The creation of war themes is full of houses, and it is indeed too difficult for "Dun" to take a new look. Whether revealing the cruelty and tragedy of war, examining the human nature in war, celebrating dedication and sacrifice, appealing for tolerance and reconciliation... nothing new. But there are two attitudes in the film, but it inspired me to think a lot about this neurosis...
Selfishness and narrow-mindedness are the fate of human beings... So, I forgive
Like many creators, the director has a naive but also correct concept. Selfishness and narrow-mindedness are the reasons that cause people (enlarged is the nation/country) to go from mutual incomprehension to conflict and war.
Selfishness originates from human nature, self-interest is higher than others, self-interest is exclusive, especially when the interests are huge, and even related to life and death; narrowness may be due to the unidirectionality of time and space, and personal viewpoints are always single and one-sided, but we basically understand from our own viewpoint and judging the world. Selfishness and narrow-mindedness have the attributes of destiny and destiny, but the director still hopes that people will try their best to get rid of their natural shackles and call for more understanding and tolerance.
The film shows limited selfishness and narrow-mindedness:
The French fought to the death to cover the retreat of the British army on the front line, but the British ship refused to bring the French (fleeing?) soldiers to survive.
A French soldier saved the British in a cabin regardless of his life and death. In a flash, the British soldiers wanted the French to die first in order to survive.
A British infantryman who was rescued ashore did not see how the Air Force sacrificed his life to protect them, so he despised and ridiculed the Air Force.
The male supporting actor welcomes the old man in the crowd with tears and hatred without looking at himself, thinking that the other party does not understand and does not forgive the soldiers who are born and die; but it is he who does not spend a minute and a second to understand and tolerate others. . In fact, this blind old man should also make many viewers cry.
The film praises understanding and tolerance with greater enthusiasm, explaining that tolerance and putting oneself in the shoes of understanding are more valuable than simple accusations; even the director, in order to implement the spirit of forgiveness and avoid self-slaps, also forgive the selfish and narrow-minded behavior mentioned above:
The film does not accuse too much of keeping oneself alive and letting others die, whether it is a collective military order or a struggle for survival among individuals. Yes, human nature and instinct, both the director and the audience can understand.
The rescued pilot was frightened and manic, and accidentally killed his savior, but he was still forgiven and tolerated, and he was not even allowed to know that he had committed a manslaughter.
At the end of the film, heavy ink is used to render how the country and its people tolerated this great defeat and escaped. In the grim film, this is the climax of sensational tears. At the same time, the film also points to the meaning of tolerance - to better motivate the soldiers to return to the battlefield and ultimately win.
I understand you, but I can't say you are right, because I have three views
The film does not indulge in forgiveness, it is not a write-off regardless of right or wrong; on the contrary, it has super strong value judgment and guidance, and the force is no less than that of the main theme film in my country (of course, the skills are higher). To sacrifice oneself for others, to sacrifice one's life to go to national disaster; to have a country first, then to have a home; to breathe together, to share in adversity;
Almost all the British soldiers refused to go with the French soldiers, but the male protagonist insisted, because the French soldiers rescued him during the street battle at the beginning, and then the French soldiers rescued him when the ship sank.
The pilot who brushed shoulders with death is reluctant to go back to save people, ok, understandable. But in contrast, the three civilians who took risks to save lives should be described with emphasis. Even if one of them did not kill the enemy heroically but accidentally died by his own hands, he should still receive the honor he deserved and become known to the whole country. hero.
After the safe landing, the pilot was innocently blamed, and the owner of the boat on behalf of the masses immediately comforted: no one has seen your efforts, it doesn't matter, we have seen it.
The male lead misunderstands the blind old man who came to Laojun. Yes, how can someone who has just escaped the shadow of death have the heart to observe and understand a passerby? But the attentive male protagonist immediately went to eliminate misunderstandings for him (for the audience).
Every behavior in the film that goes against the positive values agreed upon by human beings is forgiven because of the time and the situation, out of consideration for human nature, but the director must set up a positive behavior/image opposite to it as compensation. That is to say: I know that you have a last resort, and I don't blame you, but you have to see that someone did this, this is the right thing, and you have to do it yourself in the future.
Most emblematic of the ending is the British general staying to fight with the French. After all, the male protagonist is just a too small role on the battlefield. His positive behavior cannot bear the "unkindness" of the entire British army towards the French army, so he should compensate with a general who is enough to symbolize the entire army. balance.
