Although the plot is very smooth, but the taste of political correctness is too strong. It's strange that I, who always prided myself on being rational, made me feel uncomfortable in the face of a politically correct movie. By the end of the film, my boredom peaked when the protagonist finally showed his janitor's clothes in court, expressing his defiance of the discrimination against blacks in Texas.
At the same time, I suddenly realized why that lingering boredom came from—I'm not black, and I neither cared about his plight nor empathized with his pain. In other words, I seem to be a rightist, I hope that there is order to follow, I hope that the reform can be not so inelegant, and can be expressed in a gentle way, not so ugly, it is very indecent, yes, it is decent. This is the Chinese people. They can give up everything, but indignity is a big sin. They would rather die standing up than live on their knees. It is noble to say, and pedantic to put it plainly. And I'm like the numb Chinese in Lu Xun's mouth. I can only empathize with my own interests. I don't have black skin, so when I saw their fierce demands, I felt disgusted for a moment. Just two water dispensers? Aren't you supposed to be a cleaner? This kind of boredom made me understand a lot in an instant. It turned out that this is instinct. If I am not a woman, I will never experience the fear of women for childbirth. Resolutely refused to wear cleaner's clothes, when his wife said that she had been wearing cleaner's clothes for a long time for his career, he blurted out, you are different. What's different? His wife was very smart and understood immediately because she was a woman, so she said: Today you think I can wear cleaner's clothes because I am a woman, then tomorrow when you go out of the house, don't blame others for being black because you are black discriminate against you. Look, this is the duality of those who are discriminated against and those who are discriminated against. No matter what social class you are in, whether you are a man, a woman or a rich person, once you give yourself the right to discriminate against others, you will inevitably be discriminated against. I once heard a talker about Sartre's "Confinement" say: What do you think of when you mention hell? Burn at the stake? sulfur? Gallows? Why do you need so much, others are hell. When being a discriminator, we may even feel that the demands of the discriminated are superfluous, because such demands will only make me more inconvenient. But there is always a situation in which we ourselves become discriminated.
And from another point of view, discrimination is a rigid need of people, not only psychological hidden demands, but also rational demands. I can quickly judge whether the other party is credible through skin color, gender, education, parents, and appearance. , save my time cost and reduce mistakes. Moreover, after the consensus has reached a certain point, even if he is a smart black man, he will inevitably make mistakes. That is natural, and everyone will make mistakes. At this time, the color of the skin becomes his original sin, and we will naturally understand the truths we have learned. "Continuously deepening", in this context, no matter how smart this black man is, it is extremely difficult to gain the respect of white people. We are born different, and we pursue efficiency. In the end, discrimination is the most convenient. If you want to leave discrimination, you can only liberate yourself from the Mobius ring of discrimination. Of course, this is not very realistic. To break this kind of convenience is to break people's profit-seeking instinct, and break the iron house with no windows on all sides in Lu Xun's works. I finally understand why the great man once said that the revolution is not a treat for dinner, but it is to let everyone throw their decency. The pursuit of unbreakable and unsustainable is a rare situation. The reality is often that a situation that seems to be temporarily feasible is coordinated in the friction of many parties. Moreover, in many cases, history is not entirely forward.
View more about The Banker reviews
