news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

In the movie review of "Catching Dolls" I wrote the day before yesterday, I said that every second of this movie is a mockery of the poor.

Of course, some people will disagree with my point of view, saying that I have lost my defense, and that you think you are mocking the poor because of your inferiority complex, and that this is a kind of poor thinking.

I have never been rich, so I really don't understand what rich people think, but you are right to say that I have low self-esteem and am defenseless. Poverty does make me feel low self-esteem, which is the biggest harm that poverty does to people, and there is nothing I cannot admit. And seeing such a naked satire on the poor, including me, makes me feel defenseless, which is a sign of respect for myself.

These comments were all what I expected, but I never expected that just because I criticized a comedy movie, people would say:

“I don't know how dark a person's heart must be to write such an article. Did the author watch the movie seriously? The answer is definitely no, otherwise he wouldn't have written such low-level words.”

Whether I have a dark mind is another matter, but I watched the movie seriously. But I want to say that even if I watch it a hundred times, I still stick to my point of view——

"Catching Dolls" makes fun of the poor.

There are some things that were not fully explained in the previous article, so I will say a few more words today.

"Catching Dolls" tells the story of a super-rich couple who pretended to be poor for more than ten years in order to train their young son Ma Jiye to be the successor of the company. They even used a lot of manpower and material resources to turn the environment around their child into a Chinese version of "The Truman Show" in the hope that their child would grow up according to the path they set.

The original intention of this movie seems to be to satirize the control of Chinese parents over their children, the hard-earned education, etc. What it wants to express is that this way of education is wrong and children should never be educated in this way.

However, the final results were completely different and went in the opposite direction.

Because, according to the results given in the movie, Ma Jiye, who grew up under this kind of difficult education method, is independent, self-reliant, strictly self-disciplined, thrifty, healthy and sunny, courageous, smart, loving and filial. He is simply the dream child of countless parents.

So, the contradiction arises. You want to say that this kind of hardship education is not good, but the result presented is that this kind of hardship education has raised a particularly good child. So, what is the attitude of the movie towards this kind of hardship education?

It seems very ambiguous.

Of course, in the movie, Ma Jiye, who grew up under this kind of education, also suffered, that is, he felt that everything around him was unreal:

When he was a child, he had to do math problems for the butcher when buying vegetables. He went to a tertiary hospital for a doctor to check his ankle pulse. A neighbor musician played piano music for him. Almost all the shop owners said in unison that of course he had to get into Tsinghua or Peking University. His grandmother, who had a broken leg, suddenly stood up to play basketball and ran faster than him...

But the problem is that the movie blames this pain on manipulation. It is the manipulation of almost all of Ma Jiye's social relationships arranged by his super-rich parents that causes him to suffer this pain. It is not because he pretends to be poor. None of the things mentioned above have anything to do with poverty in essence.

In other words, the film seems to criticize manipulation, but does not criticize pretending to be poor, and even affirms the positive role of poverty.

There is a control group in the movie, which is the eldest son. Although I think the eldest son is pretty good overall except that he is a little silly, in Ma Chenggang's opinion, the eldest son was raised in wealth and became useless, while the younger son was raised in poverty and was raised very well.

Isn’t this practice of praising the poor and condemning the rich just glorifying suffering?

Isn't it agreed?The most shameless praise in the world is to sing the praises of the suffering of the poor to fool the lower class people."? How come in this movie, it becomes "Only those who have experienced the beatings of life can truly grow and mature. "Woolen cloth?

What is even more suffocating is that as the father of the manipulator, Ma Chenggang not only did not reflect on himself, but yelled at his son after his son discovered the truth.You think we control your life, but you control our life too., the party at fault questions the victim, this kind of theme expression is indeed very niche.

They may even feel that the experiment of having two children is not enough and happily want to have another child.

In short, "Catching Dolls" makes the super rich pretend to be poor, and then tells us that only poverty can educate people, only poverty can train people, and only poverty can make people successful.

But the ambiguous thing is that Ma Jiye scored more than 700 points and was able to go to Peking University and Tsinghua University, but this was obviously not due to poverty and hard work, but the result of embedded education from a gold medal team. To put it bluntly, it was the result of his financial ability.

On the one hand, it praises poverty and suffering, and on the other hand, it clearly knows that success in the secular sense comes from money. The internal logic of this movie is contradictory, conflicting, and split.

The movie lets the rich pretend to be poor, but it takes advantage of both. In the logic of the movie, good character is cultivated through poverty and hardship, but in the end, they do not have to endure the harm of poverty, because their poverty and hardship are fake, and are the so-called "coming down to earth to experience disasters."

Even this kind of hardship was actually protected by money. Although Ma Jiye had been bullied, he had never experienced real hardship and had never felt true poverty.

But, as a friend of mine said,For most people, suffering is an inevitable pain, never an experience that can be avoided.。

This may be the difference between being truly poor and pretending to be poor, and it is also the source of discomfort some people feel while watching a movie.

Finally, I want to say that I wrote these just to express my opinion and not to force you to agree. You can think that I am over-interpreting. If you say that you watch the movie just for fun, and you think the movie is funny and you like it very much, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

But because you like this movie, you won't allow me to hate it; because you think that just for fun, you think I shouldn't be serious, rational, and analyze it carefully, and you think that I am psychologically dark for doing so. I always feel that this is a bit overbearing.

You have to have confidence in yourself. An article you don't agree with should not shake your liking for the movie. Closing the article will not prevent you from being moved by the movie.

Right?

—The End—

Author: Wei Chunliang

First published: Liangjian, ID:liangjian0624