A very suitable film to explore from a communication perspective!

Berta 2022-03-28 09:01:03

The final reversal of the plot is difficult to justify. The ironic passages are remarkable. The most unique thing is that this is all presented on the screen (computer, mobile phone, camera). It can only be presented in film and cannot be transcribed into words. From this perspective, it is indeed a unique image language. But this form itself has nothing to say about beauty, and it can even be said to be ugly, so it seems that there is no more application space. (Maybe this form can be used to express the loneliness of contemporary urban youth?)

Laverne 2022-03-23 09:01:53

In fact, this kind of Screenlife image has developed its only remaining expressive power since its birth (emphasizing the existence of the camera, the interaction between the subject and the camera, and obliterating the "perspective" that the camera could have been, in fact, let it be It is more inclined to documentaries, but it does not have any appeal to remove the reaction). All that's left is to squeeze the audience. Entering the image itself has a medium barrier, and the addition of an additional layer of screen can only allow the viewer to always watch, not perceive. However, if it is only a stack of reaction materials, it is in line with the nature of the network and communication under the premise of real-time. However, this film has repeatedly used the traditional image organization method to run through its compositional thinking on the premise that the so-called "novel form" can continue. In a situation where the father's character performance has been invalidated due to non-real-time, the so-called suspenseful effect is achieved through repeated accumulation of dramatic reversals, which I call offensive to the film. One of the most nauseating movies I've watched this year.