Chen Kaige's works have been controversial since "Wu Ji" and "The Legend of the Demon Cat".
"Volunteers: Heroes Attack" is a high-profile National Day war blockbuster, which sparked widespread discussion after its release. The film has mixed word-of-mouth, and was even collectively ridiculed by netizens during the promotion period.
What has been criticized as a "drama to resist US aggression" and "ruined the image of the volunteers" is the movie "Volunteers", which is a work that reflects the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea.
What kind of works did Chen Kaige present this time?Why is there such a huge controversy?
Let's take a closer look at how this movie relates to other things.
"Volunteers" is Chen Kaige's latest work, and the publicity poster has sparked widespread discussion.
In the poster, a strange-looking "clown"** gives people an eerie association. This makes people wonder why a film that celebrates the volunteer army should use this way to create a topic
The poster of the clown shows him with a pale face, and the makeup on his face is very similar to that of a geisha of a certain country.
Dressed in white, embellished with star patterns and red hairballs, the largest of which happens to be located in the center of the body, which can't help but be reminiscent of the national flag of a certain country, and also makes netizens doubt the intention of this **.
The producer explained that in the face of netizens' doubts, this ** is part of the plot of the movie.
Li Xiao was adopted by foreigners in the movie and became their laughing stock, which is why he wore this outfit.
I chose to share this one because I think it reflects the humiliation that China has suffered, and I hope that everyone will remember the national humiliation.
Still, this explanation does not quell doubts about it.
Why did you choose to release such a controversial **, instead of better stills?And the choice to release on August 15 is also confusing.
Maybe it's just to attract attention and create a buzz.
This exaggeration succeeded in attracting the attention of the audience, but it was at odds with the theme of the film and provoked public outrage. It shows neither respect for history nor evokes enthusiastic memories of the volunteers.
The creators of the film should be responsible to history and the people, and not rashly use incendiary means. If they lose the trust of the audience, it is not only disrespectful to the volunteers, but also irresponsible to the film itself.
Chen Kaige is really ignorant, and in order to praise his son who has no acting skills, he arranged him in a key role in the movie.
originally thought that Chen Feiyu would "change his ways" under various scandals and criticism from netizens and strive to improve his acting skills.
However, the audience did not evaluate his performance well after the release of the movie, and his image has become irretrievable.
Chen Feiyu's performance seemed blunt and inexperienced, and he could not accurately grasp his expressions and movements at critical moments, and it was difficult to show the temperament that a deputy company commander should have.
Especially in the charge and other action scenes, his performance was accused of being like a student putting on a show.
He often widens his eyes in the film, which makes fans ridicule him like "three white eyes", and his exaggerated performance spoils the atmosphere of the film.
Some fans also expressed their understanding of Chen Kaige's desire to promote his son as a father, but they believe that it should not be at the expense of the quality of the film.
It is recommended that Chen Feiyu strengthen his acting training and not rush to play important roles. The audience has spent time and money and should be able to appreciate the high-quality work.
In addition to Chen Feiyu's performance problems, some viewers think that Chen Kaige gave his son too many scenes and shots, which made it easier for the audience to notice his performance problems.
criticized and accused Chen Feiyu and the other two actors of lacking sincere comradeship, but more like "the prince and his two companions".
As a veteran director, he should show a higher sense of responsibility and literacy in the industry, rather than just thinking about personal matters.
It's just a matter of letting Chen Feiyu play a small role and give him a chance to accumulate experience, but shoehorning him into an important role leads to a decline in the quality of the whole movie, which is really unacceptable.
This is no longer just a father's preference for his son, but an irresponsible attitude towards filmmaking.
After the movie was released, although it was praised by many audiences, because it vividly showed the heroic deeds of the Chinese People's Volunteers on the Korean battlefield, some netizens questioned the casting of some actors in the movie.
In the film, Huang Xiaoming played the role of the division Jiang Chao and commanded the night raid campaign.
Huang Xiaoming usually mainly acts in urban romance dramas, but this time he was too deliberate when playing a soldier, and his standing posture was not standardized enough, and he did not show the discipline and rigor that a soldier should have.
Some netizens joked that he was more suitable to continue to play the domineering president, and was not very suitable for starring in revolutionary historical themes.
Xin Baiqing plays an elderly veteran who is repeatedly injured in the rain of bullets but is still agile, which gives people an unreal sense of the protagonist's aura.
In addition, there is also an old actor who also played a similar role.
Xin Baiqing's demeanor cannot be compared with the *** played by Wang Yanhui, and the majestic image of ** can better show the heroic spirit of the veteran.
Some viewers believe that the main theme movie should mainly praise the heroic deeds of the first people in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, and should not be too strict with every detail of the actors.
Although the actors' performances may be flawed, the value of the entire film cannot be denied because of the inadequacy of individual performances.
Some viewers pointed out that the film, despite its high ratings and large investment, should focus more on the performance of the actors rather than relying too much on star power to attract audiences.
They believe that if there is a problem with the casting, it will cause disrespect to the older generation of actors.
The film undoubtedly evokes the collective memory of history and inspires reverence for veterans of the war against the United States and aid Korea.
Instead of getting too caught up in certain details, we should focus on the big picture and fully affirm the positive value that this film shows.
Some of the details in "The Volunteers" are regrettable.
The actor failed to show enough solemnity when standing and saluting, nor did he show the perseverance and courage of the volunteers on the battlefield.
What is even more obvious is that the actors' neat and white teeth are in stark contrast to the actual environment at that time, when they could not even eat and their dental health was very poor.
The audience's immersion is destroyed by these "goofs" details, and at the same time, they lose respect for the revolutionary martyrs.
Other film and television works, such as "Bright Sword", have paid attention to the details in this regard, and have reproduced the perseverance and perseverance of the Chinese people in a realistic and pragmatic manner.
When it comes to revolutionary themes in film and television creation, directors and screenwriters need to delve into history to ensure a realistic representation of major historical events and guide actors to create characters in nuance.
Ignoring the details can lead to a distortion of historical events and also make it difficult to touch the heartstrings of the audience.
The actors in "The Volunteers" were too lax when they stood and saluted, their hands did not fit close to their bodies, and they did not show the solemnity and calmness they should have.
The actors may not have carefully studied the strict military discipline requirements of the Volunteer Army back then, so it is in strong contrast to the standard and skillful posture of the volunteer soldiers in history.
On the battlefield, the actors seem to be just fiddling mechanically, lacking tenacious fighting spirit, and not showing the tacit cooperation of teamwork, whether it is in pursuit battles or head-to-head shots.
The true sense of history has been greatly diminished by modern people. The director should communicate more with the veterans, so that the actors can understand and appreciate the revolutionary quality of the soldiers at that time.
The director should realize that this is not an overly critical requirement for the audience, but a basic requirement for the logical rigor of the film.
Otherwise, it will not only be difficult to move the audience, but will also lose the value of reflecting history fairly.
It is expected that domestic war movies will work more the details and truly show the heroic and good fighting of the best people.
We look forward to future war-themed works that show the heroism and greatness of the best people, and hope to avoid similar mistakes and present them with an attitude of excellence.
From different perspectives, the movie "Volunteers" can be said to have made certain achievements in the main theme and audience attention, but whether it really shows the spiritual connotation of the Volunteer Army, there are still differences in the evaluation of all parties.
We look forward to more discussions to show a different side of the film. The impact of this film will take time to test, so let's look forward to it.