The King of Hearts

Philippe de Broca Reminded me of Foucault and madness Between madness and rationality The rational people left the scene before the show begins, scared by the sophisticated language the mad could profess. They seemed to be the only conscious ones, where they chose to stay in the walls (within the city limits) to secure themselves from the “others”. When Charles wanted to leave, they also asked their king to come back from the “others”. They are no longer the expelled ones from the city limits; they are no longer categorized as the ship of fools, constantly being on the threshold and mobility.

Who is the others to keep out of the wall? Who gives out the laws? Who nominates the king? What is the name of the father? Who wears the clothes? Who decided to take off the clothes? 小丑和疯人似乎都是所有叙事中持有真理和最终答案的一方 Madness is at the very center of reason.

豆瓣： Madness is at the very center of reason. 小丑和疯人似乎都是所有叙事中持有真理和最终答案的一方。 让我想到福柯写的关于疯癫的理论，可是这些理论似乎在这部电影里统统被推翻。 福柯说我们之所以害怕疯癫是因为我们没有能够理解疯癫的语言系统。我们感触不到他们感官接收到的，我们无法对他们所想要表达的产生共鸣。 但是这部电影里，再也不是一船游荡在城市边缘的疯人。他们有自己的语言和社会仪式，他们的纵情狂欢像是神话中Bacchus的宴席。到底是士兵决定回归本我，疯癫余生，还是这群清醒疯人终于唤醒了士兵的意识。他们称世人为 “the others”，他们告诉士兵不要出走到危险的外面。 谁配穿上文明的衣服？谁配接受功勋？谁为国王加冕？谁到最后一幕重新退居幕后？ After all, the best journeys are through the windows.