This question is actually not difficult to answer, because as Croce said, "all history is contemporary history"-this proposition means: no matter how objective we think we are (here, the objective standard depends on the degree of separation The present reality) expresses a piece of history, no matter how the subject of history claims to be the most uncontroversial humanities, in fact, any specific historical expression exists in the current theoretical horizon (viewpoint) without exception. Any expression completely out of the present is not only meaningless, it is also impossible to imagine. Therefore, although ghosts or aliens are the easiest things to draw in the world, we can see the shadows of life forms on earth without exception in every ghost or alien drawn. From this perspective, there is no doubt that a movie with the theme of God and Ghost Story will not be a pure fiction, on the contrary, it also comes from the most real reality. Moreover, a good work that is very realistic in content and form is not easy for people to distinguish the concrete reality on which its reality is implemented, because real life always presents us with a continuity that has not yet risen. Sex and the luxuriant relevance, but the works presented in the form of surrealism, because of their often too strong symbolic meaning, are seen at first glance.
I often say that I don’t like surrealist works because I think its form is precisely its limitation. Don’t think that we want to see a work with a clear theme. On the contrary, those works with clear themes often laugh it off. It seems that there is no need to look back, and what is regarded as a masterpiece is often difficult for us to say. Of works. From this we can see the common dilemma of works in the form of surrealism: on the one hand, the material used to express the story is separated from the real world; on the other hand, because people don’t care about things that have nothing to do with them or have nothing to do with their real life. Significant things, such as a madman’s conjecture (Ironically, many great ideas were once regarded as a madman’s conjecture, and only later showed their meaning, but this phenomenon does not overthrow the above point of view, but just shows that people are indifferent The imagination of a lunatic-even if it is likely to be a great idea), therefore, the work in the form of surrealism must express the connection between the illusory material and the real world. The contemporary manifestation of this dilemma is: on the one hand, the plot of the story must be more novel and exciting, on the other hand, the story’s allusion to the real world must be closer and deeper.
In my opinion, direct description of realistic subjects is the first choice. Because for an excellent work, form is not an alternative to content. On the contrary, contemporary philosophy tells us that form and content are the same thing. Therefore, if an author has creative enthusiasm in his heart, but hesitates to choose the way of expression, then he can only say that he has not created a real work (in Heidegger’s words, he has not yet produced a work. Connection with the earth). Masters who believe in their own skills all start from direct reality. Only when they can "understand people and the world" can they show that they have learned home. If a work has to be expressed in a surrealist way, the reason should never be just for "Catch your eyes." It should be said that most of the surrealist works we can see now are more or less manifestations of lack of skill. Here, don’t think of gong as a skill. Sometimes proficiency is a manifestation of lack of gong. Therefore, gong here means-whether you have enough understanding of real life. If the comprehension is sufficient, then the form of expression will not be a criterion for measuring the quality of the work. On the contrary, surrealist works are works that are inferior to realist works. The former is inferior to the latter because of its ignorance of itself. Not honest enough, in other words, it actually evades reality.
Therefore, the phenomenon that surrealist works once flourished reflects nothing but the exhaustion of creativity. We don’t have to be overly amazed at Disney’s amazing imagination. If the conversation between the clown fish Nemo and its father can be carried out between the father and son of an ordinary soap opera, then the dazzling underwater world that Disney has worked hard to create is in addition to There is no use other than satisfying our sensory needs. Of course, for children, there is still a sense of enlightenment, but for adults, if this meaning can be established, what else can it explain besides the naiveness of contemporary adults? Martial arts works are called "adult fairy tales" is the best example. It is not difficult to believe that an adult with an empty life will obtain imaginary satisfaction from martial arts novels, and for a full and meaningful adult in real life. In addition to recreation, it is not necessary for a martial arts novel to add a lot of significance to it. In addition, surrealist works have more secret forms in addition to ghosts, fairy tales, and martial arts, such as certain Japanese and Korean dramas. It seems that those movies describe the facts that may happen in life, but this is just a representation. It is not realism to choose specific scenes and objects in life in the storyline. As long as we think about it carefully, we will understand: those handsome men and beautiful women I do nothing all day long, but I drive a famous car to live in a luxurious mansion, consume high-end entertainment venues, and whenever I appear in the show, the clothes are as good as new, the threads are not messy, etc., not to mention that many people are completely out of touch with each other. All show that: this kind of film is just a new kind of obscenity, not wearing ancient costumes but wearing famous brand "fairy tales." Mature people of this type of film will certainly not take it seriously, but another type of work is more deceptive, that is, works that highlight details, such as historical dramas such as "Towards the Republic" or some romantic dramas by Iwai Shunji. These are of course all Good work, but the problem is: the former uses the reality of details to subvert the reality of history, while the latter establishes an infinite distance between the details and the whole, so the characters are visualized as the symbols of the details. People are just pure aesthetics. Indulge in the details alone, completely forgetting reality itself at the farthest end of reality. We know that real life is always rich in associations, and the characteristic of detailed works lies in the faithful listing of the material while giving up such associations. Therefore, it was originally presented through those associations (Marx’s so-called “historical” associations). The meaning of (realistic meaning) disappears, as if the meaning can be constructed by the author or the audience at will. It is true that contemporary philosophy does say that the author should abandon his direct connection with the work, but this is only to abandon the author’s prior assumptions and Incorporating the relationship of the work, rather than giving up the relationship of the earth itself, also does not mean that the audience can arbitrarily interpret the work out of reality. It is not realist works that are out of the ground. In such works, the detailing is often the most effective and least perceptible way to escape reality.
