After reading a lot of reviews, I really wanted to talk about my feelings. If we limit ourselves to this and that, criticize with a critical attitude, conflict with the emotions that have accumulated inexplicably, and fail to give practical and meaningful opinions and suggestions on movie viewing, we are likely to become a movie The contemporary philosophers and revolutionaries in the world were rejected by Marx.
In the film, Marx said something. He said that so far, people have only used philosophy to explain the world without thinking about changing it. I think that's what really moved me. However, moving exists in emotional depictions of love and friendship. Excitement can come from a young man who clearly knows what he wants to do, has the ability to accomplish it, and has like-minded lovers and friends to accomplish it. This is the life my husband wants. Greatness is just a by-product.
It is true that many people of insight feel that the expression of inciting mass revolution and seizing the right to speak to revolutionary organizations is too superficial, or even seems inappropriate. If the method is not suitable, it can be corrected and corrected, but if the thinking mode is solidified, there is nothing that can be changed. The choice of method is to adapt to the times and the environment.
The film begins with the economic crisis of Europe under the absolute monarchy in 1843 and ends with the outbreak of the European Revolution in 1848. As far as the film itself, as a biography of a character, it makes people feel three-dimensional and cordial, and the love and friendship make people feel deeply and yearn for it. As an original sound film, I am interested in German after listening to it, and there is not much cultural gap, I can't help laughing with the plot, a smart male protagonist, a wife who fully understands him, and a friend who fully supports him. This is a group of young people who also have a huge impact on society. They actively overcome their social attributes in a sober state, some endure psychological pain, some endure physical torture, go beyond the appearance of class, find the commonality of human beings, and finally come to the stage forward. It is very clear what kind of system to build, what method to use, and what purpose to achieve. Whether it is the Communist Manifesto published in the early days to promote and consolidate the mass base, or the mature and complete masterpiece Capitalism, they all transcend criticism itself and transcend contemporary utopian behavior.
When it comes to the times, I specially emphasize the background of the times, the political and economic background, and the background of the characters, just to explain that this is the people who jumped out of the time and surpassed the times through the thinking ability of the scientific system. Now we define them as great people. At that time Maybe just the rebels. It is different from thinking that criticizes for the sake of criticism, from an indifferent and closed attitude, and from an empty fantasy piled up with lies.
I have skimmed the Communist Manifesto, but don't know much about the party history. When I first read it, I was shocked by its overflowing violent power, but I still felt that the connection between attacking the bourgeoisie and the proletarians asking for a revolution by force was a bit abrupt. Later, I realized the social background at that time. The bourgeoisie controlled the parliament, the army, the police and the prison, and treated the oppressed like slaves, and they could not even guarantee that the slaves could maintain the life of the slaves. Exploitation, confrontation, resistance, and then weapon criticism. Human society is a hierarchical society, and exploitation has always been and always will be. However, the class polarization and antagonism caused by the scientific and technological revolution has not disappeared. The reason why there is no weapon criticism today, and no material force destroying material force, is because the specter of Marx is wandering. Witnessed the worst side of things, so I chose restraint.
The film extracts certain fragments of a period of Marx's life. Ma is a philosopher, a person who wants to see the essence of the problem and solve it at the root, but not so qualified as a leader of the movement. There is sympathy, as well as contempt and helplessness for ignorance, but not so willing to deceive, unwilling to gain such power and achieve such fame. Ma's position on himself is probably still a scholar, not quite like the so-called revolutionaries defined later. It seemed that all the passion and ambition of the revolutionaries were poured into the revolutionary cause. The first through the Malaysia-Singapore youth
View more about The Young Karl Marx reviews
