Need to kill violence? After watching the whole film, I think the answer given by the director is that it is not necessary or not. Without violence, people are like fish out of water, unable to survive. The world is healthy because of violence, and it's no accident that Tom is back on Joey. So why does the male protagonist in the film not encourage his son to fight the school bully? Because the male protagonist believes that this cannot fundamentally solve the problem and restore peace to life. The little boy will use the pleasure brought by violence as his goal, and forget that violence is for happiness. That is what Kant said: people are ends rather than means, in other words, everything serves the happiness of people. And the male protagonist can solve the problem by killing his brother and return to his dream life - serving customers in the store and serving his wife in bed. It was also mentioned in the movie that his brother was not pleasing to the eye within the Mafia, and no one would care if he killed his brother. Problem solved, everyone happy ending. But is it really so? Whether it can solve the problem is a sufficient reason to use violence? First, violence itself is innocent. What Sartre calls "dirty hands", he thinks that using violence to deal with problems achieves a noble purpose. Violence is dirty hands, but I don't think so. From a dialectical point of view, if people are the goal, and the core of violence is to achieve the goal, then it is noble in itself. Conversely, if violence is the only purpose, then violence itself is dirty. This leads to a question: what is happiness, then enjoy the power and the feeling of power brought by violence, is it happiness? Then it is necessary to define the scope of human beings. The people here, according to the general social values, refer to the mainstream crowd. Therefore, in the movie, the behavior of the little boy is not recognized. There are a lot of negative effects that can be cited, families who are not wealthy can't afford high litigation costs, spreading violent ideas on campus, hurting classmates, and so on. The correct way for the little boy is to save the country through the curve, tell teachers and parents, or directly raise the problem of the system, and launch the first shot against school violence. However, repression and cover-up, this is not a kind of violence against the individual boy. Another way of thinking, if you look at it from the individual perspective of a little boy, if you don't use violence to control violence, the school bully will only become more and more deceiving. Only by using violence can you quickly exchange for a peaceful life, otherwise you will been bullied for a long time. Or, he does not have enough confidence and knowledge to allow himself to change all this, so he can only hope for violence. Therefore, I believe that the interpretation of happiness should go beyond the film itself, and the audience of happiness should be a dialectical unity of the majority and the minority. Then, violence can be interpreted in this way: violence is the product of individual or group ignorance or eagerness to achieve, and its purpose is to reshape a new self-ideal order. If this purpose is not achieved, it can be defined as "dirty" dirty hands". Going back to the question at the beginning of the article, the male protagonist killed his brother. I believe this is far from over. As long as violence starts, it is like the butterfly effect. Violence will continue to find the door, and we can only use violence to control it. Violence, unless self-destruction ends it all. Therefore, people are born with two choices: to be the object of violence, or to overcome violence with violence. The former will sooner or later be marginalized by society, while the latter often lead to destruction. Just like in the film, when the son and the father faced violence, they chose to swallow it up at first, but they were forced to become more and more ruthless; and after violence was used, more violence followed. Therefore, most people often combine the two to achieve their own happiness. Therefore, as long as everything is not resolved with violence, and violence is tamed into an obedient dog, coming out when needed and hiding when not needed, then violence is not the original sin. Just like Joey and Tom in the film, they are like two sides of the yin and yang. No one is inseparable from the other, and neither party can disappear, which makes the debate of violence and peace meaningful. At the end of the film, my understanding is that the whole family finally accepted the male lead. Maybe going through it all, they realize that violence doesn't kill, and it doesn't kill. The little boy's hands are already covered with blood, and his mother is unequivocal when he picks up a gun when necessary, and the little girl who has never seen violence may still have the nightmare of that dark monster, but she will get used to it and eventually become one. Most importantly, they realize that the love between them cannot be killed by violence, and that violence serves the love between them, then that is enough. The little girl served the cutlery, the little boy handed over the meat plate, and the mother's silent eyes also conveyed love. The film ended quietly in the tears of the hero and heroine. The audience behind the screen is also reflecting on the violence hidden in their hearts.
View more about A History of Violence reviews
