Narratively speaking, it vividly tells the story of an adolescent boy's incestuous love for his classmate's mother due to a lack of maternal love, thereby depicting the semi-desperate state of two families caught in a midlife crisis, bound by desire.
Adolescence is undoubtedly a beautiful period, but I don’t think the film intends to focus on showing the feelings of this youthful period (the half-truth relationship between the two young male protagonists can be regarded as the director’s attempt to continue his own film elements. The intentional action of the film should not really be included in the analysis of the film), but instead, it uses such a main line to express the family conflicts in the middle-aged crisis in reality and the panic of people in this age group. Middle age is a trivial, mediocre but rich age. It is not like when I was young. A beautiful blueprint is unfolding little by little. Hope, passion, and challenges are the best synonyms. Hormones and self-confidence are in every day. Collusion occurs; it is also not like old age, there is a transparent and certainty that is used to seeing the world, and facing an unavoidable decline or end, it is nothing but waiting. Middle-aged is stuck in the middle, and the unwilling person is unwilling to become old-fashioned like this. He looks forward to another sprint when he still has the last bit of strength, and misses the youth that passed away in a hurry. It is at such nodes that stories and accidents are most likely to occur.
Therefore, we can see that when Gilman, a Chinese teacher, met Claude, who also likes to sit in the last row and has a talent for writing, he has already pinned his ideals and ambitions on him, which is enough to prompt him to make All kinds of absurd things that led to his final tragic ending. In the same way, we can understand that when housewife Esther experienced a crisis of family trust, she chose to indulge Claude, who showed her love. Fortunately, this indulgence was temporary, which made this film full of tragic factors. There is still a trace of warmth.
Aside from the triumph of characters and plot, the film's layout is equally intriguing.
First of all, the film’s perspective is flat and accurate, just like real life, and the occasional imaginary drama is also to meet the needs of the layout. It does not win with a thrilling beginning or a stunning ending, but with a true and natural narrative. Art and maverick vivid characters are captivating. We can imagine the surprise and shock brought by the sudden intrusion of a person who disregards worldly etiquette and informal forms into our own life under the drab curtain of everyday life, and finally that person must disappear silently like a His presence was unprovoked, but his presence prompted us to reflect on whether our own lives also needed some change. After all, "a life without a story is worthless".
Secondly, although the plot of the film is not complicated, it strictly follows Claude's day-observing the private life of the Rafa family, and writing on this subject, and handing it over to the teacher Gilman for review and approval. To be continued" - to advance the story and to intentionally make us feel that the story has no end, but the power of storytelling is not in the content of the story itself, but in how to tell the story well. At this point, the genius director Ou Rong showed amazing talent. He constructs a three-level space in the core performance of the film—the Rafa house—that is, the Rafaist in reality, the Rafaist in Claude’s composition, and the Claude who was imposed on Gilman’s will. Lafarge in the composition.
In this space that is both true and illusory, we can see that imagination gradually subverts reality (the story in the first half of the film is basically the life of a completely real Rafa family, and when Gilman begins to teach Claude writing skills, the story It becomes more exaggerated and dreamy, until finally Gilman imposes his will on Claude, and the story completely deviates from reality and slides into the abyss of imagination.), and then reality devours imagination with irresistible animal power (as Gilman Mann said, "In general, we learn nothing from art, but at least inspire us to appreciate beauty"), which finally brings the film to a wonderful ending where tragedy and warmth coexist. It is in this rotation that we have both the tension and the incredible sensory experience of suspense movies, and the fair judgment of real life.
Finally, many people questioned whether Claude had a relationship with Esther in reality. I think the answer is yes, although it is a bit heavy, but what does it matter if it actually happened? In the Gospel of Matthew, it says, "Whoever sees a woman lusts after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." So we return to the original proposition, which the film tries to imply, the spirit and the flesh, the imagination and the Reality, is there really a gap?
View more about In the House reviews
