Representing "many years later", the expression technique is a pile of yellowed photo ppt, which is both clever and lazy. When the camera turned again, Norman and Paul were already teenagers. The surfing fight showed a young temperament and a different personality from the two brothers. Then time passed. Norman was admitted to Dartmouth and gave a few mv-like general shots. Then I jumped to six years later-to be honest, I can't stand this style a little bit. Time has jumped too much and editing is relatively fragmented, so that a person like me with low literary and artistic cells can't grasp the point. The director probably wants to express a kind of sentiment, and it won't go against the peace at all to replace the movie screen with lyrical prose.
Norman came back from university six years later. He and his younger brother’s lives are completely different. Norman is mature and steady and loves to learn, and is expected to take over from his father. Paul is already an excellent angler, has a free and unruly temperament, and likes drinking women and gambling. There is a kind of carelessness in life that I have wine now and I am drunk, and I don't care if I owe a debt. I really like this role. When he was young, Pete was really handsome and aura. He completely performed Paul’s flying free and easy, full of youthfulness, with light in his eyes. In the last scene, there was no sign of acting when he smirked at the camera with a big fish ( But he swallows words, I don’t know if the English version I read is the original sound). In contrast, Norman is much inferior. I don’t understand what his role definition is except being a protagonist. I feel that he is never salty or indifferent to things. If you say that the eldest brother is responsible like a father, why not follow Persuade him to turn around when he started to know that his brother was gambled and owed a debt? Every time Norman mentioned this topic in the film, he was eager to talk. Paul refused to follow him. Normal people know that gambling is a bottomless pit. Shouldn't you be a big brother to stop it? If you don’t succeed, you have to tell your family to find a way together, but their parents seem to have no idea until Paul’s death. Paul’s stubborn temperament is one thing. It’s the family's negligence if he doesn’t try to stop him. Understand what Norman thinks. And the way he gets along with his parents is also very polite, especially when he talks with his father when he comes back from school, it looks like an interview, which is very strange.
Norman and Jesse’s relationship line is also very inexplicable. It wasted the length of the film but didn’t spread out much. Instead, most of it was wasted on his eldest uncle, who wanted to point out in advance through Jesse’s brothers and sisters, "No matter what the family is. I love the spirit of the theme? Anyway, until Norman proposed, I was not sure whether Jesse loved Norman or not. She had almost turned her face with Norman because of her brother. I didn't understand the phrase "Norman is funny/boring". I can get the relationship between Paul and Indian women. Sex and hormones plus exotic attraction, although vulgar, are much better than Norman Jessie.
Finally, the scene where the father and son were fishing was very moved. Although Paul's death was not photographed head-on, although it was a bit boring, it was understandable as a means of expression, and it would be vulgar to photograph it. It’s just that the family’s happiness, anger, sorrow, and joy are so calm, the son died—still such a tragic way of death—not to mention crying and grabbing the ground, but also shed a few tears, it's better than just sitting there. With a sigh at the end, Norman took his wife and children to listen to his father's lecture. Soon after his father passed away, he said it. Many years later, Norman, who was nearly old, returned to his hometown, fishing on the river as before. The mountain is still that mountain, and the water is still that water, but the old people around are no longer there. The film is really not very exciting. It is better than the mood and feelings. Aside from these, it is a good semi-documentary with ordinary photography. The protagonist's life is not counted as the ups and downs. Although Paul is happy, he can't escape the fireworks. There are so many different paths in life, the same come and different return, in the end, only the big river is left, and the dying water will never return.
View more about A River Runs Through It reviews
