It seems that this seems to be a set of simple, direct and irreconcilable contradictions: the son is a white-collar worker, his parents are traditional old people; the son is gay, and the parents are looking forward to holding their grandchildren. Homosexuality, no matter in the sense of passing on from generation to generation or the emotional model itself, it is impossible to be included in traditional Chinese culture. And China's powerful family ethics, deeply unconscious cultural-psychological factors, and strong affection for his parents have all become the fetters of his son. He cannot get rid of his responsibilities, let alone cut off the affection. According to the foreigner’s approach, this may be regarded as a Hegelian tragedy—the conflict between personal freedom and family responsibilities. In the end, at least one party is sacrificed, the conflict is reconciled, the opposites are united, and it rises to a higher combination. As for the unfortunate That is what makes tragedy a tragedy. However, the Chinese method does not like to be so tragic. Everyone takes a step back and has a brighter future: parents tolerate the son's sexual orientation, and the son and daughter-in-law divorce but leave the child to ensure that the blood is passed on.
However, is this really smart?
Let's start with the "wedding banquet".
This is a typical Chinese-style banquet, full of festive atmosphere and entertainment with Chinese characteristics. Perhaps today’s wedding banquet may not be the case, but I don’t think the director is exaggerated, and I don’t doubt that it is similar or even excessive. The scene is still being staged today. Only when the director "makes the stone a stone" like a formalist, when he distances this familiar life from us and presents it completely, we will discover: what a terrible banquet this is , Madness, chaos, nasty, absurd... Even the director Ang Li couldn’t help arranging a bridge segment to personally express a discussion:
a foreign guest said in a puzzled way: “I thought the Chinese were all introverted mathematical geniuses.”
One China The guest (An Li guest post) said: "You are seeing the result of five thousand years of sexual-repression."
In the phrase.
Sex has always been at the extremes of an awkward split in China. On the one hand, it is regarded as dirty and ugly as an actual behavior, so it is evasive and unspeakable; on the other hand, it is extremely upright and fair-sounding in form, so that "unfilial piety has three consequences." , So that we have three thousand beautiful wives and concubines in groups. And lying between these two extremes is the Confucian ethics based on blood kinship.
This article does not intend to delve into the broad and profound Chinese culture. There is not much to argue that blood kinship does have a foundational significance to Chinese culture. What needs attention is how to split two extreme attitudes toward "sex" from this starting point. The fundamental meaning of blood relationship is definitely not in the unity and friendship of brothers and sisters, but in the continuation of blood and family reproduction, it is the role and meaning of sex. However, it only stops at the biological level, and the foundation of an ethical system is not convincing or convincing enough. Therefore, the family relationship that naturally arises from blood has become a more important theoretical pillar. On the basis of this kind of warmth, etiquette, politics...and so on. On the pavilion of etiquette, with the great mission of inheriting the family, the vulgar and primitive "sex" can be understood as a glorious cause-as a means to gain its own legitimacy through the noble purpose of its purpose. In order to be unified with this nobleness, the meaning of specific behavior and process is obscured, and sex has become an empty concept, an abstract shell. However, no matter how high and abstract a formal meaning is, sex itself cannot be omitted. The emperor’s farming ceremony can deceive oneself and pray for a good harvest, but no one can give birth to a child without having sex. The paradox appears: sex, as a necessary means for the reproduction of a race, is a cornerstone of culture, but sexual activity itself conflicts with the moral norms in this culture. (How interesting our culture is!) So there is such a division: sex as a tool is elevated in the whitewash and abstraction of ethics, while the tricks in the room and bed curtains are suppressed and avoided; sexual activity itself becomes In addition to the harmful side effects of the purpose, the pleasure of two people became hard for the one who did not come. What’s more frightening is that when this set of ethics can no longer be maintained by a hypothetical emotion, it means that the ladder from the id to the superego is all emptied, and ethics has become a rigid castle in the sky, and the system starting from natural emotions is incompatible with nature. Emotional opposition. At this time, if you want to go back to the foundation of benevolence, justice, etiquette and wisdom, you may even fall directly into the world of the self-without tenderness and humanity, completely naked animality.
