The professor who teaches "Social Issues and Inequality" is young, beautiful, rational, smart, and capable. Her code name in my mind is "Goddess". Since I read the syllabus at the beginning of school, I have been looking forward to her talking about gender inequality and domestic violence. When I got the courseware PPT that day, most of the theories were related to feminism. I bit my nails and thought: Feminism is about to become a trap, but most of the people who fall into it are women. The goddess usually looks impeccable. Today, she will always complain about the oppression of male power and reveal a little bit of hostility. I don’t believe you are not. Pure girls. As a result, after she finished the opening sentence, she said calmly: Some feminist schools are somewhat extreme. After that, there are no more personal evaluations. Well! If the defense is really strict, you are ruthless. I'm curious about all the girls who don't use their beauty as a weapon. Feminism is outdated. The so-called gender awakening and the development of gender temperament are not only no longer new, but have been normalized and conscious of being accepted by the mainstream. At the earliest, women were repressed, and too prominent femininity and behavior were considered unchaste; later, there was a vigorous sexual liberation. Now, the body is being consumed normally, and it seems that it is time for moderation. In a consumer society, everyone knows that beauty can be used as capital in exchange for other benefits. While people have their own standards to measure the boundaries of so-called physical consumption, they enjoy the benefits and pleasures it brings. But if you have the heart to know the ins and outs and the filth, what are the things that tie the beauties to consciously not abusing their bodies and not taking "beauty" as their first label? I don't believe it's due to the patriarchal self-righteousness of chastity and morality, there's always something brighter that hasn't been revealed. The human heart always walks ahead of philosophy and literature and art. In the early years, if the female director had the ambition to express a deep sense of female awakening in the film, the heroine was always mediocre in appearance or neurotic in temperament, and even had more obvious defects. Only when there is a defect can there be pain, and only when there is a tragedy can it be recognized that there is an aesthetic existence. Like Jane's "Piano Lesson", the heroine Ida is simply a dumb girl. "Piano Lesson" is an extremely narcissistic work. Not only is the heroine dumb, but the whole background is still on a deserted island isolated from the world. She made all possible objective conditions to the extreme, only to limit the only possibility of Ada's love to the spiritual level. This is equivalent to forcing everyone to look directly into a woman's heart and admit that a woman also has her own main thoughts and emotions, that she is not something attached to her husband, and has the right to choose the object of her desire. If the heroine is good-looking, the dramatic conflict is diminished because the audience has reason to believe that she is favored for her beauty. Too bad feminism is out of date. Shooting women's stories like this now will only be perceived by others If you have too much yin qi, you will be disliked and persecuted and delusional: even if you are favored because of her beauty, why not? Besides, weight loss and plastic surgery are so popular, Jane Eyre can also become Elizabeth. So when Jane filmed "Bright Star" in 2009, telling the love story of the poets Keats and Fanny, it was another model: a down-and-out genius and a daughter-in-law. Finally, the heroine didn't need to be dumb or disabled this time, she was still pretty, and her family was quite rich. But Jane was Jane, and she would never let Keats fall in love with Fanny because she was beautiful and rich, not because it was unhistorical, but because the director was Jane. Even if times change, she can't let her heroine completely get rid of foreign objects and face the spirit, then she won't take a step back and join in with postmodern consumerism. As a result, she made Fanny radiant. A common-sense question is that Fanny is the first protagonist of Bright Star, not Keats, even though the British government paid for it. If it is said that men and women are attracted to each other at first, they are attracted by their skin, and they are attracted by their appearance and so-called temperament; then Fanny is in love at first sight, but Keats has no feelings for her. Fanny, who was thought to know only "flirting and sewing", always dressed like a flamboyant peacock. But her eyes are calm and confident, and she is the leader of this love relationship. She not only actively creates opportunities for the two to get along, but also learns poetry for Keats. In each detail, the plot is advanced with great restraint. The contrast between the two is too obvious, Fanny has a strong will and independent character, and Keats is like a sensitive and fragile little beast. Even her plumpness and his thinness have become a metaphor for a maternal complex. There are many kinds of love, this is one of them. Grateful that Jane is no longer so egoistic, and let the heroine truly fall in love with a man. And this emotion happened, not because Keats revolved around Fanny, but because Fanny was attracted by him and took the initiative to go to him. Even if Jane poured her feelings into the heroine and made the love story complete, the film critics of that year were still very disappointed, saying that this was a superficial "girlish love for spring". I just feel that they are too harsh on this film. Even for the clear and moving change in the director's personal emotional outlook, as well as the very subtle and classical artistic conception of the whole film, I should say two good things. It's just that today's feminism can't really rely on it. It's no wonder that female directors are not up to their expectations. For example, Li Yu and Fan Bingbing use female kisses as a means of movie marketing. Women's stories are no longer indescribable under the surface of life, and they no longer have the shocking force when they are spread out to others, and they have become sparse and common. All the stories surrounding women, economic and spiritual independence, maternity protection, workplace equality, family division of labor, domestic violence and sexual harassment, some have become common sense, and some have been said to be rotten solve. But none of them have the fresh excitement of mysticism anymore. Today's women are more sober and willing to indulge, and more of them choose to be materialized and consumed by themselves. Or soberly refuse, whether it is on the side of ethics or not, at least outsiders have lost their right to speak. There is another teacher in the school, who teaches women's literature, and every class emphasizes that he is a feminist, "This is a very important label for me." But she also said, you know that Xu Anhua doesn't like people calling her a female director or a feminist. I don't think it's uncommon, and I don't like it. It's rare for someone like you to have "Feminist" printed on a T-shirt. She said that she was beautiful when she was young, and the canteen chef would always give an extra chicken leg. Later, when this benefit was gone, she knew that she was old. So I think she is interesting and always go to class. Sometimes I can't help but want to say to her, "Teacher, you are out of date. Look at how bad feminism is now." But she smiles every time, and she knows all of this better than I do. If Jane is going to make women's films - oddly enough that women's films are still a genre expression of public habit - what else is she going to do? There must be female directors who insist on making female stories, and there must be female directors who refuse to be labeled as feminist directors. It does not matter. Whether you are the most awake person at the moment, or an outdated person who adheres to the principle, it is rare to have a clear mind. That's enough. There are bound to be female directors who insist on making female stories, and there are bound to be female directors who refuse to be labeled as feminist directors. It does not matter. Whether you are the most awake person at the moment, or an outdated person who adheres to the principle, it is rare to have a clear mind. That's enough. There are bound to be female directors who insist on making female stories, and there are bound to be female directors who refuse to be labeled as feminist directors. It does not matter. Whether you are the most awake person at the moment, or an outdated person who adheres to the principle, it is rare to have a clear mind. That's enough.
View more about Bright Star reviews
