0. 开场｜从《芳华》再度走红说起

最近，《芳华》又一次在网上火了。
但这次它重新被讨论，并不是因为电影本身，而是因为 B 站上出现了一种相当另类、也相当激进的解说视角。

这种解读认为：
今天中国社会的许多问题，源自于文革“不够彻底”；
而《芳华》这部电影，本质上是在影射“四人帮遭遇的不公”，
是在为那段历史鸣不平。

先说明一点：
对电影作品的解读，本来就是见仁见智的事情。
文学、电影、艺术，从来不存在唯一正确答案。
单就影评而言，这种观点本身并不是什么“不能讨论”的问题。

真正值得我们停下来思考的，是另一件事——
大量弹幕和评论，对这种解读表现出了高度认同。

1. 对文革的错误认知是如何形成的

在我看来，这种认同并不是凭空出现的。

放在今天的现实背景下，其实并不难理解：
在经济下行、就业压力加剧、贫富差距不断扩大的环境中，
很多年轻人正处在一种上升通道受阻、生活举步维艰的状态。

当现实中“努力未必有回报”，
当阶层之间出现明显而难以跨越的鸿沟，
一些人开始幻想一种“人人一样穷、人人一样平等”的社会状态，
把文革想象成一个没有阶级差异的乌托邦。

这种心理，本身是可以理解的。
但问题在于——
这种理解往往并不来自对历史的真实认识，
而更多来自对现实困境的投射。

更值得注意的是，
前些年中国历史教科书中，
对文革的表述曾被改成更模糊、中性甚至带有正面暗示的说法，
例如“艰难探索”“在探索中走过弯路”等措辞。

这种去灾难化、去责任化的叙述，
客观上进一步强化了部分年轻人
对文革的乌托邦式想象。

更值得警惕的是——
这种对文革的肤浅理解，
并不只存在于底层或年轻人之中。

一些已经拥有身份、地位、资源的人，
对文革的理解同样停留在非常表面的层面：
要么把它简单理解为“穷人斗富人”，
要么把它当成一种“理想主义运动”。

2. 冯小刚的警告：说对了危险，但说窄了对象

正是在这样的背景下，
冯小刚说过的那句话，才显得格外值得注意：

“文革离我们并不远，它还可能再来。”

很多人听到这句话时，下意识地认为，
这是一句面向普通人的警告。

但真的是这样吗？
我们不妨来看一下他说这句话的完整语境。

（此处插播冯小刚“文革可能再来”的视频片段）

可以看到，冯小刚这句话的主要指向，
其实是对富人、明星、官员、体制内人士的警告：
在一个缺乏制度保障的社会里，
你今天所拥有的地位和安全感，
可能在很短时间内就会消失。

这种警告当然是否定文革的，
但它也隐含了一种理解框架——
即文革主要是一场“斗富人、斗官员”的运动。

这种理解在改革开放之后，
恰恰也是中共官方对文革的一种主流叙事。

然而：
这种叙事与历史事实的偏差是巨大的，
他只是中共的一块遮羞布，
中共干部被描述成了主要的受害者。

3. 文革的真实图景：不是造反的狂欢，而是普通人的灾难

然而实际上，

文革并不是一场持续十年的“群众造反运动”。

真正意义上的“群众造反”——
也就是群众斗官员——
持续的时间其实非常短，大致不到一年，

毛利用“群众造反”打倒政治对手刘少奇之后，
便开始迅速镇压造反群众，
通过军队重新建立起统治秩序。

文革更核心、更漫长的部分，是：

上山下乡
教育体系全面停摆
正常社会秩序瓦解
普通人的自由被系统性剥夺
无处不在的政治恐惧
随时可能发生的“扣帽子”、“被清算”、“人人自危”

