Unity and coexistence are often easier to pronounce than to actually practice. That was the case in Where do we go now? – in which a village nothing but mundane – but with the exception that Muslims and Christians are cohabiting in the same village. Their coexistence, however, are under increasing strain as sectarian conflicts seep into their daily lives, enraging the males in the village.
Sectarian conflict would be one of the most common themes presented in this movie: Indeed, the fist fights, the gun shots, and the screaming all forebode the coming of violence. And this is definitely not the first time that this sort of violence erupted. When a village was surrounded by barbed wires and landmines, with residents getting killed in conflict, we could almost imagine an almost identical past where the fate of this small village was inevitably linked to a larger history.
The barbed wires and landmines form a powerful symbolism on multiple levels – it first, as previously mentioned, signifies previous existence of violence, conflict, and death, but at the same time underwrites the village’s isolation. How did those barbed wires get placed? Don’t they have an isolating effect for the village from the outside world? It leaves much room for speculation, that maybe the reason that Muslims and Christians were able to coexist was the existence of those wires. But ultimately, even the most insurmountable physical barrier succumbed in front of modern technology, which delivered news of those conflicts to the male residents. The theme of technology’s role is worth contemplation – whether their existences fueled sectarian and other types of conflicts? Isn’t it that we’re living in a conflict-ridden world now?
But maybe technology both matters and does not matter. With motivations, be it sectarian or other reasons, people would find ways for violence. If it’s not guns, then knives. It seemed that just as the characters in the film continuously mentioned, they are already cursed. Religious leaders in this film do not play an important role in this film because they’re powerless to rein in their adherents, which would be weird when you think about the supposed role of those leaders. Maybe it’s not because of religious differences that people resort to violence, but a simple us-them mentality made religion an easy scapegoat and fanned violence and contention. When the Father told the Imam “Dear Imam, forgive them, as they don’t know what they’re doing,” it led me questioning why people always attribute religions as the root cause for violence, but not something inherent in us.
And maybe we should reflect on our behaviors in light of that. When the head of the village ceremoniously announced the opening of TV, he used MSA and celebrated how unity could overcome divide, and the lofty ideal of unity and coexistence. But when the test arrived, did he stand up to it? Maybe we should stop those empty talks of ideals, dreams – all unrealistic and would ultimately prove disappointing – and actually focus on human beings – as did the women in this movie. They’re the heroes.
The rich symbolisms in this film are especially impressive. The beginning of the film shows several footages – both Muslim and Christian women cleaning the final resting place of their families, the barbed wires and the minefields. These gradually start to make sense as the movie progresses, and, upon reflection, convey great meaning. The graveyard is an especially potent one, when the Ukranian dancers remarked “even dead, they’re divided.” And when they ultimately Nassim, the question “Where do we go now?” put another layer of emphasis on this piece of land. The question not only indicates a dilemma, but most importantly, may show the uncreativeness when people deal with these issues.
“Where do we go from now?” The question got me thinking. If they’re only going away from this crisis, but not finding a real, creative path, maybe the tragedy would re-enact themselves again in this One Hundred Years of Solitude-like piece of land.
