When the creator consciously raises the humanistic concern as one of the elements of a film to the position of the theme, it is possible to achieve philosophical speculation. It doesn't necessarily provoke your little heart at a certain node when watching the movie, but it will probably become the main theme that you relish the most when you reminisce.
Therefore, from humanistic concern to philosophical speculation can generally constitute a gradual pedigree. Although the pros and cons of a movie have nothing to do with its position in this pedigree (or even do not have to be put into this pedigree at all), for a director, it seems that this pedigree can be regarded as the only way to become a master. The ones that come to mind immediately, such as Bergman's "Masquerade" and Antonioni's "Zoom", are undoubtedly at the far right end of the spectrum, and are veritable masterpieces.
In contrast, there are very few Chinese films that can be placed on the far right of the pedigree, and excellent works are even rarer. I can still think of it immediately, "Farewell My Concubine", "Furong Town", "A River and Spring Water Flows East"... all of them are just masterpieces at the level of humanistic care. But there is no doubt that many of our directors are trying to move towards philosophical speculation in their works.
The fifth generation of directors collectively emerged once in their young and middle-aged years, and they have made so many films. Among them, "King of Children" directed by Chen Kaige is probably a masterpiece located in the middle and right of the pedigree. As we all know, Director Chen's works have never been inseparable from humanistic care, and he often tries to elevate it to philosophical speculation. This kind of twist reached its peak when he filmed "Wuji", and it can be said that it ended in failure.
The representative figure in the sixth generation of directors is naturally Jia Zhangke. The dazzling light of humanity radiated in the ending scene of "Xiao Wu" still overshadows the rest of his works. The self-talk in "The World" is a failed attempt (to say it's not smaller than "Martial Arts"), the next "Three Gorges Good Man" even though the camera has risen to the height of compassion, but his Humanistic concerns are still less than philosophical speculation. As for the discussion of some political philosophies in "Legend of the Sea", it is even more lame.
Taking these two examples, what I want to say is that how far a director can go in philosophical speculation largely depends on his cultural background (for the time being, such a common term is used). The so-called humanistic care, a person who has a little knowledge, some experience, and some ideas can express a few points. The words of a roadside shoe repair master are not necessarily high-end goods, and there are always more thinkers than philosophers. This is one of them; the other is that even if your mind can handle a certain philosophical theme with ease, and you can write tens of thousands of words of director's statement, you may not have the skill to apply it to the image. In contrast, the old Fei Mu and the current Li An are good role models. But director Ang Lee has yet to try to do philosophy with all his strength, and An Anxin fully understands the elements of humanistic care.
Another situation is that when Western directors do philosophy, they try to extend it just a little bit. Immediately I can think of Vera Drake, the golden lion award masterpiece I watched this year. The whole film revolves around the issue of "abortion", from the human nature to the social level to the legal level to the metaphorical political level. This clear thread seems to be seen by the audience. Instead of a movie, we saw a finely structured sculpture. Director Mike Leigh said that most of his works are about the relationship between parents and children. It is not easy for us Chinese to do this. The difference in this way of thinking is like a Song Dynasty ink painting and a Renaissance oil painting.
Finally, as for "Wu Xia", as mentioned above, the impression of this film is that, first of all, Chen Kexin does not have enough cultural background to do philosophy, although he is very good at humanistic care; secondly, Chen Kexin has no ability to control the theme of philosophy, although He has been striving for innovation and change in film genres; in the end, Chen Kexin's way of doing philosophy is big and small. From free will and determinism, to procedural justice and substantive justice; from the contradiction between traditional society and modernization, to the differences between Chinese and Western cultures... The philosophical issues in "Wu Xia" can be described as all-encompassing, but none of them are clearly explained.
Finally, a few harsh words were said.
Director Chen said that the film is doing "microscopic martial arts", and he seems to be borrowing the concept of "microscope" in natural science to apply it. But the martial arts theory that the "macro" is the rivers and lakes, and the "micro" is the individual's heart, which should clearly be the division method in the social sciences. However, I remember that a "neuroeconomics" was derived from the combination of neuroscience in microeconomics, so the film should be called "neuro-martial arts".
As for those audiences who applaud the film based on philosophical speculation, either, your cultural background is too low, and a little bit of "self-nature" and "crime and punishment" in your lines can shock your heart; or, it's you The cultural heritage of the film is too connotative, and the depth that the director didn't even think about let you dig it out. One movie can decode traditional Chinese civilization, and the addiction of daring to read in a cold window for ten years to summarize the central idea and analyze the writer's soul is not over. na?
View more about Dragon reviews