Five thousand years of sexual depression, how hard and difficult it is, maybe only the wedding banquet is the best release. Guests can booze, drink, and lick oil, while newcomers are required to perform meaningful mini-games. Under the cover of a festive atmosphere, no one has to bear the responsibility of moral corruption. Everything is so reasonable. However, without psychoanalysis, it can be seen that the purpose of these behaviors is never to create celebration, but to make sex in such an occasion something that can be talked about, something that can be entertained, and thus it is to a certain extent. Something that can be shared. This kind of sharing is not about sharing sex as a normal, necessary, healthy, and beautiful thing, but exposing something that is usually taboo because of nasty on this special occasion for everyone to vent and joking. (Just as our traditional avoidance of sex is not due to respect for the privacy of individuals, not to regard sexual privacy as the legal status of morals, but precisely due to the humble position of sex in morals.) At the wedding banquet, people’s love is overflowing. Repressive libido, the tradition of bullying bridesmaids is nothing more than small-scale sexual indulgence, and the finale of the bridal chamber is full of perverted performances of desire. Guests shamelessly publicize their voyeurism, while the newcomers act voluntarily and involuntarily. Exposure mania, a public sex game, and no one can see their own ugliness-prohibition means temptation, the more forbidden, the more temptation, the more exciting and satisfying, the over-repressive desire in the rare wedding opportunity, with the help of distortion The form of the game is vented, just like jetting out through the small hole of a high-pressure water gun. Perhaps this kind of stimulation is not inferior to today's opening? No wonder people have been enjoying it for thousands of years.
Following the above argument: Sex only acquires its legitimacy and even nobility in the sense of passing on from generation to generation. Take a look at the image of the father.
It can be said that most of the time before the movie, my father was just a traditional old man. The wish to hold his grandson could make him struggle back from the closed door of the ghost. The first stroke seems to imply the extraordinary weight of the inheritance of the family in his heart. But in general, he is not much different from the elderly in various film and television literature. Therefore, his traditional thinking, his hobbies (calligraphy), his absolute authority in front of his wife and children, his vanity and face, he The strong desire to hold the grandson-all the characteristics of him are something we dislike but absolutely understandable, just like the old man around us; so that we really believe that with the old man’s stubborn thinking and impatient temper With a fragile body, if a son confessed his sexual orientation, it would be tantamount to indirect killing of his father-enough for him to return to the West.
In the movie, there are scenes of my father lying halfway on a chair and nap: the old body, the stiff expression, the breath that seems to break at any time, which is disgusting; but it is this decadent and old thought that is the same as the body, but it is constantly created. The depressive aura makes people terrified. There was a scene where the son saw his sleeping father and couldn’t help but sniff his breath. At this moment, he might really hope that his father would die. This is his subconscious father-killing evil and his tradition of dullness. Of rebellion. Father sleeping is a meaningful metaphor. It is a respectable and disgusting tradition that makes people want to get rid of but can’t stop. A set of concepts that have been aging, decadent, and tenaciously playing an oppressive and deterrent effect. The cultural psychology and collective unconsciousness of our blood.
So we really believe that our father is such a character and a symbol. We may blame him for sticking to traditional ideas and disregarding his son’s personal happiness, but we can understand and tolerate him. If this goes on, the story will become a cliché. The ethics film of the two generations, neither of which was wrong, but they both lived so hard.
