The film is well done, with no ups and downs, but I think it is surprisingly full of emotions, the sadness, longing, and helplessness that the screen is about to overflow but is endured alone, mixed with a little reconciliation, and finally runs through. Always love and hard to let go. You won't feel that the film design is artificial, even if it uses a lot of uncommon light colors and music that makes my scalp tingling, but I think those things are internalized and expressed, bringing the reality of life to the inner world. The alienation of the perfect fusion. Every shot is from Chavis' sick love (love is sick), and they tightly wrap every scene, even every word.
The rhythm of the movie is gentle and even very gentle, which greatly helps us digest the emotion of being put on the screen. What kills me the most in the film is the milky, overly soft words that came out of Hunter's mouth. Whenever I hear the tone that is a little confused but insists on my own thoughts, I feel the disorder of my breathing, and then a burst of heartache.
I'm wondering why I think this movie is better than Manchester by the sea, the two genres are similar to some extent, but the difference is too obvious. (selfish here, because I don't like Manchester by the sea) Try not to be partial to think about it, as if it's because of the rationalization of sadness in the film. He did not deliberately remind the audience of the pain he endured, nor did he emphasize the difference between him and the people around him, nor let time freeze in the characters' painful emotions. On the contrary, the director himself rationalized the grief in the first place, which also means that he rationalized the character of Zavis, respected his feelings and thoughts, and let Zavis carry this sadness forward instead of trapping Zavis. In the vortex of pain, try to amplify those emotions in order to resonate with the audience. The time in the film is fluid, we can clearly feel the boundary between the past tense and the present tense, and what we can feel more is that the director finally focuses on the future tense. And when time is flowing, the relatively unchanged feelings of the characters will actually have a stronger appeal.
I've always believed that tragedy and comedy really go hand in hand. Chavis' search is a heartbreak from beginning to end, but that doesn't mean the entire film has to be silent, crying, missing, and giving up. In contrast, there are always films that want to go against common sense. For example, if this is based on Gou Shisan's filming method, then it must reproduce multiple scenes where Chavis fails to court, finally compromises, or reunites with his son, which is extremely obvious. I always feel that the characters in this kind of film are painful, they are manipulated like monkeys in a circus, and their existence is never recognized, just for the laughter of the audience outside the cage. In fact, in many movies, we will fall into the control of the saying that art comes from life and is higher than life. What kind of expression is loyal to life, and what kind of expression is backsliding? This is really hard to say, different people have different ideas. In my opinion, what should a normal life and love be like? It may be that we slowly put it down when we are struggling to recover, it may be that our heart beats like a heartbeat when we are deep in it, it may be the splendid sunset we see when we take a walk in the evening, it may be that we put our heads deep in the dead of night. Deeply buried soft pillow covers, but it must be every detail of the moment, it must be the moment.
So I think it is very important to grasp a degree. You can amplify that degree and become a flow movie; you can also balance that degree and become a movie.
View more about Paris, Texas reviews
