American Pastoral by Philip Milton Roth, who received a Pulitzer Prize for his 1997 novel, on which this namesake movie (2016) is based.
"American Pastoral"/American Pastoral/American Heart Storm (Taiwan) )
Hollywood's fall does not start today. But before I saw this movie, I didn't expect it to be so bad for a while. This year's Oscar was given to the so-called "Lala Blue". Comparing the obscure "American Pastoral 2016" at hand, I just realized that this kind of depravity is hard to come back, and it is almost impossible for Hollywood to restore its former glory. Because the entire movie industry trend has become so out of touch with social reality. Although there are still conscientious artists shooting similar good movies, it is estimated that it is difficult to even raise funds. I rarely read the end credits. This time, I couldn't help but sit still and see the end. I saw that there were obvious Chinese names in it as assistant producers. This arrangement is probably related to the source of funds. And no matter whether this kind of money really belongs to the so-called "big publicity", at least the person who dares to invest in the production of such a film has some vision, and the development of film art is boundless.
The film is based on Philip Milton Roth's Prizer-winning novel. The Ross is believed to be the most likely Nobel Prize winner among living American literary masters. I have become quite alienated from contemporary American literature. After watching this movie, I believe that these remarks are not exaggerated. Although the literature category in the Nobel Prize is more or less the same as that of the Oscars, in recent years, it has repeatedly gone stale. It can also be regarded as a footnote in the world of not knowing what to do today.
That being the case, the anachronism of such works is obvious. It is said that the film has been criticized by the so-called white leftist forces one after another when it came out, and it is natural that it is difficult to attract the attention of the Oscars. Like the director's American predecessors, such as Chillian Eastwood, Mel Gibson and other right-wingers, they are inevitably faced with the plight of the market being left out. Just like the intervention of Chinese funds mentioned above, I am afraid it is indeed closely related to the rampant white leftist forces in the film industry.
To make a long story short, it's all about movies here. Facing the tragic situation of the separation of his wife and children, the father in the film (who is the director himself) couldn't help asking himself why he got to this point and what he did wrong. (I've done everything wrong, since when?)
The whole movie is actually an attempt to answer this question.
The background of the story is a very traditional model family and model couple who actually raised a daughter who was rebellious and betrayed all traditions.
The story describes the unwarranted impact on a Jewish middle-class family during the anti-Vietnam War student movement in the United States in the 1960s. The daughter of this family, the focal point of the story, suffers from stuttering and is rebellious by nature, which in turn develops antisocial tendencies. Like "The King's Speech", modern psychology prefers to treat this disorder as a psychological rather than a physiological phenomenon. Therefore, in therapy, the focus is often on conflict improvement in interpersonal relationships. The resulting series of changes are closely related to the social contradictions at that time.
Jewish family ancestors of Judaism, of course, attach great importance to education, and will not relax or give up when they are old. The old man firmly believed that: A child cannot decide, the implication is that he cannot speak for himself, and he must follow the rules in his words and deeds. You can't go half a step over the pond. For example, a little girl follows the crowd and explains that a heifer is "ridden" by a bull. The old man was not happy. Saying this is not something a girl should say.
Of course the little girl has her own way. Her mother's Christian background, she faced the old man before marriage for no reason, she said categorically that she could consider not having a child (Then we won't have a child. So, the old man was won over), which showed her rare decision-making ability and It casts an irreversible shadow on the mother-daughter relationship in the future. In other words, if you can defy traditional taboos for your own happiness, why can't others? Once the bottom line is broken, everything will be logical, Yi Yu Hu Di? And the reason for breaking the bottom line must be extremely "noble" and extremely "reasonable".
The clues of the film's development, in addition to the daughter, have not let go of the mother's line.
In an attempt to free herself from the shadow of losing her daughter, her mother went to Geneva for facelift surgery, in an attempt to restore her lost youth through plastic surgery. Then there's cheating. This is the real medicine for restoring youth.
The author firmly grasps this clue: behind the changes in Western society, feminism is at work.
The rise of feminism is indeed closely related to the breakdown of family relationships. Traditional values are based on the concept of family. Isn't Western civilization precisely based on patriarchal families? Feminism wants to turn its back on tradition and can only see the family as a cage.
Out of the family, "women's liberation" is a very politically correct movement of the times that is closely integrated with the trend of modernization.
