Related to the topic of this article. In terms of contradiction, it seems that this topic is a bit big, so I have no self-confident statement here. In fact, I don't know anything about it, and I'm not a professional film critic. The Polanski I have seen is also "Shadow Writer" and "The Pianist". Okay, please allow me to nag a few words before the text begins. Regarding the contradiction, let’s first put forward one. Regarding the old Polanski himself, in life, will we independently evaluate people, such as a person with low morals, but at the same time, he is a great artist. Will we be sincere? Admire him? Well, it's a long way, and it has caused unnecessary controversy. I'm sorry. But I really recommend Polanski to watch the movie "Fruit Hard Candies", there will be unexpected surprises. Okay, that's the end of the nonsense. If the nonsense continues, it is estimated that "Killing" will appear.
The title "Killing", scoring: five stars. It tells a dramatic story that happened between two couples in a certain house on a certain day. Origin of the story: One child knocked out another child's tooth. Story process: The two families seek a reasonable reconciliation method. The end of the story: no reasonable way of reconciliation was found, but the children of the two families had fun together again.
Please forgive me for telling such a great movie in very plain water. In fact, the plot of this film is so simple. The main highlight is the interaction between the four characters. Based on the topic of this article, the solution to the contradiction. First, let us find the problem.
Question 1: Is it possible to seek a civilized solution among civilized people in a civilized society? The thing is, one child beats another child, provided that the two children are usually buddies, the older one is called a miserable one, the tooth fell out, the face was swollen, and the soul was traumatized. When you are a mother, it is in the eyes and pain in the heart. First of all, welcome Ms. Penelope to the stage. In the film, Ms. P repeatedly reiterated that she hopes to solve this problem in a civilized way. There is nothing wrong with this view. However, the other couple couldn't meet this requirement, especially the father who didn't care about his son. Claiming that the two children will solve it privately by themselves. And Ms. P insisted on asking the other party's family to show up and apologized sincerely. Ms. Nancy has no objection to this, and Ms. P's husband, Mr. Micheal, feels that there is no need to be so excited. In fact, it was Ms. P's son who was injured here, but as a mother, Ms. P felt that she was hurt much more than the child suffered. My son was bullied! This is pretty good! Human nature, give understanding. But to reason from the development of the plot, I guess that what Ms. P really wants in her heart is not the sincerity of the other party, but an emotion that replaces her own humiliation, that is, to give the other party a sense of humiliation. Ms. P wants to stand on a high level, that is, our family is reasonable, so I forgive you, we are civilized people. In short, you are savages, and we don't have the same knowledge as you. Therefore, when her request is not met, she starts to go crazy. So for the first question, this method is not feasible and feasible, but if the original intention is to seize the moral commanding heights, it may not be feasible.
Question 2: Civilized or barbaric solution is better. Fathers usually educate their sons like this: Son, let me tell you, don’t take the initiative to bully others, but if someone’s child bullies you, you will give him a vicious one, so that he won’t dare to provoke you in the future, do you understand? ? Okay, I admit that my dad taught me this. In fact, fighting between young boys is not a big deal. Those who fight back and forth, fight today, and will be hide-and-seek together tomorrow, kids. As the saying goes, you don't know each other if you don't fight. It is difficult to define whether this behavior is barbaric or not, but this is often the way boys get along. The contradiction between the two 11-year-old boys in the film may be like this, or it may be just a sentence: I will not take you to play in the future. So there was a fight. Boys seldom chirp and reason, which is very annoying. It is said that in the film, the core of this issue is still Ms. P. Here she hopes for a civilized solution. In fact, it can be compared to negotiations during a war. The two families meet, the child apologizes, and it's over. This civilized way comes from language, civilized language. And it is precisely the language used as a way of expressing civilization here, but in the following plot, it set off huge violence, verbal violence. In life, some people often say: Isn't it just a talk? Usually, sometimes, there are some words that cause trouble, and the so-called misfortune comes out of the mouth.
For the above two questions, first of all, I admit that I have a bit of a prejudice against Ms. P. These two questions are difficult to answer in themselves. The film also did not directly answer these two questions. The film provides a series of conflicts. To give a rough list, if you look at the film as a whole, it probably includes the following: the
first type of conflict: the conflict between two families; the
second type of conflict: the first type of conflict is derived from the conflict between two women The conflict, and the conflict between the two men.
The third type of conflict: conflicts within the husband and wife.
The fourth type of conflict: the conflict between men and women.
The fifth type of conflict: the conflict between civilization and barbarism.
