One Battle After Another

{{ paragraph }}

#Vistavision 5+ Sixteen years have passed in the blink of an eye, and half a century has gone by in a daze. The radical left-wing revolution of the 1960s was ultimately unfinished, and now we are about to face the disastrous consequences of the resurgence of neo-fascism in the 1920s. Compared to reality, the intensity of the opposition is magnified many times over. By grafting revolutions from different eras (abbreviating those with lower intensity), the film retains only the initiation of actions and encounters between the opposing factions' narrative lines (omitting the exposition and connection in the editing), creating a sense of constant turmoil and confronting one battle after another. Bob's clumsy physical reactions, honed by years of decadence, combined with the keen intuition gained from his past revolutionary experiences, and Col.'s (the most physiologically/human character, a highly challenging and precise performance) dark humor, sexual/blood entanglements, and absurd action design, all while portraying him as an arm of the system (he is by no means the primary target of criticism for the far right), deeply entangled in the inflated desire to climb the power structure, create a worldview constructed from fragmented and disjointed timelines and generations, characterized by rapid ebb and flow and ebb and flow. It eschews detailed and verbose portrayals, embracing a high degree of abstraction, and the contradictions within the two protagonists are rationally resolved within this absurd world, resulting in a perfect fusion of satirical comedy and serious themes. The final car chase on the winding highway is arguably the best in recent years—the highway undulates like waves, with collisions occurring without warning or reaction time, wave after wave crashing in. The limited perspective at the turning point leads the characters to the final crisis; when the audience has become accustomed to the film's constant breaking and almost completely invalidated genre expectations, the long-awaited MacGuffin sound effects quietly bloom in the ever-changing soundtrack that dominates the rhythm of the entire film, and the gentle, revolutionary view of not giving up on love (which is also as wise as Sensai) is ultimately preserved.

1. Why did Blackie and Little Li want to start a revolution?

Blackie's mother said she was born restless, which answers why the "white left" in American society is so left-leaning. They themselves don't know why; it's just innate. They're left-leaning for the sake of being left, restless for the sake of restlessness, with a high degree of unity between their goals and methods. This extreme and pure spiritual romanticism attracts many people. Life is full of confusion, and people always need reasons to choose and need to be persuaded to do things. People like Blackie, with their own innate mental drive and maximum self-motivation, are like an LED light in the dark, attracting countless insects to throw themselves at them without hesitation. Among them are centrist Leonardo DiCaprio and his arch-rival Sean Penn.

2. What is the relationship between the establishment and the liberal left?

It doesn't matter; the establishment doesn't care about these mischievous leftists at all, completely ignoring them. In movies, the establishment is portrayed as a bunch of aristocratic old men, obsessed with pure bloodlines, obsessed with secret societies, forming cliques, indulging in hedonistic lifestyles, and carrying out executions in secret. This stereotype reached its peak when "Biden" appeared, issuing orders with an unyielding tone. The establishment is about creating its own order; they've woven a powerful social web, isolating young leftists from it. Let them do whatever they want; they won't amount to anything.

3. What are the weaknesses of the establishment?

Unable to guarantee the purity of bloodline, frankly speaking, means being unable to control one's lust. Life on this side of the wall is too boring, while the madness on the other side is full of vitality. One can't help but want to climb over and take a look, and once one looks, one can't help but want to touch, and once one touches, one's life is ruined.

4. What was Leonardo DiCaprio doing all this time?

He was halfway through his revolution when he had to start a family. He was a complete failure as a single father. He tried to save his daughter but ended up getting caught himself. In the end, he saved no one; his daughter grew up to be a new revolutionary fighter, while he was still figuring out how to use a smartphone. Leonardo DiCaprio, a complete failure, is the representative of us ordinary people. His character in this film is a lower-class American, resentful of the establishment's tyranny, but not as fanatical as the leftists. He has a few skills, can't starve, is weak and unreliable, but will fight tooth and nail for his family. He's a resource pool for the leftists, a lackey of the establishment. He joined the revolution purely to pick up girls, hoping to transition to a warm family life, but the leftists just used him, while the establishment didn't even give him a second glance. It's a pity the director gave him a happy ending, allowing the leftists to return to his side, giving his life some meaning. If it were any harsher, his aimless struggles would have ended meaninglessly, a more realistic portrayal of life.

