As we move from the initial part to the second, the story takes on a faster pace, with the director using time lapses and jumps to capture fleeting moments every 3 to 4 years. However, this narrative technique introduces a bit of confusion, leaving us without a clear sense of where the story is heading. To make sense of the unfolding scenes, I found myself relying on the questions posed in the reflection paper.
In this latter part of the film, the acting becomes more expressive, but it seems to lose a bit of the character's authentic essence. While the actors infuse heightened emotions into each scene, there's a noticeable effort to showcase their portrayal rather than fully immersing themselves in the roles. It feels like they're trying to prove they are embodying the characters rather than simply letting the authenticity of the acting shine through. The director may play a role in this dynamic, as they seem to aim for an extensive portrayal of the families' life stories. However, the brevity of the scenes leaves us wondering if they're meant to convey a part of the overarching story or a specific character's journey.
Some of the interpretations in our discussion made me think about the fact that reactions were forced out of the characters to show change and development within them and the storyline, while some of the reactions made the previous scenes make more sense while some of them added a layer of mystery for the upcoming scenes. My main question was, did we actually see Nicola change, or was the subtle anger outburst from time to time just a reaction to major issues happening within his life? Nicola kept consistent with his inability to interpret his emotions and portrayed his brother Matteo in some of the anger pushing the audience to believe that his wife leaving was such a major event, but if it was why did he react so lightly in the moment? I believe that Nicola never changed and that it was only in the moment as humans tend to either underreact or overreact.
Comments
Post a Comment