Regarding the first type of conflict, most of the time in the film is about this part of the conflict. The center around is the child. At first it was a child, but the problem gradually escalated and rose to personal attacks on each other. For example, Ms. N and Mr. A’s criticism of Ms. P’s and Mr. M’s food, even Ms. N vomited on the spot. I have to admit that this is a big laugh. When I watched a movie, watching Winslet spit it out, I was almost out of breath. I would like to mention that, although the entire content of the film seems to be about conflicts, many of the details will make people laugh together, which is very dramatic. This is also the charm of this movie. Speaking of personal attacks, Ms. P and Mr. M are equally disgusting with each other. For example, they think Ms. N is hypocritical, and Mr. A is directly a complete bastard and barbarian.
The second type of conflict. Let me first talk about the conflict between Ms. P and Ms. N. The conflict between the two appears as an embellishment. Because on the surface, both of them are quite kind. Compliment each other. But from the outburst of hysteria at the end of the film, it can be seen that the two people have long been unable to understand each other. This point will be described in detail when we analyze the characters next. Then there is the conflict between men. There is only one conflict, which is when two men criticize each other's work. A very strange phenomenon, if someone ridicules your career, it will make you mad. The interesting point in the film appears when Mr. M teases Ms. N. Ms. N asks Mr. A to fight back, but Mr. A is indifferent. Therefore, men may most likely put career first, and this topic is the most sensitive.
The third type of conflict. Conflicts within the husband and wife. I have to admit that the contradiction between Ms. P and Mr. M is more obvious. Personally I feel that Mr. M is quite pertinent, but it is not right to show this to outsiders. Because the wife is always right. This may be the source of Ms. P's hysteria afterwards. Mr. M is an individualist and he values enjoyment, but his family life is a bit choking, so in this special environment, he counterattacked a little bit, and this counterattack made Ms. P unable to slow down for a while. Come on. The contradiction between Mr. A and Ms. N lies in Mr. A's endless business. At the same time, there is another point, that is, Mr. A is totally indifferent to matters outside of his career, and is quite individualistic. This made Ms. N so dissatisfied that she later successfully threw her husband's cell phone into the water.
The fourth type of conflict is the conflict between men and women. In life, people are always looking for a sense of belonging inexplicably, perhaps this is the social nature of people. In the film, two men who ridicule each other finally form an alliance with the help of alcohol and tobacco, and two women who complain about their husbands together form a female alliance. This may be a certain sense of belonging. Men formed an alliance of "I don't give a damn, I just want to be chic", and women formed an alliance of "Men are assholes".
The fifth type of conflict is the conflict between civilization and barbarism. In fact, this kind of conflict is a bit big for me. Speaking of specifics, it is actually Ms. P against the three musketeers. During the development of the film, the topic has been strayed and strayed all the time. Every time someone tried to return to the original topic, Ms. P formed her own alliance.
After talking about the conflict, we will continue to analyze the characters in detail. First of all, let me talk about the most playful Ms. P, a professional writer, with lofty ideals, caring about humans, being a civilized person, having noble pursuits, having taste in art, and not inclined to think that life is boring. Generally speaking, he is an idealist. From the way she handles things, it can be seen that idealists usually do not analyze specific problems in detail. They will follow their inner realization and pre-determined ideal conditions to deal with, but not all people in the world are idealistic. Otherwise, the results are often messy. But when it comes to idealists, Xiaosheng humbly believes that Ms. P is not a complete idealist. It is mentioned in the film that she wrote a book about Africa. As her own intention, she wanted to use this book to conduct a deep analysis of this place in Africa, so as to elicit some blabla things about human nature, philosophy, civilization and so on. However, judging from a detail of the film, she is actually a very noble person. The original meaning is: We are not in Africa, but in New York, so we should solve the problem in a civilized way. Instead of using brutal methods. Africa, by implication, is the savage land in her eyes. Therefore, I humbly believe that her research is not worth a look at all, because she is looking at it from a height and can only look at a rough idea. If she fails to integrate into a cultural environment, any comment and evaluation method is essentially the same. Extremely irresponsible and brutal. This invisibly hurt a lot of people, so this is quite contradictory to Ms. P's self-promotion. In other words, she didn't become what she thought she should be. Quite a civilized person, but can't help but be accommodating. His style of doing things is very tough, and he doesn't allow everything to go beyond his own principles.
