What's Wei Lan about?

During the three-week holiday, I didn't try to cram for the exam, but after watching a few bad movies, I threw myself under Tom Hiddleston's crotch and found a literary film under his name. Thank Tom for introducing me to director and film poet terence davies. Such a beautiful work, like a 96-minute movie poem, unfolds slowly before my eyes.

Some directors are masters of storytelling, and all kinds of plots are fascinating. Some directors are born poets. It's no big deal, but the details are amazing. This film is an impressionist poem with flowing consciousness.

As a female film, Freddie, the male character of Tom Hiddleston in the film, is not actually the protagonist. All perspectives of this film are based on the feelings of Hester, the heroine played by rachel weisz. It can be said that as an audience, we followed Hester's perspective and experienced her private love life with her. (Just wandering around here. All the beautiful women who slept with the British actor Ralph Fiennes (the protagonist of The English Patient) in the movie are presumed to be super beautiful women, and rachel weisz happens to be such a super beautiful woman. )

The whole movie is about what happened in the 24 hours when she broke up with her lover. For students who are confused about the relationship between debris and debris transfer, you can grasp that the whole story is very simple, that is, the woman committed suicide in the morning and was saved. When the man came home, he found the suicide note and left in a rage. When her real husband came to see her at night, the man went home and broke up with her. He stayed for one night and went to South America the next morning, and the story ended. The other plots in the middle are the memories and feelings of the female host.

At the beginning of the film, one morning in London, a woman, who we later learned was the heroine Hester, was quietly cleaning her room. She seems to have no intention of going out, just make the bed, turn on the gas and lie down quietly. Only then did the audience understand that she was going to commit suicide.

This is a long shot, accompanied by wonderful music and erratic light sense, the audience will usher in the first thrilling editing in the film and usher in the climax of aesthetic feeling. The camera rotates above the bed, showing the beautiful legs of the heroine Hester.

Just as the audience was immersed in the aesthetic climax of Rachel's beautiful legs, the camera kept spinning and slowly presented another time and space in the same venue. The seamless connection of perfect splicing shows that the hostess Hester recalled the good times of herself and her lover Freddie before she died. At this time, we saw the naked side of Tom Hiddleston and rachel weisz intertwined like Greek sculptures. Women commit suicide in despair in reality, but they think of the good times in the same bed. At this time, the audience will feel the same, and generally feel the desperate and sad inner world of the hostess. I can't help wondering how a beautiful woman ended up in this field.

At this point, the film jumps again. Or Hester, sitting quietly indoors, this room is obviously much more beautiful and upscale than the room where she committed suicide. At this point, the film has been going on for almost ten minutes without dialogue. Everything speaks for itself. The whole movie is extremely beautiful and elegant, and the beautiful woman smiles at the audience in the fog. Then when the camera turned, we found that she was smiling at an old man, who smiled back with restraint, and then looked down at the book. Not a word. The camera turned back again, and the beauty's smile froze, and her good feelings were not warmly rewarded. She looked away wearily.

At this time, Hester's flowing consciousness once again brought us into another time and space scene. A tall and handsome man (Freddie, the hero) stood in a beautiful garden and smiled at the audience. As soon as the camera turned, it turned out that he was winking at our beautiful Hester. Hester smiled. She is still so beautiful. The only biggest difference from the previous scene is that her smile didn't freeze, but she bowed her head shyly.

Then we saw this handsome boy running to Hester's couch, holding her hand and saying with deep rain, I really, really think you are the most beautiful girl I have ever seen. I really really agree that you are the most beautiful girl I have ever seen. )

Under such a strong sensory contrast, the audience should also feel the fatal attraction of handsome Freddie to Hester at this time. These two sensory episodes are the subjective feelings of the heroine Hester. The director directly presents her inner feelings in the first person through meticulous description. The audience has first-hand experience and believes that they will fall in love with the hero for a second like the heroine.

This seems to be chaotic, but it is actually an elaborate time-space jump, but a lot of details presented in the clip are worth pondering. Various details in the film also imply that the hero and heroine belong to two worlds. I haven't seen the relevant materials of this film before. It's actually a remake. The original film was shot in 1950s, starring Vivien Leigh, a beautiful woman.

From the beginning of this film, I felt something was wrong. Being misled by the personal temperament of Tom Hiddleston, the son of Eton College and a gifted scholar in Cambridge, he mistakenly thought that the hero was also a libertine with the same background as the heroine. In fact, I paused for a moment and found that the hero in Vivien Leigh's version is totally different from Tom's temperament. In fact, they are in two classes. Now I understand.

First of all, we can easily infer from the first three paragraphs that the woman was born in a good family and married an old man with a high social status. Later, with the hero, her quality of life declined, as can be seen from her dress and indoor furnishings. She was engaged to that man regardless of her class status.

So who is this man? The director slowly and quietly confessed that there was a scene where the hostess and her boring husband and mother-in-law had dinner together and they were discussing sports.

My mother-in-law asked her what you were playing. What do you usually play? ) The hostess said that playing cards attracted her wife's heartless smile. Solitaire is not a sport, perhaps we can feel that there is a hierarchy in sports. My mother-in-law thinks that only advanced sports can put her on the table. She likes playing tennis herself, and her son, the heroine's husband, plays golf. These are all so-called upper-class sports. At this time, the woman couldn't help but have an attack. She said that sport is the most useless, cynical and lacking sport for human beings. We know that the heroine Xie is an alien in her own world, and she doesn't agree with the mainstream values held by people of her class at that time.

