I think this film made me feel the chills to my bones, and how hypocritical Bai Zuo's power of generating electricity with love is.
The film revolves around "to speak out or not to speak out", with a group of innocent children as the carrier, conveying the main theme of not fighting for fame and fortune, and being happy.
But the details are all over the place that irritates me.
First of all, in the whole film, there is not a piece of music that is not beautiful, from the new Sophie solo at the beginning, to the rehearsal, to the final performance on stage. The main question in this film, "to win or to be free" has never been really discussed, it just appeared symbolically, as a symbol to complete the mission of generating electricity with love. In fact, any revolution is bound to bleed, and any freedom must require sacrifice. This kind of choice between right and wrong shows that freedom is not easy to come by, and it shows that people fight against their own greed and pursue the true heart of innocence. But what do we see in this film? I saw the children pretending to be obedient, the last merciless face, the mockery on the corners of the mouth when the heroine and the second girl sang and didn't speak, and the joy of the end, and the sound of nature sounded. Hey? Okay, how about someone who can't sing well so they don't make a sound? Why did everyone sing, and it was still so harmonious? It seems like a small script treatment, but in fact it loses one of the most powerful discussions in the entire film: everything has a price, especially freedom. The real hero lies in facing the bloody reality, not in daydreaming and expecting miracles.
Another thing that gave me chills was the disdain of the children for their teachers. My colleague told me that because they are children, they are qualified to be ruthless, but in my opinion, in such a film with the banner of values, teachers who are not completely bad teachers are punished by children in Taiwan. He slapped his face hard, no matter how he begged, he was hard-hearted. He had to disgrace the teacher before he sang happily. I looked at the teacher's plea once, twice, three times, and when I saw the stage staff come up to ask, the teacher said that everything was normal, and I really felt powerless for her. It was her loving and caring children who challenged her, angered her, and insulted her. At the end, the teacher did not go completely crazy, but just left the stage eagerly. I really feel that the teacher's self-cultivation skills are very good at home. Is what the teacher said wrong? If it weren't for the teacher, most of the children would never have the chance to join the choir, let alone Sweden. There is no way to talk about the friendship between the heroine and the second girl. Is the teacher a "bad person"? Worth being treated like this, scolded in front of a packed audience? The teacher's approach is controversial, but undoubtedly, this approach gave these children a chance to resist. The director slyly handed the banner of struggle to a girl who sang well, showing the generosity of self-sacrifice. But even this little thought did not hide at the end, so she came out to sing a short solo because she sang beautifully. Isn't this kind of education only rewarding opportunists who have no worries? Why don't you let those children with tone-deafness come out and sing?
My colleague said that these are all plot needs, and asked me what would happen if I wrote the book.
I said, when the audience starts to look at each other, I will tell the children not to continue to torture the teacher. Sophie, who can't sing well, starts to sing, bad but true, until the last pot of porridge. And the teacher accepted the result of not being able to win and continued to command. Of course, it is impossible to win awards, and no matter how well you sing, there is no chance to go to Sweden, but this is the path everyone chooses.
View more about Sing reviews