换句话说：
文革最主要的受害者不是富人，也不是高官，
而是最普通、最无力的老百姓。

我们来看看著名历史学者秦晖教授是怎么说的：

（此处插入秦晖视频：当权派和保皇派对造反派的大屠杀恐怕要百倍严重于造反派斗所谓的走资派。）

大家如果对这段历史感兴趣的话，
可以去看看秦晖教授的讲座。

4. 口述历史：普通人的文革，不存在浪漫

但在这里，
我更想让大家直接听一听
真正经历过文革的普通人，
是如何讲述那个时代的。

（此处插播口述历史一：高中生在武斗中被红卫兵抓捕并打死）

这个少年既不是富人，也不是官员，
他只是一个普通的高中生。
他所犯下的唯一“错误”，
就是被强行划分到了某一个派性。

结果，他被打死了。

如果有人说文革是青春、是激情、是理想主义，
那么这样的死亡，又该如何解释？

（此处插播口述历史二：电线杆上写“毛主席万岁”却被追查定罪）

文革的恐怖，
不只来自直接的暴力，
更来自那种随时可能被政治化解读的荒诞环境。

你写一句话、说一句话，
都可能被赋予完全脱离常识的政治含义。

这不是青春。
这是恐惧、荒诞，
以及无辜者被随意牺牲的时代。

我也建议观众朋友们，
不妨自己去问一问家中的长辈：
不必听他们的宏观判断，
多听他们讲具体经历过的事情和细节。
那些细节，会给你完全不同的感受。

5. 总结｜被误读的历史，指向的从来都是未来

综合来看，
文革并不是什么“底层人民的解放”，
而是底层民众被卷入权力内斗之中，
并被当作工具、当作炮灰，反复消耗的过程。

当下社会中对文革的错误认知，
并不是偶然出现的，
而是在特定的现实压力之下，
经由中共当局长期的言论筛选与历史叙述选择，逐步形成的结果。

这种选择性的记忆，
一方面淡化了文革的荒诞与暴力，
另一方面也模糊了责任与受害者的真实处境。

它的作用，
不仅仅是为过去开脱，
更是在塑造一种可以被再次动员、再次利用的社会心理结构。

历史一旦被这样改写，
下一次悲剧所需要的条件，
就只剩下中共的需求本身。

对年轻人来说，我只想说一句话：
多了解历史，不是为了记住仇恨，
而是为了避免再次被当作炮灰利用。

真正清醒的人，
不会把文革当作乌托邦。
世界上从来就不存在，乌托邦。

谢谢观看。

0. Opening | The Renewed Popularity of the Movie Youth

Recently, the movie Youth has once again gone viral online.
But this time, the renewed discussion is not really about the film itself. Instead, it stems from a rather unconventional—and quite radical—interpretive perspective that has emerged on Bilibili.

This interpretation argues that many of today’s social problems in China originate from the Cultural Revolution being “not thorough enough,” and that Youth is essentially an allegory lamenting the “injustice suffered by the Gang of Four,” implicitly defending that period of history.

Let me clarify one point first: interpretations of films are inherently subjective. Literature, cinema, and art have never had a single “correct” answer. From the perspective of film criticism alone, this view is not something that cannot be discussed.

What truly deserves our pause and reflection is something else entirely—
the fact that a large number of comments and bullet-screen reactions have shown strong agreement with this interpretation.

1. How Misunderstandings of the Cultural Revolution Take Shape

In my view, this widespread agreement did not arise out of thin air.

Placed within today’s social reality, it is actually not difficult to understand. Amid economic slowdown, rising employment pressure, and widening wealth inequality, many young people find themselves trapped in blocked upward mobility and increasingly precarious lives.

When “hard work does not necessarily lead to reward,”
when clear and nearly insurmountable class barriers emerge,
some begin to fantasize about a society where “everyone is equally poor and therefore equal”,
imagining the Cultural Revolution as a classless utopia.

This psychological impulse is understandable in itself.
The problem is that such understanding rarely comes from an accurate knowledge of history.
Rather, it is more often a projection of present-day frustration onto the past.

More notably, in recent years, descriptions of the Cultural Revolution in Chinese history textbooks were revised to become vaguer, more neutral, and even subtly positive—using phrases such as “a difficult exploration” or “detours taken during exploration.”

This de-disasterizing and de-responsibilizing narrative has objectively reinforced utopian fantasies about the Cultural Revolution among some younger people.

Even more concerning is the fact that this shallow understanding of the Cultural Revolution does not exist only among the young or the disadvantaged.

Some people who already possess status, resources, and power hold equally superficial views—either reducing the Cultural Revolution to a simple “poor versus rich” struggle, or romanticizing it as a form of “idealistic movement.”

2. Feng Xiaogang’s Warning: Right About the Danger, Narrow About the Target

It is precisely against this backdrop that a remark once made by director Feng Xiaogang becomes particularly noteworthy:

“The Cultural Revolution is not far away from us. It could come again.”

