When I was watching "The Meaning of Movies" by Christian Metz, I was extremely depressed. One of the reasons is that these film professors are constantly pursuing the picture, editing, sound, sound...In short, all the "meaning" in the film, they can't wait to use verb conjugation and tense to organize and classify them, such as He wants to use words to write the meaning of the long lens, which can be divided into dozens of categories, which are filled with complex logical relationships, and the lens is completely separated from the situation it constructs. In fact, it’s no wonder they, because a lot of people make movies like this. Last time I discussed this issue with Comrade WS on MSN. I gave an example but I didn’t finish it: I said that some people wrote this in the script. The man picked up the cup, so the director used two shots to complete it: a panoramic view of the cup, and a close-up of the cup's hand. If it is written in the script and he picks up the cup sadly, the director will tell the actor that your hands should be shaken a little. Comrade WS commented that now even the foolish teachers of Nortel will tell students not to write adjectives in the script. I said, in fact, this is the same, because a pheasant director will be a little bit sad, so he will tell the actor that his hands should shake. If this is a horror movie, he might think, I should take a back shot, the front is real and the back is vacant, and then let the lighting engineer make a contour light to cover the face of the person, only the trembling cup in the foreground... etc. and many more. There is actually no difference, because in the final analysis it is the words "sad" or "fear" that are at work. The slightly different is that one is written on paper, the other is what people think in their hearts, and everyone uses all the technical means. To pursue and realize the "meaning" of these words in the picture and sound, from another perspective, the limited "meaning" institutionalized and structured unlimited possibilities. I’ve thought about it when I watch many movies. If it’s not for the huge commercial benefit, the film can’t be shot at all. The director can add two sentences to explain the dialogue and voice-over and write a novel for publication. This pursuit of “meaning” is actually even more important. It saves time, is more comfortable, and costs less. (When I say this, I don’t mean to deny the status of literature in movies. There are many movies with a high literary significance. I also like them. Basically, I also like to read novels. Before I watched the movies, I also watched Mr. Wang. The book grew up.)
I took a bit of effort to explain Inland Empire, and then I think about it. I am actually not interested in this chain of logic. The third time I watched this film, I found that what I like so much is the few rabbit masters, the incredible eye exchange between the neighbor boss and Laura Dern, and Laura Dern suddenly jumped up and shouted "It sounds like the dialogue" From our script!", it was the gloomy snow scene on the Polish streets—they actually played an opposite role. At the very least, they were not the product of "meaning", but the creator of "meaning" , "Meaning" is just one of the most basic derivatives produced after these things are mixed and exploded. There are other things that skip the medium of "meaning" directly into the brain. Most importantly, the production of these things does not need to be translated by the human's rational brain. This is something you can't get by reading a novel or a drama.
In fact, when you watch many movies carefully, you can see this what I call "helpless division." For example, in "Deja Vu", Tony Scott is said to be a bad film director. I absolutely disagree. Every time I watch his movie, I feel that the narrative and the movie itself are split into two parts. He doesn't care what the story is, he uses his technical means to make everything flow with all his strength, and it feels like At the end of "Yakila", a huge body (the movie itself) desperately squeezed out of a small eggshell (story), and then violently collided and exploded in the air. Every time I read it, I enjoy it and say that it is not a story, it is nonsense, but his ability to construct situations with technical means. Similarly, there are martial arts and gangster movies in Hong Kong in the 1980s and 1990s. For example, the "Huang Feihong" series has been split up, and the story has gone to the horizon. The real momentum was created when the mind went crazy. The collision of action and editing exploded. There is also the originator of the originator, the Hollywood studios, those masters who worked hard to get rid of the meaning of words and design pictures and light and shadow.
At a deeper level, some people want to investigate how the film does not have "meaning", how to complete its social function, in other words, how to complete the so-called reflection, criticism, rebellion, liberation and "humanistic care" of a small number of elites (really, this Is it a word that always makes me get goose bumps)? First of all, for example, Godard killed a bunch of policemen, burned a bunch of cars, and read a bunch of quotations in his film. What happened? Stop a young man smoking marijuana on the streets of Europe and the United States. At the end of the chat, you will find that you will tell you that democracy is a good thing, and we should be proud of it. All these people belong to this society to some extent. Vested interests, this is the advantage of capitalism. Although the "meaning" may be a bomb, but when capitalism dispatches it, the fuze is removed. It may be powerful but it will never explode. In the end, it functions more like an anesthetic, soothing everyone's restless nerves.
Again, starting from human instincts, the most obvious example, when I was young, my politics class was filled with socialism by pulling my ears, let alone believing, how much did I remember?
Intellectuals, elites and their "meaning" in their schoolbags have always been a bearing embedded in a rational structured society. This structured society has "meaning" written on the front and capitalism on the back. They are There are only two sides of a piece of paper, and it is impossible to stretch your head outside to think with your body in this case. Conversely, the best way to subvert it, to put it more vulgarly, is to not pee the pot: it sounds absurd, but I believe it is true. Skip the presentation of "meaning" and make a film with feelings and feelings. The means of control to explode the picture, the sound of the explosion, the explosion of the edited movie, even a martial arts film, can also make people who are not completely "elite" break free from the solid thinking frame for a while, and maintain human nature. The situation created by this cinematic method is one of the best ways to "rebel". In a sense, this means that means can subvert the purpose.
View more about Primer reviews
