More than a hundred years after the end of the Civil War, racial discrimination has not disappeared in the so-called human rights autonomous land in the United States.
This play deliberately shows three aspects:
1. It shows the scene of KKK burning crosses and lynching black people. Filming this scene in the '90s, I think the producers were a little bit ashamed of the "crimes" of the past by the new white people whose sense of equality had grown. Whether or not a film made for the box office uses such a theme, it is at least positive, whether or not it is motivated by catering to the tolerant values of the new capital forces.
2. Strong religious constraints. Whether or not people never lie, at least they ostensibly don't -- that's the social contract of a world ruled by Christ. Being a liar is enough to cost you everything. In the movie, the male protagonist would rather choose to die than admit that he is a liar. He thought it had nothing to do with the interests of the villagers. wife and children.
3. The law is intolerant.
(2) Started to complain.
1. In order to make it easier for everyone to accept the heroine's betrayal, the story made the heroine's ex-husband make a mistake... leaving his wife and children to join the army.
Guys, is it a mistake to join the army? The Civil War is a tragedy in American history. Like General Lee, the commander of the Confederate Army, he also agreed with the liberation of black slaves, but because he was a member of the Southern interest system, he had to fight for the group he represented. War for some is a mission given by history.
Just imagine, in order to defend your homeland, you go out and shed blood, but the reward is that your wife hooks up with a neighbor first, and then gives birth to a child with another man. How can you bear it? I should be glad that you died, otherwise one day you suddenly came back and everyone didn't know how it ended.
2. Mr. Neighbor did not really make a big mistake from head to toe. If there is a mistake, it must be because he loved the wrong selfish woman. Before knowing the face of the male protagonist, he silently paid and left silently. After knowing the true face of the male protagonist, he simply asked for something in return for his efforts.
At least, he is more decent than the male lead.
In the play, in order to make the male protagonist's image taller, he abruptly writes the neighbors as villains.
3. As for the male protagonist... I really feel that this person's behavior is completely inconsistent with developmental psychology. Everyone knows that dogs can't change their nature of eating shit.
Besides, this dog used to eat a whole belly of feces, but now he suddenly stopped eating it, it means that his mouth is clean? I really don't know what the director wants to say here.
Such a film has been on fire for so long, and it has also been evaluated as a classic. Besides because the male lead is handsome and the female lead is beautiful, is there any other reason?
Although I'm so ranting now, I couldn't help crying when I saw the actor's performance in court. It suddenly occurred to me that when the protagonist is played by an actor we like, it is really a dangerous thing.
First, what they did wrong, we can all "understand" and "acceptable", which is equivalent to allowing them to convey an improper worldview to us.
Second, it prevents us from evaluating what is in front of us objectively and impartially, because there is an emotional tendency from the very beginning.
Conclusion: This film is basically a bad film.
View more about Sommersby reviews
