The footage of the TV series, but it meets the specifications of the movie.
The details are prominent, clear, precise, and calm.
Dou Sen is really charming. So is Wilder.
Open
talk : When I watched it for the first time, there were no subtitles and I couldn't understand the lines. I don't seem to understand anything, but there is nothing wrong with it anyway. If I keep reading it, I will probably understand it. After two days, I saw the subtitles again, and it felt the same.
Roughly speaking, a person with resources and ideals wants to create a small environment and conduct an experiment in order to make people happy. How to make people happy is the old style of Western philosophy. The experiment was carried out, but the results were messed up and people were crazy. He, and some other people, thought of their own things from this madness.
This is very similar to "Lord of the Flies", but "Lord of the Flies" is an experiment with children, while "Skyscraper" is a copy of social people. In "Skyscrapers", this group of social people sampled very well, the most prominent is a certain "class" of the British. To be honest, I'm not quite sure about this, so I added quotation marks. The problem of "rank" in the movie runs through and is unbreakable. I think anyone who has seen it will not object to my summing up like this.
Therefore, the respective characteristics of the "levels" and the conflicts between the "levels" are subdivided and expanded, and the content plot shows the character's positioning of himself on the one hand and the positioning of other "levels" of people. The characters show a strong sense of "campaign", which makes me somewhat uncomfortable when watching movies. Perhaps because of the limited time period, the inability to rationalize the character's seemingly abnormal behavior, or because of some other considerations, I am willing to accept this setting of the film and do not go into details. (Yeah, if you ask for too much rationalization, we won’t be able to write anything. So we fall in love with "performance.")
Then, I think the most interesting question is:
a person, if he thinks he is superior to someone else, In his value system, when he has a face-to-face conflict with other people, why doesn't he hide this unilateral value judgment? This simply arranged half of the dramatic conflicts in literary works.
There is no need to answer this question at all. If I think A is a dog, then of course I think A is a dog, and I will say to A: a dog. The reason why I raise this question precisely reveals my own psychological positioning: I cannot adhere to the concept of "hierarchy". That's why I don't want to believe in things like this performed by others. From this point, I cannot understand this aspect of the movie.
Two men, fighting; women, flexible.
In the movie, both the upper class and the lower class women survived in the end, and their mentality was stable. Men go crazy, slaughter each other, sink, wilt, and disappear. In one scene, after the upper-class men discussed and decided how to act and then dispersed, they gave a close-up of the women smoking silently, which undoubtedly revealed that the women felt that the situation was out of control for men; We women have to do something. The essence of this lens is simply philosophical, and I want to draw a thousand red circles on it. There are also women washing clothes by the swimming pool. d Lens: Women silently maintain the basic operations of life. The women isolate their children. The women search for the remnants of the disaster for valuables. The women took over women and children. The most intense shot was that the women stabbed Wilder to death. Wilder killed the architect with a pistol, and the women killed Wilder with a knife. Is this obviously unreasonable? Where is the pistol in his hand? Why doesn't he resist? What kind of mental state did he explode at that time? As I said before, this movie is relatively abstract, so there is no need to investigate whether its details are reasonable. What I want to emphasize is that when the women kill Wilder together, it is expressed as a ritual. In such a ritual, the meaning of killing has changed. It no longer contains the “crime” in the legal consciousness that we are used to, but primitive. "Evil": The "evil" that women immediately decided to get rid of is the "evil" relative to the interests of the small society they take over. Without verbal communication, the women took up knives and gathered in front of Wilder, stabbing him to death together: in this "unvoiced", the essence of women is superbly displayed: we make decisions with emotions, we Our collective consciousness is unified, we are women, we will always be women, and women are the core of mankind.
Three, why is shaking Sen safe and sound?
Dou Sen, in the movie, is almost a collection of thousands of favorites. Well, I thought I caught the key to his survival: collecting thousands of pets.
The role of Dou Sen is young, healthy, beautiful, well-educated, and docile, but he will not give up without a bottom line. He has the ability to reflect rationally, but he is sometimes controlled by emotional impact. Dou Sen belongs to the lower class in terms of social status. In the lower class, he is favored by women. In the aspect of sex, his physical quality is superior, and in the aspect of affection, he is full of delicate and considerate willingness, whether for adults or children. Is the ideal caregiver. At the end of the movie, the upper-class women also accepted Dou Sen's existence, because it was precisely these personalities that he was harmless and beneficial to the small society they delineated.
Dou Sen was able to survive only to tell the viewer one thing: love women, follow women, love children, men with good figures and beautiful faces are the darlings of women.
View more about High-Rise reviews