Pull the whole body. Holding on to this key point, the film lightly outlines the source of all the changes in Western society since the 1960s. Divorce rights, abortion rights, all the way to rainbow rights and same-sex marriage, the logical starting point is here.
The daughter's rebellion against traditional morality in the film also begins with the grand narrative of "political correctness".
Against the backdrop of the anti-Vietnam War in the 1960s, her daughter followed the revolutionary organization and resisted the society by violent means, and ended up fleeing.
It's just that the escape is just a scene in the story, and more importantly, "escape" has become an opportunity to force her daughter to grow up.
The father seems to be rather eclectic, and his doting on his daughter directly leads to his daughter's rebellion eventually going to the extreme. Some comments have extended to the so-called father-daughter love complex. Even if there is such a factor, the effect is to reflect how the father faces the temptation of the daughter's same age woman after the daughter becomes an adult. According to the analysis of the original party, novels are more cruel than movies. Rita, an accomplice who is as young as her daughter, seduces her father. The father in the movie seems to be struggling, after all, he has survived. But in the novel, the girl actually succeeded. Ross is using such shocking to expose the hypocrisy of middle-class morality. The rise of feminism, of course, also comes from its own origin. Existence is reasonable. Of course, the development of Western civilization must also face this dilemma.
As mentioned above, the family's educational tradition has encountered a series of challenges, which may be the source of all changes.
The question is, is change not possible and totally unreasonable?
Another way of putting the question is, can education really get rid of the shackles of tradition and really let it go?
The answer given by the film is impossible, no.
Because the second half of the film depicts the daughter's ending in almost detail: that is, toward the oriental naturalistic regulation of Jainism.
In fact, in the eyes of outsiders (such as her father), she is already a walking dead, and the damage she has suffered is far greater than the punishment the government may impose on her. However, the terrifying fact is that the daughter is said to have taken this path voluntarily.
Is this Stockholm Syndrome, or the logic of the facts themselves?
In reality, people face the same confusion: Muslim women see the hijab as their inalienable right. Why can't Western society respect such a claim for rights?
The film itself certainly cannot give a clear answer. It's just like the development model that I repeatedly mentioned in my old works, the energy development in a limited space can only be transformed to the opposite side, that is, the mode of the yin and yang fish. Prosperity and decline, decline and prosperity. Very oriental development cognition. non-linear. But the existence of a seemingly absurd reality of linear systems can be explained dialectically.
To be a little more specific, I am afraid it must be said that, either this or that, people are always subject to some kind of bondage and some kind of domination.
You are tired of the west, go east. vice versa. "Outside the Sky" has no other choice.
This is the tragic fate Eugene O'Neill tells us. man's fate. human tragedy.
Those atheists who do not have the ability to think critically, often rely on attacking the traditional forms and rituals of religion to obtain psychological satisfaction. The most typical example is a toad who complains to the Western media with a naive face, saying that your technology is so advanced that you can go to heaven and earth, why? Still believe in God.
In fact, toad can find soulmates even in the West, and find many such atheist comrades.
For example, the psychotherapist in the movie is not an idle pen.
When her daughter made a bomb and was forced to escape, the first person she turned to was Sheila Smith, your therapist.
The psychiatrist helped the daughter to hide, to help her hide. The reason is professional ethics, and doctors cannot disclose the privacy of patients.
She was originally a priest and priest in front of the trapped girl, and she should pull the girl on the edge of the cliff back to the traditional way and back into the community.
Instead, the trapped girl was pushed off the cliff of the street jungle, and the girl was forced to suffer endless humiliation and damage. If the girl finally understands some of the true meaning of life through this painful experience, then as her father blamed herself, this is the failure of this social education system and the failure of the entire society.
Because it was through their mouths that parents began to suspect that their daughter's stuttering was the invisible pressure formed by their own success.
Having abandoned the traditional social function of the church, the church has become dispensable in community life. Traditionally, priests and priests have traditionally played the role of counseling, and it has become a professional social occupation. In order to gain the trust of patients, every effort must be made to find out the reasons for the psychological condition. Instead, the possible impact of social unrest on young children is discarded. For young children whose world view has not yet been established, instead of blaming the root cause of their psychological condition on family factors, why can't they face up to social and historical factors that have a greater and more important influence? According to the scenes explained in the novel and movie, isn't the Vietnam War scene on TV causing more serious damage to the young minds of young children?
