justified in rejecting any form of violence.
This is another film directed by André Tessine that discusses the homosexual awakening of teenagers after "Wild Reed". But I don’t want to spend my energy on the whole film on the topic of equal rights for homosexuality. Starting from the plane of political correctness, it more or less triggers the evaluation and discussion of emerging moral standards. Instead, I look at the whole same-sex from another angle. The strange wind direction in movies and TV dramas, especially gay-related movies, is that violence is justified.
Damian, 17, was born in a typical white middle-class family. His mother was a doctor and his father was a soldier. On the other hand, Tom, as the adopted son of the farm owner, although he does not lack the love of his parents, he can see that he is actually separated from his white parents. Apart from the racial differences deep in his heart, this kind of estrangement, although he is full of gratitude and love for his adoptive parents, but also has a kind of worry, which has nothing to do with the child that his mother is about to give birth. In school, two young people who didn’t meet at first met. The reason was that Tom suddenly flattened Damian for no reason, although after Damian’s questioning, Tom told him about himself. The reason for the hands-on, and this reason is also naive and ridiculous and unconvincing-because he hates Damian to watch him. What can I say, only the black question mark face.
Since I started to contact the film and television culture of this circle, I have been constantly questioning myself: Is the concept of homophobia and the deep cabinet reliable? Is the violence caused by self-doubt more acceptable than violence caused by other reasons? Why is such a subject matter full of Stockholm tendencies becoming a norm in gay movies and being widely recognized by everyone? Who gave a person the legal right to commit violence against another innocent person?
In the film, Tom has committed violent acts against Damian more than once. If the second time was caused by a kind of self-esteem enthusiasm caused by adolescent hormones, the third time was self-conflict and refused to admit it. Self-oriented and Damian's existence has repeatedly emphasized this sense of contradiction. Tom's violence is just an emergency response to the body's self-protection, so what is the first time? Because Damian looked at him twice? Even if it can be proved academically that homosexuals can really feel the sexual orientation of the other side through the eyes, then as a certain rational person, a person without any mental illness, because I feel that the other side may know his heart After the hypothesis of the most hidden secret in the depths, can you hit people at will? Since when, the reason for violence can be so simply derived from some nonsense assumption but still be defined as reasonable?
That's right, Damian didn't fall in love with Tom because he was violent, so it can't be regarded as Stockholm syndrome. In fact, the love between them was born when Damian's mother invited Tom to live in their home while Tom's mother was pregnant. Or it’s Damian’s unilateral sentiment. After all, I didn’t see Tom’s love for Damian himself from beginning to end. On the contrary, it was the envy of Damian’s relationship with his parents and the class life represented by Damian. Envious. At first, Damian’s attraction to Tom should stem from Tom’s jealousy of Damian, and then it was a kind of extravagant hope to replace Damian. Finally, the death of Damian’s father made them equal in a certain sense. . In other words, the violence in this film can be interpreted as the sympathy of the middle class for the proletariat or the petty bourgeoisie.
Tom’s positioning is extremely in line with the basic standards of specific groups of people protected by the political correctness of the entire world: black ancestry, adopted by a traditional white family but living standards still wandering the poverty line, homosexuals, etc. Damian, on the other hand, is the opposite. In a typical middle-class white family, both parents have decent jobs, kindness, and happiness, just like the life of princes and princesses in fairy tales, and the period can be described as the only "stain". It should be Damian's sexual orientation. But due to the enlightenment of his parents, this has no real impact on him. But the question is, where did Tom’s violent tendencies come from? From the film, although his adoptive parents did not have much money and did not read too many books, they did not have any bad influence on him. However, the director repeatedly used certain images to emphasize Tom's violence at the beginning of the film, such as his sudden attack on Damian and the killing of the turkey without hesitation. Except for the characterization of typical black characters who are more violent, I didn't see other reasonable incentives in the whole film. The Damian family is even more cultivated and witty, tolerant and strict in self-discipline of the four good French white intellectual family prototype representatives, which is simply synonymous with a life-long beautiful and holy heart.
Their unreserved acceptance, forgiveness, and love of Tom all stem from sympathy in my opinion. This is an expressive sympathy of the upper class towards the lower class, just like the domestic variety show "The Metamorphosis", boring and useless. This kind of beauty is just a beautification of a few real cases in film and television works. The director used a homosexual gimmick to try to conceal the nature of racial discrimination and class discrimination in his bones. Violence is justified? Here it is just to highlight the great selflessness and fraternity of the white middle class.
First release to Zonglang zone
View more about Being 17 reviews
