The so-called science fiction movies usually only contain a few science fiction elements, and their themes may not have a scientific basis. On the contrary, anti-science is their true face. Time and space shuttle and super germs are enduring science fiction elements, psychiatry is still a mysterious and beautiful literary and artistic theme, "Twelve Monkeys" is a typical work about all of these.
But the shuttle of time and space is actually a philosophical issue, and such a shuttle in the scientific sense simply cannot exist. Or at least it is impossible to exist in a way that can be perceived and understood by humans. Science is first of all logic and empirical. As science fiction, although you don’t have to ask for empirical evidence, logic is absolutely forbidden to joke. For example, it takes two hours to play a movie once, and then play it backwards. The total time required is four hours, not zero. This is the simplest logic. Although, according to the mathematical model of the theory of relativity, it is possible to infer the backward time when the speed of light is surpassed and the wormhole phenomenon when time and space are extremely distorted, but don’t forget that these inferences violate the basic physical assumptions of the model, so they have only mathematical meaning and no science. (Physical) meaning. Even in the mathematical sense, we cannot "see" scenes such as the restoration of a broken cup, because at this time our brains will also be running backwards, and our perception of time will be completely different. How can we use it again? Common sense "thinking"? If you want to go back in time without going against logic, you can only allow this kind of "logic" to be called logic. This is the omnipotent philosophical approach. But what are the consequences of allowing this "logic"? Deep in the quagmire too!
Superbugs can cause large-scale deaths of species, but it is absolutely impossible to be so super accurate that one species can be nearly extinct, while other species are almost unaffected. Of course, compared to the invading germs that can make people crazy, the super germs of "Twelve Monkeys" are still very scientific. It just makes people die. Science tells people that in the face of the plague, humans are not a special species. And if there is such a pathogen, it is impossible for it to wreak havoc on the surface where there is no human for decades, because without a host, how can it survive? Super germs are not nuclear radiation, nor are they chemical poisons! From another perspective, it can almost be said that since the existence of life on the earth, microbial "pathogens" have begun to "rage" the earth. So far, hundreds of the most "smart" microorganisms have actually been living in peace with human beings at the top of the food chain. It is parasitic in the human body and accompanies humans throughout their lives. For example, some humans, especially the Chinese, who lack it, may even have indigestion of milk. This is precisely the time when those "unsmart" microorganisms are most "oppressed", because a hundred years ago, they could still take the lives of tuberculosis patients at any time. At that time, in addition to pitifully asking for "God", Has there ever been a substantial countermeasure? It can be seen that it is science that has allowed mankind to win a little dignity in front of the microbes of the same family and ancestors. If the screenwriter is not so biased towards animals, then the superbug is logically and empirically reasonable, but the superbug in "The Twelve Monkeys" is obviously a magic weapon, because as mentioned above, even if the scientist does not cultivate any pathogens, the bacteria Never let humans and other species be spared. For example, the Black Death does nothing for scientists. "God" has been openly accused of the fall of mankind many times, so why bother to plant scientists this time?
And put aside the philosophical paradox, lifted away the layers of smoke deliberately set up by the screenwriter, and after taking the cocoon, the plot is actually not complicated at all, that is, the future "warrior" returns to the past to find the source of the super pathogen, but is treated as a mentally ill patient. The four key figures are the protagonist, the groggy but "strong-willed" future "warrior" James Cole, the heroine, the "love" higher than the "rational" psychiatrist and writer Kathryn Railly, the "smoke bomb" and the very "Thinking" leader of the twelve monkey army, crazy true mental patient Jeffrey Goines, "dark horse", laboratory assistant and theological believer Dr. Peters. Each has a bright image and rich meaning. From another perspective, this is also a story about dream interpretation and memory reconstruction. From another perspective, this is another love story about deja vu. For more details, please refer to the comments of other netizens and will not repeat them.
Screenwriters use scripts as literature, and directors use movies as art, which is thought-provoking and resonates. This is the original duty and "mission" of literature and art, and it is understandable. As a high-scoring movie released 13 years ago, its aesthetic value is beyond doubt. But writers and artists are philosophers to a certain extent, and it is inevitable to sell some philosophical goods in their works. When these so-called science fiction authors are not qualified science authors, and may not even possess basic scientific literacy, audiences have to be vigilant. The screenwriter's vilification and satire on the future six scientists and science is self-evident. They are all aggressive, not to mention perverts and love, and it is not an exaggeration to call them negative "Frankenstein". They represent "scientism". They were very unkind. For example, they even made James appear on the street wearing only underwear and a transparent women's raincoat, waiting for the police to arrest him. Although they have space-time shuttles that represent high-end technology, the shuttles have made many mistakes, and the historical "truths" they have mastered are extremely pitiful. In the psychiatric hospital in Baltimore, unlike the other five doctors, the heroine Kathryn is a famous scholar, both a scientist and a philosopher. For this dual identity, it is self-evident that the screenwriter should praise or detract. Sure enough, Kathryn eventually wavered his belief in science. In order to prevent hazards, Dr. Goines accepted Kathryn's reminder and strengthened laboratory safety measures, but the well-mannered Dr. Peters was an unpredictable fish that slipped through the net and took away the deadly pathogen as a scientist. The satirical works will ridicule themselves if they are not careful. The screenwriters took great pains. Originally, they probably wanted to let theology take the responsibility and morality while making troubles with science. It is Dr. Peters as a believer in theology. It can be seen that, in comparison, the “conceit” and “arrogance” of “weird” scientists can be saved, but the “belief” of theological believers is hopeless.
View more about 12 Monkeys reviews
