One story, three perspectives.
1) The students who participated in the war, in order to get rid of the domestic environment and economic difficulties, they chose to participate in the war in Afghanistan, in order to be able to continue their studies and continue on the path of change in the future. Just like what the professor said-IF, If you come back, sadly, they never made it back. Cruel society?
2) Dialogue between parliamentarians and reporters, parliamentarians promote new strategies of war to reporters to attract the public to join the war with enthusiasm. Based on decades of experience and female intuition, she knew that what she was told would be very different from the real situation. She was struggling to make a living or to sell this strategy to the public and send more soldiers to the war.
3) The conversation between the professor and the students who he thinks is capable. He, the students who are thinking and able to think independently, gradually no longer care about learning, just want to see through the society, and then he doesn't care. The professor cherishes his talents and guides him to use actions to make changes. But the final decision is always yours. You have grown up quietly when you don't want to grow up, and you have already made a decision when you don't want to make a decision.
Both paragraphs 2, 3 are more or less affected by 1.
I quite like this type of film, and in recent years I have seen more and more similar films. One thing that seems irrelevant, the result is the core of the whole film.
Acting has nothing to say, the favorite is Meryl.
View more about Lions for Lambs reviews