Then the director began to play tricks. . . . . . One of the little details is very interesting. In the clip of eating together, the hostess asked her mother-in-law if you still go to watch tennis. She said she wouldn't go after her husband died, which was boring. Then, at the end of the film, the hostess asked to visit her husband. Do you still play golf? Husband said, not much. . . . . Then silence.

I believe the audience will suddenly realize that the man is the golf friend of the woman's husband. At the beginning of the film, the scene where the male protagonist appears is that the heroine's husband invites him to play ball together. He hooked up with the heroine the first time he saw her. So the heroine's husband stopped playing golf after his wife was kidnapped by golfers. At the end of the film, the last goodwill of the hero who left the woman turned out to be that you can sell my golf equipment and pay the rent! Seeing this and contacting these details makes people cry and applauds the director's careful arrangement.

Sports may be a shortcut to high society, and this truth is also shown in other films. For example, in the Match Point directed by Woody Allen, the man entered the upper class by playing tennis, while in the brilliant Mr Ripley, Matt Damon, who was bent on entering the upper class, had no sports cells and could only sing and play the piano, but Jude Law still looked down on him.

As a retired pilot, it is normal to have no artistic cells. On the contrary, the heroine Hester is even worse. There is a clip recalling that she asked the male host to accompany him to the museum to see cubist paintings. As a cubist of modern avant-garde art, it doesn't matter if a soldier can't appreciate it, but the hero is very sensitive to the class difference between them subconsciously. He told a joke that laughed at avant-garde art, but the woman didn't laugh. He said cautiously that it was a joke, which meant that I was not that stupid. I'm kidding. Why don't you laugh? The heroine said you were naive, and the hero was furious and shouted in public. .

Yes, you are an educated person. Yes, only you have culture. )

If we hadn't risked our lives to protect an educated man like you, you wouldn't have become an educated man here.

If we hadn't risked our lives to protect you literate people, you wouldn't be standing here pretending. )

The heroine said, yes, you are brave, no one denies it, but we have to look forward, which is another taboo of the man. He is a man who lives in war and can't look forward. Nothing can make him feel his value like war. There is a scene where the heroine's husband is talking to that woman. The heroine said that the hero envies her husband's job, not because of money, nor because of social status, but because of a job that can live in the present. That's probably what it means. So the hero scolded 1 and walked away in the art gallery.

These details let us know that their love is unequal, their differences are irreconcilable, and the man and the woman are not soul mates. Then what's between them?

All kinds of people have given their own understanding. When the husband of a child's protagonist came to visit her, he discussed this problem with her.

Husband: What a tragedy.

Lady: No, just sad. No, just sad.

Husband: When did you realize it? When did you realize this?

W: From the beginning. I knew from the beginning.

Husband: Why do you love a man who can't give you anything? Why fall in love with a man who can't give you anything?

Lady: He gave himself to me. He gave himself to me.

The woman's husband is confused. A man without money and status, besides being more handsome than himself, what else does she like about him besides sex? He also asked her many times if it was sex, but she denied it. In fact, the hostess revealed their relationship in a conversation with her husband. She told her husband that their problem was: You know, as one of them, I grew up believing that, generally speaking, people who have sex are men. You know, according to my upbringing, I usually think that men are the ones who give love. That is to say, in her world, men are usually tolerant and forbearing, while women are the ones who follow their inclinations and are loved.

Freddy, the hero, has a fatal attraction to her because of his dynamic energy and sunshine anytime and anywhere. Compared with her husband, he is like a Christmas tree. By contrast, everything around him looks dull and boring.

There is also a scene reflecting the heroine's married life, that is, drinking tea with her mother-in-law in the living room. Drinking tea is undoubtedly a very gentleman's activity, but it makes the heroine feel on pins and needles. My mother-in-law has a variety of hobbies and claims to be "fond of gardening and cakes." My mother-in-law seems to have enthusiasm for everything, but she has no enthusiasm for life.

This suffocating upper-class life made the hostess leave decisively and go upstairs to call her lover. She made no secret of calling her lover in the bedroom. She didn't care whether her husband knew about it, so she decided to live.

Finally, as she expected, the man left, and her doomed relationship finally came to an end. She cried bitterly with gloves, and then stood at the window and opened the curtains. If the audience is careful, they will remember that when the man entered the room together for the first time, the man stood at the same window and opened the curtain hopefully. The constant overlapping of various scenes has immersed people in this poem for a long time.

I have to say that the two leading actors have strong acting skills. The heroine played by rachel weisz is elegant, beautiful and brave. She fell in love with a man who knew it was a tragedy from the beginning. Despite the great social pressure, she could not give her much love. Tom's personal temperament adds another layer of emotion to the hero, and a sensitive, affectionate, lively and lovely character emerges.

In addition, there are many subtitle errors in this version I watched. For example, the hostess's husband asked her if it would help if she had a baby.

Husband: If you have children, will it make any difference?

If you have children, will it make any difference?

Woman: To whom?

For whom (it's different for me)?

Translate the subtitles. Whose child is it?

Who is different from the prepositions here? If you are pregnant with someone's child, you should use the preposition of, not to. This is simply too far away. The hostess means that I just have a baby, and it makes no difference to anyone, because I know that our relationship is impossible to change. She knew from the beginning that she was a loving person and was destined to be a sad story. The subtitles, however, turned this plot into a Korean drama at eight o'clock. Whose child am I going to have? = =

Such a mistake can be understood if it is translated by ear, and it would be careless if it is translated literally. I hope you can pay attention to the original sound yourself. Sometimes subtitle errors will seriously affect our viewing experience.

The lines in this article were written by my own memory, so I can't guarantee the accuracy. I should check my lines, but I'm too lazy to check them.

This is probably the longest film review I have ever written. If you see this, in order to write so much, you might as well leave a message. :)