To say that disappointment is not as good as hereditary doom, is that the nerves are too thick for this theme. The most peaceful and peaceful appearance, the most bizarre and unreasonable but perfect and self-consistent small world wrapped with grassland flowers and pure white stones, cannot be defined by good and evil, ambiguous hallucination between imagination and cognition, a peaceful nightmare . This work is indeed completely different from the genetic doom theme, but the same creepy, can be said to be the difference between physical attack and san value attack? It's normal for a thick nerve to not feel its warm and sticky horror under the bright sun.
Let's take a more down-to-earth example: Are you afraid of going home to hang out with relatives during the Chinese New Year?
I'm afraid anyway. If you are also afraid, you might as well think about why and what exactly brings us the sense of fear. Relatives will urge you to marry, even if you think you are not young and free at all; relatives will say that your job is not suitable, even if you think you have enough food and drink and are doing things you are interested in; relatives will embarrass you Chat, even if you actually grit your teeth and talk hard, you won't be able to chat together. And the root of all but not limited to these contradictions lies in: differences in world views, values, and moral values. You live in the same family, in the same environment, in the same era, but your minds are so different that interaction is a pain for you (yet you can't fall over your shoulders, in other words, you can't resist ). You can't understand their thoughts, they can't understand yours, you're physically in the same place, but completely separate spiritually. When you are 30, you still think you can be as reckless and free as a little bird, and they think you are finished when you are 25 and have no children and no mortgage. Very normal. The fear expressed in "A Midsummer Night's Fright" is to expand this to the extreme: the unlimited three-view difference between people. The audience observes an extremely abnormal, consciously normal, and internally self-consistent small world from the perspective of an external intruder. You and you agree that the marriage promotion team composed of the three aunts and six aunts who should have a baby at the age of 25 is actually very similar? So please expand your fear of hanging relatives eighty times during the Spring Festival to experience the fear of "A Midsummer Night's Fright".
Regarding the question that many people complain about "don't die for the thesis", friends, do you know the principle of non-intervention ? ? In the process of filming a documentary, you can only observe, not interfere with the object of observation, and do not mix human factors into the natural system. In nature documentaries, to put it bluntly, you film a group of small turtles hatching, and watch them not crawling into the sea. Even if they are taken away by seabirds and eaten, they cannot be rescued. They are majoring in the study of human behavior and culture. They are investigating a local cultural form, and they also need to respect the principle of non-intervention . Seeing the reaction of the young couple after the ceremony, do you still think the director does not know the reaction of normal people? ? Wasn't that little couple's reaction normal enough, yelling and running away that day? ? So how is it normal for you to perform one? ?
The identity of the protagonist group is special, they are scholars of human behavior culture, which means that they have background knowledge that fits the identity. Even scumbags know that human cultural forms are all kinds of strange. If you resort to history and do not limit the two dimensions of time and region, you will find that even cannibal cultures are everywhere. No matter how bad it is, you have always heard of the "custom of abandoning the old" in China, right? Under the conditions of the small-scale peasant economy, frequent famines, and food production depending on the sky, some places once practiced the custom of burying the elderly over a certain age, in order to balance the total consumption and physical output of the group. If you are a person who has spent three or four years studying the history of human culture, will you still be completely unable to understand the screams of the scene when you jump off a cliff when you are old? ?
Combining the above two points, the characters of the protagonist group: 1. They will not interfere with the internal culture of their own form. 2. They will not have a sense of crisis for this ritual that does not threaten their own safety. So what makes their reaction unreasonable in the film? Just because we are illiterate, we can't think that everyone should do the same thing as the illiterate, right?
Of course whether a movie is good or not is a subjective question, and I don't want to force anyone to think it's good/bad, scary/not scary. I want to explain why it terrifies me, and why the "write the paper kills" mockery is unreasonable. My biggest feeling after watching it is that my back is cold. When you extend this concept to each individual:
How do you know what the people around you are thinking and what their conception of the world looks like?
View more about Midsommar reviews
