Audience friends, another typical Hollywood commercial film is coming to everyone with its American neoliberal values. Its routine plot, boring reversal, and special effects shots at the level of five years ago are telling us that today's Hollywood is always changing the soup, and sometimes the soup is sour.
Even in the context of science fiction, Syria is not a victim of war, but a perpetrator. As a physical witness of the poisonous gas in the Syrian battlefield, the heroine finally staged a conscience discovery and betrayed the evil villain company. The male protagonist played by Vin Diesel also fought hard for freedom after learning the truth that he was being used, and almost sacrificed himself. If I was only 15 years old, maybe I would be really touched, fighting for freedom, who wouldn't be touched? But is this freedom truly freedom of self-choice, or is it the false utopian freedom that neoliberalism describes? At 15 I didn't think about this question, and now I have the answer.
The values of the movie look like this: If some evil organization has created a false identity for you, giving you false motives to drive you to do something, this is absolutely unacceptable and must be broken. The shackles of control, the seizure of freedom of choice.
Yes, under the premise that free choice is true, this rhetoric is impeccable. But what if free choice is false? What if, from the beginning to the end, the bloodshot warrior never had a free choice at all, just another motivational setting given by the hacker?
If I were to direct the film, the other paragraphs would not need to be changed drastically, just adding some material to the finale would bring the whole film up a notch. Wilfred Wigans, played by Lamorne Morris, the clever hacker, after the re-awakened bloodshot warrior Ray Garrison introduced his "dead and alive" synopsis, Ray ran to chat with the heroine, Wilfred hid in the small dark room with a mysterious smile, pressed a button, said the last line - "New motivation is built", and then black screen subtitles.
In fact, the world's smartest hacker will definitely use his technological superiority to continue to control the Bloodshot to work for himself in order to protect himself. But in the end, it ended so peacefully and without suspense. It was too idealistic and utopian. Good people will always win easily and have no worries. What is the difference between this and the Gao Daquan in our model play who will always triumph over evil and ugly? Such an unreal happy ending makes me laugh. A good political sci-fi thriller has been reduced to brainless popcorn and happy family fun, which is sad for Hollywood screenwriters.
Only by constantly questioning and fighting for freedom can the neoliberal values that the film wants to promote can be more firmly conveyed to the audience. As a staunch socialist builder, I objectively put forward some opinions on the way capitalism exports values, and I hope to see the creators change in this regard in the future. 2001's "Operation Swordfish" is so much better than this film's storytelling, why is Hollywood still degraded in 2020?
The level of brainwashing in Hollywood is gradually becoming a routine, which will eventually make viewers who have watched too many similar films feel numb. Whether it is a movie or real life, it is teaching us to see the true face of this kind of value that is essentially tearing apart the society.
The society torn apart by the Black Lives Matter scandal in the United States in recent months has once again highlighted the beauty of identity politics, the neoliberal anti-dragon slaying technique. Identity politics divides people into different groups, which can be divided into male, female and transgender according to gender, homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and even fetish according to orientation, black, white and red according to skin color , brown, yellow, according to ethnicity can be divided into Asia and Europe. This identity politics, in which people go their separate ways under the guidance of neoliberalism, has lost precious solidarity. Every group fights for their own interests. Black people advocate that black lives matter. White people rise up to sow right and wrong. Red-necks take shotguns and aim at every black head close to them in their own yard. almost. So "All lives matter", which should have been the most politically correct phrase, turned out to be extremely politically incorrect. How absurd.
Is it wrong for black people to fight for their rights? of course not. Is it worth it to destabilize the entire society for the benefit of a certain group? Certainly not worth it. The ultimate goal of seeking balance can only be the collective interests, the interests of the whole society, and not the interests of a particular group. This is a self-evident truth. But neoliberalism can separate groups of people, making a group think that its special interests must override other rights and interests, and are the most important and urgently needed, while forgetting that their special interests are only in the interests of society as a whole. The only way to maximize the level is to strive for it, otherwise it will only become a part of the cake.
Isn't this a bloodbath on another level? Neoliberal values tell you that you have to fight for your own interests (which always look good, important, special), and that motivation is the ideological stamp on the values, and the rules of the fight are set "Divide and Conquer" was formulated by the upper elite of identity politics. Fighting for freedom under the rules of the enemy, where does freedom come from? RST (Ruisheng) company makes you think that you are avenging yourself, but in fact you are just a pawn to be played with.
So I think that these bloody warriors living under the stencil of neoliberal ideology may not have woken up yet.
View more about Bloodshot reviews
