The degree of isolation in the beautiful country has attracted the attention of a senior professor at Peking University, Ms. Dai Jinhua. She pointed out that in the spiritual and cinematic realms, the closure of the beautiful country is shocking. As a senior professor, Ms. Dai has taught at Beijing Film Academy and Peking University for many years, and has conducted in-depth research on film criticism and published a number of highly acclaimed monographs. She has been to the beautiful country for academic exchanges, and has unique insights and the right to speak on the development of American films. However, there are people who disagree with Ms. Dai's views and express dissatisfaction with her remarks. Some people accused her of talking nonsense, which was more serious than Hu Xijin, Sima Nan and others, believing that her remarks had caused damage to society and culture. However, Ms. Dai's views and basis this time are indeed puzzling.
First of all, the beautiful country is not closed, on the contrary, they demonstrate and promote their soft and hard power on a global scale. Although Ms. Dai may want to express the arrogance of American films, the arrogance of cinema is a completely different concept from the closure of a country. Some people sarcastically pointed out that the goods in American shopping malls come from all over the world, there are international students from all over the world in universities, and iPhones and Tesla cars are also all over the world, so how can they be closed?There are also people who are critical of Ms. Dai's academic voice. They felt that Ms. Dai's remarks were a bit marginal and lacked rigorous academic basis. In a recent **, Mr. Dai caused dissatisfaction among netizens because of a sentence, and was even accused of making the "most basic" academic mistake.
He rashly believes that some characteristics of the American film market can judge that the American people are closed, and this view is one-sided and narrow in the eyes of many netizens. In fact, Mr. Dai's view lacks the necessary definition and basis, and he seems to ignore the complexity and diversity of the U.S. market. Although the United States is a highly international country, the cultural background and market needs of each region are also very different. In some regions, foreign films may be more popular, but in others, market demand may be more skewed towards local films. Therefore, it is not objective and comprehensive to judge whether a country is closed or not based on some characteristics of the film market. In addition, netizens pointed out some problems in Mr. Dai's views.
For example, Mr. Dai's argument that American movies have almost no subtitles, while Chinese movies do, is somewhat arbitrary. In fact, in some movie theaters and film and television institutions in the United States, there are also subtitling or dubbing services for foreign-language films. Moreover, awards like the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film also fully prove that the American film market recognizes and attaches great importance to foreign language films. Of course, we can't ignore Mr. Dai's right to express his opinions normally, but we should pay attention to it when expressing it, especially when it comes to cultural and ethnic issues, and we should be objective and fair. As a scholar, Mr. Dai should be based on facts and conduct research and expression with a scientific attitude. Otherwise, his remarks may be misunderstood and distorted, and his academic reputation and image will be affected.
In short, as "nasty scholars", we should be modest and cautious, and continue to learn Xi and improve. We need to maintain an objective, rational and pragmatic attitude, be guided by the true academic spirit, constantly improve our own quality and independent thinking ability, and make our own contributions to promoting social progress and cultural exchanges. In today's world, the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider and wider, and the social class is becoming more and more obvious, and the 1% of the people occupy the world's wealth, so that the remaining 99% cannot be compared with it. A film scholar, Professor Dai, once said: "With such a person, I will be more at ease, happier, and more down-to-earth." I think it's fun to be alive. This point of view got us thinking.
When we are in the remaining 99%, we often feel powerless and helpless, because that 1% holds the vast majority of the world's wealth and resources, and we can only make a living by our own efforts. This feeling makes us prone to anxiety and insecurity because we can't predict what the future of life will become, and we don't know if we will be able to maintain our current standard of living. And with that 1% of people, we feel a sense of security because they have enough wealth and resources to deal with whatever may happen. This sense of security makes us feel that life is interesting and allows us to enjoy life more. However, we must not forget the view of "nasty scholars" that Professor Dai once said.
Today, when the gap between the rich and the poor is becoming more and more obvious, we need to maintain our conscience and moral standards, and we cannot abandon our principles and moral character in pursuit of wealth and status. We need to remember that money and status do not determine a person's worth, and the real value lies in one's character and spiritual pursuits. We cannot give up our souls for the sake of momentary vanity and greed, and we cannot become a mixture of those so-called "nasty scholars". Therefore, we need to maintain a calm and rational attitude, not driven by greed and vanity, and always maintain our conscience and moral code. Only in this way can we find our place in this world and realize our own value in life.