I love Tennessee Williams. For his ability to show 'Amerakanism' in its northern form. Completely and thoroughly. Convex. And in 'Cat...' it's quite enough. It may not be enough to understand the life and mentality of people, but the orientation of culture, of course. And it (culture) is not interested in the life of the majority of the population - here in the transfer to our, more and more & #39; commercializing & #39; reality - the plot does not touch at all. Because far from the daily mini tragedies and anxieties. All of these ' roof jumps' - although magnificently performed by E.T. - the essence of Americanism - at any cost to be successful, rich and do not care what ' competitors' 6-ro children! And they need more capital, purely arithmetically! Yes, and those, too, with ' morality' everything is fine - as well at any cost ' to obtain' inheritance - by slaps and nausea, entanglement and obscuring ' brain'.
Returning to ' paw twitching' GG. Despite the beautifully presented shades of feelings by the actress, admiring her ways of conveying them, you remain extremely uninterested in her goal. Even despite the author's rethought 'Dostoevskism' replicas of the main characters (oh, yes!) There is 'psychologicalism' - so beloved by North Americans, in its most everyday form - individualistic self-absorption. After all, the characters of Williams are extremely opposite to the heroes of Dostoevsky - they cherish and cherish their ego.
What else did the painting from the North American background culture perfectly convey? Except ' Destoyevshchina' twisted ideology on the inside out, the very ideology of greed and rentier (read idleness) and tragedy ' typical' family? There are also abstract monologues/dialogues, with seeming inner content - perfectly lived by the actors themselves - which gives a feeling of "vitality" & #39; their supposed fulfillment. That, however, further Tarantino will develop in his ' naturalistic' exchange of replicas of heroes and also superbly filled with the work of actors. But no one is looking for a deep message in the discussion of the name of a quarter-pound burger in France!
Bottom line: the film is actingly great, most of the actors perfectly conveyed the characters of their characters, which was unexpected for me from Hollywood. But ideas and meanings are far from our lives, it is possible to admire this film only in a pure separation from understanding the meaning and role of culture in society or frothing saliva on the meanings and ideas offered by the film, so magnificently laid in the plot by the creators.
The film adaptation of works of art is a complex and controversial issue, and each film adaptation is a reason for disputes and rejection of someone else’s point of view. Unfortunately, the decline in interest in books and reading increasingly negates the need for such discussions, as most potential readers turn into a gullible and compliant viewer. There is no image of your book, there are no heroes in your mind, whom you may have endowed with the features of your loved ones, there is no own pace that coincides with yours. There’s nothing to argue about – the movie will decide for you.
That is why it is a great happiness to find a film adaptation that cannot be passed by, which not only gives you the feeling of reading and immersion in the text, but also is intrinsically valuable in artistic terms. In 1958, Richard Brooks made the film “Cat on a Hot Roof” based on Tennessee Williams’ play. Despite the fact that the playwright himself was dissatisfied with the picture, thanks to it, today in the context of “Cat...” we can talk not only about literary classics, but also about cinematic ones. Tennessee Williams was lucky that two of his most famous plays were embodied in cult films - the second is "Stroll "Desire" (1951, Elia Kazan).
The hot air burns our lungs, strained nerves ring with the tension that rings in our ears; the simplicity of the lines, and the riot of acting in the film - all this is "Cat on a hot roof." Sometimes it seems that Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor are too beautiful to play a drama without gloss, but it was in their performance that the brilliant play found life - breathed and spoke. Each of them has so much temperament - necessary for the images of Maggie and Brick, so much acting technique, but most importantly, so much feeling that they, like their characters, are forced to withstand when the flow breaks through barriers, dams and other obstacles. As if locked in the same room, they, Maggie and Brick, must measure their loneliness by the strange measure of the other’s loneliness.
In appearance, this is a family drama in which there are understandable and not new neither for literature nor for cinema clashes. Problems arising from misunderstanding, banal conflicts over inheritance. But it is from this that the garbage grows its flowers and Tennessee Williams, and Richard Brooks: the banal entanglement turns into a study of personality, the study of a person, his doubts, distrust, love and the ability to forgive. The relationship between Brick and Maggie is a complex tangle of contradictions, which you can understand only by trying to meet each other, leaving pride and resentment and trusting your love. After all, it turns out that when it is, all other problems are much easier to solve, and when it is not, everything is aggravated: “Life with someone you love can be more lonely than living completely alone if the person you love does not love you.” This line of Maggie is worth many treatises on the psychology of love and relationships.
