A man held out his hand, and the bullet came back from the table.
A man raised his gun and the bullet returned to the chamber from the hole in the wall.
Cause and effect are still there, it's just that time has reversed, don't understand it, feel it.
Nolan returned to the theater screen under the "post-epidemic" with "Creed", bringing new creations and hot topics of discussion. To be precise, most of them cannot be called discussions, but more like many interpretations after the so-called "understood". These interpretations have successfully obscured discussions about film style, story expression, and production standards. It all revolves around one question – understand, or not. This is very strange.
Because the discussion of "the movie can't be understood" often only exists in those "more stuffy" films. Like last year's European film festival "Nursing Home in the Mirror of Sand", Tarkovsky's "Stalker" at the Beijing Film Festival or "2001: A Space Odyssey", which has been one of the popular film archives for many years. They are the works of the legendary masters who are very powerful. Compared with them, it seems strange to say that commercial films "can't be understood". Hollywood movies, in particular, generally adopt a popular model, the purpose is to let the audience get the pleasure of watching movies, rather than artistically closing their eyes and frowning.
Nolan is, of course, a Hollywood director. No matter how you advertise "author films", it cannot be denied that in his sequence of works, except for his debut "Follow", the rest are (quite wonderful) commercial films. For example, "The Dark Knight" and "Inception", which are still popular. It is undeniable that they all break through the shackles of contemporary Hollywood "superheroes" and "XX universe" and identify the distinct "Nolan style". Heath Ledger shaped the classic "clown" of film history, and the gyro of "Little Plum" has worried fans to this day. Of course, there are also director Nolan's extremely rich picture presentation, the twists and turns of the story narrative, the realistic style of film shooting, and the most highlight - the "time game" that uses multiple timelines to construct suspense in parallel editing - which is also the main reason why Nolan's film is named "brain-burning".
But "burning the brain" is by no means the same as not being able to understand. It means that the film makes the confused audience suddenly realize at a key point through the technique of layers of laying, like falling fog, and then laments the ingenious layout of the film's grass snake gray line. Among them, confusion is the process, understanding is the result, and the final result is still the pleasure of watching movies. If all the "brain burning" finally becomes "can't understand", then there is no "brain burning", only "playing smashed".
The story of Creed is actually quite simple. The protagonist falls into 007 and Mission Impossible, roaming the world, completing missions, overcoming difficulties, defusing bombs, and defeating bad guys. A very classic secret agent movie structure. Such a story core once again shows that it cannot carry the "unreadable" that art films have. That kind of "can't understand" is because those movies set a threshold for watching movies, and when we cross the threshold, we will be able to glimpse the essence of life, the essence of people, how people deal with their relationships with their surroundings, how to understand the world, and how the world affects people...
What about the threshold of the Creed? The massive number of videos and manuscripts especially explain in detail how time is reversed in the film, how the characters after the reversal act, and how they interact with people in the past and people in the present. Some people strictly analyze each other's two teams, one against time, one in time, what happens when they meet and intersect, how it happens; some people enthusiastically expound what is entropy and what the nature of matter is; some people really argue about whether the film is set rigorously, how consciousness and time are related, why heat is reversed, why the burning car freezes... It's as if we've stopped talking about movies and gone straight to the college physics class.
The phrase "I don't understand you're still reasonable" is not a problem in art movies. Fifty years ago, Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" was full of people. The audience of that year would indeed complain because of the film's dull depression and long black scene. But it is the actions of countless viewers who have repeatedly observed and tried to understand it, making it an immortal classic.
Art films have thresholds, and crossing them requires learning. Kubrick uses the long time on the verge of despair to express man's isolation and loneliness in space, and uses an almost wordless indifference to gaze at humans in the eyes of machines... These are likely not to be understood when we first watch a movie. But this feeling is still felt today.
What kind of "can't understand" of "Creed"? The core concept of the film's "visual spectacle" is not complicated, it is to show that objects or people can travel against the timeline to the past. Imagine a rewind video with a person walking, which doesn't require too much knowledge of physics. In the film, the people who return to the past do not change the world, they just complete the closure of the cause and effect of the world. But in order not to make this film a magical movie, in order to emphasize its "rigor", it needs a huge amount of settings and complex logical deductions behind it to prove that the various strange things in the movie are not made up. It's this that makes the film complicated and difficult to understand.
People who have played escape room know that when unlocking a complex trap box, our purpose is what is inside the box. But when we took great pains to crack all the organs to open the box of "Creed", we found that it was empty. The characters in the story are like soulless narrative tools, stripping away all the soft, transitional links and leaving only the tedious and dry plot of the task dialogue. It's just an empty box.
A man held out his hand, and the bullet came back from the table. A man raised his gun and the bullet returned to the chamber from the hole in the wall. Cause and effect are still there, it's just that time has reversed, don't understand it, feel it.
I don't know what the protagonist feels, but I don't feel anything outside of the visual spectacle. All I know is that the bullet spans time or reverses time, even if it hovers and flies in time, but it still can't hit the heart of every viewer.
For more information, please download the 21 Finance APP