Talk about movies that are not very friendly to many people in a certain sense. After all, in the eyes of most people, movies themselves are a form of entertainment. No one wants to listen to a lecture while watching a movie, but it's always true that movies come in a variety of forms. Some people like entertainment, and naturally some people like to get something from movies, such as ideas, such as beliefs, such as others. If there is a movie just to highlight a certain point, this point is entertainment, and this point can also be philosophical and deeper truth. Therefore, the talking movie also has its own meaning of existence.
The over-stacking of language, which may be a little biased for the movie, think about it from another angle, what if this is a novel? If a documentary is just a record of a lesson, a meal, a moment of conversation, can we ignore the language of the film and instead focus all our energy on the dialogue of the characters? In such a situation, the talking movie seems to have some charm. Because the dialogue in daily life itself is attractive, of course, this charm depends on the content of the dialogue.
The movie I recommend to you today tells such a story, a story of talking to people and talking about a variety of things. Of course, such a story does not require too many scenes, but it needs a lot of lines as an attraction, and it is clear that this film inadvertently reverses the audience's perception of the film itself with its own lines, even if you feel very boring at first, but when the discussion of the problem gradually deepens, this tedious feeling will be transformed into attraction. What kind of film has such charm? This film is "Dinner with Andrea".
This is a very simple movie, but also a very profound movie, simple from the scene of this film is very monotonous, basically in the restaurant two people eating while talking, complex but from the content of the conversation, such content in the audience is boring, but also philosophical. Because if the content in the film is replaced by text, the audience will find that such content is far beyond the roughness of the film itself. And such a profound discussion can be used as a research topic. In this way, the status of this film is unconsciously high, and the story of this film is unconsciously meaningful.
"Dinner with Andre" has two protagonists, one is a conservative screenwriter, his life is conformist, obscure, and the other is the protagonist Andre, his life is free-spirited, unrestrained, he often thinks about a scene and problem that ordinary people do not think about, so as to get more insights and gains. Conservative screenwriters represent ordinary people, and after the dialogue between the two people begins, the audience will be attracted by the inadvertent remarks of the two people, even if they are bored. This is the core of this film, and the core lies in the content of the dialogue.
People who know Zhuangzi naturally know such an allusion, Zhuangzi dreamed that he had become a butterfly when he dreamed, so after he woke up, he began to doubt the world, whether the world was real, the dream was just a dream, or the dream was real, the world was a dream. This is the first introduction of this film. Whether the world we live in is a real existence, or is it just a collection built up by our habits, and it has no meaning.
The main difference between humans and animals is that humans can transform nature, while animals only adapt to nature. However, it is right to transform nature, or it is right to adapt to nature. This question becomes the focus of the conversation in this film. The screenwriter believes that the electric blanket is beautiful when it is cold, it can withstand the cold, and at the same time enhance people's happiness. However, Andrea does not think so, he feels that the electric blanket makes people blur the specific manifestation of winter - cold. As a result, some people cannot achieve a common emotion. When you are on the electric blanket, you can't understand the mood of those who suffer from the cold. Electric blankets are an object invented by humans, but when people enjoy its convenience, they make themselves farther away from nature.
On the contrary, animals are closest to nature because they are only adapting to nature, and if it is discussed in terms of distance from nature, then should civilization depend on humans or on animals? This is a profound topic, but also a topic of human social development and nature, of course, this kind of topic does not have an exact answer.
Similarly, when people adapt to a certain life, whether we are imprisoned in the cage by life, or do we have the courage to break through the cage? These two very different ways of life represent two very different attitudes to life. This is the watershed that distinguishes progress from degradation.
The discovery of any way of life in human history, or the invention of any kind of object, stems from people breaking through old thinking to create a new kind of thinking. This is a unique human ability, but when we are accustomed to enjoying the convenience of new inventions, we unconsciously fix ourselves on more enjoyment, which blocks the pace of innovation, and then allows the body and mind to be imprisoned at the same time. While enjoying the warmth of the electric blanket, we lose the empathy of experiencing the cold, and we lose the ability to create new products that resist the cold.
Of course, this is only a small part of the many contents of this film, and just picking out these points can well prove the significance of such a "talk movie". The discussion does not stop, and the forms of art are naturally diverse, which may be another charm of this film.
……
Hello and goodbye