What I like about the "Toys" series is that by "resurrecting" toys, it allows us to see another world and understand another perspective, so as to generate freshness and reflect on our daily life. some behavior. In the film, human beings are to toys as God is to human beings, an external force that has a decisive role in their destiny.
The first three "toy" cartoons lead us to open a world of toys, so that the audience can not only stop thinking about the plot of what the toys are doing when they sleep, but directly see what they do and understand What they thought and thought made the adventure and personal image of all toys stand up. We see that they perform their duties and have their own personalities, so we have the most direct feelings for them. And this time, after the seemingly happy ending of the third part, the arrival of the fourth part can be said to have made me feel a little surprised, and sighed: It is indeed Pixar.
Among the themes of the film, one of the things I appreciate the most is the awakening of the toy's self-awareness. When they are factory set to exist to please their owners, when they are instilled with the ultimate mission to accompany their owners, when they enjoy the time when they are "favored" and miss it when they are "out of favor", they can sing Can dance, talk and move, but has always been a subordinate toy in thinking.
The leading figure of the enlightenment is the shepherdess, who, after being abandoned and waiting for years, has no resentment and revenge, instead she has found a way to please herself - she is no longer subordinate to anyone but herself. This kind of "freedom" is deviant and super insecure in the eyes of other toys. But she succeeded in turning herself into a master, instead the children playing with her was her chosen form of entertainment.
Regarding this topic, if the discussion is a little more serious and tragic, I think a similar predecessor is "Artificial Intelligence" directed by Spielberg. The little boy in artificial intelligence was developed to please human beings. His factory settings have too many rules and regulations, the most important of which is to love his owner unconditionally. When he was triggered, all his behavior revolved around his "mom". Even if he is abandoned and hunted down, his ultimate goal is to gain the love of "mother". Finally, when the human race has become extinct, the aliens resurrected the "mother" one day, in order to meet the needs of this artificial intelligence.
So, if the owner and the possessed have a mutually pleasing relationship, is it a normal relationship? I think if it is within a certain limit, it is normal, but what is abnormal is that one of the parties unreservedly and unscrupulously tries to please the other, exists for the existence of others, and loses himself. When the existence of a life is always dependent on the giving and affirmation of others, then he cannot survive alone in this society.
Looking back on our own lives, have we been indoctrinated a lot by "factory settings"? For example, one must live a meaningful life, what is possession is a sign of wealth, and what is success in the eyes of others... If you are a boy, you can only get a wife if you have a car and a house. If you are a girl, you can find a good person. Get married... Physically speaking, the object of pleasing may be parents and family members, and ideologically speaking, it may be a conventional concept in society. If we live to please such "factory settings", isn't it a toy in the hands of others, a toy of life?
Of course, not to please does not mean resistance and disapproval in a blind sense, and it does not mean that the existing standards must be overturned, just like a teenager in the rebellious period. The premise of not pleasing is to have self-awareness, self-discrimination ability, independent thinking space, and know what you want. Therefore, the precipitation of time and self-consciousness are inevitable things.
Of course, the relationship between a toy and its owner is not just a one-sided pleasure. It should be symbiotic and win-win at the beginning, but when the balance is tilted, what should you do? For example, toys are kept in the closet, left out, or even abandoned, then at this point, I naturally agree that they have other ways to get their own happiness. The general toy is to "find a home", such as Woody's owner from Andy to Bonnie, the loyal heart remains unchanged, but the original memory cannot be erased. Toys can naturally maintain the mutual needs of both parties by actively or passively changing owners after a period of time, but people will change! The cycle will only get shorter and shorter, and all the steps seem to be simple repetitions - being gifted → playing with the child → being that favorite → not getting picked a few times → being left out for a long time → being let go At the bottom of the box → is presented, it is a cycle.
Although the Gaby doll, who has been looking forward to being adopted by the owner, is not attached to a goal in the end, the life cycle of her toy has just begun. And our shepherdess and Woody seem to have seen the end of this life and turned around and chose another path. I heard someone comment that this choice of Woody is not such a powerful self-awakening. On the contrary, he only made such a decision after being left out. But what I want to say is that this is precisely a question of what choices people should make after being rejected and blocked.
Whether it's academics, career, relationships, or other people or things that you've worked hard for but haven't responded to, how long do you have to persist? This is how people behave. It goes without saying that extreme people or certain scientific research needs this spirit of study and persistence. Or some people really think that as long as they persevere, they will be rewarded, so I don't advise anything. But the question of when to let go, when to change, and when to accept and find another way needs to be considered. In fact, Chinese people are relatively smart, which may be because some of the genes we have inherited all the time can be "self-fulfilling". If you want to live, you must find a reason and method for yourself to live. When one thing is clearly incapable, can you stop working hard? After all, it is more important to get along with yourself. Changing the goal, changing the way of living, changing the object seems to be the driving force for us to continue to survive.
Placing hope on the love of others is always suspected of being charitable. In the owner's favor, garbage can also become a favorite toy, but when the novelty passes, the garbage will eventually return to the trash can. Cherish this time when we can have each other and please each other. But at the same time, don’t be unreserved. Owning oneself is the most basic condition for generating energy and generating love. In the face of "appearance settings", we must learn to discriminate, jump out of the simplest rules, and never refuse the existence of various possibilities.
PS Again, after the broadcast of "Toys 4", women's rights will be mentioned more or less. Some say that this kind of feminism is too obvious, so don't worry; some say it's a clear stream in the current feminist drama. I'm thinking, are we thinking too narrowly? Seeing the awakening of a female character is directly linked to feminism. What if it is replaced by a male character? Or if you really want to avoid this kind of "substitution" in the future, you can only set the awakened person to be a genderless person, or an intersex person?
June 24, 2019 16:43
View more about Toy Story 4 reviews
