Just because the film doesn’t meet the aesthetic needs of some people, it can’t be considered "bad".
completeText 1775 words, reading aboutIt takes 3.5 minutes
Text/Ye Kefei (columnist) Editor Ding Hui proofreads Sissi
▲ The Lord of the Rings poster. Image source: Beijing News Network
In recent years, the reprinting of classic movies is very common and always attracts the attention of fans. It’s The Lord of the Rings’s turn this time.
In the history of film, The Lord of the Rings is a monument with numerous reputations. The trilogy has been nominated for more than 20 Oscars and won the Golden statuette 17 times, which is the highest in the world film history.
In particular, The Return of the King, the last film, won 11 Oscar nominations and 11 awards. Only Titanic and Ben Hur achieved this achievement in history. At the same time, the screenplay of The Lord of the Rings’s trilogy has won the Hugo Literature Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for three times, which is also the only three consecutive titles in the history of this award.
In the eyes of many fans, The Lord of the Rings is impeccable, and the expression of every link is perfect. It pays attention to both epic and connotation, and pays equal attention to friendship and love. When the rhythm is slow, it is picturesque, and when it is tense, it is like a storm.
The story, picture and soundtrack of the film complement each other, and just the scene construction of "Middle-earth" is amazing enough. It can be said that The Lord of the Rings is not only a commercial blockbuster with the most connotation, but also an art film that is most compatible with business.
However, when such a film was shown again, it suffered a decline in reputation among some China moviegoers, and one-star bad reviews could be seen on various ticketing platforms.
Film, as a visual art, is originally spent in each eye. Some people admired the French new wave movies of that year, while others sneered at it; Some people like "Transformers", a popcorn movie that is cool and dark from beginning to end, while others just like quiet literary films …
Aesthetics has always been diversified. We can’t define and demand others’ aesthetics, and force others to like and dislike something.
▲ Screenshot of the movie The Lord of the Rings.
Of course, people have the right not to be interested in or even like The Lord of the Rings’s fantasy themes and complex plots. It is personal freedom to praise or criticize a movie.
However, the personal freedom of scoring should be based on logic, and there are also high and low aesthetics. Specific to the evaluation of The Lord of the Rings’s reprinted version, on the ticketing platform, the following bad reviews abound-
"A broken ring took three hours."
"The plot doesn’t appeal to me"
"I fell asleep watching it."
……
In other words, in their eyes, the film is poor because it is "too long", because it doesn’t understand the plot, and because it has no ending.
As some people have said, these people judge a film on the basis of "I’m not happy, you suck" and "not criticizing the quality of the work, but criticizing its threshold".
So, what kind of movies do these audiences need? First of all, it should not be too long, then there should be a climax and an ending, and the plot and characters should not be too complicated. In short, everything should be within its own acceptance range, and puzzles and obstacles should not be set. It is best to wait and feed.
▲ User comments screenshot.
To be honest, such a movie-watching requirement is an individual’s freedom and a heartfelt demand, and there is nothing to criticize and despise.
However, "there is no upper limit for art and aesthetics". Should we make room for ourselves and try to understand and respect things that we don’t like but are widely recognized by the world? As for one of the classic films recognized in the world’s film history, to be fair, have some people’s aesthetic level reached a corresponding height?
A person may not like opera, drama, Van Gogh, Leonardo da Vinci or symphony, but if he doesn’t know anything, opening his mouth means "people who watch opera are too pretentious" and "Van Gogh’s paintings are ugly and rubbish", which is not only arbitrary, but also sets up a cognitive ceiling for himself. As far as aesthetics is concerned, there is a lower limit, and there is no need to set an upper limit.
Who is ignorant of really good works of art, even denouncing them as "garbage" and "inferior products", but thinking that their favorite "cool-style" and fragmented audio-visual works are very advanced?
In all fairness, in recent years, with the rapid outbreak of short videos and the rapid sinking of the movie-watching market, "fragmented movie viewing" has become the norm for many people to watch movies. In addition, in recent years, there are very few "super-long films" shown in cinemas, and many viewers only have "two hours’ patience". The superposition of these factors makes The Lord of the Rings, who was shown this time, seem to be out of place.
▲ Screenshot of the movie The Lord of the Rings.
Sitting in the cinema for several hours and watching an epic film may be beyond the acceptance of many people. However, many people brush short videos at night for three hours at a time, which seems to pass quickly, but a recognized classic epic has become a cognitive gap. Such a difference may not be simply "aesthetic freedom".
If this is the case in The Lord of the Rings with great boldness of vision, how will those classic films with slow pace, no violent conflict and no reversal be evaluated when they re-enter the cinema?
If entertainment is only the pursuit of "pleasure" and the desire to vent emotions with high intensity and high frequency, then is our life a little monotonous? Will this dependence on superficial forms of entertainment make us lose some ability? This really needs reflection.
On-duty editor Kang Xixi
Reporting/feedback
关于作者