However, this is the political correctness that Western media have to adhere to: the public should have the right to know (of course, there will be a certain degree of compromise later).
Naturally think of the 19th century Voynich novel "The Gadfly". It describes the Gadfly repenting to his actual biological father, the bishop, only to be betrayed.
This age-old dilemma, of course, has no solution. The dispute between legalism and salvation, often described in the Bible, continues to this day.
It can be seen from this that trying to solve such a moral dilemma with the limited intelligence of human beings can only be said to be human arrogance. People think that science can explain all problems and solve all difficulties. Just like the current popular AI technology, it seems that once there is AI, any miracle on earth may be created.
The reason why I dare to say that such enthusiasm is not helpful is that the choice of axiology is not a scientific problem at all.
Value judgment, right and wrong, right and wrong, right and wrong, strength and weakness, etc., are not as clear as a chessboard and can be objectively analyzed and rationally judged.
To put it simply, in the face of external challenges (aliens, viruses and germs), when the AI analysis result shows that there is little chance of winning, will you give up the fight and be bound by it? Even if the existence and development of AI itself, will it really break through the value limit of "human" and eventually surpass human itself?
Value judgment and value choice cannot be concluded by relying on rational analysis.
Humanity or non-humanity is the true face of the problem.
This is because the choice of value can only be based on people. When people are divided, their values must be torn apart.
Unless it is the so-called force majeure from outside. At that time, of course, people could only say that it was not a crime of war if the heavens perished for me.
Before that, the destiny of man was to find the possibility in the impossible. Man is born to die. Survive from death.
In the film, the daughter's growth process was an era when American social value traditions were doubted and values were torn apart.
Doubt the consequences of tearing, is the sudden flood. The ceremony is broken.
Dislocation of value and incomprehension are typical characteristics of this era of ritual collapse and music collapse. Don't let moral kidnapping become the mantra of revolutionaries.
Those who say they don't want to be kidnapped by morality actually mean that they don't want morality, and especially don't want people to point out their immorality for what they are. Otherwise, you should understand that morality is meant to be "kidnapped" together, so that everyone can live and do everything with evidence and reason. What you can decide for yourself may be a good conscience and a good conscience, which is often the same thing as morality. After all, people share the same heart and mind. But sometimes it is not necessarily. For example, if you feel right or good, but it is not the same as everyone's habit, it may also be considered immoral. For example, Lu Xun and Xu Guangping live together. Judging from their own thoughts and behaviors, it is really a very good and right thing. But in that era, everyone would rather accept three wives and four concubines than see free love, so they would naturally regard their affairs as immoral. This is the most typical so-called moral kidnapping.
In this way, the relationship between morality and law can be easily clarified. The law relies on social public power to impose restrictions; morality depends on the public's swearing, and the three aunts and six women's discussions in the streets and alleys. Although it is not mandatory in form, in actual effect, it also has the power of coercion. In this sense, morality must have the ability to "kidnap".
Of course, it is different from legal coercion: legal coercion is carried out by public power; moral coercion still relies on individual conscience. Moral coercion can only work if there is a personal conscience. This means that under constant positive education, individuals can acquire a conscience and be compatible with morality, and finally achieve a perfect state of "doing what they want without breaking the rules".
This so-called "moment" is the mandatory norm and the basic form of morality.
Although, this is a high standard, and not every individual has the opportunity to achieve such a high. But the logical relationship between them is still very clear.
It is in this sense that morality and law form a mutually reinforcing relationship. Of course, there is a huge space beyond the reach of the law, and the movie "Catch me If You Can" very typically portrays this social predicament. Therefore, there are churches, schools, and various institutions and groups that strive to make the people subject to various constraints, make them qualified social people, and finally make the society run smoothly.
The ideological opposition between Eastern and Western cultures is a very healthy phenomenon. In my early years, I wrote a short article discussing "cultural anomie", which said that goodness and evilness also come from the value judgment of human nature, and there is no difference in itself. The so-called cultural traditions are actually responses rooted in value judgments. See how to make human nature bound by axiology in practice, so that it will not "beyond the norm", and eventually grow into a perfect person, "real person" and even "saint".
In this sense, the ultimate value of all cultures must be "universal" and "universal". Because they are all facing the same human nature. The opposition of value judgments just forms the "different way" of the final "same return", forming a perfect complementary pattern of yin and yang.
