political ideology, cultural symbolic deconstruction, and the shackles of the times are destined to be the same as a separation. The ending
only looks like a pioneer, but the language, narrative structure, lens, and values are all a bit too big and inappropriate.
Narratively, the entire film relies too much on language and lines. Actions, shots, expressions, eyes, music, and subconsciousness only account for 20% or less. This directly led to the decline of the artistry and appeal of the film itself. In addition, the director wanted to install a non-committal so-called "neutral" attitude, but he may not understand that the neutrality and calmness of the film is like the zero degree of Roland Barthes's writing. , not that the neutrality of a scholar can be expressed completely without cover. The neutrality of literature and art can only be slowly washed away from our clarity and transparency after the deep sympathy and the fading tide of love and hatred. Otherwise, calmness and objectivity are just a kind of technical opportunism. After calmness, the expression is still barren and blank.
It seems to express the shackles and imprisonment of religion on people's thoughts, and it depicts the entire monastery as a group of ignorant, superstitious and ignorant Puritans, even like the godfather, who has ulterior motives, molesting nuns, and forging beliefs, but there is no sufficient evidence, and it relies entirely on language. The strong offensive and the expression with a distinct ideological color deliberately set up cultural opposition. The ignorance of the monastery is true, but it does not mean that the foreign monks are so wise. The director did express the girl's strong and even conceited thinking and values to a certain extent in the film, but the purpose of this irony seems to be more to justify the girl's pursuit of ideal freedom. If the teenage girl comes back with success, it will be difficult for the script to proceed.
When pedantic tradition meets arrogant and arrogant modernity, what we need is not noncommittalism, nor intensifying the rift between the two, nor expecting one to replace the other. After all, you can only repair your own scars.
It’s hard to say it’s contagious. I only see symbolism, rights, politicization, ideology, the absence of philosophy, the absence of art, and the absence of the basic elements of cinematicness—fraternity, care, and transcendence.
View more about Beyond the Hills reviews
