Text/Mr. Tambourine
I don't usually like to go to so-called romance films. On the one hand, this genre is the hardest hit by false images, and on the other hand, this kind of extremely personal experience is not very convincing to every audience. In fact, "Lovers in New Bridge" didn't impress me very much, but it opened a channel and pointed out where love leads.
Although the genius Žižek disagrees with many points of view, in an interview he talked about love, and I think there is nothing wrong with him. He emphasized the non-pragmatic color of love, and thought that the expression of love should be useless.
This is especially evident in "Lovers in the New Bridge", but don't simply attribute the love in the film to "French romance".
The strong ornamentation of Parisian Rococo architecture is useless for practicality, and love is romantic precisely because two people do things that others find useless.
Sentences like "What do I want" and "What do I want to do with you" are equivalent, and "I want a car and a house" and "I want to live with you and progress together" are both pragmatic. Under the convex lens of love, desire is magnified, but only "you" is not seen.
Going a step further, "you" are just the means to achieve them, and the means are varied. Such a sentence can be a friend, a partner, or a husband and wife, but it cannot be love.
Love is irrational, and I think it's self-evident. Anyone who's ever been in a relationship knows this. Then the behavior of the two people in "Lovers in the New Bridge" cannot be analyzed with logic and rationality. There is no problem. It can be further concluded that love cannot tolerate moral scrutiny.
If the woman can't get it, she will destroy it, and the man would rather destroy it than lose it. This is simply morbid, but it is in this morbidity that extreme romance or extreme uselessness is born. The two live for love, and finally break the waves. Go forward, wander far away.
In order to produce love smoothly, the screenwriter wisely curbed the desires of the two protagonists—two disabled people. One eye disease, blind; one lame, lost. Of course, the male protagonist is a vagabond. In this state of low desire, the two successfully got rid of pragmatism, and pure love was able to emerge like waves.
The most awesome thing about this movie is that it reveals the existence of characters that are obscured, instead of showing the existence easily as most movies do. The movie begins with the images of the Parisian homeless. Without words, the hero Alex's mental state and living state are completely presented by the image, "Oh, he is such a homeless!".
But think about it carefully, even if we watch the whole film, we don't know more about him, what kind of person he is, what his past is, why he lives on the streets, and what hobbies he has. So what do we perceive? exist! In the same way, Michelle, also entered the story in the same way.
And most movies hurriedly depict a very full character image at the beginning, which is just showing the existences, and the existence itself is obscured.
Usually, men represent reason and women represent emotions, but in the film, and perhaps in many cases as well, under the lens of love, this is reversed, which also indicates the status of the two and the active and passive ——The one who has no choice will be crazy.
After Michelle left Alex, she lived a so-called normal life, with savings and a job, and she was not blind. In this case, she was tied, and Alex pulled her into the water without hesitation, breaking her balance and turning her back on her normal life. If you look at it from a practical and utilitarian point of view, the love between the two has not created anything at all, or has progressed and improved.
The love felt in the audience's heart is only the existence of two people, and because of this, all the essence of people is magnified under this lens.
Love and war are the eternal themes of human beings, precisely because the existence of human beings is highlighted in this out of control state. Furthermore, this kind of true love seems absurd, illogical and ineffective. Where does the bracket supporting this lens come from?
The only explanation is that love is transcendental, metaphysical, and like religion, it is about spiritual transcendence. Simply put, "I love you" is self-evident and requires no reason. Serve God, do you ask why? "You" is not a means, but an end.
Of course, this also answers one question after another: why is love so rare in this world. Because there are very few people with firm beliefs, and even more devout people - people with such desires, most people do not want their lives to be completely occupied by love.
"Sensual World" can be seen as an imaginary of the end of the lovers on the new bridge - when love takes over all of life, it can lead to destruction.
In this way, looking back at the recent "drama" "Marriage Story", it is strange that the couple did not divorce!
Add WeChat paokaishubenxbb to join the national fan group
View more about The Lovers on the Bridge reviews
