Many comments have said that this film is about human nature, but I think if we get to the bottom of it, this is actually a political film.
Why do we have to call it a political film? I summed up a law, that is, a film has a political background, or the story takes place in a specific period of political conflict, then it is definitely not a film without any political intentions, even if it is small, it is inevitable The background story of existence
takes place in World War II. Then according to my theory, this film is definitely not purely about human nature, but definitely has its political intentions
. Based on this point of view, we will analyze some obvious problems. As we
all know, the German army's Eastern Front during World War II The battlefield was with the Soviets. In general films that reflect the theme of the war on the Eastern Front, no matter what the theme is, the Soviet Union and Germany are always tit-for-tat. However, a very special part of this film is that the role of the Soviet traitor is magnified
. Any setting in the film does not It may be pointless that
1977 was the height of the cold war, and the word betrayal was so sensitive to the Soviet Union, but for almost half the length of the film, the Soviet traitor is almost everywhere,
so that means what?
In the middle of the film, the white army officer who questioned the second male was a complete villain. He bullied the prisoners, flattered the German army, and showed a cold image with almost no belief and almost no mercy. In addition, he Being in a high position, we can deduce from this that he is a man who can do anything for his own benefit. Such a man appears in a Soviet film and it is not
difficult to think of what he represents.
Wrong, a complete utilitarian, there is no better representative of the bourgeoisie than him.
Perhaps in the eyes of the Soviets at the time, this person was in line with their idea of all evils of the bourgeoisie. But this person who is the incarnation of capitalism is
the two male protagonists of a Soviet film, and they also represent two different intentions.
There is a basic good and evil in this man. It seems that he just regards communism as a kind of bread that does not satisfy his cravings. This man has a lot of bread. When he is hungry, he will find it and eat it, and it will be like all of us. Everyone is
an ordinary person who is afraid of death. What the first man makes is a choice that most people would make,
but the second man is a standard communist believer and a soldier of the proletariat. At the beginning of the film, this is not the same. It was not reflected in the fact that after he was caught, this identity began to show that
he was so loyal and determined to die for the party.
Compared with him, the male one who just lives for his life is so lowly, like a rat who is struggling to survive
. Not giving up, it seems noble, but in fact, it just shows his goodwill as a human being.
So, after this, he chose to live as a human again. This is also his instinct as a human being.
Therefore, the first male represents the Soviet Union Under the coercion
of traitors, the male one chose to compromise and was tortured to death by himself.
Based on all the above analysis, the main idea of the film seems to be clear. Whoever wants to join forces with capitalist roaders and foreigners, and betray communism, will not only be cast aside by everyone, but will also be severely condemned by their conscience
. It seems that this is the metaphor. Is it just that?
I don't think it's the
background first. Except for the Red Army at the beginning and the villagers in the first half of the film, the rest of the film is Russian traitors except the Germans. At the beginning, the team of the Red Army was in trouble and was in a state of embarrassment. Why such a rendering of a near-death struggle situation?
I think what the director wants to create is a sense of doom, a sense of doom where socialism is finally defeated by capitalism.
In this case, there are naturally Russian traitors everywhere
Why is it so important to show the traitor in the movie? Obviously, in Russia at the time, there were not many such people, but at least their remarks were as long as they appeared in the movie - almost everywhere
, the thoroughly utilitarian White Army official reflected the year 1977 The most feared
thing in the Soviet Union is that the Soviet Union is defeated by the United States, and then the Soviet Union's identity as a socialist big brother and even a socialist country will collapse
. Of course, this film itself is a poetic film, so what I want to express is also There is no shortage of exaggerated elements, but at least, capitalist roaders like the Bai Jun in the film exist
and the male lead is coerced by the capitalist roaders. In order to survive, he can only be one of them - because he is only An ordinary person, like all the people of the Soviet Union, the
Soviet Union, a country built by faith, and the owner of this land, the people of this country, what exactly do they think about socialism?
What if they also completely abandoned their country simply because of coercion?
It seems that the existence of the second male is still a sign that the Soviets still have successors.
However, the death of the second male also shows the director's concerns. After all, belief is vague. Is it worth sacrificing those innocent people for belief?
The essence of the Soviet Union is belief, but belief is abstract after all. Can it be able to compete with the capital world for a long time only by relying on an abstract thing?
The director's tendency is traditional, but she is pessimistic about the future. Maybe she thinks that this may be impossible. At least in China, that monolithic thinking mode has been broken, and the rise of capitalist roaders indicates that The deep concern that capitalism has taken the upper hand in thinking is
reflected in the Red Army who is lost in the forest at the beginning, then the two male protagonists who are lost in the snow, and finally the one who is lost on the edge of humanity and morality.
At the end, the male one almost collapsed and roared at the white scenery in front of him. What he faced was not just a piece of snow, but also the future of the Soviets.
If one day, the end of the day, the red flag of the Soviets could stand upright
. Now, this question is no longer a problem. exists
View more about The Ascent reviews
