The posture of the movie Hold on&Humble is very special (saying I like the French version of the poster, how clear the theme is!) On the
subject of political sociology, it did not do the kind of masterful "I am noble and cold-hearted thinking, you mortals can't understand" A sense of coldness. At the beginning, two middle-aged women talked about the home-style "My husband is the best". Later, Hannah flirted with her husband, and the laugh and interaction between her friends was a kind of firework and fleshy feeling. The rhythm that draws the audience closer. But on the other hand, the background information is deliberately incomplete-it is minimal from the beginning of the title. Everyone knew who Hannah Arendt was, who was the defendant she went to Israel to hear, and what crimes she committed, except for the yelling of Heidegger Street. These key messages were all carried over in one sentence.
That is to say, although the overall style of the film is friendly and homely, and the outline of the story is also in the category of general literary films, the audience should have a general understanding of the character events and thoughts involved in it. In the two-way selection process between the film and the audience, the film is not critical of the audience’s ability to interpret the language of the film—most of the information to be conveyed is conveyed by the lines, but there are requirements for knowledge, which can be said to be from the title to the poster. The function of "blocking people with insufficient information". It is hard to say that it has the attribute of "entertaining the masses". For a film whose purpose is to "learn to think", the passing of the historical background means that its ultimate appeal is-please think.
The subject of thinking is people who have a certain amount of information and are interested and willing to spend time watching this movie. And the subject matter of thinking is-thinking itself.
Hearing it doesn't mean you understand it, and it doesn't mean you understand it. Earthlings do not possess the ability of telepathy like the Vulcans, and can only rely on symbolic communication. Symbols can be distorted in conveying information.
Hannah speaks English with a heavy German accent (so that I have to use subtitles to understand what she is saying). The small German group around her was anxious and fought in their mother tongue, while American colleagues stared at the side. This slogan of "language barrier" has been used repeatedly in the movie, and most iconically shows the differences between "hearing", "understanding" and "understanding" between individuals, individuals and crowds, and crowds. Differences: Jews and non-Jews, Jews who survived World War II and their young idealized offspring, Hannah and her readers, her supporters and opponents... There is such a difference between their respective expressions, listening, and understanding. "obstacle".
The easiest way to bypass obstacles is to rely on third-party interpretation. Before the trial in Jerusalem, there was a long controversy. Mary, who did not understand German, first turned to students who knew German for help. She was told that "I can't listen at such a fast speaking rate." Then she tried to find Hannah's little secretary Lotte for an interpreter. , The latter's answer was "It's better to hear Hannah tell you"-it deserves to be mixed with "everyone".
The third-party interpretation adds noise to the original signal, and the worst case will increase the differences in understanding. For example, after the publication of Hannah’s article, those who had never read the article or read it, also called and wrote letters to abuse, that is, they listened to the interpretation of the third party, even the fourth party, and did not listen to the author at all. Statement, I thought I "understood."
If you want to understand what Hannah is arguing with Hans, you should listen to Hannah herself speaking in English. This is the consensus reached with the audience in the first half of the film.
Eichmann's trial basically used data fragments. After each segment was over, it was cut to Hannah who was listening carefully. In this segment, the audience and the protagonist are synchronized-it means that we are also watching the trial record (though not all). What kind of thinking did we make while watching this record? What kind of judgment was made? After the trial, there was another controversy scene for Hannah to confess his point of view. So far, the statement of the event character (Eichmann) and the core character (Hannah) is over.
understood. But do you understand it?
English is not Hannah's native language, so there may still be improper words, incorrect pronunciation, and lax grammar in this statement. There is still a gap between expression and understanding. First, the presenter needs to make up for this gap ( For example, Hannah asked Mary to correct her pronunciation, and let the editorial department sort out her grammar, etc.). The second is that the listener needs to "rationally" understand the "discourse itself" and think about the "fact itself."
This is the content of the second half of the film. The editor of "The New Yorker" in the film asked Hannah not to add "subjective interpretation" during the review. Hannah replied that "this is a fact." Understand the content of the answer and think about whether the facts are as they say. The key to this question lies in whether Hannah has "conjectured" about the motives of the Jewish leaders during World War II.
A typical example of the so-called "speculation" is that after Hannah's work was published, her colleague asserted that "with her cleverness, it is impossible to expect the (negative) sensational effect of this article"-in a situation where there is no factual basis and no confrontation. Subjectively make "positive/negative inferences" about others' private lives, thinking activities, emotional experiences, etc. The film denies this "speculation" in details and deliberately highlights this line, directly showing the core characteristics and social harm of "speculation". Very smart.
"Conjecture" is a way of "understanding" that the masses love to hear and are handy to use.
In the second half of the film, the application of this method is displayed in all aspects and multiple levels through various groups of passersby, readers, colleagues, and friends. Through her lines, she showed the main accusations that Hannah was "anti-Semitism", "contempt of the nation" and "too rational and neglected human feelings", and through her visits to old friends in Jerusalem, she tried to restore Hans' friendship. , The entangled feelings between Heidegger and Heidegger were negated one by one. Only by eliminating the interference of these "presumptions" can we calmly listen to it.
