Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Movies, good and bad, usually have a lot of meanings: I don't want to choose. These meanings are embedded in the plot, in the direction, but to a greater extent-in the audience's interpretation. When we watch a movie, we fill it with meaning. Bertolucci's “Dreamers” is an ideal space for replicating these meanings, but it is not a simple space, but a cinephile one. Behind the outer story of a specific ménage à trois, a story of jealousy, betrayal, unhealthy attachment, love and freedom, is a director's declaration of love for cinema.
Bertolucci repeatedly addresses the topic of cinema during the film, forcing his characters to repeat the movements of their own favorite movie characters (all these references can be easily found in the same Wikipedia article about the film). The characters ' apartment is covered with movie posters, they themselves say quotes from films, and outside the window, meanwhile, France of 1968, France of New Wave cinema, France of protests, France of youth, including the youth of Bertolucci himself.
For Bertolucci, the age of the characters, their passion, their position in the plot, their very existence is inseparable from the cinema, and the image of this trinity can easily be found in many classic works-this is the main thing.”Serenade of three hearts” Lubich, and “Dreadful Children” by Melville based on a script by Cocteau, but first of all it is “Jules and Jim” by Truffaut (if you want, you can find more), not to mention quoting an entire scene from “The Devil's Child”.Outsider Gangs ” by Godard (remember, Godard and Truffaut are the loudest representatives of the French New Wave).
From all this, it turns out that the full − lipped and tender Matthew (Michael Pitt), Isabel (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel) do not exist at all-this is a collective image, this is the nostalgia of the middle-aged Bertolucci for the old days.
In a movie theater, I always sit in the front row, it's an easy attempt to get into the movie, to get into the story itself. I want to get into the history of the “Dreamers”, I want to become an accomplice in their growing up, becoming, making mistakes, doubting and loving, most importantly – to love. As bold as I am myself, but when I review this film, I always discover myself a little bit anew, I get into those hidden places of my imagination that ordinary life does not allow me to look at, so reverently and without fear, this film is not followed by disappointment, but something else follows. The unbearable pain of growing up, the pain of a roughened dream, the pain of having lived through youth and not being able to live it again. This is the film love-the film parting, after it you want to love, but so that it would be real, reverent and pure. And this is difficult, very difficult.
Like any good, high-quality (perhaps brilliant) work of art, the film “Dreamers” raises very numerous topics and problems. Moreover, in such a work, each person sees something new at different periods of their life-accordingly, the meaning of what they see changes for them (compare with a good book or picture). For me personally, important (hence “meaning-bearing”) topics are:
– the theme of “revolutions in the head”. In fact, our heroes live aloof from their peers, from their own problems: it all started with the closure of the Cinematheque; but if the other students began to actively protest, these three only had thoughtful conversations.�
-my favorite line of inseparability. Two people, connected as much as possible. Isabel and Theo have always been and will always be one, even physically-they are conjoined twins. The scars from their separation stretch to the floor of the hand, which is emphasized in one of the scenes. The problem of the third extra is also raised-who is Matthew in this trio? In the book, by the way, there was a very interesting phrase, from which we understand that Matthew perceived Theo and Isabel as one whole (as they are) and loved, in fact, not two people, but one single organism. But Theo and Isabel don't really need it-each other is enough for them to exist. For some reason, I have a strong association with Wuthering Heights here, when Catherine states that “if the whole world died and he /Heathcliff/ stayed, I could live; if he disappeared, everything else would lose its color and meaning for me.” Here is the same deep need for each other, which personally shocks me.
– cinema. “Dreamers” is a continuous intertextuality that suggests doubts about the reality of everything that is happening. Does real life make sense? A real revolution, real events, or even the most ordinary food and order in the house? Does a “normal” relationship like “it's accepted” (Isabel's attempt to date Matthew) make sense? Who went mad in the end-us or the world?
And the answer to the question is: no. Oscar Wilde also said that all art is completely meaningless. And Bertolucci's films are undoubtedly Art.
I came here for an answer, and I leave with a lot of questions that were highlighted above.Probably for someone the idea, the essence of this film will remain a mystery…well, for the sake of this riddle, it's worth watching a movie. This is the feeling we live for. Leaving our essential problems behind, we head out into the world of the 60s .In the era of freedom of speech and action. What is the idea? Who knows?.it's different for everyone. Find your idea inside yourself, not online. Discover yourself and be a dreamer.
Before answering, I would like to point out that I will only express my opinion and answer the question, in fact, indirectly.�
I have never understood questions like ” what is the meaning of such and such a work?”. The film “dreamers” is a solid and very deep film based on three books by Gilbert Adair. The film is about youth, about the difference of cultures and how a person adapts to it, about actions and responsibility for them, about France, about cinema, about the zeitgeist, about people, in the end.�
What is the point of this movie? It's hard to say, but I don't think this is a movie where you need to look for some hidden and deep meanings. For me, this movie was, first of all, the story of people. The director doesn't just tell us a story about three guys who had fun as much as they could, this is not a “Bachelor Party in Vegas”. Bertolucci introduces us to much more intimate things: relationships built on a complex set of feelings, looks, gestures, facial expressions and movements of the characters in the picture. The blue curtain syndrome does not work here, every particle of the film is a message, a throw of feelings and emotions, catch and perceive as you want.�
This is not a movie where the first phrase of the main character is an anogram to the name of the main villain. There are no riddles and Easter eggs, it's just a good movie that you need to watch and perceive the way you want.
And if you want to know the practical meaning, then I'll answer this: a bottle of wine, cigarettes, languid glances and reflections on the understatement of some ideas left to us by Bertolucci – a great way to make moviegoers think you're a fucking hipster.