Movie Master

As the most influential film critic in the United States today, Roger not only has his own column in the "Chicago Sun", but also is at the forefront of the times and has created his own personal film review website.

However, generally speaking, Roger will first write a column review for the "Chicago Sun" to let readers see the reaction of film critics to the newly released movie at the first time; With a lot of lag, Roger will screen out movies worthy of review—either a bad movie or a great movie, and after careful consideration, he will write a detailed review and update it on his personal website.

This time, Roger unexpectedly took the lead in publishing a detailed review on his personal website at 10 am on December 3rd. Such an abnormal behavior instantly attracted the attention of all the media.

"How to choose between justice and evil, everyone seems to say that choosing the former is an extremely simple question; but in Strelow's movies, it seems that this choice is always full of doubts.

The calm and slow camera is like a shark gliding across the sea in the middle of the night. The dangerous atmosphere in the silence is frightening, but there is no clue to find any clues when there is a crisis. Every corner of the screen runs through the entire viewing process like a shadow, just like an invisible ghost sitting in the passenger seat. This is the overall impression of the movie "Borrowing Killer" for me, but obviously, this movie brings more surprises than that.

Generally speaking, commercial films tend to choose a standard three-act structure, the beginning, the main body and the end. But before the movie actually begins, the first two acts have already happened, and the whole movie is about the third act. Such a new and bold structure also presents serious challenges-because it makes the backbone of the story become If it is very thin, the creation of conflicts will become very difficult.

"Borrowing Knife" tells a very simple story. Vincent is a professional killer. He needs to kill five targets on this night. He chooses a taxi as a means of transportation to complete his task. , Max became his driver.

Facing such a severe challenge, Strelo once again made a bold choice, skipping the thrilling scenes of performing missions and the template routine of individual heroism, and chose to use Vincent and Max The human confrontation throughout 'Act 3' takes this commercial genre to a whole new level.

The choice of Vincent and Max, Strelow is undoubtedly deliberate, the script from his own pen has once again brought new ideas in terms of character setting, Vincent represents evil, but Max is not righteous Representatives—Prosecutor Annie represents justice, while Max represents the neutral faction between justice and evil, and at the same time, the general public in society.

Vincent seems to be a typical criminal, cold-blooded, cruel, violent and terrifying. He regards killing as his job, and he can kill a life while talking and laughing. After his hands are stained with blood, he holds a bouquet of flowers and plays the role of a good friend. He uses the tragedy of "Rwanda" to defend himself, and tells the story of killing. It's so commonplace, it seems like it's just an ordinary means of making a living.

Annie is a law enforcer in the sense of social standards, just, firm, wise, and strong. Even in the face of tremendous pressure from litigation, she was unwilling to relax at all. She demanded herself with the highest standards and worked day and night with her tense nerves, only hoping to achieve justice through correct legal means. This is not only a job, but also A cause, an obligation.

But what's interesting is that Vincent is a child abandoned by society. His mother's death, his father's alcoholism, and the abandonment of the foster care system have bit by bit killed the humanity in his character, and the loneliness and fragility between his brows The gap was torn at the last moment; Anne, like a hero, is a self-centered elite, feeling good about herself with a hint of arrogance, but in the face of real crisis, she is at a loss - even the Los Angeles Police Department. The 'supporters' were also always late, misjudged and unhelpful.

Justice is not justice in imagination, and evil is not evil in the traditional sense. This is the first hint of the script.

Max is a neutral ordinary person, conservative, timid, well-behaved, and cautious. He had a dream in his arms, but he never dared to realize it. He just talked about it, looking for various excuses, and then stuck to his post with nothing to do—silently wasting his life, envious of Others, on the one hand, are afraid to make changes, and in the end they can only blame themselves, others, and the society. Mediocrity, this is the characteristic of Max, but he has become a key figure in the direction of the story.

It is the script's second hint that the so-called 'hero' is not a hero.

The film does not focus on the entanglement and confrontation between justice and evil. Instead, it successively locks justice, evil, and neutrality into a narrow closed space, testing human nature and torturing society.