當(dāng)我們?nèi)タ茨切┛∧忻琅膼矍殡娪皶r,我們不會去考慮那些他們后半生即將面對的人生問題;當(dāng)我們?nèi)タ茨切┩娴膬和娪皶r,我們本能地接受那些柔光濾鏡,過濾掉了一切世間險惡。目的是為了講述一個好故事的電影,會預(yù)先設(shè)立一個比較合理的立場再展開,而那些極富深度的電影,本身卻是拋棄了故事,目的是為了探討立場。所以,在我們看完電影后,首先應(yīng)該明白,自己看了一部什么樣的電影。本片當(dāng)然屬于前者,不必嚴(yán)肅審視,僅僅是看過后能夠?qū)λv述的故事引申思考,就足夠了。
如果說宗教是人類最終的救贖,那誰來救贖因為宗教而痛失愛子的母親呢?導(dǎo)演最終將情感至于宗教之上。
真好
看完猜這個導(dǎo)演是個水瓶座,這么嚴(yán)肅的題材(異宗互戕)還玩幽默還歌舞,然后發(fā)現(xiàn)導(dǎo)演就是那個漂亮女主演。她以刻板的性別印象為基礎(chǔ)釋放了一種近乎幼稚的和平(幼稚總是內(nèi)在于理想主義),但提出的是真問題:一個喪子的母親和圣母對峙,人類如何與敵人共處,文明的堅硬也許就在那點母性的不忍里。
怎樣做到藝術(shù)性和娛樂性并重?這部電影給出了答案。放映之后的問答環(huán)節(jié)有一個有趣的知識點: 這部電影在黎巴嫩的票房為史上第三,僅次于大船和藍色外星人。
她們在最荒誕的現(xiàn)實面前做到了最極致的優(yōu)雅,在善的光輝中,她們才是這土地上赤腳行走的神。
有的時候信仰可以毀滅世界,而拯救它的,是婦人之仁。 PS:編+導(dǎo)+演的納迪.拉巴基真是個才女!
影片用一種輕快的方式去解決宗教之間的沖突問題,盡管不那么實際,卻讓人在內(nèi)心悲痛過后給人希望。女導(dǎo)演視角下的女性電影,時而歡快,時而悲傷,時而溫情,讓人忘記沉重的現(xiàn)實~
想看[2011-12-14],終于趁著戛納補課看完了。概念先行且?guī)缀踔挥姓涡麄靼愕纳补适乱彩恰桥牡脤嵲谔猛媪?,減輕了不少嫌惡感。最后迷幻趴體加宗教互換的梗簡直笑尿了,生生拉回及格線。歌舞段落雖尬得要死,但是用法(尤其剪輯和時間觀念上)比較值得一說。
導(dǎo)演用幽默笑料,歡快歌舞和夸張的戲劇沖突來處理這個嚴(yán)肅的宗教沖突問題,的確很出色,讓觀眾在大笑之后仍深陷沉重的悲劇氣氛和思考中,配樂和攝影都太美了。
有點小驚艷。
想要渴望和平~就得破除宗教!
砰的一聲槍響,隱忍的母親塔克拉打斷的不只是自己唯一剩下的兒子的腿,更是打響了這群女人們反戰(zhàn)的號角。
媽媽老婆站起來!! 結(jié)局的殺手鐧實在始料未及,雖然議題是沉重的,戲中卻不時出現(xiàn)幽默與歌舞來詮釋,非常地合拍。這些婆婆媽媽大部分都是從路上找來的素人演員,但交出了一場場精采的好戲阿!
為了避免被沖動蒙蔽的男人們陷入愚蠢而無謂的戰(zhàn)爭,善良而聰明的女人們絞盡腦汁啊
小鳥 給我傳遞個愛的信息
力作,和平就這樣被女人創(chuàng)造了。
讓我想起了很多年前寫過的《曲解賀拉斯之誓》
Nadine Labaki自編自導(dǎo)自演的。電影如同她的臉也如同那支動聽的插曲一樣譲人過目難忘。
沉重并輕松著 更多的是歡樂和幾個穆斯林老太太的可愛。
只有電影才會這樣吧,在復(fù)雜的宗教信仰民族等沖突問題上都能化解的那么天真,也許是女導(dǎo)演的緣故,骨子里善良的像少了根筋。影片在形式上的雜糅上雖讓電影更具觀賞性了,但依舊只是浮于表面的形式,很有趣也很雜亂,就像印度神婆上身的歌舞,本來沉重的現(xiàn)實也跟著變成童話般的超現(xiàn)實了。★★★
重看,早就探討過剩的宗教沖突,在舉重若輕的喜劇感演繹之下,煥發(fā)出了新的光彩,面對即將到來的腥風(fēng)血雨,勇敢邁步守護危巢,以優(yōu)雅姿態(tài)面對殘忍,如同手握玫瑰迎擊槍炮,用無聲的嘲諷給這個暴戾無趣的世界最溫柔的一擊。拉巴基無論生活流鋪墊還是法式幽默全都信手拈來,非常有才。