raiser "Bacalaureat 2016". This movie not only addresses the current maladies, but also deeply portrays the heart and human nature. Some details in the film deserve careful scrutiny, otherwise, we may come to a completely wrong understanding. Of course, the "criticism" is a consequence of the story, but if we only consider the reasons for the events in the story, we seem to be able to draw the conclusion that the protagonist and surgeon Romeo of the film is the root of all problems, not only It is the creator of his own family crisis and the indirect cause of the troubles before his daughter's graduation exam. The key point may be that he unknowingly provokes a dog breeder.
Why do you say that he is the creator of his own family crisis? The current situation of his wife can be a good illustration. He and his wife are both returned from studying abroad. Under the background of the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, choosing to return to China should be said that they have a heart of innocence. However, even if the Romanian system has undergone changes, the hearts of the people seem to be the same. The whole society is not developing according to their wishes, and their disappointment can be imagined. Obviously, he is not a person who can resist temptation, maintain his original intention, and stick to principles, and his wife may be just the opposite, so the disparity between husband and wife arises at the historic moment. The reason why his wife can't leave her hand is not only because of the marital crisis, but also because of her certain "persistence". In such a society, "holding on", even a little bit, may pay an unimaginable price. To a certain extent, her current career as a librarian can be seen as proof. How can the misery in her heart be in her hands? The smoke can be resolved.
Compared to his wife, he is much more practical, and he will not "hold on" unprofitably. A detail when he discussed the exchange of interests with the former customs officer named Bligh and the current deputy mayor seemed to illustrate his above-mentioned personality. At first he wanted to reject the glass of wine Bligh poured him. When he found out that it was a good wine and asked for a glass after drinking it, it clearly meant that he was not a principled person. In reality, he had a personality basis for betraying his wife.
Because of his betrayal of his wife, he maintained a romantic relationship with the 35-year-old young and beautiful female teacher who was once his patient, which led to his daughter being attacked before the graduation exam. The assailant obviously did not intend his daughter because the assailant did not want to commit rape at all, and did not seem to want to prevent his daughter from taking the college entrance examination. Although his daughter’s college entrance examination was indeed affected by this, a careful analysis of his daughter’s performance after the attack , Especially since she was able to identify the suspect but deliberately refused to identify it, we seem to conclude that there must be something strange. To explain this clearly, you need to start thinking about the "harassment" that their family is constantly experiencing, and the clue is that images of dogs appear every time he is harassed.
The first time was when the window glass of his house was smashed, he went downstairs to look for the troublemaker. There was a black dog behind him, and a man in black pants was standing on the other side of the railway not far away. Wanting to catch up with this person, by accident, he ran into a speeding train. After the train passed, the person escaped without a trace. Obviously, this person was the most suspicious. The second time he encountered harassment was when he drove his daughter home when a dog suddenly rushed out from the front right of the car. Although the dog was slammed to avoid the dog, both he and his daughter were shocked; although neither of us It is good to conclude that the owner of this dog is deliberately releasing the dog to harass him, but combined with the following events, we can infer that this "dog stalking" is by no means a random incident. For the third time, he sent his daughter to participate in the first day of the exam. When he went out, he found that the wiper of his car had been torn up, and there was a dog not far away. The fourth time was that the windshield of the car was smashed. The dog in front of the car turned around and ran away. The person who smashed the car glass should be the owner of the dog. The fifth time, after his daughter did not want to identify the suspect (the person caught by the police was placed among other people. This is easy to identify, and the person who directly recites the words without reading the note should be an assault. When he took the bus home, he suddenly found that the released suspect was looking at him strangely, so he suddenly understood something, got out of the car and chased him, and entered a community full of dog barking. It is the community where his lover lives. It is conceivable that the suspect intentionally hinted at something. This detail obviously also reminds us: the dog owner is the suspect. The reason why he wanted to attack the doctor’s daughter was because He lives in the same community with the doctor's lover, and the time of his attack was when the doctor was entangled with his lover. If it is said that there is no unprovoked love and no unprovoked hatred, then the attacker must have some kind of connection with this lover, or a crush, or some kind of defender.
I think the latter is more likely. Because (1) the defender is not for his own personal benefit to a certain extent, so his assault is easily forgiven. This is at least an important reason why his daughter did not identify the suspect. Even when she was attacked, the suspect may have other coercive weights, perhaps her father's sex scandal. (2) Defenders must maintain a certain ethical order. Throwing stones seems to have some religious meaning, and when he finally played with his lover’s child in the park, the little boy threw a stone at another boy who did not follow the order. This seemed to imply that the stone was not thrown for the perpetrator. It’s out of righteous indignation. In addition, once the goal of a defender is achieved, he will not be abused and innocent. Therefore, when he was driven out of the house by his wife, the wife who had always wanted to install window guards no longer wanted to do it. Obviously, he was the source of danger for this home. As long as he leaves his original wife, whether he continues with his current lover or not, the ethical order of the marriage is maintained, and the harassment is estimated to not continue. (3) Perhaps his daughter no longer wants to go abroad may also have some relationship with the defender. He wanted to let his daughter go abroad, and even said that it was for his daughter to maintain a contradictory relationship with his lover. He must have made a lot of going abroad. This would somewhat arouse extreme religious fanatics (if this guy is a fanatic) From harassment to personal assault, the degree of attack seems to be aggravating, which is also the degree to which defenders are stepping up warnings. Of course, his daughter already has a boyfriend and does not want to study abroad. She has her own considerations, and certain details seem to indicate that she intentionally does not want to take the graduation exam. For example, she walks indoors without socks, and her father reminded her. Second-rate. (Written by Slate Planting Flowers Wednesday, December 14, 2016)
ps. Thanks to the Chinese subtitles of this film!
View more about Graduation reviews
