The theme of this film is obvious, "dictatorship is an evil that will be defeated by freedom". After all, we all agree that "dictatorship is evil, and freedom is better than dictatorship". Therefore, from the perspective of political correctness, it is easy for us to Impressed by the film. But I can't help but wonder: if someone made an animation with the same quality that had the opposite theme, how would we rate it? Presumably it will get the opposite evaluation. From this, I have a question: Does the value of this film come from its artistry, or does it come from its "politically correct" theme?
Because of "political correctness", autocracy must be evil, and freedom must be victorious. Because of "political correctness", good people and bad people can be portrayed in masks, reality can be alluded to, and themes can be preached in a didactic tone; however, the establishment of such a "political correctness" limit cannot be crossed, isn't it right? Is it also a tyranny?
Revolution, Revolution, robots smashing palaces into rubble is cool, but before and after? How did this kingdom come to be like this? After the ruins and the separation of the peoples, what's next? The director did not explain, and did not give answers (the film even has a tendency to slide towards anarchism). Take the French Revolution, which the film mainly alludes to, as an example. Various complicated reasons led to the situation in France at that time, which cannot be solved by saying "XX people/XX system is bad". If according to the description of this film, all the evils of the ruling class stem from their wicked personal conduct, then I would like to ask: If Charles XVI was a benevolent and virtuous king, would people still not revolutionize? ——After the French overthrew "Charles XVI" more than ten years later, didn't the revolutionary masses of that year shout "Long live the Emperor" with the same enthusiasm?
All in all, the director indulges in his own romanticism, only emphasizes the destructive side of the revolution and does not involve the construction side, let alone explores the root cause behind the revolution, which will only damage the realistic meaning of the theme that the film wants to promote. "Political correctness" is always short-lived, and works based on "political correctness", no matter how clever and sincere, cannot avoid the danger of "reluctantly falling away" after the passage of time.
PS: When the bird persuaded the lion in the dungeon, it really showed the true character of a street demagogue: inciting the lion revolution did not rely on "the king did a lot of evil and locked you up for so long", but "the king stole the shepherdess, she The sheep were originally for you to eat.”—Let’s not say whether the sheep of the shepherdess was eaten by the lions, the sheep themselves are still in the painting…
View more about The King and the Mockingbird reviews
