Christian's life is full of irony. His name comes from Christianity, his profession is an artist, and the meaning of the exhibition Square is also to advocate people helping each other. But in real life, he talks about art speculatively, turns a blind eye to those who seek help, and even makes excuses for himself in his apology video to the little boy. He buys food for homeless in the restaurant to satisfy his hypocrisy and vanity, and gives money to beggars outside the convenience store out of a lost-and-found attitude of charity. Even a sincere attitude is pretended. As others have accused, he never really cared about the underprivileged. On the contrary, he is hypocritical, arrogant, powerful, enjoys and is proud of his own privilege, and uses power to instruct his subordinates to attract the opposite sex. And it is such a person who is full of arrogance and prejudice against women, children and disadvantaged groups, but has become an artist sought after by everyone in Sweden.
But it wasn't entirely Christian's fault. When pretended authentic is really useful, when he helps others but suffers himself, when he is helpless and cannot get help from others - it is difficult for people to not be encouraged to become hypocritical and inhuman in such situations Kindness is disappointed and discouraged. Ironically, film critics in Jianzhong criticized the Swedes for "excessive feminism" and "too much political correctness". Instead of enjoying the privileges of white people, these Orientals spontaneously discriminate against disadvantaged groups from the perspective of white people, justify the discrimination and prejudice that should be criticized. Are the Swedes "overdone" in political correctness? In my opinion, not only is it not overdone, but it is far from enough. People can put up with Tourette in live interviews, laugh at absurd performance art that offends women, but cannot take seriously the behavior of a black-haired boy (minority) living in a poor area of the city to defend his rights, Suspicion of black people sitting alone in cars is nothing more than the fact that the first two are decent people in the same situation as them, and the latter two are minorities, vulnerable groups. It is from Christian's perspective that the director satirizes that the current political correctness is just a "face project" for people to satisfy their vanity and hypocrisy. heart and concern.
In addition to the contrast between white people and disadvantaged groups, there is also a stark contrast between people and animals in the film. Gorillas paint quietly while humans are indulging, while humans play gorillas at decent dinner parties, beastly to female guests (whether for show or for real), the latter still being called art. People can play animals freely, and it can be called art, but animals must be domesticated by humans. This completely human-centered narrative is arrogant and ironic. This can't help but remind me of a photo circulating on the Internet: a man and a woman are sitting side by side, the woman is wrapped tightly in black veil, and dare not show an inch, but the man is wearing a skirt and high heels, the matching text is: Women have no freedom , but men have the freedom to be women. In the same way, human beings have the freedom to become animals, and have the freedom to exude animal nature, but animals do not have the freedom to live according to their nature.
In terms of artistic creation, freedom of speech and human rights, the film expresses the ideas of right-wingers vividly through Square's promotional videos and press conferences. The video accurately captures several sensitive keywords such as "little blond beggar", "explosion" and "Arabic/Russian", and every frame reflects racial discrimination and religious discrimination. Art is based on humanism and should reflect or reflect on the beauty and evil of human nature, but the horror of children and the implication of racism completely treat basic human rights as nothing. Can this "artistic creation" still be considered "art"? Does this expression still belong to the category of freedom of speech? However, the reporter's poignant question has to be thought-provoking: No individual shall have the right to draw a line of speech freedom. If an artist conducts self-censorship for fear of offending a certain group, and even society acquiesces in such self-censorship, would it be? Will freedom of speech cease to exist? My point is that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, so when exercising freedom of speech, the concept of human rights should exist in everyone's mind, including equality and concern for vulnerable groups. Respect for human rights should be a common sense, and people should avoid such "art creations" out of instinct rather than "self-censorship". Christian's fundamental error is not in censorship failure, but in his failure to see the disadvantaged as his equals.
The spring breeze of female reporters Ann and Christian was once able to reflect the gender concept of Nordic society. There is nothing wrong with consent-based sex between adults, and both parties have taken steps to avoid risks. But when Ann offered to throw away the condom by herself, Christian was facing a big enemy - just what Lin Maomao said, under the protection of women's rights, child rights protection and high child support, Nordic men are strict with themselves (their sperm ) manifestation. But Christian's performance is not only out of "self-discipline", but also his extreme self-confidence in his social status, power and wealth, as well as his arrogance from the male standard. He didn't really care about Ann's feelings either during or after the event, he just thought that his power and wealth (and perhaps sexual ability) would definitely make Ann willing. And Ann was not to be outdone, asking "Do you often sleep with women you don't know very well?" "Do you know my name?" Christian was speechless.
In order to maintain his privilege, Christian did many seemingly absurd things, which resulted in more trouble. If you had a good talk with the residents of the building about the theft at the beginning, there would be no angry little boy behind to "do things"; if you apologized to the little boy and his family at the beginning, it would not be discovered in the end by conscience. It's too late. Throughout the film, Christian racks his brains about Square, but never imagines that Square is by his side - the food he buys for homeless is square ciabatta; the beggar in the mall gets down on his knees, his elbows touch the bottom, It is exactly a square shape; the staircase patio of the little boy's apartment is also "exactly" a square shape. Christian, like many others, is emotionally attached to ethereal concepts, but blind to the real suffering around him. As he braved the heavy rain, rummaging through the rubbish heap for the phone the little boy had left behind, the camera kept rising and raindrops formed a square above him.
Christian's road to self-redemption is not yet complete, but in the last few shots, his eyes grow apologetically, and he finally wakes up under the watchful eyes of his daughters.
View more about The Square reviews
