I've been too lazy to write for a long time, half because I think the writing is definitely not good enough, and half because I'm lazy. This time, I forced myself to write a little bit, and I managed to write so much. In fact, although it is a movie review, for me, whether it is reading a book, watching a movie, or even listening to music and appreciating art, all that can convey to me is nothing but an unspeakable feeling, just like the "Wheat Field" that I particularly like. I could write a lot of words to say how and how good it is, but no amount of words would be as good as someone who suddenly thinks of the kid named Holden when he feels lonely and the hypocrisy of the adult world. , Thinking of the wheat field, those children are more intuitive and shocking. Therefore, commenting on anything is itself a secondary creation, plus the different feelings between the author and "I", or the intersection of souls at a certain moment, all of which cannot be told through words and language. Just like when the Buddha taught the Dharma, he was just "smiling a flower" and nothing else. But if that's the case, why even talk about it? It is probably a kind of exchange and "inheritance". It is said to be inheritance, but it is nothing more than the transfer of knowledge. But through this transmission, one discovers (or can more easily discover) a different world. For example, even though we don't need to fall in love with someone, we know that love is a beautiful thing. This kind of "knowing" can be transmitted through Romeo and Juliet, through Liang Shanbo and Zhu Yingtai, through Jane Eyre and so on. Going a little too far, let's talk about movies. But let's talk again. I have no intention of analyzing the lens and shooting techniques (mainly because I don’t understand), but I have heard a joke saying that the teacher was showing the old tower’s movie, and the picture was changed from color to black and white. The teacher asked why the conversion, and some of the students said yes To highlight the difference, some said it was stream-of-consciousness recalling surreal, etc. The teacher waved his pen and said that he happened to have black and white film in his hand at that time. Naturally, this is a joke. So I'm also too lazy to write about the possibility that the doctor may have a physical relationship with Alexander's wife and daughter (though I think it's unlikely that Old Tower has such a hint). Talk about movies. Tarkovsky. "sacrifice". The plot of "Sacrifice" is simply that a world war broke out on the birthday of the protagonist Alexander, and human beings may be destroyed. His friend told him that his maid had the power to save the world, and asked Alexander to go to her, after which Alexander "sacrificed" himself to save the world. The plot is extremely simple, and there are no fierce conflicts. It can even be said that "Sacrifice" is not and does not have a "story", it is just a feeling, a belief. But to paraphrase a philosopher whose name I can't remember, the simplest things often contain the greatest truths. "Sacrifice" is probably one such movie. Obviously, this story is a story of Christian martyrdom, plus several shots imply that Alexander is the "Holy Son", and "Three Magi" also appeared many times, so Alexander is Jesus, and he passed Sacrifice yourself to save the world. As for the rebirth of "Jesus", it seems to be achieved in another way - "We live in the world suffering, we hope, expect something. We hope, lose hope, and then die. After all, people die. , and then reborn, but can't remember the past, and then everything starts again" (lines). Another kind of rebirth is "rebirth" through others, such as the boy who died on the battlefield told by the postman in the movie, his mother appeared in a photo in a photo taken 20 years later (spit out: This story is, in other words, a ghost story). There is also Alexander's youngest son, the little boy was unable to speak because of the operation, and the last sentence at the end of the film is that he said, "In the beginning, it was language, why, Dad?" In the "Bible" it is written that God said, to... Things come into being, so language is the beginning, and it is through the language of the beginning that human life really emerges (or, like a baby's cry). So three things are reborn at the end of the movie, Alexander, his son, and the dead tree. Perhaps there is also a world of destruction. On the other hand, death. The difference is that Alexander's sacrifice was not through death, but through "loneliness". "Don't be afraid of my child, death does not exist, only the fear of death is what makes people afraid, but as everything changes, if we eliminate the fear of death..." (line) Alexander's loneliness is to give up voluntarily Everything, isolating everything (also has some similarities with the protagonist's choice of silence in "Andre Lubmow"). "I'm going to give you all that I have, leave the family, the house, the little boy, and become dumb" "So why talk? If someone is willing to stop talking and do something practical at least try..." (lines ) But, "Communication is a pain, not for everyone" (line), so let's skip that. about faith. I don't know how a non-believer of mine would discuss this topic, so I decided to copy a few lines. "Never mind the methods others say, know that if people do the same things at exactly the same time every day, like a definite systematic ritual, then the world may have changed, something has become Other things." "Believe what others tell you, then he is like this." And in the diary "Time in Time" there is also a sentence "For