Going back to the film, although "Constantine" is a story of gods and ghosts (or more accurately, "angel-devil story") with a religious background, its symbolism is clear at a glance. Compared with Keno Reeves's other two films "The Matrix" and "Devil's Advocate", it is the most inferior in terms of conception. "The Matrix", at least as far as its first film is concerned, is a very good surrealist form of realism, and its concept is the most profound. It should be noted that the word conception here does not mean that kind of propositional conception, but in terms of its connection with reality. It can be said that "The Matrix" is a portrayal of our reality far away from the earth. "The Devil’s Advocate" is a little less bold. I dare not say "It's not real" to the whole world. It just says "It's not real" through the mouth of a lawyer. The problem is that the discussion of "real" is related to the earth, while "good" is not. It is enough to hear Nietzsche's voice: "There has never been a moral phenomenon, only a moral explanation of the phenomenon. . "Fortunately, the final work touched the edge. It attributed the evil (ethical or moral judgment) to vanity, and when it came to vanity, of course it touched on the question of authenticity. However, vanity was misunderstood in a double way: first it was misunderstood as Instinct, the work seems to tell us through its ending that vanity is everyone’s instinct, and no one is immune to the root of human inferiority. Many people are willing to accept this statement, because the evil theory of human nature has to some extent forgiven this quite thoroughly. This kind of evil, instinctive innateness allows us to escape the judgment of ourselves, but it is impossible for a wolf boy to understand what vanity is, so the root of vanity can only be social rather than natural attributes. Obviously, we are all in the contemporary era. It is easy to perceive the fact that admitting that you are a good person requires greater courage than admitting that you are a bad person. The latter can greatly please others, while the former faces the judgment from others and yourself all the time. From this we It can be understood why modern people need a sense of humor so much, because self-ridicule is the best way to please the public. Milan Kundera’s tool for criticizing kitsch is kitsch itself. The second misunderstanding is privateness, that is, good and evil are individuals. This is a necessary supplement to the first point. Anyone who does not want to be abused by the human nature of evil cannot forget that he must recognize the free will of man. Just as in the Lion City debate, the Fudan University team draws humanity. The evil position can only emphasize man’s control over himself. Man seems to be able to control his nature through education or mutual restraint, and the only possibility to achieve this control lies in free will. It is not difficult to see that these two misunderstandings are the same thing. : The essential attributes of "vanity" or "evil" are the same as any kind of innate biological attributes. In fact, it has nothing to do with humans (people without sociality are no different from animals). The establishment of such an essence is only the establishment of a This kind of universality that has nothing to do with people is exactly where the so-called "objectivity" of "materialism" lies. It is precisely because of this external universality (objectivity that has nothing to do with people) that it has The relative abstract pure subjectivity—free will, in other words, is the subjective arbitrariness of whatever you want, and this is the magic weapon of the so-called “subjective idealism.” Both of these were born from the same premise Underlying, this premise is the metaphysics of reason (Marx’s saying that materialism and idealism are only two poles sharing the same premise is exactly what it means). In fact, vanity is not final at all The problem is that a person with sufficient self-awareness does not have to bear any external pressure for claiming that he is far away from vanity (of course there will be no such pressure, because this pressure is precisely the result of vanity), because vanity is not at all related to vanity. What is born with, the qualitative nature of vanity is just as the national economist’s description of the principle of capitalism is to defend one’s own sins—this is by no means a mere metaphor, because vanity and The principle of capitalism is the manifestation of alienation in both the individual and the society. The fundamental problem is that individual reality is neither his biological attributes nor his individual free will, but sociality (the so-called "sum of social relations"). It is worth emphasizing that this sociality is by no means divorced from natural attributes. The sociality opposite to it is precisely the unity of man and nature that gives any natural attribute the meaning of man. This kind of nature and talents that are no longer separated from the subject and the object but are unified is the meaning of the term "Earth". Specifically, a lawyer’s evil deeds do not originate from innate attributes. Similarly, his good deeds are not the awakening of free will. In the final analysis, discussing the good and evil distance of a lawyer (as if he is an abstract individual) criticizes the reality. There is a very long distance. Real realism must point out that lawyers are only the personification of the law, while modern legal systems are a manifestation of the principle of modernity, and furthermore, the reality expressed by the principle of modernity is alienation. In fact, there is still a very long distance. Real realism must point out that lawyers are only the personification of the law, while modern legal systems are a manifestation of the principle of modernity, and furthermore, the reality expressed by the principle of modernity is alienation. In fact, there is still a very long distance. Real realism must point out that lawyers are only the personification of the law, while modern legal systems are a manifestation of the principle of modernity, and furthermore, the reality expressed by the principle of modernity is alienation.
