good story, bad shot

Gulliver's Travels is a good novel. In those days (early 18th century), British novelists liked to tell their stories as real as possible, but many of them were fictional, imaginative fantasy stories - for example, the famous Robinson Crusoe This is the case with Gulliver's Travels.

"Gulliver's Travels" uses a linear plot evolution, through the tone of Gulliver's personal narration, to tell the book in the first person, which makes it look like a fairy tale. Because it is full of Kuiqi imaginations of Lilliput, Adult, Flying Island, and Huiliang, it has always been easy for people to treat it as a fairy tale, and after moderate simplification and de-adultization, this novel has indeed become A very good fairy tale book. I read the fairy tale version when I was a kid, full of illustrations and I remember it well.

Later, when I read the original work of this novel, I realized that it is not a fairy tale, but a novel written in the era that strives to be a true story, and also tries to insinuate the real social problems in Britain in the novel, which is of critical significance. In order to convince readers that this is true, many plots are used in the novel to demonstrate the authenticity. But these arguments, now it seems, are really futile, it is better not to argue, not to explain.

The novel has been repeatedly made into several versions of the film, and it is generally agreed that this 1996 British version is the best and closest to the novel. Unlike the American version of 2011 that became a modern fairy tale, it managed to maintain the plot and flavor of the original. However, I don't know how, but the director used a very stupid method to tell the story, adopted the means of interlude and flashback, and put the foothold of the story on Gulliver's encounters after returning to the UK, and through the process of these encounters , to interject Gulliver's adventures that have already taken place.

In fact, there is nothing in the original book about what happened to Gulliver after returning to England. In the original book, Gulliver was rescued by a Dutch ship owner and sent back to England. Then, in just a few short paragraphs, he briefly described how he recuperated in shock for a few years after returning to China, and then returned to normal life. The story came to an abrupt end. .

Why did the director do this? I guess he wanted to show his critique of the reality of Britain at that time through what happened to Gulliver after his return to China. In order to tell the reality of the persecution, the director had to make the people around Gulliver mentally retarded, vicious and even cruel. Originally, even if the adventures Gulliver told were unbelievable, it was not necessary to listen to him or even put him in a mental hospital to torture him, but the director tried hard to justify himself, so he portrayed the Dr. Bates he joined. Gloomy, selfish and vicious, he pushes Gulliver into the abyss step by step in order to take over his wife. Does this story sound familiar? Yes, it's that vulgar street third-rate story of bullying and bullying one's wife. But these, there is no trace of them in the novel, they are all made up by the director and the screenwriter.

If all of Gulliver's encounters after returning to China are cut off, and the story is told according to the timeline of the original novel, from the shipwreck to the country of Lilliput and the country of giants, and told in one breath to the end, this film is very perfect, and the rhythm is tense. Strong and exciting. The core content of Gulliver's Travels is the strange events that Gulliver saw in his adventures, but there was no conspiracy to occupy his wife and children by selfish doctors after he returned to China. The stories of occupying wives and children are stinky and everywhere, but only Gulliver has the stories of Lilliput. Why didn't the director grasp the core, but made up such a wonderful novel?

baffling. I don't believe how highly rated this movie will be, even though it really tries hard to restore the scene and mood of the story. It's a pity that he was cut off and mixed up, and he wasted a lot of time telling those mentally handicapped stories that the novel didn't have in the first place. Amazing charm, becomes boring. Whenever you're about to see Gulliver's adventure about to climax, the movie clicks into reality: into plots and scenes that are not at all in Swift's original novel, so it is difficult to integrate into that wonderful story.