7.4
Among the 1940s genre films, this one should be the most remake at this point in time. What I envisioned is that the director of the 93rd Academy winner moved into the van and started to travel west from Nevada to explore what kind of movie the modern nomads at the bottom look forward to—it’s not "Thor 3", right?
I totally think it was a tragedy in the end, but I think it is extremely accurate. Why? Parallax creates barriers between classes, so no one can solve the problem in the end. From Sullivan's perspective, it is precisely because there is no image to reflect the plight of the bottom of the society, he has set this goal in his mind. He chose the most instinctive path, but the most problematic path. On the one hand, the lack of life of the "American working class" as the subject of realist themed art has caused them not to pay attention to related works, or even to pay no attention to (no interest, energy, or ability to understand) related social issues; On the other hand, if their spiritual life is limited to "laughing", then the real problem of realism will be difficult to solve. From the perspective of the poor, they do not have the right observation distance, so that they have no time to serve as observers while being observing targets. The real poverty, hunger and death around them are ignored because they are too common. . The real problem is their sense of scarcity. Once they have seen enough cats and mice, they might not be satisfied with it, right?
Sullivan’s journey has concealed the sorrow of abandoning the original concept of shooting with a comedy of resurrection. Are realist movies really intellectual pornography or spiritual push-ups? I don't think so. It is still important to increase the perspective of the record, and it is still important to increase the discourse of the narrative, and it is certainly better to form an opinion. To take a step back, even if realist works of art are really useless, the shooting choice should not be an either-or choice between "pure entertainment" and "cynic". Hollywood is by no means either only shooting "bourgeois pornography". , Or just shoot "proletarian porn", it should be used as a strip of spectrum, or color circle.
Therefore, the most ferocious irony in the film is that of Hollywood directors like Sullivan who are genuine and contrived on the surface. Throughout the film, he has never really blended with the people at the bottom, even sitting in front of the screen that shows Disney movies. He is just trying to pursue a false resonance. He will give money to the tramp with a sense of superiority. He will pretend to laugh with the audience thoroughly, and easily change his claimed "ideal" without thinking after returning. The real destiny exists in the space. No matter how hard he tries to "become" a tramp, he will eventually be forced to return to Hollywood and Beverly. The invisible wall is the most terrifying. "Oh, brother, where are you"? Give me a break.
Regardless of whether the director Preston Sturges intends to create such depth, I admire the fact that Hollywood genres began to reflect on the Hollywood genres when they first appeared, and the award-winning movies of the current era are too neat. Standardized. Oh, I'm not talking about "XXXX"!
View more about Sullivan's Travels reviews
