Enclosed spaces, typewriters, psychopaths, writing and reading, the tension between the few characters and their relationships—these are the most important elements of the film, and the ones that fascinate me. In fact, the original includes more that the movie can't express, but it is the most attractive: dreams, hallucinations and psychology. These fill almost half of the content of the original novel. So charming, not only because of these elements with their own unique charm, but also worth mentioning is Anne played by Casey Bates. The first time I saw Bates' performance was probably in "Titanic", but I didn't notice it at the time. Later, I was most impressed by "Fried Green Tomatoes". It is a pity again that I also focused on other aspects at that time, but I clearly remember an aunt in her fifties who "accidentally" hit other people's cars six times. ,so cute. Next is in "Midnight in Paris", she actually played Gertrude Stein, the dashing poetess, Hemingway's mentor. And in the end, "Ten Days of Dangerous Love" (the novel's title "No. 1 Fan of Books") finally let me remember her to my bones, even more deeply than Mammy Rong. For the role of Annie, you can study it alone, focusing on the booklet about "memories of the past", going back to childhood and father, and writing a pathological analysis of manic depression. Although in the eyes of most audiences, Annie is a terrifying character, her aura that holds the entire movie with her size and expression, and her calm expression with a hammer, really makes people terrified. That's the point, or rather, the point that the original author, Stephen King, was trying to underscore. Stephen King is a bad guy. He said, "The best effect for me is that the reader dies of a heart attack while reading my novel." A lot of readers so cursed by him love him even more because of that quote, and I'm one of them. But I couldn't help laughing as I watched Annie shake her chubby body, her nipples looming, pursed her big upper lip, and yelled, "Am I going to say to the sales clerk: I have a check here!" . And when she was wielding the axe to the fullest, because she was so focused on admiring her expression, I forgot what Mr. Jin said, and instead immersed myself in a kind of enjoyment. Just imagine! After interrupting one of Paul's feet with great calmness, she said with a smile: Don't panic, it will be over soon; and then finish the other one - the atmosphere reached a climax in Paul's collapsed expression and exploded body and emotions - - Then, then! She said: Oh, I love you. Rong mama is weak, okay? However, the background music of this play turned out to be "Moonlight Song" , and it is the first movement, the most tender chapter. I suddenly feel that "Moonlight Song" is definitely a well-deserved Divine Comedy. Recall that in "The Elephant", the background music for the unbearably long shot of falling asleep is the moonlight song; in "Chloe", after Moore rejected Chloe's kiss, the moonlight song played; Now, even an awe-inspiring woman like Annie and that tingling scene can be included in the Moonlight Song. What else is impossible? I wouldn't be surprised to find a comedy scene that also uses Moonlight. There's nothing better than what "contrast" makes. So is the background music, so is Anne's expression. When it comes to Annie's expression, the novel says that her face often falls into a kind of hollowness without warning and for no reason, like being hollowed out, or the nerves are cut off, and there is nothing. That expression was not dazed or sluggish, there was at least something like "dazed" and "dazed" in daze and sluggishness; but nothing could be found in Anne's expression. If you haven't experienced Bates' performance, it's really hard to imagine what kind of facial expression that is, does it really exist? And after seeing the movie, the doubts are gone - see that woman's face? It's that look. The second time I watched it, I noticed another important element - fire. This is probably the most important, because it's the prop or symbol that almost becomes a clue and plays a key role in every major plot twist. In the first shot of the entire film, the "fire" comes out, not real fire, but a cigarette and a match; it's a close-up of a prop. From the very beginning, the director highlighted the role of "fire", whose symbolic meaning was formed later. The second "fire" is when Annie drags into a grill and hands Paul a match to burn his manuscript. With the huge fire rising into the sky, the meaning of "destruction" came out - the reader destroyed the writer who did not agree with his heart, trying to let the writer continue to create according to his own imagination, so as to satisfy his own illusion. The third "fire", the knocked down candle, shows the failure of the writer's resistance. The writer who is at a disadvantage at the moment, his strength is like a candle that is easily extinguished. The last time the writer himself lit the match again, as the first time - he destroyed the creation imposed on him by the reader - he was free. Connect these four occurrences of "fire" and it becomes clear: freedom - bondage - resistance - back to freedom. How old I love to analyze notation now. Maybe this is the root of film language, all kinds of symbols. When the confrontation between being "bound" and "resisting" was the most intense, the biggest conflict was the aforementioned "broken leg" plot. Before the advent of "reception aesthetics" theory and its "reader-response criticism" approach in the 1960s, we had always believed that writers were completely active and readers were completely passive. A writer, like God, creates a character, a plot, a thought, and the reader can only accept those works passively, like a devout Christian. Reception theory, on the other hand, completely denies this relationship, elevating the status of the reader to unprecedented heights. In the reader, the work is created for the second time, and this second creation is completed by thousands of readers in different times, and its effect or consequence is beyond the first creation in any case. . However, in "Book Fan No. 1" and the film adaptation, readers are not only passive-active, but also intend to play the role of a new "God". Stephen King wrote in the original book: "The loyal reader becomes the critical editor." She can praise you, but at the same time, she can imprison you, then destroy you, and finally reshape you according to her ideas, making you her own expressor. And all this in the name of love. "Oh, I love you," said Annie. Of course, the character's setting is a psychopath, and of course, a non-psychopath can't complete this series of behaviors. However, this character actually expresses the underlying thoughts of many readers to the extreme. We don’t want our idols to go off track, and we don’t want our loved ones to go off track, and this track, which is what initially attracted us to him, later developed