Of course, the biggest compensation comes from reading Churchill at the end. This great rout saved our strength, and the soldiers who came back immediately went into the anti-fascist war again, hand in hand with the French, and as you know, we won. Without this, the theme of forgiveness expressed throughout the film on this historical subject would be out of balance and collapse.
Forgiveness vs. Judgment: The Eternal Theme of the Unity of Opposites
All in all, although Nuojun is magnanimous, he still has to uphold a recognized value/moral scale to measure and judge the behavior of each person/group, just like God sent Jesus to give salvation, let the Virgin to give it. Forgive, but he himself still has to do "doomsday judgment" for everyone.
As we all know, there is another movie that also tried hard to express this retreat. The movie was nominated for the best picture of the Oscar and the best picture of the Venice Golden Lion. The name is very interesting. Judgment also includes forgiveness.
The main theme of Dun and its corresponding interpretation are not new. In fact, it is a common theme in Western literature and art, which can be summarized as: Forgiveness and Value Judgment. The former does not investigate mistakes/crimes, including an understanding of the inevitable evils and flaws in human nature and society; the latter, on the contrary, judges right and wrong based on values or moral principles, holds responsibility for mistakes/crimes, and demands compensation.
It is not surprising that the spirit of forgiveness and the judgment of value, and the unity of opposites, appear at the same time in any work, because behind these two themes there are strong Western humanistic and historical factors, and they are also eternal issues in reality that require human beings to make choices.
The Spirit of the Early West: Reason, Fairness, and Judgment
Ancient Greece and Hebrew, the two major sources of spirituality in Europe, if you think about it simply and rudely, it seems that the tolerance of the two civilizations is relatively small, but instead emphasizes value judgment (God often represents absolutely correct value , so it is often God’s judgment), and accountability after judgment. After the birth of Jesus, Christianity began to show the spirit of forgiveness. It became a universal idea with the establishment of the Roman Empire's state religion and ideological rule for thousands of years.
The gods of ancient Greece were very "human", arrogant, selfish and arrogant, and basically did not let go of those who offended themselves or other gods; and revenge was often a particularly moving and thrilling theme in Greek dramas and epics. Such as "Iliad", massacre of a city in order to win back one person, as small as "Medea" killing the whole family of a heartless man. "Bible·Old Testament" belongs to Hebrew civilization. When I read it, I would feel that God is a remnant of the image of a brutal clan leader or an early tyrant in the human spirit. not conforming to the will of God), the ultimate solution will only be total destruction.
In addition to spiritual life, from the perspective of social life, the Mesopotamia is the earliest area where human beings established a relatively complete legal system, from the Babylonian Hammurabi Code to the Hebrew Law that laid the foundation for Western law. Although "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" comes from the "Old Testament", it is recognized as the core concept of Hammurabi's code and Hebrew law. , which was recognized as the guiding ideology for solving problems at that time.
Ancient Greece contributed city-state politics to human beings. Now we often trace the origin of "fairness" or "justice" from city-state politics, but we rarely talk about the connotation of "tolerance" in it. The city-state politics has deep roots in Greek philosophy. Interestingly, the 19th-20th century scholar Fang Long's famous book "Tolerance" said: Plato "was the only one of all ancient teachers who advocated a kind of people who do not tolerate doctrines".
Derived from the distortion of Fang Long, the reason why the ancient Greeks did not talk about tolerance, but loved to investigate the right and wrong, and made value judgments, was because they believed in reason and truth, and they first sought truth and then talked about kindness. This can one-sidedly explain some of the differences between ancient China and the real thing. The golden age of ancient Greece and the Eastern Zhou Dynasty of China have been parallel for a long time. At this time, our Confucius summed up his theory in four words: the way of loyalty and forgiveness. The "forgiveness" here means to extend oneself to others, including giving up individual self-interest and personal narrow stance, which is the basis for being able to forgive others. Lao and Zhuang are even more "tolerant", with a let it be mentality towards people and things. In fact, the ruling foundation of the Zhou Dynasty itself, "governing the country with ritual and music", was still very strict and well-behaved, but the collapse of ritual and music in the Eastern Zhou Dynasty opened a hundred schools of thought.
