please vote for me

/ onojyun | 莫比烏斯

Original link: https://onojyun.com/2022/10/04/7386/

△ 277｜Please vote for me

Before Douban was cancelled, although I made a backup, I forgot to have a movie review in the drafts box that I couldn’t send out. It has been deleted 3 times before and after, and when the last time I wanted to modify it and publish it, it could not be sent out, or it was locked there for a long time. It is only now that I remembered that the article has actually been kept there for nearly 4 years. It was originally a film review for the documentary “Please Vote for Me”. The reason why the original text could not be published is probably because it involves sensitive topics such as politics, democracy, political parties, feminism, and homosexuality.

It doesn’t matter if you haven’t heard of this documentary, because “Please Vote for Me” was determined by China as a “banned film” after it came out in 2007, because its content was too avant-garde, and the topic of discussion was also allowed in Chinese society at that time. conceived things. If I say that it was a “banned film” at that time, I feel that in today’s China, it is better to say that it is an “educational film” with surreal significance.

Briefly talk about the content of the documentary. This documentary is directed by Chen Weijun, a producer of Wuhan TV station. It records the process of democratically electing a “squad leader” in a primary school class in Wuhan. The documentary is part of the global simulcast documentary series Why Democracy? “Member Documentary.

The background of the story took place in 2007. It recorded a “democratic election” held in Changqing No. 1 Primary School in Wuhan City. The class leader was elected. Surrounding the seat of the squad leader, the three candidates metaphorically used the means and tactics of the three political factions to draw votes for themselves in the election process. The entire documentary has no narration, and only records the appearance of three children – three families – and even three factions in the process of winning votes, using all their means in the process of moving the camera. Even if the means in the documentary are very dirty, despicable, and obscene, of course, the real democratic election is even uglier than him, but because it is cut from the perspective of a child, people can’t have excessive disgust, but this disgusting emotion is only To be able to be filled with fear and despair – for me, I think that’s the clearest emotional contagion this documentary is trying to convey.

I still recommend that you search and watch this fifty-minute film, and suggest that you watch the original version instead of the edited version that has been analyzed and narrated by later generations. I don’t think having a narration will increase people’s understanding of the documentary – instead, limited by the conclusions others have framed, people will have less divergence from the documentary. I personally think that this documentary is not only about the democratic system, but also about family education, women’s equal rights, and maybe even independent thinking on “Should China have democracy?”

I can’t find the review that I couldn’t send. I remember using the title of another Chinese movie as the central idea of ​​the review – “Fence, Woman and Dog”.

“Fence” refers to the democratic voting that took place in this third-grade, first-class class. In fact, it can be seen that apart from the three party leaders, the separation of the three factions in the class has actually formed. There is a very ambiguous “fence wall”. But it is not strong, and it will open holes in the fence because of bribing and bribing the people, so that the people inside can change their identities back and forth between the fences;

“Woman” refers to one of the party leaders. She is a girl from a single mother family. Because of her family education, this party leader is a very sensitive and vulnerable female perspective. She did not have the other two party leaders when she ran for class president. “Experience by means”, she has always been educated by her staff – that is, her mother, and used her practical ability as a means to run for class president. Because of her lack of self-confidence, she wavered the idea of ​​running for election several times before the democratic election. Her role can be said to be a glimpse of many Chinese families , not only women, but also men who grew up in single-parent families. Their lack of self-confidence and “inexperience”, leading them to be buried and wrongly defined in society;

“Dogs”, of course, deserve to be those “lacking dogs” under the party leader. There is no shy derogatory meaning here. I think “lacking dogs” are a profession that needs to exist . They are called “campaign assistants” in the documentary. They are responsible for attracting other people and creating rifts in each other’s fences to dig holes for other people to defect. They also need to be responsible for campaign work, such as collecting the strengths and weaknesses of different party leaders by surveying the public – recording the weaknesses for later debate work; analyzing the strengths to find ways to confront and disintegrate. Without the role of “lacking dog”, the democratic election itself in this class cannot be established, because it is impossible to form a “primitive political party” by relying on the party leader alone, and it is even less possible to have a plot of pulling people, insinuating people, and flattering in the later stage. (Interesting thing, the female party leader just mentioned, her assistant is actually two female classmates)

