What would it be like if those young and crazy "little pinks" on the Internet really succeeded in overthrowing the original system and establishing an xenophobic regime? The Khmer Rouge coup in Cambodia in the 1970s showed possible results for our descendants.
And if it does, what will happen to the civilians? Adapted from the memoir of the same name, They Killed My Father First: A Memoir of a Cambodian Daughter (hereinafter referred to as "They Killed My Father First"),the film shows the impact of this unrest on the people from the perspective of a child.
I've seen this one of the films Angelina Jolie created as a director. Before her filming of "The Land of Blood and Honey" and "Indestructible", I had only heard about it, and I hadn't seen much. But even if I didn't know it was a movie directed by Julie, this "They Killed My Father First" seemed to me to be good in terms of content and form. Maybe Julie, as a director, is really a bit on the road.
The film is set in cambodia's "Khmer Rouge" coup, but it only shows the experience of a family of a carefree Cambodian girl in the coup d'état. This arrangement is based not only on the expository perspective of the original book, but also on Julie's self-knowledge of her personal choreography. As a transformation director from a non-science class, it is not surprising that Julie does not tell the story of multiple perspectives and big patterns. Choosing a perspective that has a more immersive sense of substitution for the creator herself and the audience as the entry point of the theme is a wise choice for her. Of course, if this "small to see the big" perspective is not handled well, the film is easy to become subjective, extreme and misleading. I don't know whether Julie's previous film works have made such a principled error, but fortunately, this time "They Killed My Father First" does not have a deliberate political stance, and the enemies and enemies of the war and coup have brought physical and mental suffering to the little girl's family.
It is also worth mentioning that the film's cinematography is not absolutely skilled, but at least it complements the theme of the film. Most of the film's lens language, regardless of the scene, maintains a nearly equal angle with the little girl as the protagonist, which is equivalent to showing what the little girl sees in her eyes and thinks in her heart, and the motif is very prominent; similarly, in order to fit the perspective of the little girl, the picture of the film is basically not deliberately gray and cold, because the little girl does not know that this is a turmoil that is destined to destroy their family, nor does it know whether their next step is to go to happiness or suffering, since everything is unknown. Simply shadow tones also do not require any explicit characterization. Only with a few occasional aerial shots of a bird's eye view gives the viewer a more complete and clearer understanding of the little girl's environment and situation.
Photography is one of the highlights of "They Killed My Father First."
(Multi-image, can be swiped to view)
I know some people say that this film is not enough to reflect even one-tenth of the brutality and evil of the "Khmer Rouge" regime. Of course, I understand that with documentaries such as "Broken Images" and "Don't Think I Forgot: Cambodia's Lost Rock and Roll", the presentation of history is insignificant. But you should know that the director of "Broken Image" Pan Lide is also the supervising producer of this film, doesn't he understand those reasons? However, as a mainstream type of film, it is best to make everyone feel empathy, and only when the audience resonates can it be possible to further understand and understand this history. The choice of the child's perspective is precisely for this consideration.
(Next to Angelina Jolie is pan reed, the film's executive producer.)
Why do you want to describe this history from the perspective of a child? Because the unknowability of the coup is especially evident in the impression of the child. Unless they are given a compulsory ideological education, children do not understand any doctrines, beliefs and positions, and they only want to play with their parents, brothers and sisters, and children, and of course eat well and sleep well. As soon as war broke out and turmoil broke out, the children only knew that they could no longer eat and play as much as before, and they did not know when they would be able to go home and whether their families would be able to be together next. Homeless children are even willing to do whatever someone can give them a home for. Speaking of war, the scene where the little girl and other displaced people almost entered the minefield when they escaped the war really vividly reflected the horror of the war": except for the little girl herself, no one in the displaced people knew which land in the woods was planted with mines, because it was all the little girl who was pulled into the Boy Scouts and buried with other "little strong men", and her brothers and sisters had entered the minefield, and life and death were uncertain, which was simply an inner torment for her. However, if the little girl and her siblings did not follow her mother's instructions, escaped from the "labor camp" in anonymity, regardless of whether anyone was dead or alive, and was finally taken in by the Boy Scouts, would she be able to live to this moment? In wars and coups, the bitterness of civilians "involuntary" is even more memorable for the children who have no strength to bind chickens.
Until now, there are still "little pinks" on social networks that are still taking pleasure in leading wars and xenophobia. But they don't know that the real war is not playing PUBG. Once war does break out, you may not be able to eat chicken, but you are likely to go down. 2017 is coming to an end, I can't think of any wishes for the time being, I hope that in the new year, the world will have less wars and turmoil, after all, in the face of man-made disasters, no one can be spared.