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.
想要渴望和平~就得破除宗教!
沉重并轻松着 更多的是欢乐和几个穆斯林老太太的可爱。
小鸟 给我传递个爱的信息
砰的一声枪响,隐忍的母亲塔克拉打断的不只是自己唯一剩下的儿子的腿,更是打响了这群女人们反战的号角。
真好
让我想起了很多年前写过的《曲解贺拉斯之誓》
有点小惊艳。
Nadine Labaki自編自導自演的。電影如同她的臉也如同那支動聽的插曲一樣譲人过目难忘。
导演用幽默笑料,欢快歌舞和夸张的戏剧冲突来处理这个严肃的宗教冲突问题,的确很出色,让观众在大笑之后仍深陷沉重的悲剧气氛和思考中,配乐和摄影都太美了。
想看[2011-12-14],终于趁着戛纳补课看完了。概念先行且几乎只有政治宣传般的生硬故事也是……但是拍得实在太好玩了,减轻了不少嫌恶感。最后迷幻趴体加宗教互换的梗简直笑尿了,生生拉回及格线。歌舞段落虽尬得要死,但是用法(尤其剪辑和时间观念上)比较值得一说。
重看,早就探讨过剩的宗教冲突,在举重若轻的喜剧感演绎之下,焕发出了新的光彩,面对即将到来的腥风血雨,勇敢迈步守护危巢,以优雅姿态面对残忍,如同手握玫瑰迎击枪炮,用无声的嘲讽给这个暴戾无趣的世界最温柔的一击。拉巴基无论生活流铺垫还是法式幽默全都信手拈来,非常有才。
力作,和平就这样被女人创造了。
看完猜这个导演是个水瓶座,这么严肃的题材(异宗互戕)还玩幽默还歌舞,然后发现导演就是那个漂亮女主演。她以刻板的性别印象为基础释放了一种近乎幼稚的和平(幼稚总是内在于理想主义),但提出的是真问题:一个丧子的母亲和圣母对峙,人类如何与敌人共处,文明的坚硬也许就在那点母性的不忍里。
怎样做到艺术性和娱乐性并重?这部电影给出了答案。放映之后的问答环节有一个有趣的知识点: 这部电影在黎巴嫩的票房为史上第三,仅次于大船和蓝色外星人。
她们在最荒诞的现实面前做到了最极致的优雅,在善的光辉中,她们才是这土地上赤脚行走的神。
媽媽老婆站起來!! 結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!
为了避免被冲动蒙蔽的男人们陷入愚蠢而无谓的战争,善良而聪明的女人们绞尽脑汁啊
影片用一种轻快的方式去解决宗教之间的冲突问题,尽管不那么实际,却让人在内心悲痛过后给人希望。女导演视角下的女性电影,时而欢快,时而悲伤,时而温情,让人忘记沉重的现实~
只有电影才会这样吧,在复杂的宗教信仰民族等冲突问题上都能化解的那么天真,也许是女导演的缘故,骨子里善良的像少了根筋。影片在形式上的杂糅上虽让电影更具观赏性了,但依旧只是浮于表面的形式,很有趣也很杂乱,就像印度神婆上身的歌舞,本来沉重的现实也跟着变成童话般的超现实了。★★★
有的时候信仰可以毁灭世界,而拯救它的,是妇人之仁。 PS:编+导+演的纳迪.拉巴基真是个才女!