P's profession is a writer, and I sat up straight for the first time. It’s interesting that the female writer lives in the same room with a tall man, mother-in-law, and a man who likes to bring children. The sense of violation of this group of collocations was immediately swept away by the rationality of life. A wise woman finds a man who is not deceived and has no talent, make sense. The greater rationality lies in the fact that at first glance, there are two unbalanced families. The lawyer combination belongs to at least the upper-middle class of the society, and the salesman and the housewife belong to the lower-middle class. But P, as a combination of a female writer and a man with an American labor image, immediately gained a certain political correctness. You can infer that this choice contains some purely intellectual and idealistic judgments. Facts have also confirmed that P is a female intellectual with a clear left-thinking (concerning the issue of the African military government massacre), and that they live in New York, and they are more likely to fall into the thinking nest of left-wing intellectuals on the East Coast: that is, to salesmen and laborers. This self-reliant class has idealistic concepts.
The film develops to how both families should educate and restrict their children for each other, and this perspective expands even more. If the P family voted, they obviously voted for the Democratic Party. With the identity and status of the A family, they are much more likely to vote for the Republican Party. This is even more obvious in the attitude towards a "manic" son. Isn't this a metaphor for the American people's attitude toward the government's use of troops abroad? A real scandal leaked from A's mobile phone, and it was isolated from the conflict to be resolved. But in a family with weak social resources, one can still intervene in it to some extent. On the one hand, there is a sense of morality of the word P, and on the other hand, her husband’s almost pure spontaneous reaction. For A’s problem drugs, he only needs to reject it out of practical considerations; for A’s son’s evil deeds, he is content to accept a superficial apology (As for his wife P, he is demanding the apology/guilt implied He doesn't care about general justice).
In such a small space, in the expanded socio-political spectrum, P's family, whether morally or in essence, is attributed to the traditional left-wing concerns, it seems that it is easier to win sympathy. But the differences between the two are buried here. Grasping two details, a bunch of tulips on the coffee table was specially obtained by husband P, to whitewash a kind of "equality" that sits on the table with a race higher than himself. P and A’s wives accidentally looked through the Francis-Bacon picture album often placed on the coffee table. That is an author who is popular with postmodern deconstruction discourse (you can see the foundation of the hostess P), and his works have entered the high-priced circulation circle of the upper class of society. The two allegorical signs are juxtaposed like a textbook.
Nancy threw up all over her body suddenly and preludely. The two couples were briefly separated into two rooms. P and her husband made fun of A and his wife's nasty nickname Doodle, and they were caught in a bag. Unexpectedly, the two suddenly became lack of confidence, and the emotions of the onlookers began to tilt to the other side. You find that, first of all, there is a long-term "speech suppression" in P's family (her husband opens the bottle, and the awkwardness is intensified in complaints); secondly, P's sense of moral purity and low tolerance for petty crimes Du Xianglian (recalling the beginning of the film, P took the facts from his son's classmates); the most annoying thing is that P was caught off guard by his husband's drunken moral nihilism remarks. Of course, this kind of irritating is even more irritating to yourself. It’s not that the naivety of left-wing idealism still has the temptation to be close to somatosensory, but you can clearly smell the snobbery in the moral expectation of "fairness" from this film. . If you are in the process of watching the movie, you go through this kind of inner defection like me.
At this juncture, A took over the conversation, but instead used obscurantism to cancel this sense of moral nihilism. The god of killing in the African jungle, an anthropological joke, is actually forced to spit in an indoor drama. "We are all bitches", taking turns to be low and low, rushing to the end of the climax. This is very much in line with Polanski's self-reconciliation, a guy who has two sides in the identity of the "defendant-judge".
After this analysis, the film seems to be a lot of boring. The screenwriter is a Jew and a Taurus. In 1968, she was a ten-year-old girl. All her plays won the highest awards in France and Britain. The most recent book is a documentary work following Sarkozy for a year. If there is still a look of French left-wing intellectuals who have been wandering about landless in her works for nearly 50 years, it does not seem to be surprising.
View more about Carnage reviews
