"Black Museum" is composed of three independent short stories. The first story tells that the doctor connects his own nerves with the patient's nerves, and thus feels the patient's pain, and thus makes the most accurate diagnosis. But as the pain he endured continued to increase, his brain also changed-the doctor gradually fell in love with the sensation of pain, he began to self-mutilate, and eventually he could only quench his thirst by killing passers-by brutally and feeling his pain. Addiction to pain is incredible, but what if this pain does not cause any physical harm? In the film, the doctor can perceive the patient's pain, but his body will not be affected in any way, so even if the pain experience is real, the pain itself is illusory. This is like, when reading a tragic novel, the reader takes himself into the role of the protagonist of the novel, feels his emotions, and simulates his pain, but after closing the book, the reader can retreat. People's love of tragedy is essentially the same as their fascination with pain. Psychologist Goldstein wrote in "The Pleasure of Pure Sadness" that people like to watch tragedy because the sadness brought by tragedy is a kind of sadness without any impurities. Such high-purity sadness is in reality. Middle is very rare, because in life, when people experience sadness, they also often feel anxiety, fear and other emotions. These emotions make sadness no longer pure; in other words, it is not sadness itself that troubles us, but Those other negative emotions that accompany sadness. But why does pure sadness bring pleasure? Answering this question probably requires neuroscience knowledge (this touches my knowledge blind zone), I can only guess, is the same (or adjacent) brain region that controls sadness, pain, and pleasure?
Another fascinating aspect of this story is its novel interpretation of empathy. What we usually call empathy is to empathize with others and give a sincere response. This part of a sincere response can easily be overlooked. For example, A tells B about his tragic childhood experience, B thinks of his misfortune, and thus fully understands A’s pain-this is not a complete empathy; only when B feels sorry for A wholeheartedly, and It is not just when B is immersed in his own misfortune that B completes a complete empathy. The problem with the doctor in the film is that he does not show this sincere, other-centered empathy; his emotional experience is entirely self-centered. Therefore, he fell into a swamp of pain and couldn't extricate himself. Empathy is dangerous. If you cannot complete the conversion from yourself to others, you are likely to fall into the abyss of pain. Emotional interaction can be roughly divided into three stages. The first stage is that there is no intersection between the two people's emotions; the second stage is that the two people's emotions have an intersection, but each is trapped in their own emotions and lacks communication; third The stage is when the two people's emotions blend together and can communicate effectively, that is, empathy. What empathy requires is not only psychological maturity, but also kindness, and perhaps other necessary conditions (this touches my knowledge blind zone again).
The second story continues the discussion of empathy. It assumes that the degree of empathy can reach 100%, that is, the sensory and emotional experiences of the two people completely overlap. Probably only the mutant Charles Xavier can do this. It is unlikely that ordinary people have such a high empathy ability. Perhaps this is the brain’s protection for itself. After all, the brain’s ability to withstand is not strong enough to withstand the suffering of the world; proper empathy is very beneficial, but extremely developed empathy is destructive for individuals of. In the second story, the male protagonist transferred the consciousness of the vegetative wife to his own brain. The two shared the same body, achieving true empathy, but soon both of them were on the verge of collapse. The distance between people can be very close, but it must exist. Vague boundaries will cause a series of problems.
The third story is the darkest part of the film. The consciousness of the prisoner who died unfairly was transferred out, and he was kept imprisoned in the cell, receiving numerous electric shocks every day. This story may be a tribute to the electric shock experiment of the psychologist Milgram. In the experiment designed by Milgram, participants were told that it was an experiment on the "effectiveness of punishment on learning behavior"; participants played the role of teacher, and another group of experimenters played the role of students; and the participants did not know The people who play the role of students are experimenters, not unaware participants like them. Milgram requires that every time a student answers a wrong question, the teacher needs to punish the student with electric shocks. Although the students kept wailing and screaming, most of the teachers did not stop the electric shocks, and it was not even ruled out that some participants secretly enjoyed playing the role of abuser. Participants and experimenters did not know each other, and there was no personal grievances, just as in the third story, the prisoners were tortured by tourists who had never known him to visit the museum. If the first story is about the pain of being obsessed with yourself, then the third story is about enjoying the pain of others.
We might think that there are indeed some people in the world who take pleasure in the pain of others, but we are definitely not such a person. There is no cost to enjoy the pain of others, which does not sound attractive at all. There's none? As I said before, the wonderful thing about these three stories is that they convey a real and intense pain to the audience. I felt depressed and sad when watching the video of the electric shock. Long after the film ended, this scene still lingered in my mind, like a nightmare. To a certain extent, I developed empathy for this fictional character, felt his pain, and shed tears for his pain. I experienced pain without paying any price. After the film ended, I thought it was an excellent movie-watching experience, and by writing this film review, I recommend the film to more people, and continue to share, spread, and amuse the pain of these fictional characters. How is this obsession with pain different from the characters in the film? Is it the difference between reality and virtual? Many psychological experiments have proved that the emotions evoked by virtual works are indistinguishable from the emotions experienced in real life. How do we prove our innocence? Or do we have to admit that we are also addicted to the pain of ourselves and others without having to pay a realistic price?
View more about USS Callister reviews
