Agree with what someone in the comments said, the film itself is the kind of thing he wants to satirize. To be reasonable, I didn't see anything particularly profound, but some embarrassing scenes made me laugh many times. For example, in various scenes involving installation art, when the curator faced questions from reporters, he did not remember the meaning of a certain sentence he once published, but he was still talking nonsense. People often don't know what to do themselves, but they still talk nonsense in a serious manner, not to be funny but to keep up with the serious rhythm of others. This kind of depiction is really funny. When I saw someone talking about Tony Erdman, he said he would make up for it when he went back. This kind of drama depicting embarrassing scenes is simply loved, and gives Embarrassing Cancer a good opportunity to express embarrassment. Finally, let’s go back to the scene of the beast and the banquet. To be honest, when I saw that part, I became more and more confused. I didn’t know what I wanted to express. He got up and beat the beast hard; if it's a civilized society where everyone's language doesn't work, the most useful thing is the gentleman's fist, it seems to make sense.
The last thing I want to say is that every time I watch this kind of magic movie, I always imagine many kinds of author's intentions, and watching movie reviews is also a bunch of magic tricks. As everyone knows, this seems to be a reading question for writing the central idea in middle school. Maybe the author himself does not know what he wants to write.
View more about The Square reviews
