news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

"Reverse Life" is Xu Zheng's best directorial work so far. This is obvious.

Although it is worse than "Dying to Survive" in which he starred, if the qualifier "self-directed and self-acted" is added, it deserves to be called "Xu Zheng's best".

When discussing a movie, Wenyu Chunqiu pays more attention to the personal growth of the main creators, that is, whether there is progress in horizontal comparison and whether there is enough room for improvement. For example, "In the Octagon" in the summer of 2023 is Wang Baoqiang's best directorial work - it has high sincerity and artistic expression, which deserves full recognition.

"Reverse Life" is to Xu Zheng what "In the Octagon" is to Wang Baoqiang. Of course, the audience can express their dislike, but those who have a certain understanding of movies cannot deny that their film is better than the previous one, and much better.

The good thing about Xu Zheng's new work is that it reveals the "nightmare" of the current Chinese white-collar class: they will eventually be abandoned by the big companies they have worked for for more than ten years, and struggle to survive in the dilemma. On the other hand, it also explores the reality of class division, downward compatibility, and the bottom ecology.

Therefore, as a former member of a large factory, I can feel it deeply. Audiences who have no such experience, or are still very young, probably won’t feel it too deeply.

What is a "nightmare" in reality?

When driving for Didi or delivering takeout food becomes the only backup job for those who used to sit in the office and make decisions, the "nightmare" moment begins. When everything achieved through class leap is reset to zero, it is the beginning of the nightmare.

Despite his old age, his limbs are still strong; despite his weakness, he cannot lie down. When faced with difficulties, he has to abandon the so-called "dignity" - however, he is unwilling to do so.

This kind of unwillingness is just like the struggle and embarrassment of Lao Gao, played by Xu Zheng, who faces the pressure of mortgage loan after losing his job and has no way to find a new job, so he has to choose to work as a delivery man. However, he is criticized by his father and mocked by his former colleagues, and can only smoke late at night.

The film starts with a fast pace. When Lao Gao gets on the subway, the situation changes suddenly. The three things of violent layoffs, mortgage pressure, and his father's illness come as expected. Lao Gao sends out resumes to many places but gets no response. He is also cheated out of 30,000 yuan by a headhunter. In desperation, he has to choose to deliver food.

The first 15 minutes of the film use highly dramatic conflicts to show the cruelty of the white-collar class: age discrimination is prevalent, internal competition is serious, and family pressure is overwhelming.

The hard-working people in big companies who are facing uncertainty can't help but feel frightened and full of empathy.

However, what would it feel like if we shift our perspective to deliverymen or other low-level workers?

Some people say that the initial rejection and resistance to the deliverymen is naked discrimination, with a tinge of class antagonism, or "exploiting the poor." In fact, this is precisely the most real and valuable part of the film.

Because today's society is a huge melting pot with strict class distinctions and clear barriers. Everyone strives to be the best and is afraid of falling behind. This is the result of being educated since childhood. Therefore, when a person's class rises, it is difficult for him to be compatible with the lower class.

Or it can be simplified into one word: face. If you can't let go of your face, you can't tear open your inner self.

In the world, the people who care most about face are probably us who have the so-called "Eastern philosophy". If the story is set in the West, there may not be such a strong sense of class conflict - programmers and food delivery, in their eyes, there is probably not much difference, it is just a job, there is no high or low (although it is not absolute, but the social atmosphere is like this) - just like the physics professors in "The Big Bang Theory", they also go to the restaurant to wash dishes in their spare time to earn some extra money (maybe they can meet Musk by chance).

But what about the current situation in China? How are low-level workers viewed by the upper class? Even if you are a senior executive of a large company, there are still bosses who treat you like a beast of burden! We can’t just pretend that these things don’t exist, right?

So, what's wrong with honestly presenting "discrimination" in movies? Should we whitewash and cover up "discrimination" as if it didn't happen?

On the contrary, the elevation of the delivery man at the end of "Reverse Life" seems illusory (I can't bear to say hypocritical). In the face of naked reality, only by tearing a bloody hole can we touch the truth deep in the soul.

There is a scene in the film where Lao Gao accidentally sees his full-time wife doing a manicure at a nail salon. The two look at each other and then quickly look away, which reflects the protagonist's complex emotions, one of which is "pity." However, why should a manicurist be "pitied"?

