|
|
|
|
|
|
by fleetwoodsnack
1393 days ago
|
|
|
Absolutely. Grandparent commentor has some odd notions about what constitutes a legitimate versus illegitimate narrative device, and what constitutes “dramatic sense of danger.” They mentioned it as an “aesthetic” choice on the part of the writer/director, but the linked video mentioned 4 people who had drowned in a flooded banjiha, and included an interview with a family who claimed to have narrowly escaped with their own lives. Tragedy striking suddenly and seemingly irreversibly is a common feature of life in poverty; there is no art or artifice about it and (purely personally), it strikes me as naive interpreting it as a visual spectacle and not a visual representation of an underlying reality. |
|
|
Feels... weirdly aggressive for no reason. It's a great moment, but it's not a plot focused one. It has no consequences nor any particular proposition of consequences. In real life, yes, floods are dangerous. In real life a flood would be a significant life event. But that's not the character of this scene. The best shot of the film, and personally I think he best shot I've ever seen period, is of the daughter just smoking on the toilet while it overflows with sewage during the flood. She's not afraid, in fact, she's pretty apathetic to it all.
Water is a recurring motif in the film. The rich people stay dry. The water flows down to the poor who get soaked. The fact that people have actually died from this kind of flooding is tragic, but it shouldn't redefine how one interprets the scene. The family narrowly avoids a complete disaster and this is just a brutal reminder that their lives still suck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtxrau3arh4