Some people, as military fans, may only be obsessed with the details of the diving station, but from the perspective of film creation, this film is different from most submarine warfare films. It is a little naive, but it is a French romance. Although it is also to save the world, this time the enemy is the most determined hero and the most powerful weapon from his side.
Little people save the world should be a tendency of all war movies. After all, the most basic skill of all directors is to please everyone in the theater. When you are in a movie theater, you look at the character ecstatically, it seems that it is you, and that imaginary self is doing a great thing, that kind of spiritual self-satisfaction is an important factor for you to buy a ticket. From this point of view, in fact, the analyst of the film's protagonist's voice war is a good point of view. It is only an exaggeration to say that the French romance is a kind of rebellion, because this time the protagonist is not at the forefront of the most war, but to prevent At the forefront of the war, what he has to do is not to destroy the enemy, but to destroy the captain he most admires and trusts, the representative of his subconsciously identified fatherhood. This setting is very interesting, because this battle is destined to be a tragedy regardless of the outcome, whether you can do it without any hesitation and fear if you are involved in it. Of course, this deep inner self-contradiction is what our domestic films lack the most. Hollywood disdains to show things because they please the box office, but as French people, they like this kind of "rebellion" or "romantic". A "rebellion"? If everything is the Hollywood model, in the end it actually goes against the original intention of artistic creation.
Not to mention whether this "romantic" or "naive" of the French, or "arrogance" in the eyes of some domestic petty citizens, is hypocritical. Although the discussion of nuclear war is only superficial, it does cut into a key point. the main point. I believe that even terrorists and people who believe that they can go to heaven after death, but anyone with a little bit of nuclear common sense understands the devastating consequences of nuclear war. If there are people who believe in the afterlife, then nuclear war may be the world's End, because you thought you could reincarnate, but when you die, you find yourself destroying reincarnation itself. A nuclear leak in Chernobyl created a no-man's-land, which means that even if you took your land back, you've given it to the devil. This seriousness raises a question, that is, whether countries with nuclear weapons give up the entire human world just because of the fall of one country's regime? This is a simple math problem, so most countries do not want to use nuclear weapons when they have nuclear weapons, but they can perish together as a last resort, in exchange for the independence of sovereignty. Then naturally the two most important criteria will be placed on both ends of the scale: sovereignty and survival. In fact, when you really put the two on the scale, you forget that the purpose of sovereignty is to survive! ! In fact, if human beings can always clearly understand this problem, there will never be a nuclear war, but the world is never short of lunatics and stupid sand sculptures. If humans can only use knives, then lunatics and sand sculptures will kill one or two people at most. If humans can only use guns, lunatics and sand sculptures can kill at most one person in an army. If humans have nuclear weapons, then all lunatics and sand sculptures can do is to kill everyone in the world. While there may be few such lunatics in China, the sand sculptures are not one and a half. More people with a fluke mentality, gamblers who think they can detach themselves! !
In fact, the bottom-up trust brought about by centralization is the most dangerous. If there is any idea in the world that is absolutely wrong, then "the world is absolutely right", and this is what centralization relies on. The person who pushes the button is so incompetent, the position of power may give him an illusion of "being in position, there must be ability". This inverted way of thinking, the reality is that not all wise people hold power and wealth, and even most wise people are not. They are disdainful of centralized power and delusional. In fact, these people just don't have a sense of security as ordinary people. Only when they have absolute power can they truly be liberated. Therefore, whether a society is progressing and whether scientific ideas are really popular, there is a most basic criterion: whether the citizens are obsessed with power. The most concrete manifestation is whether or not you believe in infallibility.
View more about Le chant du loup reviews
