The thinking boar: irony is boundless, please bring your own consciousness
——The front and back of "Outstanding Citizen"
Text: Empty words are clear
In a sense, "Outstanding Citizen" is like the winning prize painting in the plot, with exquisite advertisements on the back and rough images on the front. The front and back sides can be opposite, and the characters in it are also two sides. When they think their front side is very reasonable, irony surrounds them. Furthermore, irony is unbounded, and it surrounds this movie, and it surrounds the audience who watched this movie and evaluated it. The commercial commentary said that "Outstanding Citizen" is an outstanding and award-winning black humor film with a burst of praise. And this is just as mentioned in the Nobel Prize winning speech of the leading male writer in the film. The awards of his works only show that they are in line with the critics' tastes, but have nothing to do with the intrinsic value of artistic creation. Especially behind the label of black humor, it does not involve the intrinsic value of this movie. When I watched and commented on this movie, irony was also surrounding it.
This male writer is uninhibited throughout the film and clashes everywhere. The thoughtful wild boar rushed out of the idealistic forest and rushed into the worldly mud. Perhaps his fangs should have two names, one is literary skills, and the other is writer's cultivation. I don't know where his confidence to collide, probably because he firmly believes that he has an indestructible cultural thought. He thinks he can represent literary ideals that transcend the world to criticize, but his actual self is not transcended at all. His speech at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony showed that the Nobel Prize for Literature was like earthy muddy water, splashing on his body, contaminating his ideal fur and making him lose the light of his thoughts. However, this is not the case. ...
When he received the invitation letter from his hometown of Salas, he decided not to go at first, and decided to go after considering it for a while. What made him determined to go back to his hometown after decades of absence? The actual situation may be that there is no clear reason to urge him to go back, just an irrational determination. It is also possible that there are a bunch of ideas in his thoughts: for the reputation of a small "outstanding citizen", for the residents of his hometown to see his achievements, for relaxation... But missing his hometown is the least likely idea among them. Because he said that leaving his hometown is something worthy of praise in his life. For him, his hometown is a mud pit in a mud pit, which is not commendable at all; the memories and impressions that his hometown people give him are mostly derogatory, stupid, and superficial in his writing. The best evaluation he could make of his hometown, if not cursing, would only be mentioned in a publicly praised manner.
...Almost all of his original novels were written with his hometown as the background, and the protagonist was confined to his hometown, and would never be separated from his hometown. Just as in the plot that followed, whether it was the stories he told or the novels he published, the residents of his hometown could see that the prototype was in the town of Salas. This shows that the plot of his novel is very similar to the experience of his hometown and small town. Although he refused to admit that he wanted to give his novels and stories literary superiority, it was a cunning irony: an irony that tried to make fiction above the truth. Since he won the Nobel Prize in Literature, he has not published any decent new novels. The reason is not so much that the mud pit has dirty his fur, as it is the lack of experience of jumping into the mud pit again. After the thrilling encounter between him and his hometown, he was lucky enough to get that experience and wrote a new novel called "Outstanding Citizen".
The protagonist of the male writer is outstanding, as evidenced by the Nobel Prize in Literature awarded to him. His hometown will give him the honor of an "outstanding citizen", and his hometown will also be famous because of this outstanding citizen's worldwide honor. If we borrow that inappropriate analogy, the relationship between the writer and his work is similar to the relationship between a hen and its eggs. People will reward the hen for the excellence of the egg. Don't think this is ridiculous, not only that, people will also be interested in where the hens are produced. For animals, this may be reasonable, but the writer is not excellent because he is such an animal. For the production of ideas, there is no necessarily superior connection between the producer and his place of production. Otherwise, what do you think of the more mediocre growth in this place of origin? The thinker is not an object produced by a machine, and the place of production is not that machine. But for the people of this world, this reason is absurd, otherwise there would not be so many former residences that need to be preserved and rebuilt. After all, the connection between thinkers and their place of origin seems to be good for each other, especially for the latter.
While watching the welcome short film prepared for him by his hometown, the writer did not stand up and say loudly: My literary works were not developed by you. My cultural thoughts are indestructible, far beyond this despicable land. He didn't throw out those unpleasant words, he just watched silently, moving to tears. The welcome video praised the writer's achievements and beautified the connection between him and his hometown. The atmosphere on site is lively and pleasant, filled with positive energy. In the subsequent lectures, he also denied the set of arguments similar to the "dialectics of artistic works", such as: sadness is the best state of artistic creation; the more comfortable the country is, the more boring their works are; happiness only Creates mediocre literary works, and lacks persuasiveness; great literary works are usually from unfair and violent society, in that case, creation fills the void. These are the views he has expressed, but he wants to deny that these views are his own in front of everyone. It is necessary for him to deny it, because he wants to show a purely positive side, and the dialectical rhetoric will expose the negative side.