Many people instinctively interpret this as a warning directed at ordinary citizens.

But is that really the case?
Let us consider the full context in which he made this statement.

(Insert Feng Xiaogang’s video clip: “The Cultural Revolution could return.”)

As we can see, the primary target of Feng Xiaogang’s warning is actually the wealthy, celebrities, officials, and those within the system.
In a society lacking institutional protection, the status and sense of security you enjoy today can disappear very quickly.

This warning certainly rejects the Cultural Revolution,
but it also carries an implicit framework of understanding—namely, that the Cultural Revolution was mainly a movement to “attack the rich and the officials.”

Ironically, this has also been the dominant official narrative promoted by the Chinese Communist Party since the Reform and Opening-up era.

However, this narrative deviates dramatically from historical reality.
It functions merely as a fig leaf for the Party, portraying CCP cadres as the primary victims.

3. The Real Picture of the Cultural Revolution: Not a Carnival of Rebellion, but a Disaster for Ordinary People

In reality, however,

the Cultural Revolution was not a ten-year-long “mass rebellion.”

The phase that could genuinely be described as “mass rebellion”—that is, the masses turning against officials—lasted for a very short period, roughly less than one year.

After Mao used mass rebellion to eliminate his political rival Liu Shaoqi, he swiftly moved to suppress the rebel masses themselves and reestablished order through the military.

The core and longest-lasting aspects of the Cultural Revolution were instead:

The “Up to the Mountains, Down to the Countryside” movement
The complete paralysis of the education system
The breakdown of normal social order
The systematic deprivation of ordinary people’s freedoms
Omnipresent political fear
Constant threats of being labeled, purged, or targeted—everyone living in insecurity

In other words, the primary victims of the Cultural Revolution were not the wealthy, nor high-ranking officials, but the most ordinary and powerless people.

Let us listen to what the renowned historian Professor Qin Hui has said:

(Insert Qin Hui video: “The massacres carried out by those in power and by conservative factions against rebel groups were likely hundreds of times more severe than the rebels’ attacks on so-called ‘capitalist roaders.’”)

If you are interested in this history, I strongly recommend watching Professor Qin Hui’s lectures.

4. Oral History: There Is Nothing Romantic About the Cultural Revolution for Ordinary People

Here, however, I would like you to hear directly from ordinary people who actually lived through the Cultural Revolution, and how they describe that era.

(Insert oral history clip 1: A high school student captured and beaten to death by Red Guards during armed factional fighting.)

This teenager was neither wealthy nor an official.
He was just an ordinary high school student.
His only “crime” was being forcibly assigned to a particular faction.

As a result, he was beaten to death.

If someone claims that the Cultural Revolution was about youth, passion, or idealism, how should such a death be explained?

(Insert oral history clip 2: Being investigated and convicted for writing “Long Live Chairman Mao” on a utility pole.)

The terror of the Cultural Revolution did not come only from direct violence.
It also came from an absurd environment in which anything could be politically interpreted at any moment.

A single sentence you wrote or spoke could be assigned a political meaning completely detached from common sense.

This was not youth.
It was fear, absurdity, and an era in which innocent people were casually sacrificed.

I also encourage viewers to ask the elders in your own families.
Do not focus on their abstract judgments—listen to the concrete experiences and details they lived through.
Those details will give you a profoundly different understanding.

5. Conclusion | Misread History Always Points Toward the Future

Taken together, the Cultural Revolution was not a “liberation of the lower classes.”
It was a process in which ordinary people were drawn into power struggles, used as tools and cannon fodder, and repeatedly consumed.

The current misunderstandings of the Cultural Revolution did not arise accidentally.
They are the result of long-term narrative filtering and selective historical storytelling by the Chinese Communist Party, formed under specific social pressures.

This selective memory simultaneously downplays the violence and absurdity of the Cultural Revolution while obscuring responsibility and the real suffering of its victims.

Its function is not merely to excuse the past,
but to shape a social psychology that can be mobilized and exploited again in the future.

Once history is rewritten in this way,
the only condition needed for the next tragedy is the Party’s own demand.

To young people, I want to say just one thing:
Learning history is not about preserving hatred.
It is about avoiding being used as expendable tools again.

Those who are truly clear-minded will never treat the Cultural Revolution as a utopia.
Utopias have never existed.

Thank you for watching.