many years I have firmly believed that in time there will be the most unexpected discoveries." Tarke died in a foreign land. After all, he was still a "martyr" just like the one in "Nostalgia". No wonder he wrote the words "Martyrdom" on the title page of his diary. The last thing I want to write about is "love". Let me start by copying a passage from the diary, "I was moved by the theme of harmony from sacrifice, from double attachment to love. This does not refer to mutual love: No one seems to be able to understand that love can only be one-sided, there is no other love, and no other form of love is love. It is not love if it cannot include full giving. "After several years, I can no longer recall the emotions that brought me when I read "Sacrifice" for the first time, but this time I didn't feel much moved, it was more of a kind of thinking. Taco In essence, Dostoyevsky and Dostoevsky have some spiritual connections, and they both seem to want to achieve redemption through "children." But this "child" does not mean young children - Dostoevsky wrote 'children' presumably refers to this. Also different from J.D. Salinger's children - Salinger's 'children' refers more to innocence. Tarkovsky's children seem to mean 'children' In itself, it has nothing to do with others. So the little boy is a child. Although Alexander is very old, he will still throw himself into the arms of the "Virgin Mary", so Alexander is also a "child". And there is also a passage in the Bible. The words seem to say that only children can enter the door of heaven (not sure if this is the case). Think again of Dominic's "self-immolation" in "Nostalgia", the poet finally walks to the opposite side holding a candle over and over again with hope, "Flying Towards" In the last scene of "Space", the son kneels in front of his father. These can be said to be Tarkovsky's "child" image. And children often represent hope, innocence and eternity. Parents may have selfish love for their children, but " God's love for children is the same, so the wicked can be saved as long as they repent. On the other hand, when the child sees the world through his eyes, the "love" is also eternal at this moment. But in the end, Taco What Fsky is after, perhaps (in a personal interpretation of the old tower) is a return to "innocence." So he says "playing other people's feelings makes me sick. "(Sacrificial lines) Only by throwing away these feelings, people will be able to truly love. In essence, Tarkovsky and Dostoevsky have some spiritual connections, and they both seem to want to achieve redemption through "children". But this "child" doesn't refer to a young child -- that's probably what Dostoevsky wrote about. Also different from J. D. Salinger's children - Salinger's "child" refers more to innocence. Tarkovsky's child seems to be referring to "the child" itself and nothing else. So the little boy is a child. Although Alexander is very old, he will still throw himself into the arms of the "Virgin Mary", so Alexander is also a "child". And there's a passage in the Bible that seems to say that only children can enter the gates of heaven (not sure if that's the case). Think again of Dominic's "self-immolation" in "Nostalgia", the poet finally walked to the opposite side holding a candle over and over again, and in the last scene of "Flying to Space" the son knelt in front of his father. These can be said to be Tarkovsky's "child" image. Children often represent hope, innocence and eternity. Parents may be selfish in their love for their children, but "God" loves their children the same, so the wicked can be saved as long as they repent. On the other hand, when a child sees the world with his eyes, "love" is also eternal at this moment. But in the final analysis, what Tarkovsky pursues, perhaps (the old tower of personal interpretation) is to return to "innocence". So he said, "I feel sick to play someone else's feelings." (Sacrificing lines) Only by throwing these feelings away can people be able to truly love. In essence, Tarkovsky and Dostoevsky have some spiritual connections, and they both seem to want to achieve redemption through "children". But this "child" doesn't refer to a young child -- that's probably what Dostoevsky wrote about. Also different from J. D. Salinger's children - Salinger's "child" refers more to innocence. Tarkovsky's child seems to be referring to "the child" itself and nothing else. So the little boy is a child. Although Alexander is very old, he will still throw himself into the arms of the "Virgin Mary", so Alexander is also a "child". And there's a passage in the Bible that seems to say that only children can enter the gates of heaven (not sure if that's the case). Think again of Dominic's "self-immolation" in "Nostalgia", the poet finally walked to the opposite side holding a candle over and over again, and in the last scene of "Flying to Space" the son knelt in front of his father. These can be said to be Tarkovsky's "child" image. Children often represent hope, innocence and eternity. Parents may be selfish in their love for their children, but "God" loves their children the same, so the wicked can be saved as long as they repent. On the other hand, when a child sees the world with his eyes, "love" is also eternal at this moment. But in the final analysis, what Tarkovsky pursues, perhaps (the old tower of personal interpretation) is to return to "innocence". So he said, "I feel sick to play someone else's feelings." (Sacrificing lines) Only by throwing these feelings away can people be able to truly love.
View more about The Sacrifice reviews
