After all, it was something from the 70s. Many concepts and techniques have become unfamiliar to people today.
1972 was the fourth year that the United States sent troops directly to Vietnam (the Vietnam War began in 1955 and ended in 1975, which was much longer than we thought, although the previous period was a proxy war). Drifting in the forest, what is this? Vietnam War movie!
The conversation between Lewis and Ed in the middle of the river is the confusion of the middle class about this hopeless local war that has been fought for four years. Isn't Vietnam a country, a civilized country? Are the Vietnamese (in the mountains) all the beasts and demons that drink blood? What exactly does this war in which the United States is involved? Can the United States bring them civilization, democracy and law? Why did the four city civilized people come to this river? To conquer? "You can't conquer this river." Is such an obvious expression really good?
Like the outcome of the Vietnam War, the ending of the film was a lot of casualties. This is why we cannot see the meaning and essence of this film today. Because history has passed. People born in the 1970s could not imagine what the Vietnam War was. Until the beginning of the war on terrorism, various PTSDs reminded this generation of cruelty, barbarism and killing. There is nothing new under the sun. This is reminiscent of the words of Winster's prototype at the end of "Brothers", "I just want to find a farm and spend every day quietly..." There is nothing new, because where there are people, there is a shadow of war.
PS: What does the sodomy plot on the river bank mean? Of course it is not to describe the abnormalities of the mountain people. In fact, these mountain people are very simple-no, it is unreasonable for cultural conflicts. Huntington doesn't know if he likes this film, but the core is based on his thoughts. The city vs. the country (the United States vs. Vietnam) is completely irreconcilable. Violence is the truth; violence can do whatever it wants. It's that simple.
Well, as a fable that mirrors the war. Its function is really limited-people born in the 70s can no longer understand the meaning of drifting, nor can they understand Ed's struggle and transformation. Things are wrong, unless they go to Najaf, go to Afghanistan, Syria, go to kill and be killed.
Therefore, reflection on war is far less important than reflection on war. Why make mistakes again and again? Why go to conquer that river again and again? As for the answer, I am pessimistic anyway.
View more about Deliverance reviews
