The earth is full of threats to the old mankind, but the new mankind was born in catastrophe. Kill the new humans and continue the population for the old humans, or will the old humans die out naturally and let the new humans inherit civilization? The difference between the movie setting and the ordinary zombie movies is shown in the following points: the virus that causes the zombie mutation is fungal. This characteristic makes it survive and evolve in the form of a plant after the vitality of the host is lost, creating another The result of the evolution of a zombie virus; human fetuses are originally fragile, but from another perspective, this variability is easier to adapt to changes. Babies born from mothers infected with zombie viruses naturally have the common characteristics of zombies and old humans. , Not only has a strong desire for flesh and blood, but also maintains rationality under the condition of fullness. PS: Think about it carefully, except for the difference in food, isn't this an old human? In addition to the above two points, this film is different from other zombie films in the starting point of the story. It does not focus only on human struggles and fierce battle scenes, but on the inheritance of civilization and the group conflicts between old and new humans. Given that the film assumes that the new humans have the same thinking and behavioral abilities as the old humans, this conflict is also very natural, especially when the old humans trapped in the film also capture the new humans as samples for vaccine research. So, what should we think about the vivisection of new humans with the same level of intelligence to obtain possible vaccines? As viewers, it is easy for us to take the position of the old man, assuming that if we were in the situation at the time, we would appreciate which choice we would make. There is no doubt that the easiest decision we make is no different from the character in the film. We are in danger, life and death are just around the corner, and the only way to survive is from the bacteria antibodies that may be carried in their flesh and blood. However, if we suspend these subconscious decisions and think that we are sending a living person who looks exactly like us to the operating table to solve the plan, we can't help asking ourselves: "Is this right?" In this situation Stopping down the compatriots who are desperately doing research and protecting the old humans, and asking such questions, it is probably natural to be regarded as a "Mother". But if you really stop and think about it, if you have some reading of human history, you may find that we have experienced such things more than once in history. Just like our ancestor-Homo sapiens-in 7 Thousands of years ago, after leaving East Africa, other species of people were eliminated: Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Denisovans; from Homo sapiens occupation of the earth to the present, the entire human race has been divided geographically and culturally. This The difference is so great that people of hostile or even strange ethnic groups can be killed or even eaten directly; since written history, human beings have divided into different classes, and the ruling power classes exploit the lower classes of the same race. In addition to drinking blood and eating meat, they did everything they could. In the last few hundred years, Europeans who gained new power from the Industrial Revolution did anything they could to people in Asia, Africa, America and other regions. Things thought or unexpected. There are many other things like this, no matter what period of history, it tells us: there is no fairness here. Old humans can kill new humans to study vaccines in order to survive. The new man can choose not to sacrifice himself for his own survival. From the standpoint of each other, these choices are all in their own interests. But is the advantageous choice the right one? Choosing to doubt, is it a betrayal of one's own position? Here, in order to distinguish whether betrayal or whether it is a "Virgin", the criterion of judgment is the key. If the natural subsistence group is used as the criterion for distinguishing, the heroine has betrayed her group. However, as human society has developed to the present, "whether living together or not" can no longer be regarded as the only criterion for distinguishing one's position. Those who believe in the same story belong to the same group, and their interests are the same. In modern society, the conflicts between groups that believe in different stories are even more tragic than in the movies. For the female protagonist, she believes that the children who are infected with the germs can communicate and think, understand and empathize, have complete human thinking and behavior patterns, and cannot treat the children as chickens, ducks, pigs and dogs. Lose. In her consciousness, the criterion for judging whether the other party is in the same position as herself is "people on the level of consciousness": if they have the same consciousness and culture, they have the same position, and if they damage their interests for some aspect of their own interests , That is to harm yourself invisibly, because it not only violates the story you believe in, but one day you may also encounter the same experience. But for other old humans, judging whether the opponent is in the same position as themselves is a "functional level person": with the same experience and ability, they have the same position: in order to get rid of the predicament, damage the group that is not in the same predicament The interest of the people is an acceptable thing. In contrast, the criterion of the female protagonist's judgment is relatively unrealistic interests, that is, the expectation of long-term interests. It does not directly help the current predicament. It is expected that the group will not fall apart due to short-term interests. And the old man The judging standard of the class is based on the current predicament. They chose short-term interests, but they did not accept the darkness, but sublime the darkness in it. Obviously, they did not accept the long-term possibility that this choice might bring. The result: others can do the same to them. In fact, the efforts of old humans are not necessarily correct. The vaccine may not be successfully obtained, and the vaccine may be extinct due to the inability to adapt to the changed environment and other reasons in the near future. Most of the history is so cruel, hard struggle does not necessarily mean that there will be more room for survival. Although contradictions and conflicts are always unavoidable, civilization and culture will survive. What makes new humans different is what makes us different from other species. They are learning our language, knowing our history, and internalizing our ideas. The genes of civilization are passed from our old host to the new host. However, for people, situations and conflicts of interest are indeed the factors that can influence positions and concepts the most. What is expressed in the film may not be recognized, but this is not the purpose of the film. It just wants us to see And feel it. In short, from the perspective of film exploration, although the selection process and results shown to us by the director and screenwriter are a bit straightforward, they did tell us a different story and it was a very good movie.
View more about The Girl with All the Gifts reviews
