Nietzsche's name, like his widely circulated saying, eventually shook the world. But his thoughts, the most precious of their contents, remained silent for a long time. We cannot escape the mere attempt to restore all their thoughts from their few words, as we have known other philosophers, merely as one or two passages of expression.
These prejudices eventually come back to the old, old, rotten phrase: 1,000 Hamlets in the eyes of 1,000 people. It's like in this play, a supporting character who is accidentally assigned to push the main line, Professor Floyd, uses his so-called Oedipus complex to interpret Hamlet. What is the harm in having one more knowledge of Nietzsche about ourselves?
Whether it's right or not.
That's the value of When Nietzsche Wept, and you definitely can't accept the story in it. If you are getting to know Nietzsche and Freud for the first time, in order not to leave a stereotype, be sure not to believe a single line in it.
This fictional, story about several real historical figures. It can also be regarded as the epitome of the hundred statues of Viennese academic circles at the end of the nineteenth century. Nietzsche, who was active in this period of history, spoke in a Christian atmosphere with a deviant statement: "God is dead." ”
It was as if The Sex Pistols' Anarchy in the UK ushered in the punk era. However, the weight of the word antichrist is not the same as it is now, especially for a country like our country, which does not have a strong religious atmosphere, it is only a rhetoric.
Nietzsche in the film, sensitive and fragile, hides in the cage of his own works and ideas. His lips were obscured by the thick beard, making it impossible to capture the dynamics in the high-speed discourse. His eyes, behind the round-rimmed glasses, dodged inquiries from Brel.
As for Brehr, excluding the real image of history, he is a rich and fulfilling propertied class in the film, and he shows an inner self-confidence expressed by wealth and erudition. On the surface, he is the representative of successful people, but inside, like everyone, he is trapped in a midlife crisis. For love, it is like a burden of general distrust, and the lack of goals and motivation after self-recognition for society. His many hidden questions are prerequisites for this discussion to exist and still resonate with the audience countless years later.
You might ask whether this kind of question seems too ordinary to a cultured, analyst.
Yes, it is somewhat too ordinary, from the expression of the problem to the form of the problem. However, this is what the film and the original author want to express, whether you praise him for being simple and simple, or you ridicule him for the simplistic interpretation of blasphemy against the ancients.
But just as we cannot deny that the term "midlife crisis" is addressed to middle-aged people, the universality of the term suggests that almost all people deserve to go through this period. It's just that philosophers don't seem to be so flattering with a slightly awkward terminology, and most people probably prefer ordinary annoyances, ordinary expressions, and ordinary solutions. Everyone said empty words to achieve a happy ending.
Let's go back to Freud, the most dazzling supporting character in the game, who has even had a touch of hustle and bustle from the moment he appears. The reason may be because of his fame, or the original author's respect for the founder of psychoanalysis, and in order to highlight it, a scene was specially arranged at the beginning, calling Sigmund Professor Freud.
There is no plot of direct contact between Freud and Nietzsche in this film, but it leaves the entire push of the side force to Freud. He inspired Brehr, hypnotized Brel, solved Brel's illness, and in turn made Brel know Nietzsche better. In a sense, he is the big boss and trader of this film. This is the feeling that cannot be shaken off by watching the movie, and in fact, this existence of a person who seems to have a god-like perspective makes the confrontation and discussion between the two protagonists in the film less passionate and becomes a little flat.
As for the historical real Freud, Jung mentioned in his later autobiography that Freud himself had not read Nietzsche's works, which is inconsistent with a certain part of the film. As for Jung's use of his method to summarize Nietzsche's theory as "right" and Freud's theory as "love", it is a completely opposite of this film.
After saying a lot of digressions, perhaps you who have not watched the film for a while, subconsciously because of my influence, like I have identified the magic of Freud. But for a person who loves movies, it is always impossible to avoid Freud's, laugh, even though his theory has long since lost its former glory in the field of psychology.
As for Salome, her appearance is bright red, and I have seen many people in Douban's film reviews satirizing this dress like a sex worker in nineteenth-century London. I don't know what the nineteenth-century London sex workers wore, but the bright red color that almost represented lust gave me the most basic impression of this woman at the beginning of her appearance.
Regardless of the differences in specific clothing and history, I at least don't think it's a failure, with Katheryn Winnick's mixed playful cuteness. This is a Salome who is slightly different from the original book, perhaps her push for the plot is much smaller, and it also makes nietzsche's partial approach seem less necessary. But it's a good choice.
Overall, it's a film that can and is worth watching. The director may have some immaturity in some places, but the basic hints and the use of the two-cent special effect in several dreams are remarkable. Of course, it will not be a subtle use like Hitchcock, but it is also a level above the passing line.
If you are interested in yesterday's Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, this can be regarded as an introductory film, the awkward expressions they use in their daily lives, and the hedging of the ideas that are hidden under the expression, and the impact of those avant-garde ideas on the times.
But remember, this is Nietzsche who belongs to a group of people, and may even be very different from the real Nietzsche, but it may be a good and reasonable interpretation for many of his resistance to sex and love. In any case, please accept it with some reservations in the movie.
As Nietzsche said in a very controversial way, please take your whip.
Text/Cytto