Literature and cinema as an art, in contrast to science (particularly psychology) has a unique opportunity: it does not need to reason, it embodies its ideas in images. Turning into metaphors of reality and the imaginary, these images enter our consciousness, so the work of art lives as many times as people let it into themselves: it is different every time, it has a different fate.
The drama in these family settings looks deceptively simple, like a conflict of interest between the calculating and the desperate, defeated by life. But we are only witnessing a denouement, the result of a desire for well-being measured in numbers, a desire to conquer and protect what is won in a generation of heirs. Everyone wanted to succeed in this race without being distracted by sentiment. The beloved and hope of Big Pa has closed in its uselessness to the world. After all, as a man, his father did not notice him, postponing communication on an equal footing until the time of the transfer of affairs. The only outlet is a friendship with the Captain. The world built on the benefits does not recognize losers and the collapse of the idol deprived the meaning of life left without the last support of Brix.
Both the film and the play show a conflict of aspirations and results. A focus on results throws loved ones beyond the limits of human relationships and deprives all achievements of meaning. This is an urgent problem in a society aimed at prosperity. It requires a person to constantly compare the result and the price of humanity, identity, which he sacrifices to success.
What is seen in the film's finale as an awakening from the nightmare of self-digging (for Brix), as a promise of life and intimacy (for Maggie), indicates the landmark missed at the beginning of their conscious life - originality. All these misfortunes could be avoided if you build your life by asking yourself, and not looking for guides in life, if people around you are so busy with themselves.
In “Cat...” Newman’s game long remains in the shadow of the brilliant intonation patterns of Elizabeth Taylor, playing the role of Maggie, the wife of the main character. In both films, we see a rather traditional Hollywood montage: general and middle plans of short duration, rarely interrupted by close-ups of characters uttering particularly emotional lines.
The operator often shoots the main characters separately, as if giving the actors an opportunity to demonstrate mastery of acting technique. Brooks’ paintings could be called purely illustrative in relation to literary material, containing no purely cinematic merit, if they did not have a good narrative tempo and were not correctly rhythmically organized.
The basic conflict of the T. Williams Theatre is inherited from the play by A. Miller “The Death of a Salesman” – the clash of reality and dreams, fragile vulnerable heroes and hard, ruthless reality. Williams is less cruel in his conclusions than Miller, his author's style is softer, more lyrical, more melodramatic, he does not use the techniques of literature "stream of consciousness", leaning towards more traditional methods of conveying the psychological nuances of the inner life of the characters.
Richard Brooks in his film adaptations of Williams’ plays resorted to the most traditional means of cinematic expressiveness for Hollywood. His films are very dependent on literary material, its advantages and disadvantages, especially obvious if you compare these tapes.
Honestly, I expected more from the film. And yet it certainly gives some pleasure. First, the stunningly beautiful and charismatic Newman and Taylor in the lead roles, and absolutely brilliant in the role of Big Daddy - Berel Ives. Secondly, the very pleasant, elegant atmosphere of the 50s (for which I want to watch these films), the atmosphere of a luxurious house, so presentable outside, but full of problems inside - problems and contradictions among its inhabitants. Thirdly, in this film we recognize the style of the author of the play W. Tennessee.
The plot of the film is the story of a family, between whose members for one reason or another lay a wall of alienation and resentment, hidden behind the external observance of family traditions. Interestingly, several psychological lines intersect in relationships: Big Daddy and his sons, especially the youngest; the youngest son (Newman) and his wife (Taylor), Big Daddy and his wife; brothers and their wives. All this is familiar to each of us, many adults have to deal with problems that arose a long time ago - in childhood. The characters are desperately trying to understand the relationship between themselves, and at the same time to share the legacy of Big Daddy. The climax and denouement comes in the final dialogues of the film, when saying what was not decided before, the main characters again find the ground under each other's feet.
It was a little stressful that the whole film is on high tones, the characters literally yell at each other, although you involuntarily wonder if it could be otherwise, and yet by the middle of the film you get tired of it. It seemed to me that the film could be even more interesting and psychological, if the eldest son and his wife were not presented almost round idiots. This simplified some lines of family relations and deprived the film of a certain intrigue. While the main characters and their actions, as in life, are not unambiguous, they have strengths and weaknesses, like all of us. That makes them more interesting.
