However, as far as the plot is concerned, it is the same as "Evil in the East", I didn't understand it. A biography of a vampire? Loneliness, kindness, pain, regret, seeking? There are every word, but every word cannot be substituted.
What I think most is, how does it make it impossible for the audience to enter? For the audience, movies are another kind of life, allowing people to increase their own life experience through empathy, so almost all movies have this function. For moving and reflective movies or novels and dramas, audiences can experience them, and put themselves to think and feel. When the audience can't understand it, they will feel puzzled! "Evils of the East" and "Interview with the Vampire" are movies that puzzled me. I don't know what feelings he is talking about.
Of course, whether they will be confused is also related to the audience's own experience and experience. Of course, children cannot appreciate love. In addition, being unable to experience it has nothing to do with the director's so-called restraint.
I have seen this saying that drama is conflict, conflict between people and the environment, conflict between people, and conflict between people and oneself. The difficulty is progressive, and conflict with oneself is the most difficult expression. Interviewing a vampire at night is a conflict with yourself. Because he is a vampire, Louis must kill and contradict his inner conscience. Understandable, but unable to appreciate. I can't imagine the regrets caused by killing, nor the depraved loneliness caused by the endless life span. Even if you can say it, you can't experience it and feel it, so it won't be shocked and truly moved.
On the other hand, it is also related to the director's technique. When the inner entanglement is often expressed, an external choice is often set up. For example, the inner entanglement of the eavesdropper in "Eavesdropping Storm" determines the fate of external writers and wives, and the entanglement of Zhou Xingchi in "A Westward Journey" determines the pain of Fairy Zixia, and at the same time There will be an external reaction (the reaction produces or enhances the dramatic effect). In this way, the inner entanglement is externalized and visualized, which is easy for the audience to experience. To give another example, if a person stands there in pain, you will only be surprised, but if you give him an external sensible cause of pain, such as the food in front of him, but he is very fat, he must lose weight and cannot eat. It's relatively easy to understand. Speaking of this, there are actually no emotions that are completely incomprehensible (of course, related to your experience), it's just that the director should give you a clear reason for you to substitute. "Evils of the East" and "Interview with the Vampire" are such examples. The director doesn't give you a clear and clear reason. He just asks the actors to perform and tell the audience "I am in pain" over and over again, and the audience has to be lost. But the advantage of this is that the audience can make up for the reasons based on their own experience. It's just that thinking precedes moving (and it's not thinking about social human nature), and the brain fills up things without self-confidence. I don't like this kind of movie perception.
Thinking of another movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" that I didn't understand at all, I believe it was not because of experience or IQ. Speaking of this movie, I just want to explore why such a puzzling movie appears, and how to make the movie look like this?
First of all, it is not the restraint of the director. It is often said that the director’s restraint should mean that the film is not sensational in the sensational place, and the tone is taken back to give the audience a more real and flat feeling, and the torrential river is turned into a silent trickle of moisturizing things. People are at ease and restrained. But this premise is that the audience has fully substituted and felt the emotions in the movie.
But not the type mentioned this time. For incomprehensible movies like "Night Interview", it can be said that the director is more restrained, restrained to the extent that the audience is not allowed to enter, so that it cannot be called restraint but deliberate. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, as long as the director is willing, there is no emotion that is difficult for the audience to understand because of knowledge and experience. The reason why it is difficult for you to understand is because the director deliberately prevents you from understanding. Why do you mean deliberately? Because I think human emotional experience is common, and the way of telling stories is also the same. If it is told in a natural instinct, it must be a way that everyone can understand. If you don’t understand, it’s an unnatural and deliberate way. Xu Anhua's "Golden Age", although I haven't watched it yet, I think it should be the same. The director and screenwriter didn't want you to experience Xiao Hong's pain, just let you watch Xiao Hong's life as a spectator. They are not like novelists, but critics. This is an artistic attempt, and I don't like it.
why? One aspect is the type factor. Imagine watching "Kangxi Dynasty" and other imperial dramas, we rarely experience the emperor's emotions but still watch with gusto. At this time, we are in the position of an absolute audience or spectator. Of course, what many people do now is to allow the audience to enter.
On the other hand, it should be the alienating effect of drama. It is to allow you to be an absolute spectator, to prevent you from substituting, not allowing you to experience, and not moving you. Just let you watch a story that has nothing to do with you, and then make an evaluation of this world that has nothing to do with you. I don't know the meaning of this, because it is contrary to the audience's motivation to watch the movie. No one wants to see a world that has nothing to do with them. Everyone uses other people's stories to make their own dreams. Part of the reason why "Night Interview" uses this method is because this is the world of vampires. The director just wants us to see the pain of vampires without substituting it. Some people say that the suffering of vampires alludes to human suffering and is a metaphor for homosexuality. I agree, but I don't feel it deeply. It alludes to human desire and pain, which fits the effect of its distancing, and the method and the subject are both irreplaceable. I don't like it or comment on it for the time being. The metaphor of homosexuality is quite similar, but it is like picking up sesame seeds and losing watermelon. The elements in the movie far exceed the theme of homosexuality, so I don't agree with it.
In addition, why do you say that this movie is deliberately restrained or can't read it? What method did the director use? First, it is the omission of the director, not to externalize the inner entanglement. The actors always break out in quarrels, and contradictions arise without intervention, which is inexplicable. Secondly, the plot is too scattered and too fast, especially in the second half, Louis and the little girl kill Lestar, the little girl is killed in the sun, and Louis has revenge. On the contrary, the narrative is very fast for these obvious major plots. The extensions are very short, but some inner tangled conversations and quarrels are rather lengthy. These abnormal tactics made me very depressed. It's like laying the groundwork for a long time, but the climax passes in a flash. This technique is very unique, but if you are not sure, don't learn it randomly.
A lot of thoughts are messy, and the writing is very verbose, and I will streamline and modify it later.
View more about Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles reviews
