This article involves philosophical discussions, if you are not interested, it is recommended not to read
First declare,
I will try to make the ideology of this film clear in what follows. I don't attack Wes Anderson himself, I think he's a good white left. I don't give this movie one star. The movie itself is not bad, so I will be the "Devil's Spokesperson". With the help of this unsuccessful "Wes Anderson movie", I'm going to tell you something seriously.
Straight to the point, this movie is a "multiculturalist" movie. Multiculturalism, to put it bluntly, means that it is no longer able to accommodate multiculturalism, so it is advertised to deceive the public. To put it simply, the United States was multicultural more than two hundred years ago, and the United States today is multiculturalism. comprehend on your own.
Now Cannes prefers ghost and ghost movies, which is actually deeply influenced by this. l It is precisely because of the powerful function of the film in spreading ideology (see the previous "Matrix" review for details) that many people do not reflect on themselves because of the film's "gentle" and "beautiful" labels and high scores Moved, after all, Wei's films seem to be particularly attractive to "aestheticism" literature and art.
—————————————————————
Part 1
Subtly speaking, this film is an uncompromising Orientalist film
What is Orientalism?
Orientalism is simply the construction of the East with the West as the center. From a distance, Voltaire's blind worship of what he thought was confucius was an ancient version of Orientalism. But Orientalism is more clearly the product of cultural hegemony in the post-colonial era, and it is a very bad thing
Knock on the blackboard: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
“The East is not the real East, but the ideological East. While the East is integrated, it is endowed with a premise that differentiates it from the West as a characteristic. ——Orientalism: The Transition of American New Immigrant Films "Cultural Narrative"
Voltaire can be considered sincere. After all, each cultural system has the characteristics of centralization, so it cannot be truly objectively recognized. But Orientalism is a very malicious thing. From this perspective, the East has become a consumer product for the Western world to satisfy the desire for curiosity, and complete a differentiated self-construction. The most direct example is Fu Manchu; the more recent example is "Crazy Rich Asians"; the more obscure example is Li An.
However, the centralization of culture itself, coupled with the current Western-dominated discourse system, is unavoidable. Ideological hegemony will exist as long as human society remains in a social model dominated by ideology.
Mr. Wei, make some Western-centric movies like The Grand Budapest Hotel and The French Dispatch to entertain yourself and satisfy yourself. (Although I like the Grand Budapest Hotel very much, I gave it five stars, although he is actually a white leftist, but he is very sincere and conveys some meaningful points, although he also received a lot of criticism at the time) This movie It is full of voyeuristic fantasies about eastern civilization, and it also tries to impose the will of the West on eastern civilization, such as dog-loving, anti-politics, and ideological things such as children being the kindest, on eastern civilization. The most direct way is to let the dog speak English, and not translate Japanese directly, that is, not to allow European and American audiences to understand (to satisfy their snooping), and to let Western dog lovers listen to the dog speak English very cool. I don't think Wes Anderson is really capable of this. Quentin likes Hong Kong movies because he is deeply influenced and will also have some Hong Kong elements in the movies, but Wes Anderson thinks he is "responsible" to communicate "objectively" The idea of "universal" is a very low self-movement.
Condensed: when we think we are subjective, we are objective, and we are subjective when we think we are optimistic about life. Art is inherently valued because of its subjectivity and its ability to cause us to think subjectively. On this film, at least, Wes Anderson is floating. In other words, he himself has lost its subjectivity and the value of art when he made films in an ideological or "preconscious" state when he created them.
Art should be what Foucault calls self-technology, and art should be concerned with itself.
