1
During this U.S. presidential election, fox hunters are more concerned about the fierce battle between the two old men than they are concerned about the listing of Ant Financial. But no matter how anxious a dog is to jump over the wall and listen to one ear to the other, there is no prediction as to which of the two elders will win. But one thing is certain:
In the general election, I am afraid that the votes of the two parties will be close to each other, and there will be a stalemate, so all kinds of unsightly things will occur, and even the streets will be rioted by the High Court. That would show that the continued downward spiral of American-style democracy and political system has not actually bottomed out.
The best result is that no matter who they are, they can win by a large vote difference. Because this will mean that the United States begins to have a relatively representative political orientation and has the opportunity to move towards consensus, rather than an excessive balance and confrontation between the two forces.
In fact, history has also proved that when the electoral votes are very close, the number of electoral votes and the absolute number of votes will be "inverted", and it will be the choice of a minority of voters who will come to power. There are not many such situations in American history, but the last two times, Bush Jr. to Gore and Trump to Hillary Clinton, are actually fresh in memory.
This is caused by the historical factors of the US electoral system, which have their own advantages and disadvantages. But here's the thing: whenever this happens, it's when the divisions and antagonisms of politics and society go to extremes. The divisions and antagonisms of the past few years have been vividly seen. If the general election inspires deeper divisions and more radical antagonisms, it will be really disastrous.
So will the United States be more divided after the election, or will it move towards consensus? If fox hunters make bold predictions, to be honest, I'm not too optimistic. One of the reasons is that I recently watched a movie - "The Birth of a Nation".
2
I didn't consciously look for this old film from 1915 to watch. The reason is because Fox Hunter recently decided to patiently repair the film history. I found some books on film history to read, and while reading, I watched those old black and white movies on the hard drive. In this way, the 1915 D.W. Griffith (later known as "Griffith") film cannot get around the hurdle, and two of his films must be seen: "Parties" and "The Birth of a Nation".
It is also necessary to rewind the film history a little further.
The earliest and earliest film is "The Arrival of the Train" by the French Lumiere brothers in 1895. To put it bluntly, it is a small piece of material shot with the camera on the platform, but this 50-second small film actually announced a The beginning of an era.
The French were really ahead of the curve at that time. In 1902, another Frenchman, Georges Méliès, made the first science fiction movie in history, " Journey to the Moon" . In this 14-minute film, humans are hit by a cannon on the moon, have an adventure, and finally bring two lunar men back to Earth. It's really rough to watch the whole movie now, but you think it was a work from more than a hundred years ago, what a romantic and creative idea!
It was infancy movies, and then into what is now called the silent film era. The emerging technology of this kind of film began to be an experimental field for some ambitious creators, and a new form of art and entertainment was born rapidly. Among these ambitious creators is a landmark figure: D.W. Griffith .
Griffith got his start in film from Edison's set as an unsuccessful actor and writer. But because he was one of the first few people to come into contact with film, he soon had the opportunity to make hundreds of short films and to experiment with feature films. These experiences must have allowed him to explore and apply many budding film techniques, and his literary and humanistic pursuits as a writer gave him a bigger ambition—to tell history with film.
In 1915, Gerald's "The Birth of a Nation" came out, which shocked the world. This first epic movie in human history has brought many technologies specially designed for movies to maturity. For example, the movie narrates the story of the North and South two families. It has skillfully used editing techniques to make "parallel montage" go a long way. For example, for the first time, the film used all the different scenes of medium, close-up, close-up and long-range, and also created the famous Civil War scene with hundreds of extras.
The Birth of a Nation creates more surprises than that. The cameras of that era were mostly still, taking pictures against a scene. But the film begins to see movement of camera positions and angles (the earliest "movement shots"), and even a running knight with the camera strapped to a horse.
If you posed like a fox hunter and kept telling yourself this was a movie made 105 years ago, you'd be as shocked as I was.
But the real shock of "Birth of a Nation" is far from these movie spectacles, but the emergence of the KKK.
3
The Birth of a Nation tells the history of the Civil War, but is basically a Southern movie. Its perspective focuses on a southern upper-class family, who originally lived a harmonious and elegant aristocratic life. But since the war with the north has begun, the children of the nobles rushed to the front line with enthusiasm. Their pride in fighting for the honor of the South disappeared in the tragic war.
In 1895, when the Southern Army was defeated, the noble children returned to their hometowns with grief and anger. At this time, "The Birth of a Nation" entered the second half, and the plot did not develop as we expected.
After the brutal civil war, both sides should lick their wounds and seek national reconciliation, but the film reflects a different kind of history. After the war, slavery in the South was abolished, and the serfs were freed. Instigated by the abolitionists, these blacks ran rampant in the streets, beating, smashing, looting and burning white women, defiled and raped white women, and committed all kinds of evils.
The white man was already burning with anger, and the white nobleman who came back from the battlefield could no longer sit still in the face of his sister's mutilation. He began to connect white civilian armed forces everywhere, and began to fight against violence with violence. One day, he saw the children playing games in white sheets, and suddenly he thought about it... So the "war shirt" of the Ku Klux Klan appeared.
After that, the plot is even more bizarre---hundreds of KKK knights roam the roads and countryside like a tide, hold high the banner of righteousness to punish evil and promote good, and finally win the struggle against black tyranny. Thus, a nation was born...
Looking at the "heroes" of the KKK, I am completely speechless---I only heard that "The Birth of a Nation" has criticisms for "beautifying the KKK", far from thinking that this is a film for the KKK Ritsu and Acura movies! This is not a question of political incorrectness, it is completely a racist poisonous weed!
4
The Birth of a Nation, a landmark epic in film history, is simply jaw-dropping for its racist values. But in addition to being shocked, I can't help but wonder: Sixty years after the end of the Civil War, why are there still cultural elites like Griffith, who hold such a clear-cut position of "white supremacy"? Just because of his own prejudice? What was the history of the South after the Civil War? Is the antagonism and even hatred among the southern races really that intense?
These are all unanswered questions at the moment, but it’s better to have questions than no questions.
But at least one thing is beginning to understand that the racism problem that is still rampant in the United States today actually has its very deep historical roots, from the affirmative action in the 1950s to the liberal values that later prevailed in the world, to today’s black lives matter. Fighting against the streets, the shadow left by history in people's ideology has not been completely cleaned up. Under the stimulation of certain factors, these remaining shadows will manifest themselves in irrational ways, further tearing apart the social consensus, and even aggravating the generation of hatred.
Whether "The Birth of a Nation" is a work of personal prejudice and hatred in the format or not, whether it reflects a certain historical reality or not, these are actually unimportant. Its existence itself represents the deep historical roots of American racial issues.
In addition to racial issues, from religion to gun ownership, abortion, anti-globalization, etc., which one does not have the same deep historical and cultural roots? These deep-rooted ideological differences, stimulated by some special figures (such as Wang Xing) and special events (such as the epidemic), have made American politics more degenerate, the crowd more divided, and the society more divided, making 2020, can't be more 2020er. (talk show host Jimmy Kimmel).
It's just that the extreme will reverse, I don't know where they are, is it the "extreme" time now? We may see some doorways in a few more days.
View more about The Birth of a Nation reviews