Briefly, the so-called democratic election is divided into several steps:

  • Talent show: For the first time, the party leader and the classmates were connected, the initial understanding generated interest, and the first stereotyped prejudice was established. The fence was erected at this time.
  • Election debate: A debate on the advantages and disadvantages between the party leader and the party leader, listing the shortcomings of the other party, and the other party refuting. This resulted in the first democratic cognitive shift in personnel, and some people may be shaken by the “real shortcomings” of the debate on the party leader they originally supported.
  • Final speech: The party leader gives a final speech, stating his reasons for running for class president and the final canvassing.

Of course, this is only the process of popular election of party leaders that we think is the “most reasonable”, but in the documentary, it is not these processes that are highlighted, but the means used between party leaders outside the process.

  • In the talent show session, design a plot to slander the competing party leader, and boo after the party leader’s performance, so that the competitor can’t step down;
  • After the competitor’s confidence collapses, the designer takes the initiative to stand up and admit his mistake to show his daring identity;
  • In the segment of your own talent show, arrange for “lacking dogs” to perform and add drama to yourself;
  • When a third competitor comes to power, unite the competitors who were initially maligned by their own designs to form a new alliance against the common competitor;
  • To win over the people of the competing party, tempt them with their rights, and promise that after being elected, they will arrange the status of other class members for the other party, further disintegrating the stability within the faction of the competing party leader;
  • Use external forces to arrange the whole class to take the light rail to buy the hearts and minds of all the people;
  • Bribe the people and distribute greeting cards to everyone after the speech, further bribing the hearts of all the people.

The “fun” of this documentary is not its realistic irony, but that it is more like a “singularity” from which it is not only people’s thinking about democracy that erupts. There are family education, women’s equal rights, rabble and so on. At the same time, it also has the extension of time and space. In 2007, it showed people a kind of thinking about democratic elections in Chinese society at that time; in the United States, it can very accurately depict the so-called democracy There is bound to be a “dark side” of elections; a few years ago, there was a niche Japanese drama “The Enemy of the People ~ This World, Isn’t It Strange!” ? ~”, you can also see the shadow of this documentary about democratic thinking; in China in 2022, I think this documentary should not be a “banned film”, but a very educational film, which will make Chinese people aware We can no longer delusionally find a way out through democratic elections – because people in reality will be more ugly and disgusting than the party leaders, methods, and people in the documentary, and you will even be glad that “fortunately there is no democracy” .

There is too much content that can be extended about “Please Vote for Me”. It is more like a “catalyst” in the field of chemistry. When different levels of reality are embedded in the formula shown in it, a wonderful chemical reaction will occur. . The insiders are played around in the election game; the planners are excited to see everyone as monkeys; and even if the bystanders know what the problem is, it is impossible to wake up the so-called democratic elections in the innings. Those who play monkey tricks will eventually become the clapping monkey watchers.

Looking back, I rewatched this documentary again. Its hypocrisy, true evil, cruelty, and ugliness seemed to be able to find a one-to-one correspondence in our experience. This is a kind of inevitability, from dictatorship to democracy, or when democracy is excessively magnified, it will inevitably face.

And about democracy, you can also think of scenes that tend to be more Brave New World . For example, I think the most cruel and ironic thing is that before the end of the world, before people board Noah’s Ark, to hold a so-called democratic election, how hypocritical, really evil, vicious, and extremely ugly. !

I originally wanted to present some lines in the plot in the article, but finally gave up. In that case, I would be the “narrative” that this documentary shouldn’t have, because these are just my understandings. I think friends who haven’t seen this documentary should watch it once. I believe you can also throw your own reality into this “catalyst” and discover its wonderful chemical reaction.

In the future, I also plan to make “Please Vote for Me” a topic to disassemble the “interest” in it.

This article is reproduced from: https://onojyun.com/2022/10/04/7386/
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.