A story that a woman and two men must tell-Rashomon

For what reason, it took the director a long time to show the unimportant parts. You know, movies are an art against time.

1. Farmers go up the hill with axes (at least one minute).

The woman's husband followed the robber up the hill.

Very chaotic time extension. Guess why.

1. Technical problems at that time, such as editing. But judging from other clips in the film, it doesn't look like this problem.

The director did it on purpose. Then the question comes, what is the director's intention.

I think this movie should be more like an Oscar-style short film-it will be dawn in 30 minutes. Why do you say that? What the film wants to express is obvious. In the eyes of different people, truth has different opinions because of different positions, so as to explore the good and evil of human nature.

The film divides the main part into four sections, namely, the client woman, the woman's husband, the robber and the bystander farmer who witnessed the whole incident. Each of them described the same event they saw, but there was a world of difference. Under Rashomon, three people, including the farmer, were stunned by the explosions again and again, like people who ate melons.

1. Monks represent a cynical group who are deeply disappointed in human nature in this incident.

2. Bully-completely advocating human evil, but also frankly doing evil.

3. Farmers are ordinary people. I may make some small mistakes occasionally, but I still believe that human nature is good, that is, people have good and bad.

Tell the story content first, and then tell the story form, that is, how the story is expressed.

The first opening is that three people sit together to discuss the shock that this matter has brought to them. Then, it was the robber who told the truth in his eyes, and the three were shocked; The woman said that all three people were shocked; The husband said, then shocked; Finally, the farmer said, it was shocking.

After the whole story is finished, the three people echo the beginning and emphasize their own views-people are good, people are evil, and people have both good and evil. The story is very compact, but the division is too obvious, just like an old lady walking too slowly. It seems that thinking for philosophy, rather than telling stories, is straightforward. Many great screenwriters will emphasize the integrity of the story, and even the appearance of a bird has its reasons. Ok, the film is complete, no problem, the problem is that the whole is pieced together, like Lego, piece by piece. I can't feel the beauty of art at all, and the audience is more like being lectured.

I remember attending an art lecture once. As soon as the master came up, he gave his tried-and-true painting method, which was very serious and sincere. But after listening to it, you will feel uncomfortable all over. I thought art would shake my soul and touch my heart. I made all the preparations, but you told me the truth-you really look like a hooligan.

I thought art was very long, running through you like running water, hugging you and touching you. Just like "Taiping Wheel", there seems to be a great tenderness wrapped around you after reading it.

Movies are also interesting when they express the story form in detail-through lines. The description of the robber-the woman's eyes made him jealous of her husband, so I wanted to kill him. The woman said-I would rather die than see my husband's cold eyes. I also try to be consistent in detail and form.

Let's talk about actor performance. Even now, watching the performances of Chinese and Japanese actors is obviously different. That's no problem, but I'm curious about what the exaggerated "laughter" in this film (1950) is for. The robber smiled, and so did the woman. I have to turn down the volume in time when they laugh. But what's more interesting is that sudden laughter won't make you jump into the play-maybe the performance style of people in this era is reasonable.

After writing this, I found that robbers and women are often mentioned, and my husband mentioned it less. This reminds me of Milan Kundera, a writer whose writing is driven by speculation. Especially the unbearable lightness in life-the author arranged different experiences for each role, and finally everyone's ending represented different weights in life from lightness to heaviness. Robbers and women have the same effect.

When casting, the robber is a handsome guy, or a handsome guy who is very manly, aggressive and attractive. Guess the reason for this casting-balancing the evil of robbers with handsomeness. Let the audience not make choices for women just because he is a robber-ugly and bad, how can they follow him? But whenever a robber looks good, the audience will have many reasons to excuse him-people say that they will be good to you and you will not suffer! Besides, he is really handsome. This can balance evil and handsome to a certain extent, make the audience pay more attention to human nature itself, and will not let the set of "robbers" affect the audience's judgment-according to stereotypes, robbers are sentenced to death and ignore human nature itself. His handsomeness will make him less bad and make him more like ordinary people like you and me. Based on this, we will not only pay attention to human nature itself, but also have a sense of substitution.

Because the form of this story is so obvious, coupled with the concern about the development of science and technology-I always mistakenly think that the film is showing the truth of human brain science-and how human memory blurs the truth.

Actually, my misunderstanding is well-founded. Because the ending in the film is that the husband died, and the robber and the woman survived. In any case, it is the robbers who pay the greatest price, and no matter how they lie, they can't change the fact. That is, they have no clear interest motive for them to frame each other.

Guess again

There may be legal judgments-for example, women are accomplices and robbers are masterminds. But the law is an existence that has never appeared in movies. Can be ruled out.

It may also be moral reasons-such as women's indiscretion. But even morality, at most, is an unwarranted accusation against women in such a patriarchal society. This is not the director's intention at all.

It is certain that the film explores human nature, but it is illogical and loses some power.

You can learn more about Akira Kurosawa. But at present, I mainly look at the accumulation of reading, so which movie can get my favor-see fate.

Appreciate and support

Relevant suggestions

Breathe, 99% people make mistakes when running.

Reading 823

Morning running: the meaning of running out of life

Reading 779

Those fake weight loss knowledge that have to be seen!

Reading 509

It is because you are too proud that you can't practice your leg muscles well!

Reading 636