In fact, when I watched it, I kept thinking about a point that I didn't say before. I actually kinda hate it "Art can be grounded but not grounded / Art can be given to the audience but not sent away". I didn't say it because I think it is It's a joke, but on second thought I think the so-called "father-like" in this sentence is very heavy (very neutral), that is, why do you define art as "can but not" Why? Going back to Russ here actually seems to overlap everyone thinks some are sinners and some are great people good photography comes from the finished film not the negative and so on you can think it's good it hits your aesthetic but you can't deny the other It can also be done that you believe in one religion so you want other religions to die because they are all wrong and even this one doctrine exists another one has to be destroyed what las does is very simple if you want this I would rather try the opposite ( It's somewhat similar to zyg) It shows its "arrogance". I really like arrogance. It's not a movie, it's mentally ill, but it's very philosophical. Jack finally became Dante and Virgil in hell. In fact, the whole film process has been poking the mainstream Weaknesses of thought, Christianity or feminism, but in the end, it comes down to philosophy. You said that Lars was arrogant. He studied a lot of deep things in Christianity. It surpassed at least the average Christian. After all, most of the selections from the works came from Bach and The last famous paintings are all like this, but you said he obeyed. He did this to torture the audience because it was the opposite direction of expression. I added one person to the list of directors I like. Is the final art corrupt or beautify? why do you judge
View more about The House That Jack Built reviews
