Who are the people at the bottom? Is it a very low-income migrant worker, a foot-washer who turns day and night upside down, or a homeless homeless man?
Maybe right, maybe not right, but I know after all, the right way is difficult, the crooked way is quite risky, not only the lack of self-education, but also deeply affect your children, no matter how cunning you are, or you say that you often see how kind people at the bottom are, but the suffering life they face is mostly inferiority, not the bitterness and hope that everyone imagines.
In particular, this group of addicts in the movie, placing hopes on these people, is even more stupid and absurd.
Every day I go to school, I pass by the home of an open sleeper under the bridge.
She was about 50 years old, with white hair, a very stiff one-size-fits-all hair tail, and a cloudy hair band that couldn't tell the color.
She would leave about every morning, come back at noon, leave again in the afternoon, and be there in the evening. I don't know her whereabouts, but every time I see her "coming home," I always have something in my hand, either a plank or an iron barrel.
She was thin, malnourished skinny. But unexpectedly, the skeleton is very large, and she wears her striped shirt that is obviously picked up, with shorts, colorful sneakers, and unexpectedly fashionable.
So, what is this movie like?
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="9" >1. Estranged emotions, restrained shots</h1>
Because of the lessons of "Mai Luren", I am afraid that this film will have an overly emotional expression - the director will put the camera in the eyes of the actors, with extremely exaggerated music, afraid that you will not feel that they are very miserable - this expression may touch many passers-by who do not have much of a film background, but for those who watch too much, it is a torture of excessive force.
Fortunately, the mood of this film is very weak, and the expression of emotion is extremely restrained. In several places, the plot develops to the point where the characters want to express their emotions, the camera is also scared to the face, the director quickly cuts the mirror, and after the lines are finished, the camera is pulled away, and no room for sympathy is given.
I think this is the right thing to do, because the protagonists and their party are addicts, ex-criminals, and even murderers. Movies don't have the space or budget to show their past. Therefore, in order to consider the correctness of the theme and the social atmosphere, the director tries his best to cut off the audience's possible empathy with long-range, empty shots and quick editing. Don't forget, the protagonist is an open sleeper, a rotten scumbag that you don't usually want to see at work, and he is pitiful and self-inflicted. The film uses extremely restrained expression to repeatedly remind the audience not to substitute, but to examine it from an objective perspective.
Especially considering the secret of the ending - if you do substitute the protagonist, the ending will mercilessly slap you twice.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="14" >2</h1>
The role of Ho Girl in this film is an important role, she represents a more chicken group in Hong Kong society, "social workers" - of course, this is my personal opinion, because people with sound lives do not need the so-called "help" of social workers, and people who lack life cannot get real structural changes from social workers - in my experience, social workers are like a group of human placebos, telling you that "someone in society cares about you", but it cannot bring you real improvement. Those who should live on the side of the road continue to live on the side of the road, those who should be discriminated against continue to be discriminated against, and those who should be degraded continue to degenerate. It is funny that many people who have nothing to rely on in their lives find peace in the church, rather than social workers who specialize in this work.
The reason for this is that social workers are merely "intermediaries", as a bridge between the existing welfare of society and the poor. When the government sends money, social workers help the poor apply; when the government subsidizes education, social workers preach among the poor. If you want, you can also talk to a social worker, but don't think about it. That's all.
Yes, Lady He's performance in this film is very virgin. She personally walked into a group of addicts, personally led them to fight a lawsuit to ask the government for compensation for sweeping the streets and clearing the scene, and even personally contacted the elderly for her son who was far away in Norway. Frankly, she's noble.
But I can't forget that the things she did didn't actually stop the sleepers from falling.
She led the protagonist to ask for compensation, but chased for half a year and then 2,000 Hong Kong dollars per person - or cut, at first 3,000, then 2,000, and did not apologize.
She personally walked into the addicts and talked to them, but after talking for half a day, they continued to stumble, and pulled their friends who had just been released from prison to continue to stumble.
For myself, the image of her bored me and me. While noblely helping the rough sleepers fight the lawsuit, he watched the rough sleepers stumble in front of them.
So pure, so beautiful, or kind, in fact, bullshit is not.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="23" >3</h1>
A lot of film reviews focus on "the misery of the people at the bottom", but in terms of my perception, there is nothing to be sad about. The director is also very true and does not shy away from the "hatefulness" of these "poor people". Although the film does not portray why they became rough sleepers, at least the flaws of their humanity are exposed.
Zhu Baikang played a big victory, worked as a carpenter, could fast, and called himself "mj of the fasting world". But he stumbled, addicted to drugs, and had no intention of repenting—even when his friend was released from prison and was about to become a human being again, he pulled him back into relapse and fell together.
This is the line that impressed me the most: "Do you know why everyone comes out and we have to ask him to "have a meal"? Because I want to pull him into the water and not let him become a man again."
Just this sentence makes me think that this group of people is also very good to die.
The old man played by Xie Junhao is relatively clean. Fought, Vietnamese immigrants, a joyful Cantonese. He recognized his son with the help of Miss He, talked across the screen, and talked to tears. But he did not dare to face his son, knowing how much he had failed, so he jumped into the river.
But you killed someone, because you can't go to Norway with your son, so I think it's good that he's dead.
The existence of Mu Zai, I think, is more of a correspondence in the text, which belongs to the role of "we have to express the theme more clearly, so we create this character" when creating. He made a hasty exit in the middle of the film, and I believe that's why.
There is also Wu Zhenyu's Hui Ge.
I don't want to say too much, because this character is really wonderful - everything is sticky, everything is pitiful. Every move was pitiful, every step was pitiful, so pitiful that I kept thinking of him in the infernal path and the gunfire.
But the reversal at the end is really, making people feel that it is really good to die.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="34" > one-sentence summary</h1>
The script itself is really good, the actors' acting skills are also very good, and it is a high-quality film with extremely reliable hard conditions.
But the most valuable thing about the film is that it is presented objectively and truthfully:
Poor people, there must be something hateful.