There is also a very controversial joke - when Lao Gao received an order for a takeaway to be delivered to his former company, he didn't want to deliver it and was embarrassed. Another delivery man joked, "We are deliverymen, not sellers!" The implicit meaning of this joke is that delivering takeaways is more advanced, which will undoubtedly make some viewers uncomfortable - especially women.

The controversy over these scenes has returned to the essence of "discrimination". It should be emphasized that the presentation of "reality" and "ugliness" in film and television dramas can only prove that the characters portrayed have limited thinking, which does not mean that the director himself has discriminatory implications - Xu Zheng even borrowed the "acceptance speech" at the end to set the record straight. In his creation, Xu Zheng must have been careful and cautious.

On the other hand, the Korean movie "Parasite", which also shows the class confrontation, spares no one from top to bottom, from wealthy families to the lower class, and fully displays the cruelty of the sharp class confrontation.

The sunny ending of "Reverse Life" is Xu Zheng's "equal" attitude towards the working class represented by food delivery as a Chinese director. This is determined by the national conditions, which requires you to "strive to be the best" and you must "be equal to all beings" - although the reality is not so.

Therefore, Bong Joon-ho and others can reveal the truth to the end, but Xu Zheng and others cannot.

However, this comparison is extremely unfair, with different themes, expressions, and levels, but what we want to say is that literary and artistic works should truly show the unbearableness of society, rather than deliberately making it beautiful. You know, only by facing the ugliness and cruelty of class confrontation can we break the solidified class barriers - otherwise we will always be immersed in the illusory atmosphere of everyone being happy.

In terms of comedy, "Reverse Life" basically does not have the funny style of simply tickling the armpits. Many of the jokes are driven by the plot - it is definitely not like "Hong Kong Lost" which is entertainment to death, nor does it rely on exaggerated words and actions as jokes like "Thailand Lost". In fact, "Reverse Life" can be regarded as the sequel to the high-scoring comedy "Annual Meetings Can't Stop!" at the beginning of the year - the story of an older technical backbone being laid off from a large factory.

Of course, "Reverse Life" is not without flaws. It avoids talking about the systemic social problems of food delivery riders; it lacks self-examination of the traffic disaster caused by "reverse driving"; it insists on delivering the last order even though his face is covered with blood after being hit by a car, which is out of touch with reality (I personally interpret the KTV scene as a dream)...

However, these are not life-or-death issues. As mentioned above, we value the thinking about social class more - although it only shows the surface and cannot touch the core, it is precious.

Therefore, the first half of "Reverse Life" is excellent, the middle (which serves as a comedian), is good, and the end is terrible.

Overall, Xu Zheng has tried to restore reality. Compared with the pure comedy films in his previous "囧 series", this is a qualitative improvement, and can even be compared with the first 囧 work that he did not direct, "Lost on Journey" (directed by Ye Weimin) - the latter also reflects a lot of reality.

However, the real problem with "Reverse Life" is Xu Zheng himself.

Although this is Xu Zheng's best work, judging from the current word of mouth, "Reverse Life" is extremely polarized. Some negative views have existed since the beginning of the promotion - for example, it was ridiculed as "rich people playing poor people to cheat poor people out of their money." I don't know who created this saying, but it's amazing. It can be regarded as the most lethal "anti-marketing" of this movie. Or to put it another way, because of this ridicule, "Reverse Life" will lose at least 100 million yuan at the box office.

This "anti-marketing" slogan can be completely compared with the marketing slogan of "All or Nothing" "One more person watching the movie, one less person being deceived", the only difference is that one is a call to go to the cinema, and the other is a dissuade.

As far as the movie is concerned, we do not agree with this statement. As a director, Xu Zheng is sincere, and the core is actually conveying that "all kinds of professions are equal" and fully understanding the deliverymen. But it is obvious that this kind of ridicule has nothing to do with the movie, but is strongly tied to Xu Zheng himself.

The impression Xu Zheng gave people in the past was that of a comedian who brought joy to ordinary people, harmless and even likable. But after "Dying to Survive", his reputation grew and he became the spokesperson for the grassroots groups.

When did the character collapse begin?

The most notable node was the involvement in the Zhang Ting and Lin Ruiyang pyramid scheme case. Although Xu Zheng's wife Tao Hong was deeply involved in it, from the outside world's perspective, the couple was one.

