The film unfolds slowly with a variety of slow foreshadowings. Roadside beggers, well-dressed passers-by, people who come to the art exhibition for high-level human activities but do not respect the chefs, who agree with the threat letter but hope to use the hands of others to make themselves feel that they are not in line with their identity. The protagonist of the matter. Irony can be said to be ubiquitous, allowing the viewers to explore continuously during the film, and feel the kind of "ding" in their brains to continue the long movie.
Of course, the whole film satirizes Christian's real and tangible hypocrisy, but I feel that the dinner party of the orcs and the conflict with the little boy on the stairs are a bit too deliberate. The director repeats and paints his vase like this.
In the film is a big mess, the plot with a female reporter satirizes the man who uses his power to conquer women in bed. Just because the female reporter said that she didn't sleep with people often, she suddenly became innocent? A hookup did not force each other from beginning to end. You are willing, why do you have to carry a moral burden afterwards? Why should men be condemned because of their inborn gender cliche? The true equality of rights between men and women does not presuppose a position, and treats a man and a woman as two "persons."
Continue most boring and boring clichés until the resignation conference, "Is it a self-censorship because of worries?" A wonderful question! What is the boundary of freedom of speech? A ten-second hit video is not heinous. Why should a person's destiny be changed because of this, and this person has to accept the hypocritical logic of society. If the director is here on the side of the reporter who is asking questions and cooperating with the previous female reporter incident, is this the director's selective liberalism?
In addition, Christian, a person who did not participate in the video content from the beginning to the end, took all the responsibilities. The colleagues who participated in the video discussion always hid behind the incident, like a quiet bystander at the orc banquet.
In the end, I feel that choosing such a film as Palme d’Or is a bit awkward. If this film is chosen to suit the current social environment, or at least it adds points, is it also institutional discrimination against other excellent works and encourages eight-legged essays?
Isn't it that the organizing committee cooperated with the film to continue a real-world version of surrealistic self-ridicule?
View more about The Square reviews