into our own personal fantasy. If he deviates, the attitudes from light to heavy are: not admitting - losing - blaming the idol - trying to change the idol. And Annie, no doubt, took this very seriously. So serious that personal hallucinations occupy an unshakable dominance, and they do not hesitate to destroy idols. you want to be free? Then break your leg. So she did that. As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels." When the confrontation between being "bound" and "resisting" was the most intense, the biggest conflict was the aforementioned "broken leg" plot. Before the advent of "reception aesthetics" theory and its "reader-response criticism" approach in the 1960s, we had always believed that writers were completely active and readers were completely passive. A writer, like God, creates a character, a plot, a thought, and the reader can only accept those works passively, like a devout Christian. Reception theory, on the other hand, completely denies this relationship, elevating the status of the reader to unprecedented heights. In the reader, the work is created for the second time, and this second creation is completed by thousands of readers in different times, and its effect or consequence is beyond the first creation in any case. . However, in "Book Fan No. 1" and the film adaptation, readers are not only passive-active, but also intend to play the role of a new "God". Stephen King wrote in the original book: "The loyal reader becomes the critical editor." She can praise you, but at the same time, she can imprison you, then destroy you, and finally reshape you according to her ideas, making you her own expressor. And all this in the name of love. "Oh, I love you," said Annie. Of course, the character's setting is a psychopath, and of course, a non-psychopath can't complete this series of behaviors. However, this character actually expresses the underlying thoughts of many readers to the extreme. We don’t want our idols to go off track, and we don’t want our loved ones to go off track, and this track, which is what initially attracted us to him, later developed into our own personal fantasy. If he deviates, the attitudes from light to heavy are: not admitting - losing - blaming the idol - trying to change the idol. And Annie, no doubt, took this very seriously. So serious that personal hallucinations occupy an unshakable dominance, and they do not hesitate to destroy idols. you want to be free? Then break your leg. So she did that. As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels." When the confrontation between being "bound" and "resisting" was the most intense, the biggest conflict was the aforementioned "broken leg" plot. Before the advent of "reception aesthetics" theory and its "reader-response criticism" approach in the 1960s, we had always believed that writers were completely active and readers were completely passive. A writer, like God, creates a character, a plot, a thought, and the reader can only accept those works passively, like a devout Christian. Reception theory, on the other hand, completely denies this relationship, elevating the status of the reader to unprecedented heights. In the reader, the work is created for the second time, and this second creation is completed by thousands of readers in different times, and its effect or consequence is beyond the first creation in any case. . However, in "Book Fan No. 1" and the film adaptation, readers are not only passive-active, but also intend to play the role of a new "God". Stephen King wrote in the original book: "The loyal reader becomes the critical editor." She can praise you, but at the same time, she can imprison you, then destroy you, and finally reshape you according to her ideas, making you her own expressor. And all this in the name of love. "Oh, I love you," said Annie. Of course, the character's setting is a psychopath, and of course, a non-psychopath can't complete this series of behaviors. However, this character actually expresses the underlying thoughts of many readers to the extreme. We don’t want our idols to go off track, and we don’t want our loved ones to go off track, and this track, which is what initially attracted us to him, later developed into our own personal fantasy. If he deviates, the attitudes from light to heavy are: not admitting - losing - blaming the idol - trying to change the idol. And Annie, no doubt, took this very seriously. So serious that personal hallucinations occupy an unshakable dominance, and they do not hesitate to destroy idols. you want to be free? Then break your leg. So she did that. As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels." As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels." As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels." As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels." As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels." As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels." As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels." Of course, the character's setting is a psychopath, and of course, a non-psychopath can't complete this series of behaviors. However, this character actually expresses the underlying thoughts of many readers to the extreme. We don’t want our idols to go off track, and we don’t want our loved ones to go off track, and this track, which is what initially attracted us to him, later developed into our own personal fantasy. If he deviates, the attitudes from light to heavy are: not admitting - losing - blaming the idol - trying to change the idol. And Annie, no doubt, took this very seriously. So serious that personal hallucinations occupy an unshakable dominance, and they do not hesitate to destroy idols. you want to be free? Then break your leg. So she did that. As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels." Of course, the character's setting is a psychopath, and of course, a non-psychopath can't complete this series of behaviors. However, this character actually expresses the underlying thoughts of many readers to the extreme. We don’t want our idols to go off track, and we don’t want our loved ones to go off track, and this track, which is what initially attracted us to him, later developed into our own personal fantasy. If he deviates, the attitudes from light to heavy are: not admitting - losing - blaming the idol - trying to change the idol. And Annie, no doubt, took this very seriously. So serious that personal hallucinations occupy an unshakable dominance, and they do not hesitate to destroy idols. you want to be free? Then break your leg. So she did that. As long as there are readers, the freedom of the writer can never be fully exercised, only properly exercised. Unless you want to be a writer nobody wants or a few people know about. Also as Stephen King wrote in the original: "He wrote two kinds of novels: good novels and best-selling novels."
View more about Misery reviews
