Five years ago, after watching less than half of it, I couldn't hold on to it. I was frightened by the density of dialogue. I just didn't understand this kind of movie that was all driven by dialogue. After watching it again five years later, I felt the absurdity of such a dense dialogue set under the big theme of inability to communicate between people. This film made me realize the ironic effect of dialogue on human beings. The so-called brainstorming meetings, the school-wide general assembly, and various high-level forums, summits and TV programs packed with grand themes, do those well-dressed guests with their legs crossed also understand the meaninglessness of this conversation, just to complete this Show has no choice but to sit on pins and needles?
The male protagonist made me see the similar vanity in myself, and also made me understand that many times, when I covered up the evil in my heart and talked to some people very gently and kindly, why did they always show a kind of disapproval on their faces indifference and disgust. Their faces were like the child who smashed the glass and refused to speak, and I smelled a breath of terror on their indifferent, closed lips, a hatred that came from nowhere, and drove straight into my mouth. Body, I have a hard time accepting their trial of "you're a villain", they are so sure of the outcome of this trial, it's as unalterable as a rock, all my hard work is ruthlessly seen through, it hurts my self-esteem a little bit, conversational The channel is closed, and I'm going into hysteria arguing with myself.
The same situation occurs when the male protagonist's driver is diligent and loyal to the male protagonist. He is so conscientious and takes care of the male protagonist meticulously, but this kind of care is like the sunshine on the snow, covering everything, but there is no temperature. A tacit indifference was maintained between them, which replaced dialogue and avoided quarrels. The driver's emotions are only left in the whistleblower call with the cook, who is the one who warms each other with him. So should the mistake be attributed to the wealth and identity of the male protagonist? One comment about this year's Oscar-winning "Parasite" struck me: The rich do nothing wrong, but you just can't help hating them. Is this hatred a kind of jealousy, or is it a kind of moral disdain? I don't know, I only know that the hatred and contradiction between people can be because of any unbelievable things. I even hate my parents. How can this hatred be eliminated? Through dialogue? The dialogue will only pull out the hatred in their hearts. It is possible to pretend that a normal relationship may never be able to return to the past, just like the embarrassment of the male protagonist pretending to leave the house but in the end he can only bite the bullet and go home.
Everyone's life is a lonely history of suffering, and we cannot expect others to digest it, just as we cannot approach others. Especially since this story takes place in Turkey, a place that is already at the point of cultural conflict in the world. I recently watched "Istanbul: Memories of a City" by the Turkish writer Pamuk, and thought that the male protagonist deliberately did not pave steps for tourists' cultural curiosity experience, so that the resort presented a desolate and dilapidated original ecological atmosphere. There are both oriental and western tourists. People, the male protagonist wants to please tourists, just as Istanbul wants to please the connoisseurs of the East and the West. Pamuk is right, there is every Turk's soul in Istanbul. The male protagonist's old age is like that of a declining Turkey. He misses his glorious past by hibernating in a dilapidated resort. Everyone admired and kissed the back of his hand, but even his wife's heart could not be conquered. He came back disheveled, his dignity swept away, and his family would be helplessly trapped in this castle with him, with no future.
View more about Winter Sleep reviews