Tolerance and Love in Christianity
The God of the "Old Testament" is a failed manager with low skills, but one day he suddenly realized the trick to improve his management ability, just like Dayu suddenly realized that water control depends on sparse rather than blockage, so he sent Jesus to mankind, Tolerance and redemption were sent.
Contrary to "tit for tat", the "New Testament" appears "when someone hits you on the right cheek, you give him the left to be hit". The "New Testament" constructs a "doomsday judgment", saying that God will send unforgiven sinners to hell; but also let Jesus go to hell to redeem ghasts - that is to say, even if you go to hell, there is still a chance to be forgiven. And Jesus "descended to hell" is also a theme that Orthodox art particularly loves to express.
At the same time, the Virgin replaced Athena/Minerva (wisdom), Aphrodite/Venus (beauty) and Artemis/Diana (hunting, hunting) as the favorite women of Western art, Our Lady symbolizes mercy and forgiveness. In the end, as the Beatles sang, it was the Virgin Mary who told them the motto of wisdom: let it be!
Personally, it is an inevitable choice for Jesus to raise the banner of tolerance with Christianity. Before Emperor Constantine, Christianity, as a cult, was killed too much by the Romans. Jesus himself and his followers suffered from blood and tears that were not tolerated and understood by society, and naturally yearned for a tolerant world. After Theodosius I established Christianity as the state religion, all other religions were banned and reduced to the position of Christianity. How to win over pagans and related political forces from body to heart, Christianity, which has turned itself into the master, will naturally not choose to uphold its "justice" and "truth" and then carry out large trials and kill them all; Inspiration.
Of course, this is only from the perspective of Christian spirit and doctrine, and does not refer to all historical facts themselves. It is well known that Christianity, which ruled the spiritual world of Europe, had a very long, long, period of particular intolerance.
But after all, there is a spirit of forgiveness as a foundation, so Christianity is relatively good now. Another major religion, Islam, has the same Hebrew and Old Testament origins as Christianity, but it is embarrassing now, perhaps because it has not had the opportunity to incorporate the spirit of forgiveness, and has placed too much emphasis on the judgment of values since ancient times - especially when the standards of value have been out of date...
It may be that the historical situation of its origin is completely different. Islam was created without the blood and tears of humiliation in the early days of Christianity, and it was a military organization from the beginning. As soon as Muhammad and his followers were persecuted, they organized a powerful military force, attacked everywhere, won again and again, and went on missionary and war. As shown in "Dun", the war is doomed to life and death. Who told you about "tolerance"?
Fan Paopao: A typical case of the unbalanced judgment of forgiveness versus value in modern life
Looking back, I talked about how the spirit of value judgment and forgiveness entered the Western spiritual world and became two closely related themes in literature and art. But in fact, the judgment of value and the spirit of forgiveness are two principles that human beings need to consider at any time when dealing with any issue. These two principles should be used, balanced and unified according to different situations. It's more troublesome. Nolan coordinated well in "Dun", and I thought of a negative case, the "Fan Paopao Incident" many years ago.
When an earthquake comes, it is instinct, or rather a natural choice of selfishness. Then why can people forgive the British army who fled for their lives in spite of the French army and no kindness, but did not give Fan Paopao the forgiveness he deserved? War is a special case, isn't earthquake? It eventually evolved into a huge value/morality trial for the whole people. The reasons are very complicated, but I think Fan himself wants to win forgiveness and win back the value trial, which may be an important reason.
As shown in "Dun", Nuojun gave enough tolerance to every negative value behavior forced by human weakness and situation, but he did not give up the value judgment of these behaviors. If Nuojun shows the necessity of negative value behaviors, and hopes that people will show tolerance, but also establish these behaviors as positive values through various sensational and sophistry artistic techniques, or eliminate their negative values. "Will be scolded all over the world.
Back to Movies: Forgiveness or Judgment?
So to me, the success of Dun is not in how it shows, represents, restores, narrates, dissects, penetrates, reflects, interprets, rereads, constructs, deconstructs war, history or human nature - not much in that regard. Rather, it balances the spirit of forgiveness and the judgment of value so beautifully that the themes of the two aspects shine and complement each other.
Based on the spirit of forgiveness, I think "Tun" is an excellent work and worth watching.
The judgment based on my personal value is that it is good, but it is really not to the point where some people say "sacred work", "entitled gods", "once in ten years" and so on - I insist that such judgments should still be There are objective and fair "trial standards".
View more about Dunkirk reviews