In fact, Maggie’s “cat” is not the main character of this film, based on another play by Tennessee Williams, which once again tells us about people and their relationships. Only now Elizabeth Taylor instead of Vivien Leigh and Paul Newman instead of Marlon Brando. Well, the replacement is quite worthy, and Newman, in one of his first significant roles, is already pleasantly surprising, portraying an early disillusioned young man who - as, alas, many in this case - drowns out the pain with a bottle. How delightful and seductive Elizabeth, I think, is not even worth talking about. She really is a real "cat" who tries to stick claws into her unruly husband, although she seems to have sincere feelings for him. But these are quite common things, such “scenes from married life”.
Much more interesting and significant is the conflict between the father (he really is a big dad) and the son, who are trying to talk to each other, but constantly something interferes. Which is not surprising at the show, which is arranged by the children and the wife of the eldest son, whose intentions are so obvious that they are sick from the beginning. But it so happens that on this dark night, with a raging thunderstorm, all emotions and previously hidden omissions between members of this family break out. Brick and his father imbue each other with warm feelings, albeit for a while, let death be near, but these smiles on their faces after a conversation say a lot, because it is so nice to directly and honestly express everything that has hurt for many years. This is a reason to recognize your mistakes, admit them and look at the world with fresh eyes, which is what Harvey Pollit does. He goes outside and sees that it has become lighter and easier to breathe. And even the irreconcilable Brick seems to have forgotten about drinking and laughs with his father at the “smell of hypocrisy” reigning in the room.
And that smell is actually all over the world. Everything rots and sinks into lies, only wealth and money are important - its integral part. The lie is felt in all words and gestures, in all actions and intentions, except for those rare moments when the cry of the soul silences everything else, and the truth still bursts out. “The family crisis reveals the best and the worst in us,” says Gooper Pollit sadly and with a smile. That’s the way it is, and honestly, we should have more such crises in our lives. Maybe we can understand something.
The film takes the fact that it is in fact – all one big dialogue length of an hour and a half, which is impossible to break away from when already so immersed in other people’s family problems. But here's the title of the movie - although funny - but a little bit off. And in general, probably, this is normal, you should not immediately reveal the cards, all the charm should remain behind the scenes until they are opened after a long wait. I recall Bergman’s film on the same subject, Autumn Sonata, where a daughter confesses to her mother that she hates her for her terrible childhood, deprived of love, affection and maternal care. It’s an equally striking, yet more powerful example of how one revelation can turn everything around, put an end to old relationships, and perhaps give you a chance to start over. But “Cat on a Hot Roof” is full of meaning and mesmerizing narrative and various details like a basement filled with purchased things on a trip to Europe. Millions have been spent, but love has not been bought, and things have become just rubbish that Brick angrily destroys. Here again I see a reference to another masterpiece of cinema - Citizen Kane, because Charles Foster Kane similarly surrounded himself with a dead weight of various things.
You could say that a little bit more – I liked the movie. It is surprising sometimes to stumble upon such things, among the rather stamped American cinema of those years (although it smells pleasantly of the smell of antiquity and a sense of style). He also discovered the other side of the talent of an actor like Paul Newman, who was used to seeing him as a con artist or gang leader. My collection of “beauties” in the cinema has also expanded – I think you understand who I mean.
I almost forgot to watch this movie.
Cat on a Hot Roof is a 1958 American drama directed by Richard Brooks. The movie was emotional, explosive and furious. The story of this picture shows a family headed by a big dad: a very rich and powerful man who is terminally ill and will soon die. All of his relatives revolve around him, waiting for him to make a large gesture of inheritance. We see his youngest son, who is experiencing one of the most emotional moments of his life, and his son’s wife: a young and charming woman. This family epic takes us into an emotional story with their “skeletons in the closet”, and we see something incredibly exciting, luxurious and frantic.
The actors in this film are better, so the movie caught my attention. Hollywood beauty and lover of America Elizabeth Taylor is an incredibly beautiful woman and a great actress. In this drama, we can again see her inspired play and enjoy it from the first to the last shot. Also noteworthy in this film is Paul Newman, whose hero was so mysterious and secretive, and really wanted to unravel all the secrets of the marriage of the main characters. It was a brilliant movie in 1958, and I personally enjoyed watching it. The script is original, the actors were all on top, and the director’s work is not bad, so we have a great movie, which is a golden collection of American cinema of the last century.
