Don't comment on the plot of the movie at all. Just talking about its image style.
I remember that I used the word real film in my film class, which was coined in France in the 1960s. Documentary style video, similar to hyperrealism in painting. When I saw this movie, I immediately thought of a movie "Go and see for yourself" with a very similar style.
Probably have the following characteristics:
1. Recording time = real time: Never use time-lapse or fast editing to express realistic poetry or speed up the storyline. Everything you see is the same in time as life, and the switching of shots will never show the author's intention, just a change of scene.
2. The dialogue is life-oriented: There is absolutely no language designed to explain the plot or explain the theme, most of which are spoken in life.
3. There are no empty shots, shots of a lyrical nature, but only focusing on events.
4. Most of the scenes are medium shots, and close-ups or other zoom lenses are rarely used.
5. There is no background music, the sound and picture are always synchronized.
6. There is no artificial plot arrangement, like this movie, when it shows the genocide, it does not deliberately arrange who will die first, because the movie has no main character.
7. The time sequence is linear, there is no flashback or flashback.
8. There is no explanation for the subject, no emotion, such as the title of the movie: see for yourself.
Such an image ensures that the movie you see has a strong impression of life as it is, beware, it's just an impression. I've always admired this style of film a lot and thought it was the best way to express real life.
But there are actually two sides to the matter. No matter what kind of decoration, no setting, no suggestion. Film discourse itself means a limited expression of life. That is to say, what you shoot and what you show us are still influencing our perception. For example, this "Warren" and the above-mentioned "Go and See For Yourself" are both about the performance of the Holocaust in World War II. What is true and what is false in reality? Because one of the photographers is Polish and the other is from the former Soviet Union, the shooting times are also different. We really can't stand on a transcendent height to judge the authenticity of the work.
From this perspective, the more real the image, the more likely it is to lie.
Moreover, it is a lie that makes people believe it to be true.
View more about Hatred reviews
