There are three questions:
1. Everyone has the original sin, so everyone in the world has to be cautious, for fear that someone will be unhappy today and do stupid things and eventually go to jail?
The generalization of religion and the presumption of guilt for everyone is really easy. Today, a butterfly in Brazil flapped its wings, and a storm in Asia caused many deaths. So this butterfly in Brazil is also guilty? If we reason about correlation as causation, I am afraid that no one in the world is innocent. Correlation cannot deduce causal certainty, which is a very simple truth. Because everyone has the original sin, so everyone wants to be free, so everyone must always pay attention to their temper and behavior. This is not a big problem, but this directly crosses the evidence chain, crosses the factual basis, and directly produces The guilt is a bit too much. It's like saying that today you throw a stone into the pond, and tomorrow he will still be a stone, and finally one day the water overflowed. Who on earth caused the overflow by throwing stones?
2. There is nothing wrong with guilt itself, and it is okay to induce guilt. The question is, in so many disjointed time and space, why does the story have to tie these people together and call it the home of evil?
Isn’t it because when the original script came out, the most convenient was the criticism of the original sin of capital and the corruption of human nature by capital and money. Capital is guilty, money is the source of all evil, and the upper-class society is indifferent and ruthless. This makes criticism simple and politically correct. The problem is that the times are different. Everyone understands that capital itself is not guilty, money itself is not guilty, what is guilty is the way and means used, and what is guilty is the person who uses them as a bad way.
If a thing happens that involves many people and many coincidences happen, it will weaken the essence of the coincidence you want to explain, unless these coincidences have to happen, or these coincidences happen in a relatively closed time and space. Had to do this behavior. Every coincidence, if it cannot be changed by choice, then it becomes something similar to fate, and the non-selective circumstances that force these coincidences to happen are the essence behind this fate, that is, what makes the environment like this ? What caused the characters to have no other choice?
There are also many coincidences in "Heart Labyrinth". Why does it seem less unconvincing? The reason is that the characters are in a closed rural area. The relationship and behavior between people are very close, and their mutual promotion is Can be convinced. Moreover, the backwardness and closedness of the countryside make everyone's thinking and behavior style more fixed. They don't have many choices, and everyone's motivation is determined by the environment and social ethics constraints.
Me, the taxi driver, the landlord, and the overtaking person, if they all become a family, do you think such a coincidence is in line with closure? So many coincidences happened to her alone, which is unreasonable in itself and weakened the seriousness and intensity of criticism. Stories that take place in different time and space, each character cannot judge the behavior and motivation of the person who intersects with the heroine in the next time and space. I cannot predict the character of the taxi driver, and the driver cannot predict the landlord’s rent increase. It makes her more depressed. People who overtake may just rush home and cannot predict that she will be extremely angry, unless everyone is God’s messenger like God, with an omnipotent perspective and can cross over. Time and space saw the entire logical chain of the heroine from being dismissed to committing suicide. Such a request is unreasonable and therefore lacks criticism.
3. The bias is too obvious, the reversal setting is awkward, and the behavior is insufficient
Is the hostess okay? The heroine who was brave and strong at the beginning, with independence and human rights enlightenment, suddenly became a female salesperson lacking professionalism, a lady in a bar, a lying woman, and a faceless woman. The cowardly of love. This change cannot be said to be unreasonable. The problem is that all the strength in the movie is used to describe everyone in the sinful house, while forgetting the environment and constraints that pave the way for the heroine's own behavior. Is it powerful to rule every behavior in the external environment and completely abandon one's own initiative? This is like saying that a man who doesn’t work smoothly blames the company for not giving opportunities, quarrels at home, blames his wife for talking, starts a business with a friend, blames the economic situation, and hates his parents every day. Such a person resents others. It looks weak and lacks strength.
In addition, as soon as Gould appeared, he clearly had a judgment perspective and status. Setting a character with a strongly suggestive name is generally seen as a tricky practice. When the detective introduced his name, I instantly grasped the screenwriter's intentions. This is a God's perspective, he is condescending, and permeates the past and the past. Every time he asks, there is an extremely uncomfortable sense of oppression and hostility. From the perspective of the authenticity of the character, I don’t think anyone will open up and confide in a stranger, especially when the character predicts that this will cause trouble to him, he instinctively builds an avoidance mentality and forms Resistance behavior should not and cannot explain this spontaneous atonement. If it can be explained, the guilt that can only be regarded as religious psychology has surpassed the instinctive drive of the character itself. A series of inquiries with obvious hostility and preaching with obvious inclination and inducement. The behavior and motivation are more in line with the symbolic meaning of God, that is, the messenger of God in the world. He not only transcended his position, but also clearly broke the chain of causality, showing an absurd sense of drama rather than a sense of reality.
This setting is too dogmatic and simplifies human nature. The either-or guilty inferences and the deliberately set inversion settings make this story even more straightforward.
View more about An Inspector Calls reviews