He put aside his former taboos, hugs with others, takes photos with others, and signs autographs with others. Everywhere he goes, he is kind and kind. He happily accepted gifts, met enthusiastic young partners, participated in interviews with the town TV station, recalled and talked with his early lovers... He even had an affair with his young female "admirer". If this continues, whether he will write an excellent literary work in a happy situation, perhaps he may make an exception to write a good prose in praise of his hometown. Everything is so harmonious.
Until he served as a judge in the town's drawing competition. This plot is the turning point of the film from front to back. When this writer served as a painting judge, he never thought of how absurd this incident was. What is even more absurd is that other people's evaluations of painting are based on the front of the canvas, while he depends on the back of the canvas. After all, the writer showed his own "differential interest": using a set of dialectical statements that cross-reference the front and back as the reason for the selection. He doesn't care about the realism characteristics of the paintings that participate in the selection, and only judges according to his own post-modern aesthetics. He is so proud, as if the back of this rough painting is really interpreting or deconstructing the front. This thoughtful wild boar started to rush into the huge mud pit again with uninhibitedness.
The mud pit in turn splashed on him. In the next episode, wherever he went, the negative side spread. He disappointed many people in his hometown who wanted to take advantage of him. Many people thought that what he brought was the gospel to their hometown, but they were exposed as a curse to their hometown. The person who was devalued in the previous painting competition exposed the negative side of this writer, his disgust and neglect of his hometown. In the face of these, the writer has not yet wanted to respond by condemning the unbearability of the mud pit. He just uses dialectics of reality and fiction to defend his works. It's as if fiction is really interpreting or deconstructing reality, and reality is not so important. But some people will still ask him: Why can't you write more about beautiful things. The writer did not answer this question directly. However, a reasonable response can be conceived. This questioner either does not understand the dialectics of literary works, or he does not understand the meaning of the Nobel Prize in Literature. The Nobel Prize for Literature is not only to commend the artistic value of literature, but also to promote universal values. This kind of universal value needs to be alert to suffering. If this Argentine writer writes about his hometown very beautifully, then he is very likely not to win the Nobel Prize in Literature, and he will not become an "outstanding citizen."
He rolled in the mud, splashing more mud, and his contempt was more obvious. The "admirer" in that affair was the daughter of his former lover and acquaintance, which embarrassed him. And that affair did not originate from pure admiration, the young woman wanted to use him to leave this despicable town. He refused to help her, and he also refused to talk about people in his hometown in a way of praising and secretly speaking. His statue was contaminated, his "art appreciation" of the painting competition was ignored, and then he was angry. He used the dialectic of cultural concepts to belittle all other people present: culture is indestructible, even in the worst situation, it can still survive; truly free people do not have free ideas, similarly, cultured people Nor will it advertise culture; those who advertise culture are dangerous elements who are ignorant and ignorant, and people who are truly educated will not use this term, such as the writer himself. In the end, he said: I grew up in my hometown in dire straits, writing is calling for light; but you people (you residents who are contented in the mud pit), continue to be like this ignorance will not change this place; If you continue to be hypocritical, ignorant, and ignorant, but do not reflect, then this great writer will not be able to help you. After finishing speaking, he put down the "Outstanding Citizen" medal and slipped away through the back door. He needed to avoid the angry audience.
When the writer made his thoughtful, culturally highly connotative remarks, the expression of the mayor standing next to him could represent the people present: shock. Because the mayor made a lot of speeches, he received a lot of sarcasm from the writer, but it was not as direct as it was at the end. Although the mayor has always shown restraint, he must be surprised by the writer's words in his emotions, just as the writer was surprised by the words and deeds of the residents of Salas. This writer did not allow his reputation to take care of his hometown. He has always sublimated himself in contempt or "defamation" of his hometown.
When he left again, his former partner in his hometown held a shotgun and chased him away by hunting wild boars. The residents clearly saw the essence of this well-known writer, this strange creature is just a thinking wild boar. He should return to settle down in the strange forest where he built his nest.
The film "Outstanding Citizen" ends with that cunning irony about the novel. The writer said that there are no facts in literary works, only interpretation and deconstruction; facts are interpretation and deconstruction. However, this kind of statement is also a surface, and it has a back, just like the painting with two sides in the movie. Enlightenment is in that sly smile.
View more about The Distinguished Citizen reviews
