The Lord of the Rings promotional poster. Image source: Beijing News.
In recent years, re-screenings of classic movies have been very common, and they have always attracted the attention of fans, this time it is the turn of "The Lord of the Rings".
In the history of cinema, "The Lord of the Rings" has been praised countless times and can be called a monument. The trilogy has received more than 20 Oscar nominations and won the Little Golden Man 17 times, the highest in the history of world cinema.
In particular, the last film, "Return of the King", received 11 Oscar nominations and won 11 awards, and only "Titanic" and "Ben Hur" have achieved this result in history. At the same time, the screenplay for the Lord of the Rings trilogy has won the Hugo Literary Award for Best Adapted Screenplay three times, and is the only triple crown in the history of the award.
In the eyes of many fans, "The Lord of the Rings" is impeccable, and the expression of every link is perfect. It combines epic and connotation, friendship and love, and the rhythm is picturesque when the rhythm is soothing, and the tension is like a storm when it is tense.
The film's storytelling, graphics, and soundtrack complement each other, and the scene construction of "Middle-earth" alone is enough to be amazing. It can be said that "The Lord of the Rings" is not only the most connotative commercial blockbuster, but also the most commercially compatible art film.
However, such a movie, when re-released, suffered a decline in word-of-mouth among some Chinese moviegoers, and one-star bad reviews could be seen on various ticketing platforms.
As a visual art, film is originally a flower into each eye. Some people admired the French New Wave movies of that year, and some people scorned it; some people liked "Transformers", which was cool from beginning to end, and played until the sky was dark, and some people just liked quiet literary films...
Aesthetics have always been diverse, and we cannot define and demand the aesthetics of others, forcing others to be sure of what they like and don't like.
Screenshot of the movie The Lord of the Rings.
For the fantasy themes and complex plots of "The Lord of the Rings", people certainly have the right not to be interested or even disliked. It is personal freedom to give a good or bad review of a movie.
However, the individual freedom to score should be based on logic, and aesthetics also have high and low levels. Specific to the review of the re-release version of "The Lord of the Rings", on the ticketing platform, the following bad reviews abound -
"A broken ring sent for 3 hours"
"The plot doesn't appeal to me"
"I fell asleep watching"
……
In other words, in their eyes, the film is poor because it is "too long", because it "can't understand the plot", and because it "has no ending".
As someone has said, these people evaluate a film on the basis of "I'm not happy, you suck", "not to criticize the quality of the work, but to criticize its threshold".
So, what kind of movies do these audiences need? First of all, it can't be too long, and then there must be a climax and an ending, the plot and characters can't be too complicated, in short, everything must be within their own acceptance range, can't set puzzles and obstacles, it's best to "sit and wait for feeding" style cool film.
Screenshot of netizen comments.
To be honest, such a movie-watching requirement is an individual's freedom and a need from the heart, and there is nothing to criticize and despise.
However, "there is no upper limit to art and aesthetics", for things that are not liked but are widely recognized by the world, should we make room for our hearts and try to understand and respect them? As for one of the classic films recognized in the history of world cinema, to be fair, has the aesthetic level of some people reached a corresponding height?
One can dislike opera dramas, not like Van Gogh and Leonardo da Vinci, and dislike symphonies, but if one opens one's mouth without any understanding, one can open one's mouth to "one who watches the opera is too pretentious" and "Van Gogh's paintings are ugly and dead, it is simply garbage", which is not only arbitrary, but also sets up a cognitive ceiling. Aesthetic things, there is a lower limit, no need to set an upper limit.
Whose ignorance is it to have no feeling for really good works of art, and even to dismiss them as "garbage" and "inferior products", but to think that the "cool literary" and fragmented audiovisual works that you like are very advanced?
To be fair, with the rapid outbreak of short videos in recent years, coupled with the rapid sinking of the movie market, "fragmentary movie watching" has become the norm for many people. Coupled with the "super long films" released in theaters in recent years, there are very few, and many audiences only have "about 2 hours of patience to watch movies", and the superposition of these factors makes the "Lord of the Rings" released this time seem a bit "out of place".
Sitting in a movie theater for hours and watching an epic film may be beyond the receptive reach of many. However, many people brush short videos at night, often for three hours, which seem to pass in a flash, and a recognized classic epic film has become a cognitive gap. Such a difference may no longer be a simple "aesthetic freedom".
If the grand "Lord of the Rings" is like this, then what kind of evaluation will those classic movies with slow pace, no violent conflict and no reversal re-enter the theater?
If entertainment is only left with the pursuit of "pleasure", the desire for high-intensity and high-frequency venting emotions, then is our life a little monotonous? Will this reliance on superficial forms of entertainment make us lose some ability? This does require reflection.
□ Ye Kefei (columnist)
Editor: Ding Hui Proofreader: LuCy
Source: Beijing News