I’ve seen Synecdoche, New york. It’s protagonized by Philip seymour Hoffman and directed by Charlie Kaufman. I’ve seen it in home about two years ago. It's a drama movie that tell the story of a director of theatre from the beginning of a new play. Its life began to fell apart when his marriage ends and he stops seeing his daughter. After that, he continuously try to find a deep meaning on his life to communicate on his play, spiritual and universal, but that never seems to come. All this happens in a surreal world in which the reality is surprising in strange ways and moments, and the protagonist do not seems to have any notion of the time that passes in between the events in the movie. 

The melancholy presented in the life of the protagonist and the effort that he puts into the realization of the play are two sides of a strange coin in which the play represents himselfs developing the play, and the search of meaning in art becomes the search of meaning of his own existence. As the time goes forward we might believe he starts living to create the plot of the play, and in a single movement create the two meanings. To his deception, he only finds a recursively complex circuit of emptiness and desolation, and the strikeback of the unsolved troubles related to the separation of his first family.

Even though this is not a happy movie, it’s somehow heartwarming and in the toughness of the narration of the pain there is something at the same time universal and intimate, proppe of the spaces in ourselves that we can hardly share or notice easily and because of this reasons, might be a message made for movies and art.

Hi.

When i ‘ve got to think about been angry i can hardly find reasons to legitimize it. I can’t stand for the discourses that give utterance to moral and common goodness and well being on the basis of being upset, because of being upset. So i find unacceptable the fact that to speak of justice we’ve got to show how our pure spirit is annoyed by life. As if to get angry would be the natural way of reacting to injustice, his unquestionable trace and the motor of moral coordination. I usually call to be suspicious of things just to good to be truth and this seems to be one of them. Moreover, the danger on the legitimation of a social crusade on the divine gift of being angry together as common people is that we are more open to see as visioners just people who is bitter, and convert the bitterness in empathy. And to be moral we have to cultivate anger, the vision of widespread misery and the notion of being surrounded by victims. This all can be truth, might, in our country, be probably true. But being angry can't tell us about the total ways of injustice that operate in a society, and i it's going to veil the less emotional or intuitively consequences of the structures of interaction. 

I think that change things is necessary to separate the social of the individual, to give less credit to the precision which with our emotional needs can demark social situations and understand them as mere caprice