Of course, if he did not like "Sullivan's Travel" in the protagonist as an opening to ask: "How now labor situation?"
Sullivan as progressives intellectuals Hollywood, Hollywood tries to fight the market system: the original film comedy After changing to a film that reflects social reality and educates the public, he was ridiculed by the producer who said he had no social experience, and pointed out that comedy only makes money, so he chose to experience the low-level society himself out of anger. This resistance was brought up again until the end of the film: Sullivan’s experience became national news, so the producer wanted him to shoot social themes, but Sullivan turned and wanted to make comedies because he felt that comedy was an ordinary audience. want. It seems that the roles are interchanged, but the inner motivation remains unchanged: the starting point of one side is the market, and the starting point of the other side is the masses, and the confrontational relationship between the two continues to extend at the end of the film.
But this kind of antagonism looks like a playhouse in front of the differences between classes (here represented as Hollywood and the bottom society), just like the protagonist’s first two wanderings, it shows through comedy that he is incompatible with another way of life; The inseparable car carrying film company employees and reporters implied Sullivan's social identity that he could not get rid of. The tone of the film suddenly became heavier in the next two wanderings, as if telling the audience that the real guy is coming: Sullivan led the audience to walk through the vagrant settlements, shelters and southern swamps in "The Grapes of Wrath" The labor camp in China has undergone rough treatment. So these two wanderings ended with the protagonist taking the initiative to escape from the predicament and return to the society he was familiar with. Sullivan admits at the end of the film that he has not suffered enough to control the subject of social reality.
Therefore, this "choice to make comedy" as a way to resolve the conflict of the film is more like the kind of "unlike a happy ending". Behind its naivety is the irreconcilability between classes. Orwell also admitted that his disguise can only make him as close to the working class as possible, while the barriers between classes cannot be completely eliminated.
According to IMDB's information, in the scene of the movie being shown in the church, the director originally wanted to show Chaplin's film. But whether it is Mickey Mouse or the tramp played by Chaplin, they all represent an image that breaks all barriers, allowing people of different skin colors and classes to gather together to enjoy the pleasant time brought by comedy. However, the elimination of this boundary is only an illusion after all. After realizing that the estrangement cannot be eliminated, continuing to maintain the hallucinations has become the work of the director.
In my opinion, because the film was born in the 1940s when video equipment was not yet popularized, this conclusion that seemed negative to some extent is also very realistic. In today’s environment where technological liberation has become a trend, grassroots video has emerged, and the social and political significance of images has been greatly expanded, the entanglement between "reflecting reality" and "creating illusions" is conversely unrealistic. After all, The choice between a private swimming pool and a shelter does not fundamentally determine whether you can pick up a camera.
View more about Sullivan's Travels reviews
