——In "1 Corinthians"
today, it is estimated that a large group of people will say that this is pure virgin bitch. , doing so is a kind of mental illness, in order to satisfy the moral illusion of the ego, or to be prepared to sacrifice some kind of capital. Even the less mean and shrewd will find this out of reach of sainthood standards. So what's so strange about "no love to sue"?
Looking at the whole article, the moral of this "Family Ethics Drama" is not difficult: the child is of course a symbol of the future and hope. Along with the ruthless quarrels and struggles of the adults, he disappeared into the air, leaving only the proof of the streamers on the branches. He used to exist. And their ending naturally continued the hopeless coldness, turning into a cycle of disgust, indifference and disappointment.
This is the norm in a loveless world. Here, marriage has become thoroughly instrumental, not just for the so-called purpose of reproduction or social bonding, but also to keep a job under a religious boss, and to escape a mother whose mouth is more poisonous than a pesticide. While people are deliberate, they feel wronged at the same time, so they can't wait to seek the opportunity to make a comeback. Men use the words and deeds of warm men to pick up girls, and women use well-maintained makeup to fish for Kaizi. So they fell into the so-called love again, and each lingered with the new person to find happiness. However, this seemingly "normal" dating, intimacy and love was just to get rid of the last failure. Only the child who "shouldn't be born" signifies that they regret their past and were left alone in a broken home. They had given up on him as they had given up hope for each other.
Then of course he will disappear. In a place without tolerance, trust, hope, and patience, there will be no love. People are now only seeking their own interests, being irritable and irritable, calculating each other's evils, and not taking cheating as a shame. The consequences of this are intergenerational: the male protagonist who is scumbag and cowardly "has no relatives", but he does not fall from the sky. Has he ever, like his own son, abandoned a loveless man family? The heroine's tearing skills are also obviously a copy of her mother's. If nothing else, they would choose to throw these blames on their original family, growth environment, and history and culture, but they never seem to think about it, if my parents abused me, I will abuse others? Since you are so tired of being mixed up with a whole house of old and young, why do you want to make other people's stomachs bigger? What they complain about every day is their own loss and distress. It is this selfish mentality that creates a loveless wasteland.
Compared with the symbolic critique of the shirtless in Leviathan, Sarkinsev "received" a little in the direction of "Return", trying to use the shell of a broken marriage to construct a text with multiple metaphors, rhythmically. It is said that the shooting is relatively stable, and the light and shadow of the picture are quite delicate. However, the biggest problem is not that the TV news is used to force political cheating at the end, but that the routine of "evaporating from the world" is too plain, especially with the addition of "child-searching volunteers", which makes the film return to the real level—— They conscientiously help these incompetent parents wipe their butts, and even if they witnessed all kinds of bloody scenes in these families, they did not drop a "deserved" with contempt and withdraw, or questioned sending their children back to such families. Makes no sense. Comparing the two, people feel that the fate of this loveless couple is purely a case of self-inflicted blame, and it is completely impossible to see how they can blame the society. The two boats of popular plot and artistic depth are too hard to step on, it is really not as good as "Mother!" "It's a complete tearing of the face like that.
View more about Loveless reviews
