There is no textual research, but the melody at the end of the film tends to be sad, and it is speculated that the wind may have reference elements.
First of all, the theme of the wind has been very clear. The end of the film is specially expressed in the way of a female monologue, and the content of the theme of human nature is generally covered as "spirit". Do not repeat.
Based on the objective similarity of the expression centers of the two films, it is assumed that this is a propositional composition, and the examination papers answered by the two directors can respectively give a glimpse of the interesting influence on the inertial thinking when expressing one thing.
It is not a comparison of pros and cons, but only from an objective point of view. The main content of the wind sound can be summarized as follows: set up two parties A and B to form a pair of contradictions, and party A will attack party B, and set up several characters in party B, from the perspective of party A. Expand the plot, describe several characters of party B, and develop the plot with the development of the event, set up doubts, get the result, set up a character on party B to lead the audience's perspective, and at the end, read through the personal monologue of the soul character of party B in the way of recitation Indicate the center of this video to the viewer.
The selling point is that the transformation of right and wrong yields an appearance, which is the exact opposite of the truth. The second is the comparison of the performance of several characters on the B side, which makes the film proceed in an orderly manner in the segments.
The main content of the eavesdropper is to lead the plot from a perspective from beginning to end, and the contradiction comes from the leader of this perspective who is also the protagonist, the transformation from Party A to Party B. Party A and Party B are opposed to each other and constitute a contradiction, but the main contradiction in this film is that the eavesdropper himself has changed from being subordinate to Party A to helping Party B, setting up gender factors such as the attraction of Party B’s opposite sex, but it does not clearly indicate whether it is accurate in attitude. It's due to female attraction - thereby giving a variety of audiences their favorite answers amid uncertainty.
The whole structure is full of opposing factors, not just from a moral point of view, but also from the various conditions of the rationalization of the plot.
The two sides have maintained a clear position in the constant transition. Although there is no need to make a statement at the end of the film, it is more clear to point the point - a sonata for a good man.
This phenomenon is very worth thinking about: when the two show the theme of a contradictory struggle, the former is based on a black-and-white premise for the confrontation between the two parties - struggle, or death. The opposite of the latter lies in the fact that people are either good or evil, so is the transformation of good and evil possible?
The former is evil from beginning to end, while the latter finds many things that can be transformed between good and evil - some people are good and then evil, some people are evil and then good, good and evil are always opposed, but they will be transformed with human nature- Add some influences of both sexes on this - women are weaker, sometimes kind, sometimes short-sighted, but they are essentially good, is it possible to attribute sin to evil forces because they are weak?
More uncertain factors give the latter more room for thinking and discussion.
Point 2 worth thinking about: The former makes a monologue at the end, is it related to composition education? A very clear conclusion must be written at the end of the paragraph. The whole article revolves around one argument, and analyzes the factors of positive and negative comparison and ranking, and finally draws a conclusion.
This is exactly why the former uses a black-and-white premise to narrate—that the audience should also stand clearly and accurately.
The latter is constantly setting up contradictory points that influence the sharp conclusion.
Contradictions are opposites, and truth spirals upward in practice.
Art exists at the spiritual level. It comes from the artist's thinking about a pair of contradictions. With his own skills, he gives beauty, expresses his personal understanding of this contradiction, and at the same time triggers more thinking - the condition is that it is accurately expressed, Intuitively, the audience can see the contradiction and trigger more and deeper thinking.
Inertial thinking makes the former too clear in expression, and the artistry is weaker than the latter.
Why is this happening? Is it because the former exists in a group that desperately needs answers and principles? And isn't the basic form of human existence lost?
In this world where all possibilities exist, fighting with oneself and constantly getting lost is the most essential and natural form of human existence. If you insist on defining first and then acting, then I think this world will give such people more doubts. .
View more about The Lives of Others reviews
