shallow theme The theme of this
film is only one sentence: "You are not hostile to the unknown, it is not your enemy." The proof is omitted, because all viewers can see this sentence from the film. "I" and "it" may be understood as a general reference, but the creator clearly hopes that people will first apply this sentence to the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. The film is intended to be anti-nuclear war, anti-Cold War, and to promote reconciliation with the Soviet Union. This intention is not "obvious", but "open flames":
the main force that promotes the plot is the fear of Soviet Russia. The paranoid SEAL officer believes in violence, and is suspected of being insane due to nervousness. He must eliminate powerful unknowns in order to feel at ease. This is the typical image of the militant American military in some Hollywood movies, and it is also in the worldview of such movies. Causes of wars and confrontations in the contemporary world. Several viewers interviewed by TV news in the film express their views on Su's reconciliation, such as "they also have children (so they definitely don't want to fight)", etc. These scenes do not help the plot (but are not related to the theme of goodwill for goodwill). Echoes). Fears of a repeat of the Cuban missile crisis create an atmosphere of crisis that objectively leads the audience to connect with the real world. Another evidence is that the film was released at the end of the Cold War, and many classic films have already reflected people's fear of the Cold War and the possibility of nuclear war. If the audience at that time did not associate the theme of the film with the Cold War, if the creators did not foresee it. This is too strange.
It is good to preach goodwill and reconciliation, but it is safe to use it as an emotion, inclination, hope, i.e. "reconciliation is good", "I hope for reconciliation", etc. Good hope is not wrong. But taking it as an answer to a problem, or even a solution to a real-world problem, runs the risk of error.
The Cold War happens to be a counter-example to the "correct view" that "if you are not hostile to the unknown, it is not your enemy." The latter cannot be derived from a proper observation of the Cold War, nor should it be seen as its crux or antidote. The ideology of the Soviet Union had the ultimate goal of burying capitalism from the very beginning, when there was no Soviet Union on earth. After the founding of the country, it spared no effort to infiltrate and subvert the old world, and was forced to stop its expansion until it was unable to do so. "The Cuban instructors who supported Angola's Revolutionary War were the reality of the Cold War). And unless the ideology is abandoned and changed, the Soviet Union cannot even maintain its internal domination.
The only way to reconcile with the Soviet Union is for the Chamberlains to reconcile with Nazi Germany. Of course, unlike the Nazis, the Soviet Union did not have to have an actual war to maintain its rule. It only needed to prepare for a war. The Cold War in the eyes of some Hollywood films happened to be the most favorable situation for the Soviet Union. The Cold War, in which the heart and the face were at odds, seemed to be the most realistic reconciliation plan at the time. Can it be achieved? I don't know, but all the historical facts before the film's release have proved that the only thing that prevented the expansion of the red tide is force and the determination to use force (think of the force of the SEALs and the determination of the officers), which is repeatedly mentioned in the film The Cuban Missile Crisis is the perfect illustration. Even without considering the feasibility, such a "reconciliation" is a complete abandonment of the people of Russia, Eastern Europe and the third world under the shroud of the red tide. If you praise such a "reconciliation", how can you sincerely praise kindness and justice? and love?
Moreover, where the Soviet Union is unknown. Even if you don't know how "1984" came about, even if you pretend that no one fled from the Soviet Union and told the truth behind the Iron Curtain, at least you have read the news and know about the war caused by the Soviet Union in the Third World. Hollywood is just playing dumb.
Even without considering the theme, the way the film is performed is worthy of being superficial. A big reason for the film's critical acclaim is its success in creating an atmosphere of horror, tension and mystery - which its reputation seems to have always been - however, the heroine smiles and reaches out to the alien water column, which has been gently brushed away All horror. When I saw this, I had already guessed that the creator would make the aliens show kindness, so as to bring out the theme, so the second half of the film is no longer interesting. It is said that the box office of this film is average, I do not know if there is a reason for this. So why is it still considered a successful thriller? Perhaps many viewers are still worried that the mysterious aliens will be provoked by the SEALs' actions, but I guess there is another possibility - the arrangement of this film coincides with the mainstream world view, that is, the promotion of the American literary and intellectual circles to the world. The worldview represented by that misunderstanding of the Cold War; the audience's concern about a madman causing a nuclear war is perfectly projected into the plot of the similar situation, and it will be perfectly in the play, turning a blind eye to the creator's naked intentions. If the film arranges a horror ending, there is nothing wrong with the plot, but it becomes a horror film that is not scary enough. It is better to carry out the theme and obtain a coherent beauty.
