Mencius replied: "The king is warlike, please use the metaphor of war. Fill in the drum, and once the swords are connected, abandon the armor and drag the soldiers away. , or stop after a hundred paces, or stop after fifty paces. How about laughing at a hundred paces at fifty paces?" He
said, "No! If you don't go straight for a hundred paces, you can also walk." He
said, "If your king knows this, then There are more hopeless people than neighboring countries.
"If it does not violate the agricultural season, the grain cannot be eaten. If you don't get into the pond, the fish and turtles will not be able to eat. The ax and jin enter the mountains and forests in time, and the wood and wood are invincible. Grain and fish and turtles cannot be eaten, and wood and wood cannot be used. There is no regret in health preservation and death, the beginning of the kingly way.
"For a house of five acres, if the trees are filled with mulberries, fifty people can wear clothes and silk. Chickens, pigs, dogs, and livestock will not lose their time, and seventy people can eat meat. If a hundred acres of fields are used, don't take away the time, but only a few mouthfuls. The family can have no hunger; follow the teachings of the precepts, apply the righteousness of filial piety, and those who are awarded white will not bear the burden of wearing them on the road. Seventy people clothe and eat meat, and the people of Li are neither hungry nor cold, but those who are not kings are rare. Also.
"The dog eats people's food but doesn't know how to check it, and when it's painted with starvation, it doesn't know how to send it out; when people die, they say: 'It's not me, it's age. 'How is it different from stabbing people and killing them, saying: 'Not me, but a soldier.' 'When the king is innocent, the people of the world are here.
—— "Mencius, King Hui of Liang"
---------------------------------------- ------------
The biggest problem with the whole film "1942" is that the position value is unclear. The passage of four Japanese planes (two bombings of victims, one bombing of Chongqing, and one of Gangcun Ningji) and the killing of Shuanzhu, the emphasis on the international situation, and Jiang Zhongzheng's confession in the church are all a kind of distraction and overlooking. This kind of emphasis on "not me, but also soldiers".
At best, this kind of ambiguity is an attempt to have a global vision, but in fact it is a subconscious whitewash, a consumption of the lost sense of presence in history.
Because the value of the people as the foundation of the country has not been maintained, the intensity of criticism has plummeted, and the entire narrative can only be maintained by suffering and physical sympathy, and the story's faltering has become a necessity.
------------------------------- Let me explain a little more--------------- -------------
What I mean here is that this movie stands too much from the point of view of the "king" (the government), blaming Niancheng for being bad (sin), saying that it is not the government's harm , is caused by the situation in Japan and at home and abroad (not me, age; not me, soldiers).
The film portrays the "king" as the image of "the widow is in the country, and I do my best", and once this image is established, it will disperse the suffering of millions of people, and put them in a place where everyone suffers - you suffer. It's just a well-deserved, bad-year context.
However, the death of the army is not the reason for the suffering of the people. As a fresh life, the people are far more important than the conceptual society and nation. If the people are willing to die for the righteousness of the family and country out of free will, that is his choice. But it cannot be forced to die for the country. If the government does not save the people, the legitimacy of the government will be lost.
After the film introduces a large number of disaster peripheral events and upper-level foreign perspectives, it actually greatly dilutes the sadness of the matter, and loses the strength of questioning/criticism/criticism.
A large part of the suffering of the people has been transformed (stolenly exchanged for) political considerations, has become an international news spectacle, and has become a game between bigwigs.
This position and viewpoint are not only the legacy of the heroic view of history, but also the legacy of the great cause of the founding of the party and the country in these years, which is quite contradictory to the suffering of real lives that this film is about to tell.
And we are telling the suffering of these past lives today in order to call for a new era of "Wang's innocent life". If the exposure of suffering cannot be settled here, then the film is just ordinary suffering.
If you see how "A River of Spring Flows East" turns the drama of family ethics into a critical epic, you will have a deeper understanding of the importance of footing.
View more about Back to 1942 reviews
