while realism The drama is different. The scenes depicted in it are inextricably linked with the things that happen around you every day. The "strong sense of sight" will have two directions. One is to arouse the emotional resonance of some audiences. The purpose of the film is consistent and has a positive effect. But due to individual differences, the second is to cause the emotional rebound of other audiences. Of course, when we give an example, we cannot be the world around us, but the experience of watching movies is private after all. In this film - or in today's social context, it is easy to see who is advocating "the status of women has never been higher" - that is: the
film itself does not have a strong enough or direct event conflict to promote the heroine's role The change makes the story itself unconvincing; or in response to the "clamors" of feminists, pointing out that men and women are inherently different, and that some jobs are not suitable for women to do, isn't it a disease to demand equality; myself/women around me The treatment is good, and I don't feel a lot of gender discrimination. It's true that women's status was low at that time. Now that they have improved, why bother to worry about everything every day, and so on.
In recent years, the frequency of some words has suddenly become very high, which has caused a fundamental change in the meaning of words. Feminism, feelings, straight men, these words are followed by "cancer", which is completely demonized. While many people are talking about them, they don't understand and have no intention to consider the initial context of these words and what they mean. It's just that everyone They are all used and they are used accordingly. Once the meaning of the word is expanded, people's sensitivity will be reduced, such as those idiots who call themselves "baby" - ah no, this is not an example, these idiots are still disgusting, and those who should be blocked must not be lenient.
The abuse of language has contributed to the lowering of the general perception of most passers-by. For a thing that is not well understood and has no joy and no anger, "vulnerable groups" were originally a plus point for passers-by, but because of abnormal brushing attention caused others I have no intention to pay attention to what is right and what is wrong. I just want to fork out feminism and anti-feminism. I really can't blame others.
Personally, I don't really like the folk feminism in China (it can be regarded as the counterpart of folk science), because it is mixed with too much political correctness and too much bullshit. Watching the film comes with similar concerns: What position does the film itself stand for? Is the filming to state a point of view or to hype a hot spot and sell it for money? After all, it’s easy to make money now, and the purpose of some movies can’t be said to be pure. When there is a movie like a hateful bride doing another thing in a certain name, we can no longer say that the TV industry is making movies just to make money. Now, misappropriating money is not terrible, not only misappropriating money but also entraining private goods and taking the initiative to act as a gun, this kind of feeling, dreams and more things that are unclear, never tell you logic, only talk about subjective Once the feeling person appears, there is no need to argue anymore.
Fortunately, the film itself is sincere enough. Of course, it has many shortcomings, but there is one thing that really touched me. I will say this later. Personally, I think this is enough to cover all the shortcomings, so I gave it five stars.
In fact, it has been clearly shown in the film that it is very difficult to get the attention of people outside the disadvantaged group, and many people within the disadvantaged group will be reluctant to change the status quo for various reasons. A very important one The reason is "not worth the loss". They have their own social circle, they have dominant public opinion in the circle (no matter who is leading them), they have husbands and children, or they have difficulties and can’t speak out. Take the risk of losing everything.
The thing that touched me earlier was that you always have choices in front of you, and you have to choose what you will do. Of course, people who have really experienced discrimination are more "easy" to wake up, but that doesn't mean that the motives of the heroine are not sufficient. After all, there are so many LGBT friendly people in the world. The key is to understand why and how you speak.
I used to be a world around me, because I didn’t really experience the lack of rights caused by gender, and I never did anything for equal rights, even though I was a member of the LGBTQ group. As a social phobia, shrinking is almost an instinct, on the other hand I have always thought that love is love, it does not become great or small because of LGBT or not. In other words, the movie is the movie itself. The bottom line is that it is not sexist, but it does not need to be politically correct and to place unnecessary scenes, lines or even characters.
(Especially in recent years, regardless of whether LGBT or feminism has been discriminated against in some people as always, it has become a kind of identity mark in the eyes of others, and homosexuality is "instead" superior to others. Yes, the most important point of anti-discrimination is to de-specialize. Whether it is used to advertise or ridicule, it is very abnormal to separate them from another group in a broad sense. Of course, it does not only refer to film and television dramas selling corrupt. Small circle of fans Fighters are equally terrifying.)
Are women in this film engaging in violence to fight for their rights, and the exaggerated depictions of gays and mortals bordering on promiscuity are overkill, and are they really necessary? Cypher Harding said that force is the last resort of the incompetent. Does the same apply here?
First of all, I have to overturn my original idea. From the perspective of film creation, de-specialization is still very important. From the perspective of film creators - there are always people who will stand up to do this - "exaggeration" is essential. We need to cry for a legitimate right, because the use of video media to speak out is result-oriented. It doesn't matter which link or method is used to capture the audience's attention, but ultimately captures the audience's attention. And getting people to think is more important. All the things that make people feel like they are stuck in their throats and do not conform to the moral logic of the world are to ensure that the audience can understand the plight of a disadvantaged group: if these are not pointed out in such an exaggerated manner, the audience will not realize it, and thus understand and accept it.
I don't know if violence is the only solution under the circumstances in the movie setting, but it is the best solution these women can come up with, and to some extent achieve the least casualties and gradually achieve the desired results . Violence is never necessary, but you must not stop fighting back when the other party is violent to you just because you don't want to use it.
This is an unfair world. The films of some companies/directors have been rotten into a puddle, and there are still countless enthusiastic fans shouting to buy and buy, while other works of the same type and even higher standards have been attacked by perhaps the same audience with almost zero tolerance. Where the fork is may only be attributed to the subtle temperament, but this is also what the first paragraph at the beginning said, realist works have a threshold.
I was talking to people about something else by accident, and I remembered this film. I actually disagreed with it when I watched it before, but today I casually used one of the viewpoints, and after thinking about it, I couldn't refute myself.
I'm not a feminist, not even an individualist, I used to be very pessimistic about the future of humanity. It is said in the big story that all things rise and fall, and human beings will eventually become extinct regardless of whether they destroy or protect nature, war or maintain peace. I don't know, why bother with "human rights" that are too abstract? But as I write it, I feel like I have convinced myself again. In the future, try to be a useful person and do something good for the goddamn human beings.
In addition, about the difference between men and women, it is true that women may have to pay more mental/physical costs to engage in more masculine occupations, so sometimes we do not advocate women making unfavorable choices. Considering the allocation of social resources, it also intends to avoid unnecessary harm to women; but if a woman still decides that she can compete with men on an equal footing under the premise that the consequences are stated, it proves that she has realized and recognized herself. It is her right and freedom to choose and pursue a career at the risk she will take.
Finally, no matter what gender you are, please reflect on your speaking habits, use discriminatory group words as little as possible, and I will try to avoid saying that certain types of people are shit. As all decent people say when asked, "They scold us, but we can't scold us back?": At least we can't be like them.
View more about Suffragette reviews