The bad thing about "Constantine" is that not only did it fail to get out of the misunderstanding of "Devil's Advocate", it has become more formalized and exaggerated. In this film, the opposition between good and evil has become a basic setting: one side is God and angels representing the good, and the other is Satan and the imp The confrontation between God and Satan must be determined by human choice. This is exactly the second misunderstanding schematization of "Devil's Advocate": human nature is either no good or no evil, or "half angel and half devil" (the half angels and half devil in the film are the symbols of the latter) ), but people have free will to make decisions.
The plot unfolds in this basic setting. The protagonist Constantine chooses heaven, but he can't always touch the door of heaven, because he doesn't want to go to hell just because he is a ghost hunter, as if the police would not want to be locked in a cell with the criminals he caught. . However, the condition for entering heaven is self-sacrifice, so his selfish desire cannot be fulfilled. Due to excessive smoking, the protagonist suffers from lung cancer and his death is approaching, so he is very anxious, trying to find a way to enter heaven. The ending of the story is: the protagonist saves his loved one by suicide. According to the "Bible", suicide is to go to hell. However, God ruled that the protagonist is self-sacrificing and should go to heaven. Satan is unwilling to fail. He takes the protagonist away. With the cancer cells, the protagonist will continue to survive in the human world, hoping to continue this competition. Constantine, who returned to the world, understood the meaning of life, so she quit smoking.
The film unfolds the story in a symbolic setting. Of course, it cannot be a real realist work. On the contrary, it is a typical example of a failed surrealist form of work. The plot is certainly very exciting, but needless to say, they are all very external, or just stop at the senses. In fact, people will not discover the true source of the opposition between good and evil in real life from such a film, let alone criticize it. If a person holds the view of "Even if the flood is overwhelming after I die" like King Louis did, this film will not even be able to realize the most basic meaning of exhortation. This is precisely because of its complete value to people. The result of external definition. Of course, I am not saying that a film must have a theme that overrides it. I am just saying that the film is not qualified as a propositional composition.
Of course, this is just an entertainment film, and it would be a trivial task to evaluate its realm. I'm just taking this to talk about things.
The last thing to say is that whether a film is a truly realistic work and whether it has practical significance are two different issues. The former is in terms of the creation of works (including the creation of audience participation), and the latter is in terms of the criticism of the works, which is the result of externally evaluating the works. As Marx said, all the mysticism that is imagined can be reasonably solved in reality. Even dreams imply the existence of a certain reality, so no matter how surrealist works, they all have a certain practical significance, even for failed works. For the film "Constantine", behind the schematization is technical values. Recognizing that human free will is value-neutral is the same as acknowledging that science, technology and currency are value-neutral. The embodiment of the values of the alienated world. Marx criticized Hegel’s philosophy as a false activity and a false history, but at the same time he emphasized that Hegel’s philosophy is a “part of truth” in history. Similarly, to sublate alienation is not to simply deny reality, but to admit alienation first. It is the biggest reality in the world today. It's just that we can't justify it by acknowledging that this is reality, as if it was so and always will be.
I always believe that works of real realism are truly great works, and this kind of realism is not named for its form, nor for its realistic content, even if it is a fantasy. The reason why this kind of realism is realism is that it breaks away from subjective forms and transcends the "objective" content that has nothing to do with people. It is the unity of form and content, subjectivity and objectivity, society and nature, in a word. , It "creates the earth" (Heideggerian).
View more about Constantine reviews
