When I saw the pianist in the uniform of a German officer running out of the ruins where he was hiding at the end of "The Pianist", I took a breath: "Oh my god, he's gonna be killed!" I'm almost certain that the pianist will be killed. Manslaughter. So the peaceful ending in the end surprised me. I firmly believe that if it weren't for the adaptation of real people and real events, in Polanski's style, he would have left a pianist alive. After watching Polanski's "Chinatown", I learned an important lesson: Polanski's movies are not hopeful.
At the end of "Chinatown", a neutron bullet passed through the heroine's head, and her head hit the steering wheel of the car to make a harsh whistle, and her daughter screamed in horror. The actor approached in a panic, and his helpless anger broke out nowhere. The villain father who raped his own daughter finally won: he took away his daughter/granddaughter.
Justice has nowhere to speak.
This ending makes me extremely angry. It goes against the logic of the usual script: justice must triumph over evil.
This kind of thinking mode has been repeated and strengthened by countless Hollywood blockbusters and many independent films, and finally formed a tried and tested buying point.
This logic can't help but remind me of an argument made by Jacqui Banaszynski, a teacher at the School of Journalism: It is more difficult for a manuscript without resolution or hope to be published by editing. She once met a story, the protagonist of the story was a little boy (I don't remember the exact age, about two or three years old), and his young mother left him alone in the apartment for a party. He did not have enough food and care, skinny and bones, excrement everywhere, extremely inhumane. After Jacqui finished editing this story, the editor-in-chief was unwilling to post it. The reason is simple: such stories make him feel angry and don't know where to vent. What is even more frustrating is that such tragedies happen from time to time. The newspaper has made similar manuscripts many times, but nothing has changed. Why bother?
Another example is the article "Never let go" written by finalist Kelly Brenham of the 2010 Pulitzer Prize about her premature baby. When I Skyped with her in class, I asked her during the class discussion: If her daughter did not survive or had a permanent disability, would she still write this manuscript? She replied: If my daughter has a disability, I might write a manuscript about what it is like to be a mother of a disabled child in a few years; if my daughter does not survive, then what can I write besides life sucks? Then I probably won't write anything.
Not only are editors reluctant to post manuscripts that give people no hope, but some reporters are reluctant to write. The reason is very simple. You tell someone a hopeless story, so what? Life itself has so many unsatisfactory things. Why do you have to burden your audience/readers?
The proliferation of happy-ending movies has its market. But the problem is that it does not represent truth. What's more frightening is that when we adapt to this model, in a sense, just like the utility brought by Huxley's soma in Brave New World, we are brainwashed with smiles unknowingly.
It is human nature to avoid pain and discomfort. However, what makes us moved and inspired is often not our default-setting, such as how to survive and adapt to life. One of the true charms of human nature lies in transcending our basic nature to defend reality with critical thinking.
The ending of "Chinatown" made me feel depressed for the rest of the day after watching the movie, because it reflects the depression and anger caused by the injustice we feel in the real world. But at the same time, I also felt a kind of relief and relief, because my true feelings were projected and expressed in the movie, and thus eased. At the same time, I feel that I am respected by the director. He did not treat me as a child to feed me candy, but regarded me as an individual with independent thinking ability to have an equal and sincere dialogue with me. He is not worried about whether I can accept the cruelty and taint of reality, because reality will only give me freedom.
When many directors continue to update the audience with more dazzling visual stimuli (actions, erotica, 3D, etc.), Polanski does not compromise. He will not adjust the ending of the movie in order to take care of the audience's feelings (not to make them feel depressed). Of course, anyone who knows Polanski's ill-fated life can understand the dark elements in his movies. (In 1969, his eight-month pregnant wife Sharon Tate and four other friends were brutally murdered by Charles Manson’s group at their home in Los Angeles. One of the members wrote in Tate’s blood. The word pig. This tragedy shocked the United States in the 1960s with its extremely bloody hands.) I also have a friend who directly denied Polanski’s film because of the scandal of Polanski’s sexual harassment of girls. It's hard to tell who is and who must be, and we can't even confirm whether he is guilt or not. In any case, Polanski does not try to please anyone, this is his signature.
I watched "Iron Man 3" after watching "Chinatown" for two days. The happy ending of the ending makes me angry: it is too modal. Of course, how can the heroine die? Even if the heroine falls into the sea of flames, she will surely be able to jump out of the fire to save the protagonist. In the end, the two stay together.
Movies have unlimited creative freedom. Unfortunately, most of the time talented and untalented directors are busy making blockbuster films.
View more about Chinatown reviews
