Indeed, such pictures are easily reminiscent of the Two Flowers, which are synonymous with bizarre and mysterious films, but I haven’t seen many split films, so here I want to draw some philosophical explanations from Hume.
As a way to subvert the way of human thinking, throughout the history of Western philosophy, it is not Plato and the rationalism he represents, nor the empiricism of Francis Bacon. In the long-term confrontation between the two factions, Hume is at the forefront. Why do you say that? ?
Hume's agnosticism, as a thorough empirical philosophy, leads directly to a dead end. Hume's own fearless spirit and profoundness are admirable. Because he denied the law of universality and the existence of the law of causality as the basic relationship of epistemology, he believed that the ubiquitous connection between things is the habitual connection implanted in the human brain, not the scientific result, so it can be said, I saw a cup, and the other person confirmed that he saw a piece of shit. The reason why the cup is a cup is just my one-sided perception, not the result of some reason, and the same is true of shit. Therefore, we can say that, in Hume's eyes, society does not exist and cannot infer the element of strangeness, which leads to skepticism: everything is possible, but nothing is credible.
After reading some film reviews, many people are just watching gossip, and some people see the fame, but it is arbitrary to say that the director deceived the audience. I am willing to accept another way of saying that the director is a bit tricky. The director may be a believer in agnosticism, trying to subvert the way of human thinking. From this possibility, the director is not deceiving the audience. Although I don't understand psychoanalysis or Jung, but when I watch this film, Hume and his agnosticism keep popping up in my mind. So I say that Hume is at the forefront, with a penetrating, terrifying skepticism that we are very reluctant to accept, but unfortunately, we can't find any systematic . A persuasive argument to refute. He is like a black hole in society.
Female writer - Sophie Marceau, neurotic (in my opinion), discovers Italian woman - Bellucci, then goes through some psychological process to adapt to this change, feels that she is herself, and then goes through A series of developments, the Italian woman represents the perception of the girl before the car accident, and Marceau represents the memory after the age of 8. This temporal division should have been unified in one living body (in my opinion), However, the director didn't think so, so he saw the picture of two little girls playing together, and also saw the situation in the picture above, so the film ended - two memory divisions of a life, spiritually speaking.
The style of the film---Xuan, face changing, music, plot, are all this mysterious character.
Although I can't argue with Hume's skepticism, I want to say: this is not going to work, we really need to find another way.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. As such, the term agnostic does not necessarily signal a particular view about religion or a deity, as some agnostics also identify as theists or atheists. ---- Cited from Wikipedia
View more about Don't Look Back reviews