Elizabeth Taylor, you are adorable!
8 out of 10
It is difficult and not just to write a review of the masterpiece. With my scobar and clumsy tongue, I'll try to do it. I don’t know what will happen, but don’t judge too harshly. The film “Cat on a hot roof”, based on the play by Tennessee Williams, is one of the world’s masterpieces. Richard Brooks, the director of the film, managed to show such a theatrical performance that the epithets of reason and reason rest.
Chamber drama, which shows human vices and human gut, kinship, father-son relations, intransigence and falsehood, the vector ring of love of Maggie and Brick.
It would seem that a person played football, got injured, drank, and what can be made of it? What can be done to a respected public? In the meantime, a lot can be done. The first is to try to understand how a handsome and intelligent guy, not deprived of gray matter, repels his divine and delightful wife. What can't he forgive her? What is her mortal sin and is it at all?
Maggie, in all possible and impossible ways and means, tries to revive her husband, for whom one joy in life is a bottle. And then the brother's wife comes on his heels, rushes into battle for the inheritance, which is sinful to divide with the living head of the family. But the state of Big Papa causes extreme fears and uneven hours can happen, so the "sister" is fussing. And Brick drinks and he doesn't care. But sooner or later, there must be a frank conversation between the father and son, in which Maggie herself will play an important role. The details that caused the death of Skipper, a friend of footballer Brick, will be revealed. It turns out not only this, but like a film, life flies before the eyes of father and son.
In addition to the masterpiece of Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman, it is worth noting the one who played Big Dad, Berl Ives. This trio is just gorgeous!!! And what sparkling moments when these neckless kids get Maggie.
- Don't eat ice cream with dirty hands. Take your hands out of the ice cream bucket!
And boom, this miracle baby, this little girl is doing a hell of a job on Maggie's tights. It's done. And when the other, Garna Devchin comes into the room to Maggie and Brick and says nasty things to little Maggie, and then shows her tongue. These are phenomenal moments. You just have to see them!!
Bravo to everyone, from Richard Brooks to these little kids!
10 out of 10
Theatrical production that went to the big screen.
A family that is close to dying of cancer is its "Big Dad" head. The inheritance of his cotton empire is claimed by two sons (Brick and Goupert) and their wife (Moggy and even the name is not named in the second). In clarifying the relationship in the family and opening boxes of lies and consists of a summary of almost 2 hours of theatrical action.
A typical Hollywood movie of the 50s. Even the most complete idiot in the movie, it is obvious that a theater play is being filmed, so poorly disguised by director Richard Brooks. And theatricality of pret from all the cracks - the overplay of actors, the limitedness of mise-en-scene, the absence of extras ... The second notable feature is the influence of noir on the visual range of the picture and some types. “The Sufferer” Paul Newman, the fatal beauty Elizabeth Taylor, numerous cabinets with skeletons in addition. However, the play is very talented, as it came from the pen of Tennessee Williams (Tram "Desire"). He, by the way, turned out to be the most dissatisfied viewer of the picture, since his bold author’s ideas (such as hints at “orientation”) severely cut the self-censorship of the director, and external censors did not stand aside clearly.
Third, the pathos of the idea. Up to the 70s. and in fact, the cinema sinned (some still sins), and in the 50s and even more so. It is pathetic and not subtly presented condemnation of lies and hypocrisy, which are imbued with right Americans - lawyers, their wives with children, non-drinkers and non-smokers, do not cheat on each other, etc. In short, the movie’s slogan is “Down with Conservative America!” And two hours of screen time is dedicated to the exhumation of this conservative corpse, and everything that happens on the screen is very convincing, despite this bloody pathos. A couple of disabled people (father, Brick, Maggie) are in fact livelier, truthful and morally healthier than seemingly prosperous Goupert and his wife.
Finally, the fourth feature of the 50s is a terry happy ending and universal reconciliation.
But it doesn’t matter, because how gorgeous looks on-screen pair Newman (Brick)-Taylor (Maggie)! The first burns with acting talent, the second with a magnificent face, body and suffering. Finally, all claims come not from the context of the '50s, but from today's context. But even today, the movie looks good and looks good.
