Different people have different understandings of this film.
After reading some film reviews and discussing some so-called audience involvement and chaos,
I don’t quite understand it. Because I knew from the beginning that this was a pseudo-documentary, and it was not entangled in his theoretical form.
The film was shot by a few college students. It can be described as a masterpiece. In terms of form, it is a pioneering classic. From record to appearance, it looks so casual. Just like what a documentary is, anyway, many documentaries I know have artificial presentations and inductive conversations. For me, this film is more of a criticism and satire of the documentary, or the form of the film.
Many people’s multi-film violence is shocking. It’s true, because it’s naked, without rendering, without music, and without lens scheduling. This is the realism of documentary, which makes people feel intuitive, but it stands still. Considerable angle. What I want to say is the black humor of the film, which may be the director's young nature, which has a lot of ridicule. To put it bluntly, it means love to play. The flute exploded the chrysanthemums, and finally the mop exploded the chrysanthemums. There are also some lines, which are actually there in terms of appreciation. It’s better to be young, and the mentality of play is the key to a lively movie.
The format of this film is very special, like a feature film and a documentary. It can be said that this intermediate form of film has a new way. Perhaps it is this avant-garde form that has attracted more attention to this film, but I I believe that the director himself will use the film to discuss the form of the film, and he has something to say about the form of the film.
A good film that I should watch, this film still has high aesthetic requirements. By the way, in terms of the lens and light used for shooting, it is also quite interesting.
View more about Man Bites Dog reviews