However, the plot took a sudden turn: it turns out that the father understands English, and it turns out that he has already learned about the whole scam arranged by his son, but as long as it does not affect his great cause of inheriting the line, he can use the situation to make mistakes and acquiesce in the drama. Perhaps some people think that the conversation between his father and Simon is his father's understanding of homosexuality, and is a tactful solution of contradictions, so they are a little touched; but in my opinion, the always lovely Grandpa Lang Xiong has never been so disgusting at this moment! The father explored his son’s secret in English, but he finally used Chinese to explain his heart: “If I don’t let them lie to me, how can I hold my grandson.” As long as he can hold his grandson, he doesn’t care whether things are true or not. He is willing to sacrifice his son’s happiness, and he does not consider the situation of his daughter-in-law. He is even better than ordinary traditional old people-hard (I think it should be hard), silently swallowing the fact that his son is gay, and then he himself Painful, but also watching my son finish the trick in pain. As long as he can hold his grandson, everything is worth it. Inspired by a more lofty goal (to inherit the lineage), personal happiness is irrelevant; compared with a higher moral standard (filial piety, filial piety), the immorality of fraudulent marriage is negligible; Under the overall planning of the noble and abstract "sex", the concrete and even the "sex" (homosexuality) that deviates from the traditional values are harmless. He doesn't mind his son marrying a woman he doesn't love, and then tolerating his son to enjoy true love with the same sex; in essence, how is this different from the traditional way of marrying a wife and having children and then looking for pleasure outside? After exposing the so-called warmth, there is only terrible animality behind it-the son is just a tool for childbirth, and the daughter-in-law may not even be a tool, but a part that can be replaced at any time. Such a father cools me to the bottom of my heart. If he is still gentle and honest, it is just the consistent temperament nurtured by this culture, and he also has a conscience that feels a little guilty and tolerant.
What's more sad is that I can't say that such parents don't love their sons at all. Before the wedding, they hugged and played with their son, bit his arm, and called him "little fat". At that moment, time went backwards, it was really family happiness and love. I have no doubt about such innocent and natural affection—— This should be the starting point of our ethics and the goal of happiness, but it has evolved into the suppression and destruction of people-returning to the traditional standpoint, there is no room for concession in the great cause of inheritance. In fact, my father was also young and escaped from marriage, but the small resistance was quickly pacified by the powerful tradition. Perhaps as long as the marriage partner is not so unacceptable, my father is willing to undertake the mission of continuing the incense. For this cultural tradition, he recognized, assumed, and the norms were internalized into morality, heteronomy became self-discipline, and he became the guardian of the tradition to continue to oppress the next generation. I think that my father is not rigid. He has feelings and love, and he will also feel the contradictions and problems in it, but he still stands on the side of tradition and can't help it. He didn't know why, he didn't know what to do, he didn't know what could be changed-he could never cross the line.
In this way, around the great blueprint of passing on from generation to generation, everyone is acting, or acting in a play. First, the son and others partnered to deceive their parents. When his father discovered the scam and pretended not to know, he deceived everyone on a higher level. But the father is not omniscient, and the mother later learned about the son's orientation. The father may not know the mother's discovery, so the mother and son partnered to deceive the father. The father did not know that the daughter-in-law wanted an abortion, but the mother knew but was unable to stop it. This is another deceit of the son and the daughter-in-law against their parents. When the conflict was finally resolved, the son said: "I finally told him a truth." Don't you know how much the father knows the truth, and how much he tells his son? I don’t deny that deception is sometimes necessary in life, but this culmination may really confirm Mr. Lu Xun’s assertion that "conceal and deceive" not only applies to the national character represented by Ah Q, but also evaluates the tradition represented by "The Wedding Banquet." One aspect of culture is equally accurate. The emotions between individuals need to be concealed and deceived to maintain, and each person has a real emotional experience in the deceit and the falsehood of being deceived. In a system of lies, the elements constitute a harmonious and balanced coexistence. This may be a certain kind of sorrow in Chinese culture, but it may also be the subtlety of Chinese culture: if I get a real emotional experience by believing, I can convey the experience I want to give to others through benevolent deception, then the truth itself How important is it? Moreover, after layer by layer of concealment and deception among multiple subjects, the truth has long been nowhere to be found.