Reading the plays of Tennessee Williams is a pleasure, especially for me, who disliked the genre from school. But the works of the great American playwright are amazingly read, excellent dialogue, skillfully written characters plus complex, non-trivial conflicts - all this ensured Williams world fame and the Pulitzer Prize. But because the playwright was gay, he managed to weave the subject into his works, which, given the time in which he worked, was risky. And he did it so gracefully, skillfully, and absolutely not vulgar that his plays only acquired sharpness and drama. But with the transfer of these accents to the screen, there were problems, since not everyone agreed to play such a slippery topic, LGBT topics were actually completely banned on the screen, and before the films like “Children’s Hour” there were still several years. And if in the film adaptations of Tram Desire and Suddenly Last Summer, the retouching of gay motives did not affect the plot, then in Cat on a Hot Roof, Brick’s deliberate avoidance of the topic of latent homosexuality simply destroyed the entire main conflict, since it will be difficult for the viewer who did not read the play to understand the essence of the disagreements between Brick and Maggie, and why he does not want such a luxurious woman. Instead, the authors tried to contrive, presenting as an axis of conflict a hypothetical betrayal of Maggie with Brick’s best friend Skipper, which looks, to put it mildly, strained. In addition, all other sharp corners were smoothed out, take for example the speech of Big Pa alone with Brick, his relationship with Big Ma (Judith Anderson, who brilliantly played Mrs. Danvers in Hitchcock’s Rebecca, does not fit in with the image that Williams described in the play), plus this strained attempt to reconcile everyone in the finale and make a kind of happy ending, which does not correspond to the original plan. Newman and Taylor together look simply luxurious, but the role of Maggie I would not call particularly outstanding, especially in this interpretation of Brooks, it is not in her play, but in the scripted character.
Deciding that the American viewer would not be particularly pleased to watch the gloomy family drama, the authors overly polished and “licked” it, making a beautiful and glamorous story with spectacular poses and admiring the incredible beauty of Elizabeth Taylor in a dazzling white dress. For me personally, this interpretation was a drawback, as I expected a more acute, tense and emotional action. Nevertheless, critics and viewers liked the film, it went well at the box office and received 6 Oscar nominations, but I can not call it one of the best adaptations of Williams. As in the case of Kubrick’s Lolita, a more reliable demonstration of the main ideas of such a literary source at that time would have been excessively scandalous and, due to the censorship framework of the 50-60s, simply could not be implemented, so a good, but hopelessly losing its lithic creation came out. As a result, the name of the tape deceives expectations, there is no “hot roof”, there is no heat of passion, heat of emotions, the cruel truth of life and death, about which Big Pa spoke. From this roof, the cat does not need to jump down, it is painfully cool and comfortable.
7 out of 10
Tennessee Williams reportedly hated the film adaptation of Cats on a Hot Roof. Probably, he had reasons for this, although at first glance it may seem that the film, shot according to the fundamental laws of theatrical drama, as close as possible to the original source. The action takes place on the confined walls of the family estate space and is laid in a short period of time - exactly one day. A day when the Pollit family gathers together to mark the 65th anniversary of the founder of the dynasty, Big Daddy, who has just returned home after a long medical examination.
The development of the conflict, traditionally for stage production, is carried out by revealing the characters of the main characters who have fallen into a textbook situation in which their future fate must be decided. It is obvious to everyone that Pollit Sr. is terminally ill, and a million-dollar inheritance is at stake. The eldest son Gooper and his wife May, surrounded by a brood of nasty unbred offspring, show Pushkin’s low treachery, caricatured grovelling in front of Big Daddy. This family becomes the personification of greed, which not only does not subside, faced with the threat of losing a loved one, but only flares up stronger, completely subjugating the heroes.
The youngest son, Brick, is phlegmatic and detached from everything. This handsome but cold man experiences an inner drama drowned in iced whiskey. Something happened in his life that turned Brick away from a charming young wife and forced him to turn into a living dead man, whose only goal was to get drunk before the cherished click in his head, after which his consciousness shuts down and personal demons disappear in alcoholic oblivion. And it has something to do with the tragic death of Brick's best friend, Skipper. Through the image of the youngest of Pollitov, the film reveals the theme of guilt, which replaced the central motives for Williams’ play of general lying and cowardice, which does not allow not only to say the truth out loud, but also to confess it to himself. The character of this hero also changed, who from a man clearly drinking from self-loathing caused by his own weakness and cowardice, turned into a “thirty-year-old boy” who does not want to grow up and learn to take responsibility.
