Looking at the 5-star reviews, Yishui said how the director portrayed and attacked the hypocrisy of white capitalists, which made me particularly confused.
Apart from being rich and poor, man is first and foremost a man. People will have flaws and deficiencies of one kind or another, it's just that the show doesn't make an effort to make these characters cute because they all lack compassion and empathy and only care about themselves. The poor in so, people of color, the bottom of the so-called service is no different.
Even worse, they simply escape fault, revenge, stealing. To say the show's stance, it should be on the side of the rich white people, whether they have tried so hard to be friendly or got crazy revenge. In this society, there is no lack of rich people trampling on the dignity of the poor and destroying their spirits. But it's not reflected in this drama, which only shows that they don't want to show it. What he wants to oppose is not the political correctness that is popular in the United States around the world, the preferential treatment of ethnic minorities, and if you have money, you have to be a man with your tail tucked in, and you have to be careful to meet other people's expectations. Even if the hotel manager made a mistake, he cannot admit it, nor can he directly accuse him or yell at him? Instead, it needs to be dealt with again and again until the scandal of the manager is broken to get the room that originally belonged to him?
The so-called rich people depicted here are just ordinary people with all kinds of small problems, not so beautiful, so great, and so human, and no one is vicious, evil, or deliberately oppressing the poor. A closer look is all tinted glasses and obscenity.
What's wrong with Ma Bao Nan besides Ma Bao? You go to book a presidential suite and the manager gives you the wrong room and doesn't even admit his mistake. Are you angry? Even if he sincerely apologizes and asks my forgiveness to return the difference, I don't necessarily find him so wrong. Looking at Ma Baonan again, he asked if we had overpaid for this suite, but the manager denied it. It is not unreasonable to imply that he is not unreasonable here, he just encounters a problem to solve the problem, he may not accept the refund. It was the manager who didn't cooperate, hoping to bluff people, and to put it bluntly to make a lot of money. To put it bluntly, he is discriminating against the rich. One of the opening remarks is that he never treats customers as individuals, but hypocritically spends money on species they don’t know what they are. They don't know what they want, they're easy to fool, the typical divisive argument: the rich have so much money, what's the matter with spending more, why care so much? Anyway, it can't be spent at all, and I won't notice if it's less.
Is this kind of discrimination against the rich right? Why do human beings always have to draw opposites and opposite camps? Our warlike genes are so stubborn that we constantly want to fight, so it's all about creating opposing concepts and opposing camps. Can't treat people as independent people?
People can appeal to their own demands against inequality. But it always makes sense, right? I don't see the truth of black sisters. She herself kept saying that blacks are now in power, so their minorities get preferential treatment. Since she knows how winners make the rules, how can she keep Americans forever on the pillar of shame because of their previous colonial behavior? So stealing is justified? The most ironic, and must be the action carefully arranged by the main creator, is that she encouraged others to steal it, instead of stealing it herself and giving it to her boyfriend. Encouragement to commit crimes is more vicious than her own crimes. The most terrifying thing is that she has all kinds of excuses to go back, and she even sent text messages to remind her boyfriend to stop, but she didn't do anything to protect herself. The last person is constantly sad and hurts her best friend who has always been extremely caring for her. The camera only shows the best friend talking to the Hawaiian brother, and there is no explicit seduction. And in the mouth of the Hawaiian brother and the black girl, this girl is bad.
The white lotus is indeed a white lotus, just because she doesn't do anything to hurt people, just exists and hurts those people. Just their contact brings out the dark side of these people. Spit on the white lotus for no reason and no reason. There is no reason, it is just that you don't pay enough attention to the weak, and your sense of superiority deprives the weak of the spirit.
Ironically, stating the facts turns into offense and hurt. They really don't do well enough, they really are selfish. But should one be humiliated for this? Should this so-called morality be judged over and over again? Empathetic and helpful, those heroes who pioneered the world can certainly be praised. But do ordinary people who just want to live well need to be cast aside? Just like donating money, the moral kidnapping of being scolded if you don’t donate money or donate too little is the same.
On weekdays, the rich people who love to show in film and television dramas regard the life of the poor as a must, play with and use them, throw it away after use, and exploit them like a vampire. All of this is not reflected in this play. So is it really possible that at its core it is an attack on bourgeois hypocrisy?
The point of the old woman taking advantage of the feelings of black people is also very strange. She has a serious personality defect and wants to use money to win over black people to get her friendship. In fact, she realized that she didn't really want to start a business before it was an irresponsible promise. The humble mentality of wanting to buy feelings with money, but she knows that this kind of backlash will hurt the spa therapist, and she can only compensate for a sum of money. Is this what rich people think money can buy everything? Finally with the money to pass? When the court is trying, it is also necessary to find out whether the other party has subjective malice.
The relationship between people is complicated, and the same is true for love, friendship and family. Don't think that selfless love and tolerance are the right solution. This is only a partial solution. At certain moments in your life, you see the highs in the lows, you see the sparkles, and you see a clear path. Seeing everyone join hands is no longer discriminatory. And most of the time is actually chaos, those moments of definite good moments are what we are constantly pursuing in chaos. Therefore, there is no need to judge human nature with morality in black and white. The complex beauty of human beings has been wiped out into dualism, and it is boring to regard oneself and others as preset codes and behavioral norms.
View more about The White Lotus reviews
