Cinema is an audiovisual language, and basically anyone familiar with cinema will say so. This familiarity belongs to the general public familiarity, and people who really study film usually don't stand this definition so firmly. Because the definition itself is only a universally accepted form of expression of the film, but this form is not immutable. Just like the reform and development of film hardware, the early film was silent film, then the sound was added, and then it became a color film. If this process had been limited, the film would not have developed to what we see today.
Of course, the diversity of expression forms of film and television works comes from the diversity of the creators' own understanding of film and television. Some people think that film is an audiovisual language, then he will ponder the focus, picture and sound in the audiovisual language; some people think that the story should be sculpted, then in his film and television works, it will increase the story of the work itself, so as to make the audience moved.
However, some people have their own unique views on the presentation of film and television works, so with the blessing of such views, he will naturally derive a new discourse, and the work presented by this discourse itself is the movie recommended to everyone today, "Kill It, and Then Leave This Town".
It's an animated film, but it's not for kids. To be honest with this film, if you look at this film from the perspective of audiovisual language and storytelling, then there is a good chance that you will be disappointed. This disappointment is systemic, not focused on one point.
For the audiovisual language, the obscurity of this film is not limited to the lines, but also reflected in the composition and tone. The obscure point for the story is not the twists and turns of the story, but the jumps in the story. Therefore, combing through this film through a fixed logical context will obviously be disappointed.
So what about a different way of thinking? This should be a kind of warning when watching this film. If you were to apply it to traditional movie-going logic, you would be disappointed, but what would you see in a different way?
Because the film is not storytelling, it is enough for us to understand the general story, and an adult recalls some of the things he experienced in his childhood, which are constantly intertwined in his mind, converging into a picture, and finally, this picture pushes his thoughts forward. To put it more simply, this person has a dream through memory. And the key to this film is the dream.
What else can we watch when we watch this film without audiovisual language and storytelling? The answer is not difficult, we can still read this film through the ups and downs of emotions and the framework of dreams. Relying on the ups and downs of emotions is actually talking about our traditional form of comedic expression. The traditional drama in China relies on the ups and downs of emotions rather than the complete story, so that the folding play, a fraction of the whole drama, is on fire.
And the core of this kind of folding drama is the emotional ups and downs of the characters in this clip. If this film is measured in this way, it is also acceptable to think. Because at the end of the whole film, what we see is not a story that leads to the end, but an emotional peak of emotional rendering to the highest point. The moving train, the ship setting sail, of course, all this foreshadows the disillusionment of the environment created by the protagonist. After the disillusionment, nature is the source of pain in reality.
Relying on the continuous ups and downs of emotions, the film finally came to an abrupt end when the emotions reached their peak, which is a kind of end. If you apply dreams, you can also see other things in this film, such as perspective, if you use dreams to explain this film, then a lot of seemingly unconnected content that appears in it is actually reasonable. For example, the mutual transformation of the perspectives of people and animals, the mutual transformation of the identities of people and animals, and so on. These seemingly absurd presentations are nothing more than because our perspective has changed.
The reason why the previous film and television works present a story is entirely due to people looking at things from the perspective of people. But what happens when you look at people from the perspective of things? The builders of this film have given an answer, and this solution applies to our dreams, and how appropriate it seems at this time.
At the same time, we can think about if the person is standing not at the top of the food chain, but at the middle or bottom. So what should the world be like? If you think that way, you have to have a basis for thinking like this, and that foundation is dreams. In the dream, all the presentations that do not conform to the logic of reality will be displayed one by one, and a certain degree of rationality can be displayed. This is the meaning of dreams, and this film presents this meaning very well.
Dreams are not coherent, usually have a strong jumping nature, and this jumping nature is well reflected in this film, because after the coherence between many fragments is broken, fully immersed in this film, there will be a dream illusion. After the continuous flow of trains and unrelated crowds, etc., these elements are concentrated, and we can experience a dream that can be expressed through this film.
There are many ways to create film and television, and we must not be limited by the existing experience. If that were the case, the film would be confusing. More contact, more tolerance of creative forms, may not show helplessness in the new situation. This film is very new, more than the content.
……
Hello and goodbye