So, I rejected films about gay men. As a result, I have been shaken by two films in a row recently, one is the old film "Deadly Cut", and the other is this "Tsundere League".
To be honest, I personally feel that the script of "Tsundere League" lacks detailed handling. It is a hand-held DV pieced together by the old-fashioned old-fashioned stalks that sing the praises of the good and the good. In gay films, it can only have influence on gay men, but it's not convincing to a "normal person" like me.
I can't comment, and I can't say which of so many editing techniques ABCD is superior or inferior, just from the point of view of feeling, both are swayed, and both are gay films that I can't accept, "Fatal Cut" I can watch , "Tsundere League" I can not play. As a film that justifies the name of gay men, of course its audience should exclude homosexuality, right?
The female protagonist (or the second male?) shown in "Fatal Cut" left me speechless, knowing that it was wrong, knowing that this was not a normal ethical relationship, but I was beyond reproach. The director does not promote this kind of relationship, but the director allows the male protagonist to end the painful life of the female protagonist himself. But the situation of the male protagonist's painful and messy advance and retreat is very realistic. This is the most normal manifestation of the chaotic conflict of friendship and love between a gay and a straight man, right? It is also in line with the proportion of the audience of the audience, right?
The description of homosexuality in "The Tsundere League" is a lower level. It is completely the story of how a group of caring and ideal "perverts" acquire conservative traditional "normal people". Is it appropriate to be widely accepted directly because it benefits the group of "normal people"? Is it appropriate to carry out such blatant paediatric preaching to the "normal" group? Just because the "perverts" said "if people call you by the same name (referring to "perverts" in the film), the best thing you can do is accept it and have it In exchange for acceptance and understanding? Then I'll give him more titles. Such as "shame".
Speaking of it now, I have to say that my attitude towards homosexuality, especially gay men, is that I firmly do not support it and refuse to have close contact. So I have always felt awkward while watching this film, as ridiculous as watching a bunch of little villains trying their best to prove that they are harmless. Compared with "Deadly Cut", I was watching the hair standing upright and sweating coldly, because I was shocked by the male protagonist's handling of this incestuous love, this rough and brutal handling, I couldn't do better. This kind of contradiction between understanding homosexuality and rejecting oneself into the dilemma of homosexuality should be the first step for homosexuality to arouse society's concern for their group.
To sum up, the characteristics of the two gay films.
"Tsundere League" is like the director preaching to me: "You see, they are all gays, gays are good people, they are caring people, they are easy to get along with, and they are harmless to people."
And "Deadly Cut" "It was like the director was questioning me: "Look, he's gay, but is he wrong? Isn't he human? Isn't he worthy of feelings?"
I don't know which one you like.
View more about Pride reviews
