In the 1970s, George Lucas' "Star Wars" led science fiction films into the "Industrial Light and Magic" era. After the prosperity and baptism of the 1980s, the production and special effects of science fiction films in the 1990s improved by an order of magnitude. However, also starting in the 1990s, some alternative sci-fi films with a relatively niche style or non-blockbuster form, such as "Twelve Monkeys", "Gatar", "City of Souls" and "The Truman World" appeared one after another. The reason why these films are different from mainstream sci-fi films is that in addition to the differences in scenes and special effects, the character settings and narrative techniques will also be slightly different, but there are still vague similarities in the expression of the theme. Many science fiction films project unease about future technology in the film, and regard technological society as a "dytopian" society. This kind of fear comes from the earliest science fiction novel "Fortankenstein". "Twelve Monkeys" ostensibly tells that James was sent from 2035 to 1996 to find the organization "Twelve Monkeys" that caused the release of the virus that caused humans to leave the earth's surface. In fact, it narrates that history and the future are in an endless cycle. The tragedy of fate. History is precisely created by James from the future, and the scientist from the future is the "insurer" of this historical drama. She sits next to the researcher who is about to release the virus to ensure that the virus will be released. This is the director and the audience. A very ironic joke, we can also understand that the technology of the future is the origin of today's destruction. In science fiction films involving time and space travel, such as "Interstellar", "Terminator", etc., there will be a paradox, that is, the traveler returned to the era before his mother was born and killed his grandmother, then whether this traveler still exist? There are two ways out of this paradox, one is the theory of parallel universes (such as "Terminator", "The Butterfly Effect", "Back to the Future"), and the other is the law of inability to intervene. Obviously, "Twelve Monkeys" follows the latter logic, and James is just a victim of the inevitable occurrence of history. The latest film to take this law of non-intervention to the extreme should be "Pre-Destination". The director is particularly powerful in that the film uses a lot of crazy and mentally ill remarks, and even the protagonist James once suspected that the scene of his travel through time and space was actually his own schizophrenic fantasy, which caused the audience to feel confused, which time and space James is in. It was real and that was fiction, until James' psychiatrist Catherine took out the World War I bullet from James' body and said that the child was hiding in the barn, and confirmed that the time-travel is indeed based. Why choose Catherine as a character who believes in the fact of time travel and becomes an accomplice in the creation of the history of human destruction? This is about the Cassandra complex that Katherine mentioned in her speech. Cassandra is the prophetess of Troy. It is said that the source of Cassandra's power is because one day Apollo, the god of truth, saw Cassandra and fell in love with her. Apollo gave her the ability to predict the future, but Cassandra rejected Apollo's show of love and became angry. Apollo put a curse on her, so that others would never believe what she said, so she was destined to always know the truth but be powerless to prevent tragic things from happening. She was from Troy. She predicted that if the Trojan horse was brought into the city, the city of Troy would be destroyed, but no one believed that Troy would be destroyed like this. Those who have no foresight are incompetent, and those who foresee prematurely are helpless. The trend cannot be reversed, violated, or artificially promoted, and can only be watched quietly. Thus, foresighted people often suffer from great spiritual loneliness. Silence, repression, and enduring are painful; speaking, calling, and changing are often ineffective—James was put in a mental hospital as a lunatic when he first returned to 1990; Catherine dialed the number and thought she would tell I knew the origin of the virus in the future, but I didn't expect that all this would become the source of clues that James is looking for in the future - the future is unchangeable. Numerous distracting characters and disjointed lines, coupled with a looping narrative, made the film one of the 10 most incomprehensible films at one point. The film starts with the blue eyes of a little boy (a young James) and ends with his blue eyes, which means that human beings can only stare at the occurrence of history with their eyes, and this seems to give another possible explanation, The whole story is actually a fantasy of James—the theory of the gaze, which first appeared in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, and which Lacan developed further into the split of the subject (seeing and gaze: the subject is gazed at by the absent object while he is looking). , and then construct a new subject in the retrospective gaze), which has become a way for people to disintegrate/deconstruct visuocentrism/modernity, and what is seen is not necessarily true. There are still many possibilities for interpretation of the film, the damp, dirty and chaotic environment, with decadent temperament and nihilism that question the essence of the world. It's also in line with the creator's turn-of-the-century myth, and it's an alternative classic from the '90s. There are still many possibilities for interpretation of the film, the damp, dirty and chaotic environment, with decadent temperament and nihilism that question the essence of the world. It's also in line with the creator's turn-of-the-century myth, and it's an alternative classic from the '90s. There are still many possibilities for interpretation of the film, the damp, dirty and chaotic environment, with decadent temperament and nihilism that question the essence of the world. It's also in line with the creator's turn-of-the-century myth, and it's an alternative classic from the '90s. There are still many possibilities for interpretation of the film, the damp, dirty and chaotic environment, with decadent temperament and nihilism that question the essence of the world. It's also in line with the creator's turn-of-the-century