The film cuts into the final journey of Toon’s life from the perspective of an aspiring young man, Valentin Bulgakov. Under the recommendation of Tolstoy’s best friend Vladimir Chalkov, he became Thors. Tai's secretary. The beginning of the film is full of literary and artistic atmosphere, but the background is explained very simply. The opening is a dialogue about "Tolstoyism", which explains the stage and background of Toon’s thoughts. At the same time, Charkov The disrespectful mention of Mrs. Tolstoy Sofia and the instruction to ask Bulgakov to report on her movements, and also accounted for the oppositional relationship between him and Sofia, which achieved a fascinating opening effect. Bulgakov soon came to a utopian world of "Tolstoyism". Like any utopian world, he always looked alive when he first entered it, a beautiful scene of detachment from the world, and he also watched it at the same time. When I reach a beautiful girl, my love grows deeper. However, soon, the film showed Tolstoy’s fragility in the world in his later years from a romantic perspective. In this place where abstinence was advocated, Bulgakov couldn’t bear his sweetheart teasing and quickly presented it. He was a virgin body, and he began to be reserved. After the first time, he couldn’t wait to continue. It also verified the words of Tolstoy’s best friend at the opening, “You are only twenty-three years old, and abstinence is not for this age. Easy, isn't it?".
If Bulgakov's "violation of faith" is a romance of pure love, then the atmosphere of conspiracy and struggle pervading the village makes this utopian world look less beautiful. As the propagator and implementer of "Tolstoyism", Vladimir Chalkov is portrayed in the film as a character with a deep city government and a conspiracy character. He determined the will as soon as possible, dedicated all his property to the cause of "Tolstoyism" after his death, and got the support of Tolstoy's daughter, and of course he also had the help of many colleagues. Against this background, Sophia’s situation is a bit helpless. In the life I have read about Tolstoy in the past, the reason for Tolstoy's departure in his later years was attributed to this woman to a considerable extent, as if it were An old man, unable to bear the endless nagging of his wife, would rather run away from home. In terms of hindsight, the story created by the "Tolstoy" career with a large number of believers obviously occupied a higher dissemination position than the story of the lonely Sophia, and can quickly establish Tolstoy's willingness to invest his wealth in his later years. The "stalwart image" among the common people gave "Tolstoyism" legitimacy and natural inheritance of Tolstoy. In contrast, an old woman who prevents such a "noble cause" all day and keeps property for the family is not so cute. She is rendered more like a selfish miser and a stumbling block to human progress. This is not equal. The spread of information made it more difficult for us to understand Tolstoy’s life in his later years.
In this movie, Sofia is interpreted in a more three-dimensional way. It can be said that she is the real protagonist of this movie. The director did not continue to pour dirty water on her, nor did she overdo it to make her look like an angel, so what we see in the film is a sensitive woman, but also a woman who deeply loves her husband. As the mistress of the family, when her husband has actually devoted herself to the soul business and regardless of secular affairs, she has a natural vigilance for safeguarding family interests. In her eyes, there are too many villains who spy on her husband’s property, and Charkov Is one of the representatives. She is also an ordinary woman. We cannot ask a woman to be selfless because she is the wife of an extraordinary great man. Therefore, she cares about her husband’s body and expects her husband’s attention and tenderness. It’s normal. I ask, what’s wrong with a wife expecting her husband to love herself more? The conflict is precisely that Charkov and the “Tolstoy” executors he represents not only want to take away her husband’s money, but also take away her husband’s love and attention, and this is probably the biggest thing for Sophia. harm. When fighting for wind and jealousy, what often fights is attention, which is the kind of emotional being cared for, but what makes people helpless is that this is something that eager fights cannot seize. The anxious contradiction shown in this film is also here. Sophia hopes that Tolstoy will give him more attention and love, but such struggles keep pushing her husband away from him, and then Sophia cries again and again. A woman's instinctive hysteria wanted to redeem it, but it made her husband farther away in irritability and confusion.
When Sophia cried out for her husband to love her and care about family interests; when Charkov asked his friends to sign a will quickly with human righteousness and soft coercion, it was Tolstoy himself who suffered the most. He seems to be the central figure in this fight and the object of flattery, but in fact he is the weakest member. He is torn apart by people who "care" about him from their own angles at the same time. He is almost in the spirit. Tranced and exhausted, he signed the will, which to him is more like a personal relief than a testament to the future. His departure is permeating his inner fatigue and helplessness. At a station, he quietly consumed the last energy of his life in a serious illness, but looked forward to seeing his wife again. From the film, we can see that this last wish is all Obstructed in every possible way, at this time he has become a symbol waiting to be admired by the people, rather than a poor old man who can grasp his last wish.
I really like the way this movie is expressed. It gives a popular plot and interpretation, but it is presented in a literary and deep form, achieving the effect of experiencing the artistic conception in a plot full of reality and sense of substitution. Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren show us that the Tolstoys were intertwined with love and resentment in the last stage of their lives, but with inseparable feelings of dependence, whether it was the powerlessness of Christopher Plummer. , Or Helen Mirren’s helplessness, are all moving. The ending of this film is also intriguing to me. When Tolstoy’s life fire extinguished, Bulgakov also chose to part ways with Charkov. You can hardly say that Charkov was really selfish. People, or people who do not have the noble sentiments of the career he claims, but Bulgakov is more willing to give up the faith that has been branded by Charkov, which may hurt his nature and love, so in Tolstoy At the last stop, Bulgakov reunited with his lover and hugged each other, but their lives had just begun a new journey, taking steps to explore and love.
http://hi.baidu.com/doglovecat/blog/item/00c79cca0598668bc8176852.html
View more about The Last Station reviews
