One Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-Nine Irreplaceable

"The plot itself of 'Gravity', like 'Avatar', doesn't have much room for discussion, and is even more concise and straightforward than 'Avatar', simply telling a story of a deep sinking in space The difficult journey of persevering in finding a way to save oneself after a desperate situation. That's all.

It's not the first and definitely won't be the last in Hollywood history. In order to avoid spoilers, the detailed elaboration is abandoned and left to the audience to walk into the cinema to watch. But based on the framework of such a simple story, 'Gravity' discusses and presents philosophical issues far better and deeper than 'Avatar'.

The crises and climaxes in the process of self-rescue are absolutely necessary elements of commercial films, but it is precisely in this story set that seems to have no branches and branches, Alfonso has achieved a deep artistic discussion. At the same time, it will not affect the narrative rhythm of the script itself——

Every detail, every picture, every foreshadowing, every performance, all reveal a powerful and profound philosophical thinking, which penetrates into every link of the whole film layer by layer; and in Renly-Hall And Rooney - Mara's wonderful interpretation, unreservedly released.

The film presents the process of life from birth to evolution, which is long and great, magnificent and mysterious, wonderful and moving; at the same time, it also proposes a more profound theme:

What is the meaning of existence?

This is the ultimate torture in the field of philosophy, who am I? from where? Where to go?

Freud was not able to answer, because everyone has different understandings and insights; Alfonso Cuaron also failed to answer, but infiltrated his own understanding into the film, so that everyone The audience realizes what belongs to them after watching the movie.

In the ending of 'The Dark Knight', Nolan put forward a core reflection: Are darkness and light really incompatible opposites? Or are they two sides of the same ensemble? Does justice still exist after evil is lost? Does pure evil and pure justice exist objectively?

Now through 'gravity', Cuaron proposes another existential problem that is more esoteric, essential and unsolvable:

Does life have the meaning of existence because of fetters, or does it breed fetters because of existence? Should life maintain its fetters and pursue the return of the soul, or should it pursue the upgrade of higher concepts after cutting off the fetters? How is the essence of existence of life defined?

At the end of the day, it's a story of survival, but it's more of a story of why you want to survive.

As for how to think and understand, each audience will find their own answers.

The seemingly huge and magnificent, complex and profound motifs are all perfectly dissolved in the control of the ups and downs of the commercial film shell. Cuaron uses local film technology to create an incredible, unrepeatable and unsurpassable view. Movie experience - at least for now.

The complementarity between the picture and the light and shadow, the space and the composition, the role and the plot, the lens and the philosophical thinking, etc., forms a responsive intertext, which truly brings out the charm of film art, just like Martin Scorsey. In his 'Hugo' style, he presented a cinematic world constructed by film and light and shadow. This is something Christopher Nolan has not been able to do.

There is no doubt that this is a full-fledged work! Impeccable! "

As one of the top and most authoritative professional magazines in the industry, "The Hollywood Reporter" has a high status not only in the United States but also in Europe, although the French "Cinebook" has repeatedly complained that "The Hollywood Reporter" is too Business is too popular, but the top ten choices of the two magazines every year flow between the editorial departments, not watching and helping each other, but understanding each other.

Michael Phillips almost exhausted all his praises and gave "Gravity" a full score!

But for the audience belonging to Michael,

This does not seem surprising, because Michael has already sent a full-point review for "The Ballad of the Drunken Country" before the Cannes Film Festival in May!

In fact, just halfway through 2013, Michael already thought that "Drunken Country Ballad" was the best number one seed of the year, and now "Gravity" has emerged, which also puts Michael in a dilemma.

Michael couldn't help thinking of the famous Roger Ebert.

The two film critics are close friends.

In January 2005, Michael gave a scathing critique of the comedy film "Hands Up/Men 2", "I hate this work, I hate every minute of this work, the self-righteous, stupid, smirk, blank All the moments, the arrogance of thinking that anyone would love this work is disgusting, and I hate that it fools the audience because it believes it can entertain the audience."