5. Is the issue of illegal immigration important?

In reality, nobody cares. While the "white left" are indeed helping illegal immigrants, their motivation isn't genuine; their initial intention is simply revolution. The confession of the second Black woman robbing a bank proves it all—she was merely using extreme violence to achieve self-realization. The establishment is effectively deporting immigrants, but privately they have to rely on the cheap labor of illegal immigrants, otherwise they'd face a chicken nugget shortage. Sean Penn's fight against terrorism started as retaliation, but later degenerated into a purely political matter. Del Toro's attitude towards Leonardo DiCaprio is clear: he appreciates the "white left's" goodwill and will help as much as he can, but illegal immigrants have their own tightly organized systems and networks; they are perfectly capable of protecting themselves, unafraid of the establishment, and don't need the "white left." Therefore, all actions concerning the deportation of illegal immigrants are filled with a sense of absurdity. Everyone uses the guise of illegal immigration to do their own thing, just as all power is for sex, and sex is for power, except for sex itself.

6. Does this film contain racist narratives?

Yes, but it's deliberately suppressed. All the main female characters in the film are Black, and all the main male characters are white. All the women in the film do only one thing: rebel against the men. Conversely, the men's attitudes towards the women are very complex and divided: some treat them like family, some become enemies because they can't have them, some help those in need, and some even fight amongst themselves. This de facto misalignment suggests the huge gap in social status between men and women, or between Black and White people. The rebellion of women/Black people is not very important to men/white people; it doesn't prevent them from doing what they want.

7. What exactly did the director want to express?

My feeling is that he wanted to express too much. He wanted to criticize the partisan politics, satirize the bizarre realities , and uphold the tradition of prioritizing family. The ingredients were already mixed enough, but he also added a sense of confrontation, powerlessness, and fatalism as seasonings to the female lead, male lead, and antagonist. Then he used guns and vehicles as stoves, stir-fried them over high heat, and finally served up this hodgepodge. You can taste everything, and it tastes pretty good, but it's easy to forget about it after eating it.

One of the ideal states that an art-house director can achieve when making a commercial film is *World War I: The Second War*. It retains the distinctive characteristics of the PTA style in recent years, such as shallow depth of field and medium shots of characters (one of the most difficult shot types to execute well), Greenwood's consistently avant-garde jazz, and the characters' constantly tense inner world. The complex emotions resulting from genre hybridization are all strung together by very clean editing, forming a unique yet understandable "commercial" narrative. The first half-hour of "revolutionary history" can be considered the culmination of this cinematic language. It's a very brilliant montage sequence. The opening uses close-ups of female soldiers in the sunset and their constant walking on the viaduct to contrast with the fixed scenery of the refugee camp. Then comes the image of Xiao Li running towards them pulling a cart, followed by a series of close-up shots of their conversation (ignoring the person giving instructions and focusing only on Xiao Li's interaction with the female soldier), then a night scene, followed by a series of panning and action-packed short shots, then relatively static close-ups of the female soldier and Erectile Duck's interaction (the erotic subplot), and dynamic cuts between Xiao Li's wiring and other soldiers (the violent subplot), ending with Erectile Duck's promise to the female soldier and Xiao Li's frenzied fireworks display and slogan shouting. The pillow and fist theme alone, along with its absurd visual rhythm and character development, makes this scene a rare gem in recent years. Erotic and violent narrative elements are consistently interwoven into the so-called revolutionary past: Xiao Li is making bombs, and the female soldier is sexually harassing him; Xiao Li and his comrades are carrying out various explosions, and the female soldier is sexually harassing Sean Penn. This long, fast-paced narrative, set against the backdrop of Greenwood's atonal drumbeats and piano, exudes such irregularity, such disharmony, such anarchism. After the female soldier harasses Sean Penn's buttocks, she immediately fires a gun at him while heavily pregnant. Isn't it obvious whose child it is? Then there's a conflict between revolutionary feminism and family life, this segment using guitar music to emphasize the importance of family in the film. Speaking of which, the film's soundtrack is quite diverse, with some drum-and-piano-based pieces mostly used for revolutionary movements. There are string-based pieces to depict characters' emotions. Guitar-based pieces are about home. There are also pop songs to create atmosphere. PTA, aiming for a commercial film, let loose, and surprisingly, it turned out quite well, even more interesting in form than his art films. The follow-along running shots of the female soldier are also brilliantly interspersed, symbolizing her inability to tolerate restraint. Next, the female warrior, prioritizing revolution over children, is robbed in a long, horizontal bank robbery shot. The black woman announces her name as "Brother Jiang, Pussy" (what a name! Can this kind of revolution be serious? The serious "no more pussy" that follows is hilarious!). A gunshot rings out, followed by a fixed camera angle showing the female warrior shooting at a security guard. Everyone is stunned, then a close-up of someone leaping into the frame from the left, cuts to a wide shot of everyone running away in a wide horizontal pan, and music starts. The editing rhythm is truly superb. The subsequent car chase, and the final shot of the female warrior running into a dead end, are all shot from an aerial perspective, which is also very interesting. When the female warrior is captured, a group of police officers even want to take selfies with her. Every scene is full of interesting and unique techniques and characters. How did this guy manage to do that? Later, when the master helps Leonardo DiCaprio escape, the entire street riot scene's staging, editing, and narrative atmosphere are also fantastic, continuing this mixed-style narrative with a unique flair and plenty of humor. No wonder Spielberg watched it three times. The clean, concise, and complex narrative of the first hour alone, maintaining both auteurship and comedic elements, is enough to give him pause for thought (of course, he's not exactly an auteur director, so don't get carried away). Of course, there aren't as many brilliant segments later on (the rollercoaster ride is purely a visual spectacle, which I didn't find particularly compelling), and the film returns to the contrasting and conflicting father-daughter relationships. This is understandable, given the nature of commercial films, which require explanations and resolutions. So, the mother's letter to her daughter at the end provides a relatively satisfactory conclusion, encouraging her to create a better life for herself and continue the revolution—life, after all, is a series of battles. After satirizing a wide range of left-wing, right-wing, revolutionary, and conservative factions, the film returns to basic humanity and family (what else? Who would fund a film with such nihilism?). Overall, it's a film well worth watching two or three times to appreciate the details and cinematography. One of the four major rivals of Oscar-winning directors, is the PTA also going to give up?