When justice and evil appear at the same time, how should we choose? We should choose justice; but how will we choose? We will choose ourselves.

When Max realized that Vincent was a professional killer, his first reaction was to turn around and leave, and even asked Vincent several times to find another driver. This could be read as a survival instinct, but it could also be read as an escape instinct—he was trying to escape, escape from the opportunity to enforce justice, escape from the responsibility to fight evil. This is not a condemnation of Max's behavior, but a statement of the all-too-simple truth: When faced with a choice, we always choose ourselves.

Is this why hero comics and hero movies are so popular? We are eager for someone to save ourselves, not to save ourselves, let alone enforce justice by ourselves-because we have no superpowers.

Because it is hard to protect yourself, you can only choose to run away; because it is difficult to fight, you can only choose to avoid; because life is hard, you can only swallow your anger; because your dreams are far away, you can only confine yourself... because there is no time, because there is no energy, because of family Fetters, because of financial difficulties, because of life pressure...There are too many 'because' in life. This is not only Max's choice, but also the choice of most people in social life.

Then what?

Because we are at stake, we can only defend ourselves legitimately; because we cannot help ourselves, we can only benefit ourselves at the expense of others; because of social reality, we can only step on the high and step down; because our dreams are great, we can only sacrifice others...

And then what?

Because the situation is precarious, I can only exchange my life for my life; because I have nowhere to go, I can only flee to the end of the world; because the interests are paramount, I can only abandon my conscience; because I can’t eat enough, I can only eat human flesh...

This is precisely the core focus of the confrontation between Vincent and Max. Vincent put a high-sounding reason for his killing behavior-people are dying every day in the world, and even if it is not him, there will be others. Killing someone, anyway, is just the death of a stranger; what's more, it is not him who is responsible for the crime of killing like a sea of ​​​​blood in this world, but those forces that provoked the war.

But behind the truth, there are only interests, or only emptiness. This is a 'why', not a 'reason'; this is Rashomon.

This is the third hint of the script.

It reminds me of 'City of God', which is a great movie, no doubt about it. Strelo once explored a very deep and realistic topic in that movie: what is evil, and what causes evil?

But "City of God" did not give the answer, it was left to the audience to think; and this time, he further explored in "Murder with a Borrowing Knife", but he still didn't give the answer, we ignore not only a The City of God, and a Los Angeles, and an unreal space between Los Angeles and the City of God.

Of course, during the entanglement between Vincent and Max, Max complied with his inner moral drive, chose justice, and fought against evil-this is the only positive value orientation in the whole movie that conforms to commercial movies, but Interestingly, the end of the movie again brings surprises.

It is not justice defeating evil, nor justice and evil perishing together, but the destruction of both neutrality and evil. The faint light of justice is confined in a prison constructed by light and shadow, unable to see the past or the future.

On the surface, this seems to be consistent with A Pao's going out in the ending of "City of God". The justice has gone to the unknown - without the support of witnesses, this case has no possibility of winning, and all investigations have returned to the starting point again, and the dead are only a tool and an innocent person.

From this perspective, evil seems to have won.

Combining the three hints of the script, and then recalling the fragments of the movie, the several dialogues between the two characters of Vincent and Max are meaningful and thought-provoking, not only showing the struggle and confusion of neutral characters in the face of crisis At the same time, it also brings out a sharp truth: in the face of egoism and the supremacy of interests, people's values ​​are extremely fragile, and it is only a blink of an eye to change from good to evil.

I chose to escape because of fear, I chose indifference because of self-preservation, and I chose alienation because of loneliness, so the relationship between people gradually became alienated and cold, which made everyone seem to have found a suitable place for crime. Reason, the line between good and evil starts to blur, so... what's next?

Because of the crime, so the crime?

This brings us back to the original question, 'how to choose between justice and evil', do we really know our choice? Or, are we really making the right choice?

From "City of God" to "Murder with a Borrowing Knife", Strelo explores a deep and important real social issue, and then leaves a question mark for us to think about slowly. The shock and reflection that burst out from the depths of the soul will not disappear with the end of the movie, on the contrary, it has just begun. "