In a straightforward narrative, it is the perspective of this movie to show a series of things that we seem to have encountered that cannot be solved or even thought about at the time. Obviously, the New Wave’s understanding of film shows a series of features in this film. For example, putting the camera on the street, using a lot of natural light, or taking a long lens with a lot of randomness, etc. Wait. I can’t say how significant these techniques are, and these expressive techniques are not unique to the New Wave. I prefer to think that compared with traditional movies, New Wave is just a combination of the above characteristics and a blend that is closer to traditional movies. The kind of film that is documentary in nature. This memoir with an obvious autobiographical character of Truffau is not so much dedicated to his mentor as that it is based on very personal thinking, combined with his own experience, and at the same time is a test paper for his own teacher. .
However, I have never felt close to this movie. This feeling is like reading Borges. No matter how close its theme is to human nature, it can't give me a sense of intimacy. In this film deliberately avoiding traditional film techniques, there are certain factors that have to be said to inject a comparatively vigor into the film, but it is loose in the overall structure and random in some processing shots. I think Too freehand. I don’t know the purpose of a student who keeps tearing off the homework books. The long and swaying shots of the streets of Paris at the beginning of the movie make me feel uncomfortable and seem too casual. This method of placing the protagonist in a series of similar incidents to receive a blow is obviously not able to grasp a pleasant sense of rhythm well. I can easily see that Dongni’s smiling face blooming in that constantly rotating barrel-like game and the other ninety-eight percent crying face of the time means the so-called intention of confrontation between freedom and restraint, this kind of adoption The simple method of contrast is still naive in terms of my preference for fine aesthetics. And the technique of showing the theme through a series of events is actually no more wiser than the traditional film technique of creating a contradiction. We have not had the emotional sublimation brought about by the exchange of eye-to-eye with the actors, even in the final freeze-frame shot, showing a more lively but actually very unforgettable shiny moment, but This flashy classic (it can be regarded as a classic) lens further shows the blandness of the whole movie most of the time. As for the long-distance running along the sea that has been praised repeatedly, I don't think it is excellent.
I was not able to feel the strong impact from this movie like many people. It certainly has the characteristics of nature and freshness, but the quasi-documentary nature of the film is biased and at the same time unavoidably lacks a sense of rhythm, which makes it show a kind of contradiction between film innovation and inheritance. feel. Its exploratory intent in film expression techniques is extremely obvious, but I don't think it has made any major breakthroughs in artistic achievements. It is more appropriate to classify it as that kind of experimental movie.
Film language needs to be enriched through continuous exploration, completely abandoning tradition, and will inevitably fall into the quagmire of unstable foundations. If you say where this movie is successful, I think the most prominent one is Truffau’s turbulent childhood experience (this feeling is still more fully expressed in the movie) caused by the confusion about the surrounding environment, and finally the last The close-up shot with a flash of light, very appropriately freeze frame and capture of facial expressions, expresses the subject extremely quickly. And most of the other places are unremarkable.
View more about The 400 Blows reviews