Amidst the cacophony of binary oppositions, few film critics have mentioned the crucial Latin American community figure who truly influences the story's trajectory—yet this neglect is precisely their strength. In the violent and inflammatory history of revolution (as seen at the film's opening), they are rescued as an indistinct group; in the eyes of the police, who fiercely guard against purity (as seen in everything being telelevised), they are merely abstract data to be purged, insignificant as individuals (they sit by the roadside watching police cars drive away). Yet, it is precisely they, as individuals and as a group, who truly alter the course of events. Sergio, facing a terrified Bob, throws him a can of beer, calmly arranges for the undocumented residents in his household to escape, and then helps him flee; faced with provocative and intrusive police, the Latin American community quickly rallies, expressing their discontent through riots. Their actions become the background in the film, but (regardless of whether the PTA considers it this way), this background actually better expresses their revolutionary nature—because invisibility forms the foundation of revolution, just as the focus of the rural encirclement of the city lies in visibility, not actual farming. Faced with this work resembling "USA Today," neither the left nor the right seems quite satisfied—I mean, the mainstream left and right. And the backdrop, which has been relegated to the status quo in both narratives, has subtly changed. They are no longer merely refugees in dire need of rescue, nor simply numbers to be excluded; they have grown wildly, subtly, and will emerge en masse when necessary.

Binary opposition is a linear struggle, while Latin American communities are indirect. The title *World War I, War II* itself is indirect, because "after" (or "again" in the English title) doesn't refer to the "war" itself, but rather the gap between wars. The right wing, clinging to the purity of bloodlines, is undoubtedly a straight line; after all, the discipline of all state institutions, starting from the military, begins with keeping the body straight. Colonel Stephen represents the limit of this straight line—too straight to bend easily. But more importantly, we can clearly see how the linear left wing fails: in the media, the resolute disconnection from the internet (or the use of 1G networks), emphasizing point-to-point communication, is a foolish feedback loop, utterly inefficient and useless; spatially, the pervasive smokescreen exposes the once-unexpected tunnels. The right wing's infrastructure is more deeply and extensively hidden, its operations more networked, requiring a completely new tactic to confront it. Latin American communities offer a model of collaboration, their pathways porous and tightly integrated into living spaces, yet capable of rooftop parkour when needed—shaping cross-class cooperation: Bob's rescue wasn't just assisted by street thugs, but also by elite doctors and nurses. The experience of "The Battle of Algiers," ready to mobilize and arm at any time, isn't just etched into Bob's nostalgic videotapes, but is being practiced daily.

It can be said that, besides her biological father (who never appeared, or whose appearance was immediately erased) and her adoptive father (who was lost in a daze, trapped in a glorious history), it was Sergio (meaning teacher) who truly nurtured Vera and the possibility of revolution—a point the PTA demonstrated through the infusion of karate into both mind and body. Vera perfectly inherited the spirit of the curve; in that crucial chase scene, she understood the words of the man named Bruce from fifty years ago, "be water, my friend," and abandoned the car. The gradual surge of energy and momentum on the continuous, tidal-like slopes caused the oncoming muscle car to self-destruct instantly. Like Sergio and his Latin American community, Vera immediately hid herself, blending into the sand and earth—now she was invisible too; the advantage was in her hands, she was just waiting to fire that shot.

"War I, War II" is a dog-whistle film made by American left-wing filmmakers under the shadow of World War III and the American Civil War, calling on the left-wing stray dogs to regroup and prepare for resistance.

