Idiot” is the second film in the “Trilogy of Conscience” by Danish director Lars von Till, the second film in the dogma95 genre. In my opinion, the director Lars von Till is probably one of the most “evil” directors in the world who still has a lot of creative power today. His works, ranging from the early “European Trilogy”, to the later “Hospital and Conscience Trilogy”, to the recent “Dogville” and “Antichrist”, have been treacherous and varied in their expression and extreme in their subject matter, which are beyond the imagination of ordinary people. Therefore, as an Oriental viewer who does not know much about Western culture, I cannot say that I can understand his films, but I can also make some personal feelings from them. This is exactly the case for Idiocracy.
About the film’s presentation Idiot is a film that the director clearly claims to be in the dogma95 camp (although many have pointed out that it does not strictly follow the dogma “Ten Commandments” because it uses a silent soundtrack, but in fact, this does not seem to matter. The genre emphasizes the return to the basics of film in terms of form and expressive content, and finds a new direction for film development in the gap between Hollywood dramatic narrative and European art cinema, which is enough). In the film, the handheld camera, which always passively follows or finds its target, the natural lighting, the jumpy editing, the occasionally exposed talking stick and the occasional interviews with the characters inserted in the narrative process, etc., successfully disguise the film as a documentary film, and this can be said to be the distinctive style of “Idiocracy” (although in many other films the director also used handheld camera elements, but For various reasons, they are not as close to the documentary as “Idiocracy”).
About the film’s theme In short, the film is about a group of normal people who want to be idiots but can’t: a group of normal people organize an ‘idiot’ club and often mingle with the normal society, pretending to be crazy and getting pleasure and satisfaction in the process of subverting the normal social norms, but in the end, they find that no one in the club has the courage to be in front of However, they eventually find that no one in the club has the courage to reveal the “idiot in their hearts” in front of the most important person or thing to them, and the club is disbanded. In the first half of the film, when the “idiots” unite to provoke normal society, they win a great victory, so much so that they scare away the tenants and the head of the community council and keep the club stable and safe; however, when the father of one of the female members bursts in and declares to take her away, the “idiots” react to this. However, when the father of one of the female members bursts in and claims to take her away, there is nothing the “idiots” can do about it, and this incident becomes the trigger for the disintegration of the group from within, as they find themselves unable to break away from the normal social network and tie themselves to their “inner idiots” for eternal happiness. At this point, all the previous happiness has been automatically downgraded to a fleeting illusion, and for normal people, pretending to be “idiots” is just a kind of mental anesthetic and a pointless escape. When the people in the film finally see the truth behind, they are plunged into a deeper pain than happiness. In a way, the film is cruel, it ignites the desire to release the idiocy in our hearts at the beginning and gain a lighter soul, but in the end it teaches us hard: this desire is only a desire, the “idiocy” deep inside ourselves is destined to become an unbearable lightness of life!
There is a line in the film: idiots are the future of mankind. The tone is arrogant and extreme, not like a serious assertion, but some episodes in the film seems to provide evidence for it. At the end of the film, Helen vomits cake in front of her family and becomes the final victor of the resistance to society, becoming a real idiot. On the surface, she does gain the liberation of her soul, but the prerequisite for this happiness is the loss of family love. When Helen’s family shows only indifference after seeing her missing relatives for two weeks, when they judge her love for her son by whether she goes to his funeral or not, when her husband sees Helen’s abnormal behavior and violates her for no reason, the “family” is no longer a “family”, but only a “family”. The “family” is no longer a “family” but an extension of society. In Lars von Till’s view, human society is a mechanical, indifferent institutionalized machine, which suppresses the true conscience of human beings with various behavioral norms. It can be said that there is a deep-rooted fear in Lars’ mind, which comes from the infinite expansion of social mechanisms that may occur in the future and the destruction of individual souls by such expansion. That is why he intentionally or unintentionally used the mouth of the madman to deliver this apocalyptic line. It seems to tell the world: either stop it or become an idiot! (Rath’s films have a consistent anti-social streak, especially a strong critique of the state apparatus, or the institutions of social power. In several of his films from the same period as Idiocracy, the individual is the angel, while the socially inclined individual or society is the devil. (Typical works such as “Dancer in the Dark”).
As I write this, I suddenly feel a shudder. Is human society really this terrible? Is the future of human beings really only the destruction of the soul or become idiots.Sometimes I really feel that Lars von Till’s films are like black holes, which tell us certain truths that we do not want to face, and once we know them, we can easily fall into them and cannot extricate ourselves.perhaps, some things can not think, but also can not think much, we should guard their own conscience has not been completely extinguished, live well.