myth, and it's an alternative classic from the '90s. There are still many possibilities for interpretation of the film, the damp, dirty and chaotic environment, with decadent temperament and nihilism that question the essence of the world. It's also in line with the creator's turn-of-the-century myth, and it's an alternative classic from the '90s. Those who have no foresight are incompetent, and those who foresee prematurely are helpless. The trend cannot be reversed, violated, or artificially promoted, and can only be watched quietly. Thus, foresighted people often suffer from great spiritual loneliness. Silence, repression, and enduring are painful; speaking, calling, and changing are often ineffective—James was put in a mental hospital as a lunatic when he first returned to 1990; Catherine dialed the number and thought she would tell I knew the origin of the virus in the future, but I didn't expect that all this would become the source of clues that James is looking for in the future - the future is unchangeable. Numerous distracting characters and disjointed lines, coupled with a looping narrative, made the film one of the 10 most incomprehensible films at one point. The film starts with the blue eyes of a little boy (a young James) and ends with his blue eyes, which means that human beings can only stare at the occurrence of history with their eyes, and this seems to give another possible explanation, The whole story is actually a fantasy of James—the theory of the gaze, which first appeared in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, and which Lacan developed further into the split of the subject (seeing and gaze: the subject is gazed at by the absent object while he is looking). , and then construct a new subject in the retrospective gaze), which has become a way for people to disintegrate/deconstruct visuocentrism/modernity, and what is seen is not necessarily true. There are still many possibilities for interpretation of the film, the damp, dirty and chaotic environment, with decadent temperament and nihilism that question the essence of the world. It's also in line with the creator's turn-of-the-century myth, and it's an alternative classic from the '90s. Those who have no foresight are incompetent, and those who foresee prematurely are helpless. The trend cannot be reversed, violated, or artificially promoted, and can only be watched quietly. Thus, foresighted people often suffer from great spiritual loneliness. Silence, repression, and enduring are painful; speaking, calling, and changing are often ineffective—James was put in a mental hospital as a lunatic when he first returned to 1990; Catherine dialed the number and thought she would tell I knew the origin of the virus in the future, but I didn't expect that all this would become the source of clues that James is looking for in the future - the future is unchangeable. Numerous distracting characters and disjointed lines, coupled with a looping narrative, made the film one of the 10 most incomprehensible films at one point. The film starts with the blue eyes of a little boy (a young James) and ends with his blue eyes, which means that human beings can only stare at the occurrence of history with their eyes, and this seems to give another possible explanation, The whole story is actually a fantasy of James—the theory of the gaze, which first appeared in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, and which Lacan developed further into the split of the subject (seeing and gaze: the subject is gazed at by the absent object while he is looking). , and then construct a new subject in the retrospective gaze), which has become a way for people to disintegrate/deconstruct visuocentrism/modernity, and what is seen is not necessarily true. There are still many possibilities for interpretation of the film, the damp, dirty and chaotic environment, with decadent temperament and nihilism that question the essence of the world. It's also in line with the creator's turn-of-the-century myth, and it's an alternative classic from the '90s. Numerous distracting characters and disjointed lines, coupled with a looping narrative, made the film one of the 10 most incomprehensible films at one point. The film starts with the blue eyes of a little boy (a young James) and ends with his blue eyes, which means that human beings can only stare at the occurrence of history with their eyes, and this seems to give another possible explanation, The whole story is actually a fantasy of James—the theory of the gaze, which first appeared in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, and which Lacan developed further into the split of the subject (seeing and gaze: the subject is gazed at by the absent object while he is looking). , and then construct a new subject in the retrospective gaze), which has become a way for people to disintegrate/deconstruct visuocentrism/modernity, and what is seen is not necessarily true. There are still many possibilities for interpretation of the film, the damp, dirty and chaotic environment, with decadent temperament and nihilism that question the essence of the world. It's also in line with the creator's turn-of-the-century myth, and it's an alternative classic from the '90s. Numerous distracting characters and disjointed lines, coupled with a looping narrative, made the film one of the 10 most incomprehensible films at one point. The film starts with the blue eyes of a little boy (a young James) and ends with his blue eyes, which means that human beings can only stare at the occurrence of history with their eyes, and this seems to give another possible explanation, The whole story is actually a fantasy of James—the theory of the gaze, which first appeared in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, and which Lacan developed further into the split of the subject (seeing and gaze: the subject is gazed at by the absent object while he is looking). , and then construct a new subject in the retrospective gaze), which has become a way for people to disintegrate/deconstruct visuocentrism/modernity, and what is seen is not necessarily true. There are still many possibilities for interpretation of the film, the damp, dirty and chaotic environment, with decadent temperament and nihilism that question the essence of the world. It's also in line with the creator's turn-of-the-century myth, and it's an alternative classic from the '90s.
View more about 12 Monkeys reviews
