories in various media are good-looking, because the story becomes a rich and long-lasting emotion after being digested by you.
You feel that avant-garde art paintings are completely incomprehensible and indescribable, because they use graphics and light and shadow to guide you to experience a kind of personalized emotions "different from oneself", but you can’t express it in words. In fact, you don’t need to express it, just feel it. The current emotion is enough;
You think the music is pleasing to the ears, but you can’t tell where it sounds good (of course, you can analyze it technically, but you can’t understand why it’s pleasing to the ears), because the music expresses to you something that resonates with you. mood;
On the contrary, you think the noise is unpleasant. If the noise is displayed in an art museum, it is also a kind of reverse art, and it can also convey emotions;
Do you think "Seventy Years Back in Time" is logically shit, but it substitutes the protagonist’s despair and sadness for no reason. It’s because the final outburst directly penetrated the entire narrative, making "emotions" in "the audience hasn't had time to figure it out." "Before considering the whole story", it came violently in advance.
As for any form of art, the richness of "emotions" that one can receive depends entirely on the richness of one's life experience. The so-called "one thousand readers, one thousand Hamlet", no one in the world will A work produces exactly the same emotions, but a good artist will at least convey the emotions common to humans accurately and vividly.
Of course, I guess that the people who wrote and directed the movie didn't think so much at the time, and they just finished it as they liked. On the whole, although the logic of this movie is more brutal, the effect is unexpectedly breathtaking and memorable. Recommended.
View more about Somewhere in Time reviews