In recent years, in the process of discussion (or I prefer to use a more emotional word like "quarrel"), I also frequently use "please don’t guess" but rarely get results. In the end, my patience often collapses. . So with regard to the sentence that triggered the war of words, "The Jewish leaders (in World War II) cooperated with the Nazis either intentionally or unintentionally (in fact). Otherwise, the number of murdered people should drop drastically." The reaction of the Jews, I don’t know whether it was because of my background when I was born under the red flag and grew up in New China, or because of my so-called "anti-social" ("noble and glamorous", "arrogant and rude", "no emotion", etc.) attributes. Caused by.
In my opinion, if you want to refute Hannah, it should be based on whether the content of this sentence is true (1. At that time, the Jewish community had "leaders" 2. Whether the "leaders" actually cooperated with the Nazi genocide 3. Did this "cooperation" lead to more victims); if you want to go deeper, you should use Hannah to draw an "argument" of "average and evil" from this phenomenon-->whether the path of the "argument" is clear and precise. Moaning such as "has hurt the feelings of the xx people", or "you are fifty cents" vs. "you are cents" are boring, which neither proves the facts nor helps the theory. It is a waste of time. And energy is not necessary at all.
The personal attack Hannah encountered in the second half of the film and the debate with the people around the Eichmann case in the first half of the film just proved her so-called "vulgarity" point of view: using third-party interpretation with your feet upright is laziness of thinking ( If someone else has chewed something that seems to chew it, you don’t need to digest it yourself), “guessing” is the cowardice of thinking (pointing at the “talker” with the cross directly and shouting “Ya is possessed by the devil” There is no need to directly confront the opponent's point of view). The Nazis, and those who send threatening letters to Hannah, are different in "behavior", but "essentially" they are rooted in laziness and cowardice in collective thinking.
At this point, the film has completed the argumentation process and concluded with Hannah's sonorous and passionate speech (and self-defense). but why? Heidegger, who shows his face from time to time in the film, left this question unanswered: why is a born thinker still "evil"? Why would Mary naturally ask Lotte to translate, and the audience would naturally think that this is a reasonable request before Lotte refuses?
Maybe Newton's first law of motion is actually true in thinking about this movement: if there is no external influence, we will always move forward on the same thinking track. This saves energy (energy and time), and it is safer to be consistent with most of the society. This has caused a lot of "inertia" in thinking. When most individuals have the same inertia, a confined space is formed. Individual thinking that escapes this inertia becomes a social "taboo."
These "inertia" and "taboos" do not allow you to ask "why" or "what is the purpose" or "should you", but only require you to "obey and not cross the line." For example, "You should love Israel if you are a Jew" (which can be extended to the corresponding relationship between each nation and country). This kind of requirement to order the other party to give up thinking is actually everywhere and is regarded as a "virtue" in a certain social environment. (During the imperial period, there was also the "inertia" of "You should hate Jews if you are an Aryan").
On the one hand, the more ups and downs in social life, the more difficult it is to get rid of this inertia (website developers are familiar with this theory. Many functions of Facebook are based on "the more time you spend on it, The harder it is to abandon” behavior model), and in order to maintain the stability of the space, social groups will try their best to prevent individuals from breaking through. Ptolemy’s system has more balls and more and more complicated calculations. Copernicus will not be the only one who feels wrong, but once this system is broken, it means that the previous thousand years of thinking will be invalidated. All people who are accustomed to this way of thinking have to change their tracks, and if the new track is not right, it will cause chaos, the most feared situation of social animals.
Views such as "Jews must love Israel" and "Nazis are all perverted murderers" are the small ball on the Ptolemy system at the time. Once it is proposed that "the ball is not in the right position", it must be recalculated or even updated. Theoretical system. Therefore, the young students who listen to Hannah’s lectures are less restrained by inertia and have more time and energy, so it is easier to absorb and accept her commentary, while the older professors are more stubborn and unwilling to destroy themselves. The "ecological balance within the thinking" (like Heidegger back then) does not mean that these young students, or any of us, can be exempt from the restriction and temptation of "average evil".
In the case of this film, Hannah was finally able to resist the pressure. In addition to her and the people who work together (husband, editor, Mary, students) hold on, he also needs humble (I call it "dancing with wolves." ). Among the many accusations against Hannah, only the term “arrogance” was subtly recognized: After Mary corrected Hannah’s pronunciation, friends around her whispered, “She doesn’t like this,” and Mary said, “She asked me to correct her.” After that, the friend was even more surprised. This is also reflected in the fact that when malicious accusations were rampant, Hannah still refused to explain to the public, saying that "Anyway, they just yelled or didn't understand it if they didn't look at it. That's their business."
However, a view that breaks through taboos must enter the collective track before it can use the external force that "changes the speed (the scalar or/and vector)". Hannah not only stood on the podium, but also correctly uttered the word chips. It is necessary to work together on both sides-the presenter can explain more patiently and meticulously, and the listener can think more rationally and proactively, so that it is possible to overcome the barrier of "understanding".
The posture of the film is H&H, and the rest is up to the audience.
View more about Hannah Arendt reviews