Brick’s wife, Margaret or Maggie, unsuccessfully tries to beg her husband for forgiveness for some sin, which for the time being will remain a mystery. She stoically tolerates demonstrative neglect and self-loathing. Margaret, who compares herself to a cat on a hot roof, clawed into the iron heated by the scorching southern sun and is ready to hold on to it to the last. Yeah, that's not the shitty Maggie cat that Tennessee Williams portrayed. The dominant motivation in Margaret’s behavior was not the fear of falling from a red-hot roof into the abyss of poverty, because of which she is ready to live with her husband who openly hates her, but her feelings for Brick. It is the love for her husband that motivates the cinematic Maggie to hold on to the hot tin sheets that protect her fragile marriage. Richard Brooks’ cat has ceased to walk by itself in the world of weak, easily desperate people, this cat has a master, to whom she is ready to gravitate even under the threat of receiving a series of painful blows in return.
And, of course, a lot of attention is paid in the film of the personality of Big Daddy, who spent his whole life chasing the Golden Taurus, and when he was two steps away from appearing before the face of God, he suddenly realized that he would have to wait for His Judgment not calmly and with simple wise words, but with the pain of understanding that many things have been acquired, a lot of money earned, but the allotted time wasted in vain, and he could not buy eternal life. It is symbolic that Pollit Sr. pronounces his main monologue about the transience of earthly existence in an old basement filled with unnecessary junk. In addition, through the relationship of Big Daddy with his sons, the film reveals the theme of fathers and children, almost absent in the original source.
Tennessee Williams is said to have hated the film adaptation of Cats on a Hot Roof, from which homosexual motives were excluded for the sake of Hayes’ code, and which with a fair amount of melodramatism gave the characters a chance for a new life, while the original source was not so optimistic. If in the finale of the original play, no one received the right to happiness, but someone managed to stay on the roof red-hot with lies and universal misunderstanding, then in the film all the collisions were successfully resolved and disappeared without a trace along with the echoes of the storm that broke out in the apogee of the entire action. Doom was replaced by hope, sharp drama - sentimentality, but at the same time, due to the successful development of the conflict, resolved by a powerful climax scene, and the convincing play of a magnificent actor's ensemble, the cinematic version of Williams' play does not lose at all to the original, turning into an independent work of art, the foreground of which comes the triumph of life-giving and beneficial feelings. Love, parental or romantic, is all-powerful. Tennessee Williams would have thought it funny. But it really is.
What a family, I have to say! The relationship between the characters is based on hypocrisy, falsehood, lies, the ability to buy everything, contempt, greed, in general, you can find almost everything, except for love and sincerity. No one wants to tell a dying man that he will die soon, and his wife only finds out about it when the question of money arises. Whoever is honest will get the bank.
Before us are two married couples: in one of them there is harmony and mutual understanding, many children, loving spouses, only they are surrounded by a continuous lie, the walls of which they build themselves. The second pair is the exact opposite. They are both bright, strong personalities, beautiful, young, favorites of "Big Daddy", but ... apparently, something happened that destroyed their family idyll, an event of the distant past that still stands between them, prevents them from getting closer, prevents them from having children, led to the fact that the former athlete was a broken alcoholic, and his wife in vain seeks his affection and understanding.
It is in such an atmosphere that it turns out that Big Daddy is sick, and even fatally, now there is a question of inheritance ... in which everyone manifests himself and shows his true face. Including the cat, which is on the hot roof. A cat whose opinion is constantly changing throughout the picture, from the idea that she is an ordinary con artist to a real understanding of her motives. And along the way, the characters around her change, throwing away their hypocritical masks, opening and changing.
Brilliant acting! I think all the actors did their best. Of course, Elizabeth Taylor is very good. Cat’s magical look, witty lines, crazy love for her husband – all this is wonderful for the actress. Bravo!
The picture is worth watching, it is complex, contradictory, difficult to perceive, but worthy of the audience’s attention. At least because it makes you think about many things that are really important in life, a lot to change your mind, to draw the right conclusions.
