There is no shortage of such injustices there.
There was no shortage of such injustices in those days.
When we live in a society or an era in which injustices are easily made, the lives of the people can be imagined.
After watching the movie, I don't have a specific understanding of the idiom "chilling is forbidden", because we also saw the entertainment of the two children during the court break; saw the rare distress during the sentence; saw why everyone is still there what.
What we saw during the trial was the anger of the people over the bombing.
At the vindication we saw the procession. I haven't seen any other reactions from the public on this matter.
Rehabilitation almost feels like the government's helpless act, without seeing the government's reflection or feeling the government's improvement measures.
The government is elected. Water can carry a boat, and a boat can overturn people.
If such a film can be made, we think that British society has made progress. Is that actually the case?
Can this be understood as the government's land-washing behavior? Or is the director leaving room for the audience to think?
In the face of a powerful political machine, ants are still ants.
Government high-rise buildings stand, ants are still ants.
Ants are still ants.
The society is progressing, step by step, in a way that you can't feel, changing constantly and imperceptibly.
View more about In the Name of the Father reviews