—————————————————————
Part 2
Worse than orientalism is multiculturalism
The most ironic thing is that it starts by saying "don't translate the protagonist's language", and then later finds out that the dog speaks English. This is really something I didn't expect, this is really too typical a white left gesture. As if I respect the Japanese language by not translating Japanese, I am objective. This is the same as using the Indians as mascots to keep them in the status quo and thinking of "respecting the nation". It is undeniable that there are differences between cultures, but it is extremely arrogant to claim that "objective" is "agnostic" to other cultures. This presupposes the premise of "objectivity" of Western culture. Even if you can understand what the dog says, why is Japanese not worthy of being understood by you? Is this the so-called "objective"?
From the core of the story, I started with the setting of dogs speaking English. A dog can be infinitely full of humanity, but a dog in the left eye is a dog. You can talk to me like a human, and I can be gentle with you, but you must be my pet. And he even imposes the essence that the dog should be submissive. Just like the chief in the work, he looks vicious but is essentially a "good dog"? (The colonized can learn English and Western culture, but it is still a colony) This gesture is really too foul, I don't even want to think about what he is metaphorical.
This kind of self-construction of self-knowledge by giving the dog the essence of "giving" its human commonality
But he is bound to fail.
He thinks he has humanized the dog (transmitting Western culture to the colonies), and deceives himself in this way to call himself "humanism" but this is actually a completely self-deceiving attitude, if dogs are really born with Human nature, that apart from the dog itself, no one is qualified to have the essence for it. (Just like some Western "scholars" today believe that preserving Southeast Asia's backwardness is protecting multiculturalism, they have no right to define other people's cultures)
In fact, Wes Anderson himself should not realize that he is a slave Bai Zuo. He may feel that he is conveying "universal values" because Bai Zuo's cognition is actually very closed, and the artist's attributes are even more closed. , discussed on this point.
(A little white girl calls everyone to love dogs and fights evil Japanese politicians. Don't be too narcissistic)
The most naive thing is that after the "truth incident" (I'm making a slang here, if you have doubts, go to Laclau's theory), the mayor dismounts, and I can't accept letting a 12-year-old child take this very vulgar position. Wes Anderson is like a black fairy tale for children. The ultimate tool to solve the modern world is to make children the mayor. By creating an order of being that loves dogs, the world can be made real, kind and beautiful. It is a bit dark and humorous to come up with such an idea. He hysterically wanted to create an "adult-oriented cartoon" but in the end, it was like a children's movie that let children save the world.
It's like he thinks that the food in a big hotel is better than a small restaurant, then he built a big hotel with all his heart, and then he didn't have the ability to make the food very high-end, and then tricked you into eating the food in the small restaurant.
I just think it's delicious.
—————————————————————
Part 3
Wes Anderson through Rancière's point of view
"Film is the art of combining two logics: the logic in which narrative structures events, and the logic in which images intrude and reproduce narrative." - Film fables
Wes Anderson's films are always exquisite, and his well-known symmetrical structure does fit the aesthetics of many literary b. (Including lala land daydreamer killer not too cold these films) his films are always unique in imagery, always have the potential to take screenshots and send them to friends.
A good movie should "give the layman the right to speak" instead of being moved by little Bourgeois's circle of friends.
"Excellent works of art will disrupt the operation of the brain and redeem the things that are shielded by the brain." As I mentioned above, the value of art's subjectivity lies in the transmission and stimulation of individual and community order through the medium of art. Conflict, which is also the point where Rancière believes that "art" and real "politics" merge.
"Real politics is to break the order of public security, tear apart the consensus of public security society, and create "disagreement". And excellent works of art can stimulate people's affect and create dissensus.
Clearly this deceptively ideological film has none of that capability
references. 1️⃣"Orientalism: Cross-Cultural Narratives of American New Immigrant Films" - Ma Aating Film Literature 2020 (24)
2️⃣ "The Film/Aesthetic Dialogue between Rancière and Deleuze" - Zheng Guoqing Journal of Beijing Film Academy 2021 (7)
3️⃣ "On Rancière's Aesthetic Formula: Restatement of Art's Political Plan" - Dude Fine Arts Grand View 2020 (10)
View more about Isle of Dogs reviews