(The above is not an irony, but it is really difficult for me to judge. The complexity of the tricks of deceiving and deceiving, the relationship between the structure, and the results achieved are beyond the reach of my IQ. Perhaps it is really a question worth continuing to think about.)
Finally , I can answer the question raised at the beginning, that is, how to solve the contradiction of the story, and whether this is the brilliance of Chinese philosophy of life.
In my opinion, the resolution of the contradiction is the daughter-in-law’s personal and accidental choice. The film’s transition is like a “dangerous leap” in philosophy, just like Joyce’s epiphany. Drink like a Zen stick. Perhaps out of a maternal glow, or perhaps there is no reason at all, Weiwei divorced Weitong, but left the children and raised them alone. This turning point cannot be inferred from the previous plot at all, that is to say, it is not inevitable. Weiwei’s choice has no interest or emotional relationship with Weitong and Weitong’s parents. Her choice of abortion is logical-scam support. If you can't go on anymore, then there is no need to leave the child after the end and the breakup. And her choice is only for herself, she wants children, but not as a fertility tool for the Gao family. Just when the matter could not be resolved according to logical deduction, the director threw out a contingency to solve it. Obviously, Weiwei's choice was not based on Chinese cultural traditions at all, nor was it her philosophy of life. My father's last sentence "The Gao family will thank you" was the last cold war I watched in the movie. Compared with Weiwei, this is how vulgar and inferior. Which philosophical cleverness is this? What kind of cultural victory is this?
PS: This film review has received intense discussions from many friends since its release. I am very grateful and allow me to briefly explain the main issues.
1. Subconscious father killing is not difficult to accept. Freud also said that men subconsciously want to incest with their mothers. And what I use is: he "maybe" wants his father to die. The modal verb may, is not certain, ok? Let me cite another situation: There is an old saying in China that there is no filial son before the bed for a long time. An old man consumes the financial and manpower of the whole family to maintain a lifeless life. In this case, sometimes the children want the old man to die. The old man is relieved to himself, and then condemned himself for such thoughts-this kind of psychology is common, right? Of course, some friends pointed out that Wei Tong decided to get married and have children as soon as possible because he was afraid of his father's death. This is a very reasonable explanation and does not contradict my explanation, because people themselves can have various contradictory mentalities at the same time.
2. I never said that my father is a bad person, he just has his own limitations (people who are not gods have their limitations, but those with strong reflective ability can break through the limitations more). Evil does not come from him, but from culture and system. Some friends said that the old man loves his son, and he loves Simon even more than his daughter-in-law. Yes, he loves these children, but at the same time he doesn't give up wanting grandchildren. In the end, he is a big winner. The fact that his love and his being an accomplice of culture can coexist.
3. As for the view that Chinese culture knows tolerance, compromises, and loves, I think that high-level tolerance is the result of equal negotiation and full communication (is Western culture not tolerant? Democracy is the art of compromise), low-level tolerance Tolerance-or to say surrender-is unprincipled concealment and deception. The big things in the family are often not right or wrong, and they need to be compromised and tolerant, but some big principles cannot be lost at any time. Sexual orientation is one of the important principles. Those viewers who feel that the whole family will take what they need to enjoy and integrate the Chinese culture is a great victory, please imagine that in a certain situation, you can go against your own sexual orientation for the sake of family harmony. If you can do it, congratulations, it’s really a cultivation practice. To the extreme of inclusiveness of Chinese culture.
4. Looking back at this article a few years later, I do feel that it is radical. I was deeply influenced by Deng Xiaomang, and my understanding of Chinese and Western cultures was basically a dualistic view, which has now changed. But I still insist that Chinese culture's obsessive fascination with blood inheritance is still very primitive, low-level, crude, and evil. The suffering of homosexuals is just a small manifestation of this evil. Are surrogacy and trafficking in women and children and other more deformed and sinful phenomena not affected by our precious cultural genes?
View more about The Wedding Banquet reviews
