I am half way through. It is noticeable how the camera does not accurately show the Master's face. There are long shots and obscured shots. The director treats him more as a mysterious force than a character. Is that a correct interpretation?
The very first shot of his son shows his face clearly, showing he his more a character than a "force"
I took this to mean that the husband as a person is of so little importance that his face is not shown on camera. It is his position that is relevant, and therefore the women seek his favor, to reap the rewards associated. In a larger sense, a reflection of the sublimination of the individual in communist China and really throughout its history.
shareI took it to mean that he is very distant and unknowable to the wives. He just randomly drops into one or another house to give them a chance at power (footrub, nice food) without ever revealing his motives, his true interests, his character, anything.
~~~~~~~
Have another bite of popcorn and forget about it.
bdave121 on Fri Sep 7 2007 wrote:
11:05:36 I am half way through. It is noticeable how the camera does not accurately show the Master's face. There are long shots and obscured shots. The director treats him more as a mysterious force than a character. Is that a correct interpretation?That's one of the many things that makes this such a great movie. The master can be thought of as being only incidental to the story. This is a story about the women, not him. He just owns the place, and the story would be the same whoever owned it.
yes, i noticed too. because his coming out in the film i just wonder who is the actor but coundnt see clearly. then, as later and later i counldnt see his face all the whole story.
i think this mean to making him like mysterios as you said.
[deleted]