Not long after the film, the priest played by Zhang Hanyu disappeared, as did Tim Robbins. Feng Xiaogang began to dismantle the corruption within the Kuomintang with huge ambitions: the head of state did not observe the people's feelings, the army bullied the weak, and the quartermaster made a lot of money. , The chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference drifts with the tide... On the other side, there are starving and dead everywhere, refugees selling their wives and daughters. In such a huge country, there is only negative energy, and there is no possibility of hope and redemption, which makes this movie an extremely unpleasant viewing experience. In other words, Feng Xiaogang knows how to create a suffering that shocks history, but he I don't know how to flatter the sublime of this world.
I don't know why. Feng Xiaogang made such a starving and cold movie. If "Tang Zhen" can still be a hot topic of the times, then "1942", as a long-forgotten history, doesn't seem that big. The box office effect, and the former still has the flattering point of "earthquake relief", the latter probably only presents naked suffering, and Feng Xiaogang's heart is cruel, unlike Ang Lee, who implicitly hides the crime scene, all the violent scenes, Including the wild dog biting the corpse, the blind deer being cooked in a hot pot, and the samurai sword running across the back of the pillar, it is a bit unbearable to witness. Throughout the film, Feng Xiaogang is just endlessly pushing the characters into the fire pit. This is a standard TV drama style text. It uses deliberately imposed contradictions to mobilize the audience's emotions.
Moreover, the starting point of "1942" and "Tang Zhen" are very suspicious. It is a shameful thing to talk about the box office in the face of such a difficult subject. What's more, it must be in line with the three-fold theme of the main theme, commercial film and artistry at the same time The condition is originally wishful thinking, and after all, it is a "three no-reliance". Feng Xiaogang has never been a director with a clear aesthetic style and iconic lens language, nor is he an intellectual with compassion. His films are almost all common sayings in the market, and the most valuable "Feng's humor" is actually a piece of flattering jokes, which is no different from the extended version of the sketch. Therefore, once in the context of "1942", Feng Xiaogang immediately exposed his impoverishment and shallowness. He could not dig out the humanistic things behind this disaster, nor could he understand how to face this history. Throughout the film, apart from deliberately intensifying suffering, he is actually helpless. Faith could have been a force for support and redemption, but the priest's sermons were not carried out, but instead appeared redundant, and the government's depiction of corruption was, to a certain extent, an attempt to avoid it. The thin and deliberately strengthened sub-line of text is actually like "The Great Cause of Founding a Nation", which is like a half-volume journal. It does not have a strong interaction with the main line of refugees fleeing from the famine.
Another manifestation of negative energy is that there is no moralized character in the movie. The blind deer who is a long-term worker steals and robs his daughter and sells his daughter. The puller of the cart tempts with two biscuits to take advantage of the owner's daughter. After experiencing the transition of family property from existence to nothing, Feng Xiaogang was actually defined as a victim in the strict sense. This tendency has been biased from the beginning, including the role of Xu Fan, who has been portrayed as half steadfast and half pitiful. It is intentional to elevate. In this movie, her self-selling, including the self-selling of the owner's daughter, does not necessarily include the reasons for her personal solution to the problem of food and clothing while exchanging food for her family. In fact, they are all selfish, which makes them The tragic color is greatly reduced, and the plot of the aunt and nephew worshipping the heaven and earth changes rapidly and distorted, which is actually similar to the scene where Xu Fan kneels in "Tang Zhen". Although Shuanzhu died under the sword of the Japanese, it was not an act of resistance against the concept of national consciousness (if it wasn't for the windmill incident, he might have been a traitor), but more like a windmill-induced "nothing in the world". Thief" type of bloodshed. Even the New York Times reporter Bai Xiude is not simple, he has experienced the baptism of artillery fire and the brink of starvation, but that is his profession, and a very important purpose is to win the Pulitzer Prize. Li Xuejian's Henan government chairman Li Pei is basically a positive character, but he is weak and pedantic, unable to take on the responsibility of hope and redemption in the entire film.
Many movies have described suffering, but coexisting is the struggle of hope. "The Thirteen Hairpins of Jinling" is the integrity of going to the gate of hell regardless of the noble or the low. There is no such noble thing in "1942". Feng Xiaogang may have also been concerned about the good and evil of human nature in the movie, but giving a liter of millet to the sick grandma and changing pants in the reeds seems to be the glory of idealism. Feng Xiaogang always focuses his attention on such trivial matters. Of course, it is difficult to have a mind that takes into account the overall situation. "1942" is a film without integrity, imagination, and soul, and it is a completely patched text. Feng Xiaogang's cleverness has always been above the narrative. His films have always been vulgar and flattering. Even in this serious production, the shallow humour is not forgotten, unfortunately, not only does it fail to reconcile the heaviness of the film itself, but it also makes the film fundamentally frivolous.
If a director is making a movie with sincerity, then there must be values that he firmly believes in. This kind of thing, Li An has it, Zhang Yimou also has it, even Lu Chuan said he has it, at least they can find an argument to explain its sublime. , even in a flattering way, but Feng Xiaogang in "1942" had no choice but to use a magnifying glass to count the scars one by one. This is like selling suffering. Those deliberately intensified suffering are actually for the purpose of making more money from national disasters. This person who has always only talked about the box office is not talking about conscience, but interests. He never understands What is the spiritual sustenance in the true sense of the film.
Therefore, "1942" is fundamentally a shameless film, and we also have reasons to doubt the seriousness of its creation, just like those refugees who are still white and fat after more than 100 days on the screen, very disgusting, and also Very creepy.
View more about Back to 1942 reviews
