追求什么，怎么追求：乔丹・皮尔《我们》／What to pursue, how to pursue: Jordan Peele Us

我一直在平等和自由这两者应该谁先谁后这个问题上摇摆不定。前些日子有些偏向自由，然而这部电影又给我偏回去了。
我们追求什么？平等与自由，我很赞同。
我们怎么追求？——关于手段／期望结果，本片给出的答案是暴力／你死我活。我有些不确定自己怎么看。

I have been swinging on which of equality and freedom comes first. Some time ago I was for freedom, but the film kind of pushed me back.
What are we pursuing? Equality and freedom. I agree on that.
How do we pursue? For the means and expected outcome, the answer given by this film was violence and zero-sum. I am not sure how I think about it.

手段和结果是紧密相关的。我不能昧着良心说我赞成暴力，但无可辩驳的是，暴力的确是弱势一方引起强势一方注意／反应及影响媒体大众的最好方式（详见上月的新西兰枪击案）。暴力有时被描述为「必须的恶」，这个词很有意思。是恶我就会反对，那么必须的恶呢？如果我方不使用暴力便会被对方暴力解决，我还会坚持不能使用暴力吗？我愿意为信念赴死不代表我愿意或者有资格拉着同伴垫背，但暴力就是暴力。恶就是恶。
你死我活其实也是个很有意思的期望值。红衣杀死自己对应的地上人，以获得他们地上人的身份和生活（e.g. 白人妈妈涂口红那幕），这一行为使角色对调：他们成为了原本的地上人，来压迫成为了地下人的对应。如果反抗压迫的目的即成为压迫者，那么这种反抗还是道德的吗？

The means and outcomes are closely related. I must obey my conscience and say that I don’t agree with violence, but it is irrefutable that violence is indeed the best way for a weaker party to attract the stronger party’s attention/reaction and to impact on the media and the public (see the New Zealand mosque shooting last month). Violence is sometimes described as “necessary evil,” a very interesting word. I will oppose whatever is evil, but what what about the necessary ones? If it is either using violence or being violently resolved by the other party, will I still insist on not using violence? My willingness to die for my faith does not imply that I am willing or qualified to bring my companions to the hell with me. But still, violence is nothing but violence. Evil is nothing but evil.

影片结尾扔出了女主其实来自地下的最大包袱，但其实我之前看过剧透已经知道了（靠），整部影片就成为了慢慢拼图的过程。她把原身锁在自己的床上，融入地上人之后也没有去接回原身这一点意义深远：她就是要代替原身。
而原身成为红衣首领的动机更不甚明了。她进入女主家里之后让女主把自己的手锁在茶几上，是一个明显的复仇的信号——二三十年过去了——她是真的要引领地下人反抗压迫，还是只是一个想回去的执念变得越来越大了呢？她真的把地下人当作了自己的同类，还是仅仅是能使她重回地上的工具？
我承认我有点过于热衷阴谋论，但是怀疑总比盲目接受要强。

At the end of the film, there came the biggest twist that the heroine actually was from the underworld. However, I have already seen the spoiler before (what), therefore the whole film became a jigsaw puzzle. The fact that she locked RED’s hands in her bunk bed and did not go back to save her after integrating into the upperworld was crucial: she was to replace RED.
And the motivation for RED being the leader of the reds’ was even less clear. After entering the heroine’s house, RED let her lock her hand on the table, a clear signal of revenge. Two or three decades have passed, was she really leading the underworld to resist the oppression, or was it just her desire to return to the upperworld? Did she really take the underground as her own people, or were they just a tool to get her back up the ground?
I admit that I am a bit too keen on conspiracy theory, but doubting is always better than blind acceptance.

不管怎样，能让观众看过之后思考这么多东西，算是一部十分成功的电影了。打算补补 Get Out。

In any case, it is a very successful film to let the audience think about so many things afterwards. Planning to watch Get Out too.