Original link
The film was founded on the condition that gratuitous boredom has become a luxury that capitalism presents to the petty bourgeoisie. The conclusion given by this film is that there is indeed a transition zone that can be visualized between "denial" and "unreal". The director strives to convince viewers that art has become a by-product of boredom, and that boredom, instead of justifying the necessity of art, gives boredom some kind of aesthetics or legitimacy. The abnormal has become the constant. In a cognitive world that gradually loses weight, every character and every face uses random wandering to prove that they have experienced nothing, and cannot experience anything, let alone gain or lose anything. .
When Wilheim, played by Vogler, says at the end of the film in a tone of reading astronomical data, "I'm waiting for something like a miracle, but there's still no storm", you know, it's only a person who has really traveled. out. In fact, the film is very simple: a young man who wants to be a writer uses his family's money to travel around under the pretext of looking for a job, and also wants to write something along the way. By the end of the whole film, the protagonist still has not found a job, and it seems that he has not written anything. shaped things. Starting with the motivation to break through my mediocre life, I found out that I was more mediocre than I imagined. This is a movie that dares to end "early". If the film doesn't end "early", someone will start arguing again: "How did Wilheim change in the end?" Vs "How did Wilheim end up the same?". In the end, Wenders was never interested in restoring Wilheim's psychological mechanisms or constructing a first perspective. This goes back to the question I said last time, is the movie about "seeing" or "thinking"? Wenders chose to "see" a person "thinks", but "sees" not.
My analysis is as follows: Wilheim was chosen to represent the nerd who yearns for "poetry and the distance", cum the mainstream audience of the film; Mignon for loli; Therese for the royal sister; Laertes for the increasingly boring old generation ; Bernd symbolizes the dead fat house that is more frustrated than himself under the influence of the literati's contemptuous psychology; the castle owner naturally symbolizes the strong man who is unheard of by the dead house who have no worries about food and clothing. It can be seen from some details of Wenders' design: such as taking the train to be sent by his mother, such as dodging when Therese is beaten, such as facing the rudeness of Laertes who determined that he can never beat him after long-term observation, Wilheim is not silent. A non-human outsider like Erso is just another person with no personality who doesn't know how to hide his clumsiness other than pretending to be cold. These are all logical characters. Overall, I don't see arrogant imagery in this film, and the free-flowing dialogue is an extension of the slightly cautious image, demonstrating how the author's film can humble and stylize the ideographic system. For example, although Therese scolding Wilheim has a bit of an "improvisational" flavor to Hurghula's sophisticated acting, it's Wenders' well-crafted lines that really make people admire: "I'm writing a The story of a man who is kind but doesn't know how to sympathize" "I'm like that matchbox, not in your script". Dialogue aside, the film's balance of music and camera movement is so well done that I can tolerate any issues with it. For example, at the beginning of the 51st minute, the alternation of musical instruments in the BGM corresponds to the opening and closing of the door and the alternation of light and dark in the walk; for example, the soundtrack suddenly stopped and suddenly resumed in the conversation between Wilheim and Therese in the 79th minute.
Mignon, played by 14-year-old Kinski, first appeared at 10:48, and I thought of a Uyghur girl I saw on a long car trip around that eclipse in the summer of 2009, that The girl must be younger than Migon, and she was sitting next to a parent or something like that: two young women who spoke a Southwestern dialect and wore cheesy makeup. I don't remember her face now, but I can basically recall her hostility, confusion, embarrassment, and curiosity when her frightened eyes met mine. I don't call this kind of encounter "seduction" anymore, because in reality everything is accidental, and movies are good at transforming accident into necessity. Mignon comes on stage, close-up, medium-range alternately, and then a close-up, American shot + French montage. First the face, then the body, because there is no words, jump directly to the person, and then the interpersonal relationship, the interpersonal relationship continues to bring more people who meet the expectations. Accident became inevitable. What dilutes the awkwardness between the reappearance brought by the "actor" and the theme represented by the "character" is the uncertainty that arises after every action, every editing, and this uncertainty makes every reappearance and every theme Everything can be said. In addition, Wenders insists on telling the audience that between characters, let alone communication, even copulation is impossible. No matter how many perspectives and words are presented in the film, there is always a character that cannot be hidden. , the motif of Wilheim trying to escape the crowd because he wanted to be a writer was an open paradox from the start.