If we review the Zhang Ting and Lin Ruiyang pyramid scheme case, we will find that it is not unfair for this couple to have caused the wrath of heaven and people. As the best micro-businessmen, they flaunted their wealth, were high-profile, shouted slogans, and put money first, which made us ordinary people look askance. The amount involved in the case was as high as 10 billion yuan, and 96 properties were seized.

At the pyramid scheme case hearing at the end of 2022, "investigators insisted that the actions of 19 entities including Zhang Ting and Tao Hong constituted pyramid schemes." Subsequently, "Tao Hong received 420 million dividends from Zhang Ting's company in 5 years" also became a hot search... thus, Xu Zheng and his wife were involved in it in one fell swoop.

96 apartments, tens of billions of funds, luxurious life... all of them burned people's nerves and nailed a group of people to the "208" (meaning the star's daily salary of 2.08 million). As a person with a stake in the scandal, Xu Zheng naturally could not escape being denounced - and the resentment caused by this was not simply the common people's "hatred of the rich" and sidelong glances at the upper class, but was actually mixed with the root rejection of social inequality.

At one point, Xu Zheng and Tao Hong were also accused of "immigrants" when they appeared at overseas airports, and public opinion was boiling. This kind of "immigrant" became a carnival for netizens, including Feng Xiaogang, who was also treated in this way.

Although immigration is a common thing for ordinary people, for celebrities, the lethality of this accusation is that they eat and smash the pot, make money and run away. At least, many audiences who are not aware of the situation have a negative impression.

However, in the end, it turned out to be an unprovoked disaster, but this kind of misinformation proved that netizens had cast a vote of no confidence in them. And this group is often the long-tail voting base. Therefore, whether it is Xu Zheng or Feng Xiaogang, they need to improve their own perceptions to avoid dragging down their works.

Of course, people are people and works are works, and they cannot be mixed up. But not everyone has this concept - or rather, many ordinary audiences tend to mix them up.

Therefore, for the film market: it is inevitable to treat people differently. In other words, if they like you, they will watch you, and if they don't like you, they won't watch you. There is no other way. Money is tight, so why spend money to watch actors you don't like? What movies are must-sees?

This situation is especially serious in the lower-tier markets, which are the largest voting base—the long-tail effect.

They are both "comedians", but they have different fates. Compared with Xu Zheng, Shen Teng is the opposite. At least so far, Shen Teng's image has no flaws, especially ordinary people like it, at least they don't dislike it.

Therefore, although "Catching Dolls" also has polarized reputations, and some critics have accused it of "exploiting the poor", there will be a large number of fans who will become "tap water" and disdain negative reviews and vigorously defend it - "It's just a joke, why is there so much meaning?"

But will ordinary audiences still defend Xu Zheng in this way? Although, it is the same comedy of "rich people playing poor people". Most likely, ordinary audiences will not do so, and may even watch from the sidelines.

This is not hard to understand - "Reverse Life" speaks for the deliverymen, glorifies this profession at the end, and the whole film also expresses the elevation of every job, regardless of whether it is noble or humble, but it still cannot be recognized by the grassroots masses like deliverymen. In their eyes, "rich people pretending to be poor and cheating poor people out of their money" is the truth.

Of course, this is a real-life version of class antagonism, and it is true that the poor are unhappy with the rich - but no ordinary audience should be criticized. It is not wrong to have clear likes and dislikes. Isn't there a saying that "the eyes of the masses are sharp"?

Public figures must pay for their actions.

Do Xu Zheng and his wife Tao Hong need to reflect on their careless friendships? Being involved in a trial involving tens of billions of dollars is a big problem in itself, which will cause the comedy personalities they created in the past, which are close to the perceptions of ordinary people, to disappear completely.

Should Xu Zheng also reflect on his attitude of keeping silent and trying to let time fade away? Even if things have calmed down now, he cannot really pretend that nothing happened. As a public figure, should he make a public response? Is he involved in the case? Is he involved in pyramid schemes? What about the huge dividends?

For the most ordinary audiences, their likes and dislikes of actors may determine the life and death of a work. If they have a fixed opinion, no matter if your performance is the best or the funniest, no matter how much you praise it, they will not enter the theater.

Therefore, Xu Zheng must face it, just like he faced reality in "Reverse Life". Otherwise, he will be ridiculed and targeted in the future.

This is the big problem of "Reverse Life" or Xu Zheng himself. If it is not solved (it is difficult to solve now, but it will have to be solved in the future), it will be difficult to increase the box office.

Written by | JackA
Planning | Entertainment Spring and Autumn Editorial Department