At that time, Rob-Schneider, the comedian in charge of writing and starring in the work, made a rude remark, insulted Michael with ugly and dirty words, and even thought that Michael was not qualified to be a film critic, much less qualified. Comment on his work because "he never won a Pulitzer Prize".

After hearing the news, Roger came forward, "As a Pulitzer Prize winner, then I should be qualified to comment, I must admit: Rob Schneider, your film is disgusting and makes People are nauseated."

This is a small episode, but it has become an opportunity for Roger and Michael to make friends.

Although Roger is the only film critic who has won the Pulitzer Prize in the entire history of film criticism, Roger has never put on airs. He is keen to get acquainted with other colleagues and met Michael by chance. They have become close friends, and they often talk about wine and candlelight at film festivals.

In fact, there are many differences in the viewing tastes of the two film critic friends. The most typical example is "Citizen Kane". This film is Roger's best personal film history, but Michael believes that Orson Welles It's really too famous. This work may be in the top 20 of the best list in history, but it is definitely not the best choice.

In turn, Michael's best personal film history was "2001: A Space Odyssey", which was criticized by Roger as a "too commercial" choice.

However, these so-called differences made them cherish each other's friendship more and more:

If all film critics have the same taste, then it is the beginning of the demise of art. The existence of disputes and differences is the core essence of artistic debate, and it is also an important driving force to urge artists to continuously create genres and develop long-term; There are differences, but they all make sense, and they cannot convince each other, which also means that the other party's point of view will become a new perspective for him to re-examine his work.

Of course, Michael and Roger also share many of the same bad tastes. For example, they both hate the well-recognized and popular "Die Hard 2", but they both admire the "Future Water World" whose reputation has collapsed. Personally, I especially like the boldness revealed by the shoddy plasma movie.

In addition, in recent years, Renly's strong rise, they also hold similar views:

This talented new-generation actor is undoubtedly spiritual, and his focus and dedication are also admirable. The only worry is whether Renly can continue to explore his acting skills after becoming famous at a young age, and whether he can break through himself. They are all looking forward to Renly's future, "maybe more than Hanks."

Actors such as Daniel Day-Lewis, Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Katherine Hepburn and other actors have no doubts about their acting talents, but they do not have much interest and ability at the commercial box office.

The audience appeal of actors such as Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and Robert Downey Jr. is an important talent. Their charm in the box office market is indeed impressive, but the discussion on acting and artistic level And delving into it is not satisfactory.

Tom Hanks is the only peak star with both box office and acting skills. Johnny Depp once had the opportunity to replicate Hanks' brilliance, but his image constraints and life problems have become fatal shackles.

Now, it was Renly's turn.

There are many things in common that make Roger and Michael close friends, and this is a rare friendship.

In April of this year, Roger Ebert's cancer recurred. After 11 years of long struggle, he was still unable to overcome the torment of the disease, and finally passed away on April 4th.

Before Roger's death, Michael went to the hospital to visit the old friend, and Roger's biggest regret at that time was that his physical condition might not be able to travel to France for the Cannes Film Festival. And so it was, before Cannes opened, Roger left his beloved film completely.

So, when watching "Drunk Country Ballad" at the Cannes Film Festival, Michael burst into tears. That movie reminded him again of the old guy who devoted all his passion to movies, and also reminded him of the old guy who was lying on the hospital bed but still couldn't forget the movie.

In the film review he wrote for "Drunk Town Ballad" at the time, Michael said, "Do you still remember what life was like at the beginning? If you miss the ballad, does it mean you miss your life?"

For them, if they miss the movie, they also miss their life. Their long lives were condensed in that movie screen, and also in the confusion and hesitation of Le Verne Davis. Even now, thinking back to that movie brings tears to Michael's eyes.

Now, after watching "Gravity," Michael thinks of Roger again, because of Roger's admiration for Renly, the young actor has dedicated two peak works in just one year, which really makes They saw the promise of the future; and because of Roger's sincerity and love for the movie, everything was condensed in Cuaron's lens!

For them, movies are irreplaceable after all.

Genius remembers the address of this site in one second: Mobile version reading URL: