A couple is seen having sex, while the scene is darkly lit, it’s clear what is happening.
A couple is seen standing naked in the ocean, though it is a long shot in the distance and brief.
Some sexual dialogue, occasionally profane, tasteful nude photographs, characters in open relationships


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


Reds (1981) is a 194 minute film that I watched at one go. you bet, Reds has compelling material: whether it’s a story about minorities (the hero John Reed is an American left-wing journalist and the author of ten days shaking the world; the heroine Louise Bryant is an American feminist writer. Other characters include Nobel laureate, American dramatist Eugene O’Neill, anarchist Emma Goldman, etc.) Or the background of the great era (the October Revolution in Soviet Russia), it is easy to play. Moreover, the director Warren Beatty focuses the narrative on the theme of faith and love, which is suitable for young and old. The film is popular and popular. No wonder it was both popular and popular at the beginning.

However, when you think about it, there is indeed something comparable between revolution and love, in addition to the consideration of the box office. As John Reed argued to Zinoviev, chairman of the Executive Committee of Comintern, his love for the revolution does not mean giving up his love for his wife. Moreover, sincere love can make the passion of the revolution more pure. Freud’s “Pan sexism” seems to be the best footnote to this theory. However, I prefer to point out that it is based on self authenticity: revolution is not a pretentious self alienation or a tool of social exchange, but an individual’s self-conscious and spontaneous radical Transcendence – transcendence of self or some embarrassing living condition of mankind. In this sense, the real revolutionaries can only be marginal people like John Reed, not the powerful Zinoviev. Zinoviev needs to consider too many problems. His words and deeds may become political events at any time. Therefore, instrumentality must always overwhelm authenticity, and the revolution is getting farther and farther away from the body. On the contrary, John Reed has nothing and can’t have anything except his faith in love and Revolution – those impulses that point to the deepest part of his heart. So the flame of revolution and love became more and more intense in his body until he exhausted the last strength of his life.

The second commonality between revolution and love – even if they really have self authenticity – is that they are often doomed to disillusionment. As Arendt pointed out in on revolution, “the profound significance of the October Revolution for this century is the same as that of the French Revolution for its contemporaries, first turning the best hopes of mankind into reality, and then making them completely despair” (p.45). John Reed and Louise Bryant seem to have a legendary love. In fact, their revolution is no better than this. So when Eugene O’Neill pointed out to Louise, who was alone in the empty room, John shouldn’t do this to you. He should always keep you at the center of the focus. Louise, the woman who loved herself so much, naturally collapsed into a mess. Fortunately, in Warren Beatty’s script, the later great age saved them: the great age made Louise look at John’s face and burst into tears in the majestic international song across so many people; The great times also enabled Louise to accompany John to the end of his life. However, not everyone’s revolution / love can be saved, or, The salvation of the great age reflects only deep despair (“liberation and freedom are not the same thing; liberation may be a condition of freedom, but it will never automatically bring freedom; the concept of freedom contained in liberation can only be negative”. See Arendt, on revolution, P.18). The essence of the disillusionment of revolution and love is that revolution / love is not a panacea, but people want to use it to solve all problems – whether unbalanced social structure or interpersonal structure, anomied social order or psychological order – work overnight and once and for all. Here, we seem to have encountered the problems of that era, that is, our deep-rooted view of linear time, our belief in the realization of self in this world, and the anxiety of unprecedented existence.

The last commonality between revolution and love I want to talk about is “all stories created and acted by people… Their true meaning will be revealed only when they are coming to an end” (Arendt, on revolution, p.52). In my opinion, John and Louise probably never realized that their love would be closely related to such a big era and eventually become a part of it. They just follow their inner impulse and live in the unknown. They go on like that, twists and turns, stumbles and ups and downs. Who knows that if you are not careful, you will turn around and become a piece of history! However, such history and such significance cannot belong to them in love. It can only exist in Louise’s cry in the face of the dead John, in her old memories (if any), and in people’s talk a few years later. In any case, people in revolution / love do not know the true meaning of their actions, but once they recognize the meaning (if possible), whether they agree or not, revolution / love is over. In this way, as reflected in revolution / love, the process of people’s pursuit of meaning – the process of de absurdization inspired by absurd anxiety – often makes their own existence more absurd: what you want always dies in the moment of grasping; Constant grasp is constant loss.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here