Is there any lust in this movie? Isn't lust the "expected" encounter I mentioned above? And which movie can be established without "expectation"? Even the instinctive throbbing of the opposite sex gives way to a German-style, calm and objective writer "as it should" in this annoying film. What's even more comical is that Wilheim's "cool and objective" is more aimed at himself rather than others. And why he maintains this ruthlessness has never been explained. In fact, he claimed that he hoped to travel to find the object of writing, but this object can only be internal. And so we get to where the film is really coldly humorous: a writer who keeps "writing" to the point that he ignores his due reaction to the world, to the "writing" of others, complaining that he has nothing to do Write, because the only thing he can write, and keeps writing about, is himself! Plenty of, first-person, self-descriptive texts tirelessly oppose the invisible theatrical conflict in the visible world, but as the number of characters diminishes, this narrative lever must also gradually become unbalanced in the marginal effect, before it completely collapses, The movie ends. Wilheim is a rare person who concedes defeat to his own mediocrity, lacking the ability to fantasize or even embrace people or things that he doesn't particularly exclude. He is like a narrator forced into the text. I can observe and evaluate Wilheim only when Wilheim observes and evaluates others. This strategy of expressing things with the intention of expressing them validates the golden rule of cinematic grammar that Mitri speaks of: cinema always expresses first and then means.
Some very Benjaminic, and very German, themes lead the audience's mind to Wihleim's: to think about what he says, rather than to observe the other person who brings it up. Anyone who thinks that "in Germany, uneasiness is regarded as a matter of vanity and shame" is Wenders' core proposition in this film, then he has fallen into the trap unique to the author's film. Never forget that the first question that cannot be avoided in any film is always "relationship": the relationship between people; the relationship between people and time and space; the relationship between people and events. The author's films always intervene the themes that are not related to the real-time image through dialogue or sound, and strive to make the above-mentioned relationship that is clear at a glance blurred and dynamic. The purpose of strenuous efforts is nothing more than the pursuit of a poetic quality that is close to the limit. This inseparability between the subject and the image can be compared to a local movement of the film as a whole at a specific time. Under this partial movement, Wilheim has completed a defense for himself. One point he has been trying to maintain is that, as a guest invited to go down this "wrong path", he is not obliged to answer the questions raised by others, and he is very Difficulty finding motivation to engage in emotional exchanges with others. The successful suicide of the capitalist is an important plot, but it could have been more important. The success of suicide heralds the triumph of a certain freedom: the ultimate freedom to choose life and death. In contrast, this group of travelers can only spend time and space aimlessly, and they are also given a bell of freedom. Wenders has always tried to give an unbiased explanation of these two kinds of freedom, so he patiently shows the process of gradually "giving up" freedom of this group, and finally convinces Wilheim to admit defeat. You know, Wilehim once thought he could escape stupidity by choosing boredom. So, I think, whether "falsche" is translated as "false" or "wrong", Wenders must be applauded. Faced with the ultimate challenge of making the metaphysical realm of mankind visible in images, this German did indeed do it. good.
Finally, let's talk about another important question raised by "Broken Road": Is there a necessary causal relationship between "experience" and "creation"? It is worth mentioning that Wenders has already given an affirmative answer at the same time as asking this question, and this affirmative answer is arrived at by the negation of a negation: Wilheim refuses to admit that his "experience" inspired any" creation", and his refusal means the complete bankruptcy of "creation". The end of the film tells us that Wilheim has been trying to save himself from slipping into some kind of happiness or sadness by characterizing the "experience" as "stupid." It seems that the status of "writer", and the social status it demands, has given him this privilege. While other characters are talking about dreams, or redemption, or showing flesh, Wilheim gives up the chance to imitate any of them, which means that his "creation" will continue to be hostile to "experience." Although Wilheim claims that "in writing, observation trumps inspiration". But the film suggests that what Wilehim wanted to write but was afraid to write was some kind of inspiration on the fringes of "experience": poetry, for example. Poetry means the interruption and disturbance of everyday speech. After the little disturbance caused by poetry, both speech and "experience" will return to normal. Therefore, the character Bernd who represents the theme of "poetry" is short-lived. Such temporality was something Wilheim could not tolerate, nor could he resist. So what Wilheim "experienced" was not what he thought, nor what he didn't want, but just the wonder of himself, of this being.
View more about Wrong Move reviews