There have been rumors that there are Nobel Prize winners gathering, calling on the terminally ill Western society and prescribing the prescription of "Confucianism" to govern the world.
Whether the rumor is true or false, its logic is reasonable and established.
Because according to what I said in the article, the yin and yang forces that develop in a limited space can only develop towards the other side when they rise and fall. As a result, a development model with the image of yin and yang fish is formed.
In other words, when Western cultural traditions are desperate, they will certainly look eastward and draw ideological resources from Eastern traditions.
The situation shown in the movie is that when they lose confidence in Western culture or when Western culture is helpless to discipline their daughters, the only way they can find is the East, which is the Eastern tradition. The Jainism cited in the film is certainly one of the oldest sources of thought in the Eastern tradition. The five oaths posted on the wall are actually nothing new. Just like the traditional Western religious rules, they are the code of conduct that any member of society must abide by in order to live in harmony.
The daughter was willing to bow down to these oaths and regulations. In addition to experiencing the violent lessons of reality, but also because these dogmas are shared by the community that the daughter has to adhere to. Unless you don't want to stay any longer, you as a fugitive have no choice.
This very typically maps to the obligatory source of moral dogma.
To understand the motives of looking westward reflected by the May Fourth movement of saving the nation in the East from another angle, we can also see that the impulse to rebel against the tradition of the East is really rooted in the psychology of saving the nation and saving the nation? Like the daughter in the movie, the May Fourth sages felt that they could no longer rely on reading the scriptures to govern the world. Therefore, there will be ideals and suggestions for full westernization. It is a pity that the Western tradition is not fully understood. Recklessly splitting the body of the Western tradition, thinking that Mr. "Virtue" and "Sai" as a tool are the "rod" that needs to be introduced and grafted onto the body of the Eastern tradition to see the "shadow", but instead the root of the Western tradition " "Mr. Kee" is like a sham, not understanding that the trinity of "Sedji" is the root of Western civilization.
The development of the past century has evolved to today. Not only has the modern Chinese people not been alerted, but they have become obsessed with the material achievements developed under the support of Western tools and become complacent.
So much so that the statement quoted above by Western sages who introduced "Confucianism" to govern the world is also used by these mentally retarded academics as evidence to support their ambitions, clamoring that building Confucius Institutes is enough to conquer the hearts of the world.
It is not only individuals who often face such challenges, but cultures in both East and West are also faced with similar situations. The transformation of strength or weakness depends on whether you understand the mechanism and whether you can grasp this cardinal point.
President Trump's first foreign trip to Riyadh, Jerusalem and the Vatican can certainly be interpreted diplomatically as passing by. Only three cities in the Middle East happen to be the three centers of the Abrahamic faith, and it cannot but be said that they were deliberately chosen.
The significance of this remains to be discovered. It's just that readers don't have to underestimate the mystery behind it. After all, the world is facing great changes.
There may be some flaws in the film. For example, deliberately avoiding the practical significance of this important historical theme. Blindly focus on the relationship between father and daughter, mother and daughter and family members. However, no matter how you look at this movie, it is rare.
[Note: The heart-wrenching video of Zhumadian, like the last Foshan Xiaoyueyue, reflects how prosperous China is today. To continue the discussion of moral imperatives here, it is necessary to ask what the reasons for such frequent occurrences are. What is involved is the human heart of the world or the laws and regulations. Some people try to introduce the so-called Good Samaritan law in Europe and America for treatment. How's the effect? I'm afraid we don't have to wait for judicial practice to prove that we can know what the general outcome will be. Because, countless instances have witnessed that when faced with the need for assistance, some foreign tourists do not know whether they can be exempted from liability, and will willingly help. The reason is no more than the fact that one has a moral consciousness derived from the Bible. This is what this article has repeatedly said, that morality can only exist within a living community with common values. A society whose values are torn apart will inevitably face the predicament of immorality and morality. In other words, society is without Tao, and it is difficult to require individuals to be virtuous, whether public or private. First of all, public morality is destroyed; over time, private morality is also difficult to maintain. The so-called skin does not exist, the hair will be attached, this is also called. Take foreigners as an example. There are reports on the Internet that they are also immoral. If you look closely, you will know that they have lived in China for a long time, and they are just doing as the locals do! ]
06/15/2017
View more about American Pastoral reviews