The tone of a dog whistle movie

However, I'm not even sure if this counts as "dog whistle" (a derogatory term implying excessive politicization). The film's left-wing ideology, driven by struggle, is too intense, or rather, its revolutionary content is so high that even the actors themselves don't bother with it. But then I glance at the film reviews and interviews and realize that very few people actually understand it. This suddenly made me realize that the difference between my viewing experience and that of other viewers is probably similar to how members of the Hongmen (Triads) watched Hong Kong gangster movies back in the day.

To mainstream audiences, *World War I: The Second War* is actually a spectacle film with a family drama (including but not limited to NTR, filial piety, and other plots) as its main storyline . Here, "spectacle" refers to the worldview. For ordinary viewers, this film is similar to *John Wick*, which fictionalizes a world full of assassins, while *World War I: The Second War* "fictionalizes" a world full of "revolutionaries."

However, it is a dog whistle movie.

A dog whistle is a whistle that produces a frequency inaudible to humans but audible only to dogs. Professional dog trainers use this method to communicate with well-trained dogs. In the context of increasing ideological polarization in American society, both the historically distinct left (revolutionaries) and right (fascists) are remobilizing, extensively using dog whistles as a tool. These dog whistles manifest as memes, codes, songs, images, and various other cultural symbols.

The "dogs" that receive the dog whistle in "World War I, War II" represent the various ideological factions in American history that have had revolutionary tendencies.

Let me give you an example. In a movie, the female protagonist, who is being hunted, is taken in a church. The villain learns about the church's special privileges—it's a convent composed of Black female nuns, and he's convinced they won't kill anyone because they're vegetarians —doesn't this sound like a morbid joke?

This is not a morbid joke, because the progressive forces in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s included the Black Civil Rights Movement (Black), the Women's Liberation Movement (Women), the Anti-War Hippies (Grassroots), Liberation Theology (Church), and Environmentalists and Animalists (Vegetarians) . This magical church is a particularly standard political metaphor.

Not to mention that Leonardo DiCaprio has a Che Guevara-like face, spouts criticisms of liberalism, and is clearly of revolutionary origin ; the city where he hides is a haven for Latino immigrants , and his daughter was protected by Native Americans , whose friends include sexual minorities.

The villains in the movie— old, white, foreign, gay, powerful, and rich—are also fully buffed .

"World War I, War II" uses a fast-paced narrative style reminiscent of Cinima, full of long takes, to draw ordinary viewers into the theater with its novelty and curiosity. In doing so, it weaves together America's biggest reactionary forces and almost all the progressive forces with historical backgrounds, creating a sense of calm amidst the storm (MAGA and white supremacy), where sparks of hope are everywhere .

Despite the film's straightforwardness , many reviews and interviews I've read suggest that audiences (especially in the US) perceive it as similar to films like *John Wick* (spectacle) or *No Country for Old Men* (story). It's through this contrast that I realized the film's most explicit metaphor: the "dog whistle."

Sixteen years ago, when Leonardo DiCaprio's revolutionary organization, France 75, was betrayed and scattered, his comrades gave him two devices that looked like recording pens. Only the most trusted comrades would receive these devices, and when the two devices were brought close together, they would start to resonate and play music. At this point, you must unconditionally trust the person you see.

Leonardo DiCaprio asked why this device wasn't afraid of being monitored by the enemy. The answer was: because they no longer monitor the G1 band .

The film "World War I: The Second War" itself serves as a resonance device for the American left. The reason it can be openly shown in mainstream American theaters is because the enemy has been victorious for so long that they no longer listen to this frequency .

So this is a standard dog whistle movie. Calling them "dogs" is not an insult, because I myself am an old dog, to use the Analects to describe Confucius, "fearful as a homeless dog."

Plot Analysis (Full Spoilers)

Next, I will retell the story of the entire movie based entirely on my memory of watching it once, and also try to interpret all the dog whistles and metaphors in it. Let me state first that before watching this movie, I had no idea about the background of the story, or even who the director was (who directed my favorite films "Magnolia" and "Minority Report"). I was just figuring out the tone of the movie as I watched it.

Act I: The Failure of the Revolutionary Organization

The film opens with a Black woman named Pafidia running on an overpass, stopping and focusing her gaze on an immigrant deportation camp below.

Seeing this scene, I immediately thought it was a left-wing film because it reminded me of "Children of Men." Alfonso's "Children of Men" also focuses on the struggle of "immigrants," although it has a science fiction background; and the protagonist of the film is actually a British communist, and although the male protagonist has been out of the organization for a long time, there is still a portrait of his teacher hanging on the wall of his house.