Let’s take a look at Mrs. P’s husband, Mr. M. Mr. M gives a nonchalant impression. At the beginning, he was still helping his wife to speak, and then he began to release. In the film, he sang against his wife in several places, which made his wife very dissatisfied. And in the end, from his passage, it can even be seen that his and his wife's outlook on life is in fact completely contrary to each other. No wonder Yu will have lived for so many years, and it will explode at this moment. This may be a characteristic of middle-aged men: dissatisfaction. Children always come first, and men are always the least important. At the age of middle age, youth is no longer, and even the sense of existence is no longer there. And you need to live in rules and regulations, you can't smoke, drink, or move your child's toys casually. If the child is bullied, he will get out, and the wife must nod and say yes. Mr. M may be such a middle-aged man, a good man, but he likes to tease him very much. There are several places in the film that he ridiculed his wife, which is quite hilarious.
Ms. N, a fashionable woman, knows well. But obviously marrying this workaholic husband, she is really depressed usually. In his bones, he should be a person who longs for freedom, who has been enduring it all the time, so when the pressure reaches a certain level, he starts to vomit and mad. This shows that alcohol is sometimes the cause of dramatic effects. Ms. N's life and ways of doing things make people feel a little bit humiliated and effective. Once this kind of person breaks out, it can't be stopped. It can also be seen in the film that she hit almost everyone. To Mr. M, she directly called him a murderer, just because he let go of a hamster, and at the end of the film, we can see that the hamster is doing well. . She scolded Ms. P. She threw her husband's cell phone into the water. In this film, the person I think is the most interesting is Ms. N, who is the most dramatic.
Mr. A, I don’t know if it’s because of his performance in "Shameless Bastard" or something else. In this film, I always feel that he is actually a bit of a bastard. Don't care about children's affairs, and wife's affairs, let go of the head of the household. The only thing I care about is my own career, and I am very impatient. Advocates violence and likes to have fun. In the film, Mr. A is the most calm one, except that he gets a little crazy when his wife throws up on his pants, he starts to enjoy it after he starts drinking. At this point in the game, of course we have to continue playing.
A comprehensive analysis of these four people shows that the two families have different dominance. Family One is obviously dominated by Ms. P. As for Family Two, it is obvious that Mr. A is in a dominant position.
At this point in the discussion, it can be roughly concluded that the main purpose of the film is to satirize various arguments about civilization. Because when people really decide to communicate, it is usually emotional, and the establishment of civilization is often based on reason. The problem itself is an emotional problem. The son was beaten, and the son was beaten. Aiming at an emotional problem, expecting a civilized and rational solution, perhaps there is no way to satisfy everyone. This may be the source of the contradiction. So the topic began to be extended, involving the outlook on life, values, attitudes to life, and tastes of life. The reasoning from the beginning has evolved into a melee defending personal principles. Four characters are highlighted in the film. In fact, everyone speaks from their own standpoint. Everyone no longer gives in, everyone is aggressive. The crux of the problem is that expecting a civilized solution does not convince others. On the contrary, it makes people feel like they are seizing the moral commanding heights and are offensive. In response to this question, the film does not give an answer, but throws the thinking on this question to us audiences.
The film can be said to be quite dark humorous. The whole movie is quite funny. Let me talk about the dramatic plot processing of this film. The first element appears from time to time in the movie. This element appears every time a contradiction is about to break out, and that is: the telephone. This call will only be an extension of the scene in this room, giving the impression that this movie not only happened in this room, but also happened outside. In addition to the role of extension, the phone suppresses emotions and brews emotions for the final explosion of contradictions. Every time a phone call appears, at least one character will withdraw from the controversy whirlpool and become an outsider in the scene, which makes the contradiction unable to reach the most intensified level. But the phone call itself, to a certain extent, makes the people who listen to the phone become more anxious and fanatical. The phone is really wonderful in this movie. The second element is dramatic performance. Ms. N’s vomiting, Mr. A was drying clothes naked in the bathroom, Ms. P threw Ms. N’s bag into the air, Mr. A and Mr. M discussed cigars and whiskey. These dramatic emergencies make the movie full of vitality and are quite applauded, because in reality, such dramatic scenes are usually not concentrated in such a short period of time. The third element, lines. I have to say that the script of this film is really powerful, and the language brings out the emotional catharsis of the characters, which makes people feel that watching this film is very refreshing. One of the bad tastes in my life is to watch other people's hysterical and rational debates. I have to say that this film greatly satisfies my bad tastes.
I wrote so much eloquently, a lot of nonsense. The title of the film is called Killing. Maybe it means that we are all civilized people, but there is a god of killing in our bones. This god will give us the ability to be hysterical at any time. Perhaps, above the essence of the god of killing, what floats is just a mask of civilization.
In conclusion, although this film is named Killing, perhaps, this film can be viewed as a comedy with critical and realistic significance. It is named Bacchus Carnival. Please don’t forget the bottle of whiskey in the film. It is equivalent. important.
View more about Carnage reviews