When the water column appears, there are plenty of shots from an alien perspective. This may have served as a reminder to the audience to empathize with aliens. It must be speculated that aliens have similar behavioral patterns to humans, otherwise the behavior of the SEALs launching nuclear bombs will not necessarily bring danger, there will be no corresponding tension, and the bomb disposal will be meaningless. The distorted picture in the alien's eyes adds a sense of mystery, but it is followed by the smiling interaction between the heroine and the alien water column, all previous efforts have been abandoned.
The film is also a "time work". It would be fine if the "alien" remained mysterious, but since it has already been revealed, such images and behaviors are far from novel and horrifying in the eyes of today's audience.
Utilized literature and art
(this part is my "guess", not sure about it)
I have always thought that there should be boundaries between opinions and literature and art. Opinions should be expressed in the form of discourse, so that they can be clear and have the potential to be systematized. Suitable carriers are essays, reviews, academic papers, academic monographs, etc. In order to facilitate the spread, you can also use analogies and write stories. If literary and artistic works unfortunately become the carrier of opinions, their literary and artistic value will be greatly reduced, and opinions will be submerged in the text, blurring, distorting, and even covering up loopholes. Unless the author intends to deceive the world, he should not be so insincere about his views. Some people regard it as full of philosophy as the highest evaluation of literature and art (for example, some people think that this is the only standard for first-class novels), I doubt it. I even guess that such a person has either never seen a real philosopher's in-depth discussion of the direction of philosophical research in which the "philosophy" contained in his beloved works is located, or a very small possibility is a lonely philosophy lover who has long suffered Qu Gao, suffering from widowhood, accidentally found that the famous literary artist had also thought about the issues he or she was interested in, so he happily climbed up to this senior "confidant".
In the eyes of readers and audiences, literary and artistic works that can be regarded as profound may be one of five in expressing human nature, discovering problems (such as discovering problems in society and human nature), summarizing laws, finding causes, and proposing solutions. The latter three are very "dangerous". The clearer and more universal the law, and the more specific the cause or answer, the easier it is to make mistakes. Once the audience learns the real laws, causes, and answers from other fields, they will doubt the profoundness of the work. Because this is the field of scholars. The depth and breadth of philosophical and sociological research has long reached the point where it is difficult to explain the specific issues of research to laymen. Economics has also provided a new perspective for understanding human nature. Anthropology and biology have identified society from an evolutionary perspective , culture, the true causes of many phenomena in human nature, and all of these studies continue to develop. In literary and artistic works, if you think deeply about any phenomenon and express it more clearly, it may be falsified in the future. If it contradicts the existing academic theories, it will be even more regrettable.
Lenovo's
"A Space Odyssey 2001" also has the background of the Cold War, the US-Soviet hegemony, but unlike this film, which is eager to act as a philosopher king and prescribe medicine for the real world with its naive and shallow worldview, it focuses on the origins of wisdom and the universe that are less concerned by people. Its feelings are profound and stand the test of time, and it will not let audiences understand the real Cold War history and Hollywood's political tendencies to penetrate its creative intentions and feel dull.
"The Three-Body Problem" is also similar - the works are all marked with the author's worldview and the world situation of the era in which they were created, but the author's mind quickly escaped from the present world and moved to a wider time, space and dimension. Creativity with a rational tone. (btw As far as the setting of the universe and the ideas in it are concerned, the birth of "The Three-Body Problem" is quite epoch-making: I have never heard of a well-known foreign sci-fi novel with a universe setting that is as different as "The Three-Body Problem". Knowing the world. Although the settings and ideas of other works are also imaginative, but after watching "The Three-Body Problem" and thinking about them, you will realize that they are just out of the box at the same level, while "Three-Body Problem" will be exaggerated and you will realize that they are just out of the box. "The Three-Body Problem" jumps out of this level. Of course, the universe view of "Three-Body Problem" is still traceable. It is a cosmic version of a "mutually harmful society", just as the international relations in the eyes of teenagers is an international version of a "mutually harmful society" .)
View more about The Abyss reviews
