The controversy over " i was supposed to be a mountain " has come to an end, and it turns out that the analysis of the film by the famous "prescriptor" (who is in fact a mediaman) wang haelin does not have to be said, because he said one thing earlier, to the effect that chinese intellectuals have a big problem. The movie was controversial, too, because she saved it
The reason for this is probably because last year's main contest in berlin, "invisible dust", was a great success. It turns out that mr. Zhang gui mei, the real prototype, is too well known for the fact that the film shows the iron tablet, rather than the political criticism of the group by his own friends, they themselves have committed political problems and how they can be criticized with film expertise。
In the end, this problem is common in chinese entertainment circles. Haiqing is not the first person, nor will he be the last。
Wang hae-lin is right
Of course, nothing can be “generalized” and, in the case of the group of senior and middle-age intellectuals, it is not always the same. For example, my first person in chinese science fiction, liu tsui-hyun, is in fact so red and so hot. He can see the person everywhere in his work。
The first is, of course, a lot of merit, and the real iron molecules are about a few things, and they're about to be special, and once one of them sounds, the others join in, and if there's a counter-argument, they start a “collective counter-attack”, so they're huge, and they're setting the whole group of “matrix”
The second person is “the majority of silence”, but silence is chosen for reasons of personality and experience, and when it is not, it is directed at people and so on and rarely engages in debate。
The third person is actually a silent person, but the view of the first person is essentially a negative or even a negative one, but because of the incompetence of the debate, he has had to keep a low profile, but he will not be easy to retreat, he will stand on the ground, or he will be pure
So the so-called “intellectual intellectuals of the '60s and '70s'” do not constitute a “unified mass” and cannot be generalized. Even the chinese entertainment circles, which everyone thought were rotten, were less than half。
The reason, of course, is that most of today's so-called intellectuals have a great deal of voice and a great sense of superiority, both materially and spiritually, in the traditional era in which they used to control information. After the reform and opening-up, the sense of economic superiority was first broken, and therefore a circular movement such as the wfuna academic circle was established。
There are also considerable economic gains to be made when knowledge is scarce and traditional systems are sustainable。
But since the internet became widely available, their stubbornness at the level of knowledge and information, and their lack of learning, quickly allowed people to move from respect to challenge and finally to despise. The double loss at both the spiritual and economic levels has left them feeling deeply powerless and, unfortunately, a large part of them unable to reflect on themselves。
The creators themselves do not have a high ideological background and are tied to current capital and authority. They naturally want to deconstruct knowledge with authority, embrace more capital and reshape their voice, and they believe that the viewers, like them, are born of so-called pompous and vulgarity。
In such a vicious circle, the road has become more narrow and more “irregular”。
From guo fan to hai qing, from kawaro to naing ying, they're one thing
The problem is a bit like the original left, which was deconstructed after opening up because of the embrace of the market economy (the two generations are the worst), but in the process of the country's evolving, there was a clear shift between the two generations after 80 and 90 years (of course, the previous two generations were also naturally left)。
If the chinese entertainment business were to be taken as an example, it would have been the same way that this summer's fierce battle between the sword and the young。
Why did knife and nae-young have so much public opinion, because it was a typical market economy that was successful, embraced capital, mastered the language of the industry and eventually led to an example of authority. If it's musical, then their songs must be professional。
Some would say how the knife song is made, but there's no comparison。
Pop music is the same as popular art, but the audience of the knife folk rumours has always been the largest, i. E., the general public, with the natural base of the crowd, like the phoenix legend. Then left must be pro-people, pro-party, right? But there were good works in the early days of english and other songs, but they embraced capital, monopolized the industry and formed voice. It's either a show or a show。
It's nothing in itself. You can't create new work. What about the new guy? What about the music industry? What is the public's contribution to the value of pop music
In the end, they will have a sense of “industry standards” to defend themselves。
Professionals, scolding you, not having aesthetic standards, not having any value, say it's for yourself。
As in sea-clean's invisible dust, " i was supposed to be a mountain " , especially when the viewers of the former said they spoke instead of farmers. In the strict sense of the word, the film is over 100 million tickets, and less than 3 million people have seen it。
However, data have been reviewed, and in 2022 the total rural population in china was about 800 million, or about 60 per cent of the total population。
That's when the question arises. Do you often see what's going on with "invisible dust," how chinese films are going, how rural china is going, and how chinese farmers are going。
The fact is that 3 million people (most of them also urban youth) spoke instead of 800 million farmers. To call them indifferent and sad, and how to fight poverty in china, and we are all living as we strive
Is it really important to win the prize, starting with "smuggle in"
I don't think it's true that wang hae-lin looks at the question and doesn't see the essence. Why is it that most of our intellectuals are in the united states and the west, and history has long given them answers? It's essentially the same thing between the values of the west and the genre of wei jin-dpan. How can you think that they're promoting genre or freedom in order to reach the vanity of my son
Their fundamental aim is to weaken the authority of the central government and to safeguard their fundamental interests, particularly the interests of the family, the powerful, the relatives and the elite, who define the good and evil of the world, the good and the bad, the bad and the bad, the gun poles may not be seized, but the pen bars must be in their hands。
Thus, intellectuals most eagerly aspired to the days when the winning country was unattainable and eager to buy them, with the usurped palace of tianjia, the usurped palace of sema, the conversion of chen bridge, the national warlord, and the united states of america, which had taken revenge and committed genocide, and had chosen the path of the confucius。
When the ideology of genre or freedom is defeated, they distort the true meaning of the saints, pouring water and sand into them, typically pushing their current politics to the world with authority, standardization and style。
This set of indicators cannot be quantified, and we do not yet know their new weapon, yet they can demagogue some and gain a huge amount of possession. But since the outbreak, the western countries have been acting in such a way that the myth of democracy has been diluted, not only by people questioning them, but also by their own family。
The question of " i am a mountain " has drawn renewed attention to " invisible dust " , because for the time being, i am a mountain and it is highly probable that i am doing so in order to win prizes abroad, and the grammatical approach and " invisible dust " are literally the same as the deliberate display of humanity。
My personal opinion has always been that there is nothing wrong with making a movie like this, that it should not go down, that it should not go down (unless there is a major problem)。
What do you mean? Three million people went to the movies to replace the 800 million farmers who spoke (unlike mr. Zhang guimei's fire is easy). You are so sad, poverty is useless, we're all alive. The new media is spreading fast with short video and noise. The guys in the movie made a lot of money to support them in their life。
And they really did, and they thought it was theoretical. It wasn't the work of god. It was the work of god. Then the chinese entertainment industry, the literature, the viewers and the netizens were happy。
On the one hand, someone scolds, on the other, and on the other hand, when does the entertainment get "get up"
There is indeed a need to give the film industry time to complete the adjustment. At the same time, the film industry has not been without good works for some time, as in the case of wang hae-lin, in the case of young ying, and in the early years of the television series " three bodies " , " long seasons by the river " 。
At present, china is stable after 80 and 90, at least in line with the expression of this era。
With their high level of education and growing up at a rapid pace in their home country, their full rise should be much better known about historical beliefs, revolutionary ideals and the current pains of society. Above all, the situation is not open. In the new era of live broadcasting instead of video, the film industry is afraid to feel less sensitive
The new era will significantly lower the threshold for video production and distribution, which can be found on the web site 20 years ago. Who's going to see the paper media now? In the case of a large base, it is inevitable that the product will be produced, most typically this year's short film " escape the british museum " 。
Under this new model, after 80 and after 90, there is a tendency. The older generation and the “right-to-right” film industry do not actively seek change, and will not be better in the future。
