Eighty families live at an altitude of 3,200 metres, in the South-West of «People's Republic» of China. The camera follows the quotidian life of one of those, providing a portrait of rural existence.
This film makes sense as a work aimed at the average 22th (and 21th as well, probably) century inhabitant of advanced countries, who is in ignorance of rural life. These viewers are they who will perceive «San Zimei» the wise it is intended to be perceived in; its peculiarity merely coinciding with the ordinariness of peasant life in preindustrial society.
Response from the average spectator has proved that a series of scenes displaying what was the life of nearly the whole world population up until a few decades ago is now felt as estranging, or - which is disquieting - just mistook for an array of oddities. As if a considerable part of the human kind would have already parted from the Earth and ignorant of its soil where actual life, including their own, has its roots.
Awards to actors and films have sadly been most often minimally meaningful, driven by the socio-cultural and political fads of the year (or of the decade, or of the half century) as they are, and are bound to be. The prizes this production was given at several cinema contests are a perfect example of the above.
It may be to be noted that no artistic take at all is present, never the intention , and in my judgment the capability to add anything to plain documenting being there.
Diversity from reality shows is uttermost. Whereas in the latter there is nothing but feigning and we behold the devastating metamorphosis that the human person inflicts to themselves once set - or feeling themselves as set - constantly before a mirror. Here it is not even possible to pretend to believe these aborigines behave as if not at the presence of strangers, nonetheless they are much more credible.
In his trip to Guyana Werner Herzog noticed the indifference of aborigines, even toddlers, in front of an hot-air balloon, without a doubt the largest flying object they had ever seen. He was explained that, since they lacked any idea of the balloon's function, it represented nothing for them. Peasants in the film look unaware of the camera. Hence stands out the difference, by our time anthropological, difference from modern well-off people: the conception- certainly prevalently subconscious in many of these - of reality as show, as fiction: not just one but the most powerful of relativistic mindsets. Human kind is not at risk, as long as his conditions of life do not expose him to the possibility of ending up by staring at himself in a mirror frequently and long, to reach the suspicion of being merely an image.
This film makes sense as a work aimed at the average 22th (and 21th as well, probably) century inhabitant of advanced countries, who is in ignorance of rural life. These viewers are they who will perceive «San Zimei» the wise it is intended to be perceived in; its peculiarity merely coinciding with the ordinariness of peasant life in preindustrial society.
Response from the average spectator has proved that a series of scenes displaying what was the life of nearly the whole world population up until a few decades ago is now felt as estranging, or - which is disquieting - just mistook for an array of oddities. As if a considerable part of the human kind would have already parted from the Earth and ignorant of its soil where actual life, including their own, has its roots.
Awards to actors and films have sadly been most often minimally meaningful, driven by the socio-cultural and political fads of the year (or of the decade, or of the half century) as they are, and are bound to be. The prizes this production was given at several cinema contests are a perfect example of the above.
It may be to be noted that no artistic take at all is present, never the intention , and in my judgment the capability to add anything to plain documenting being there.
Diversity from reality shows is uttermost. Whereas in the latter there is nothing but feigning and we behold the devastating metamorphosis that the human person inflicts to themselves once set - or feeling themselves as set - constantly before a mirror. Here it is not even possible to pretend to believe these aborigines behave as if not at the presence of strangers, nonetheless they are much more credible.
In his trip to Guyana Werner Herzog noticed the indifference of aborigines, even toddlers, in front of an hot-air balloon, without a doubt the largest flying object they had ever seen. He was explained that, since they lacked any idea of the balloon's function, it represented nothing for them. Peasants in the film look unaware of the camera. Hence stands out the difference, by our time anthropological, difference from modern well-off people: the conception- certainly prevalently subconscious in many of these - of reality as show, as fiction: not just one but the most powerful of relativistic mindsets. Human kind is not at risk, as long as his conditions of life do not expose him to the possibility of ending up by staring at himself in a mirror frequently and long, to reach the suspicion of being merely an image.