It is true that the play is not over, but this two-way communication with the audience can only be said to be interesting and to become more and more annoying.
There's not a deep core that you can share with you, there's no place for an actor, there's no place for an audience, there's no point in it, there's no point in it.
It's not fair to assume that most viewers may have a sense of being deceived, without doing something that is thoughtful and innovative? The writer's taste is disgusting. He's genuine, honest and rotten. Has its own audience been so narrow and deceiving? Would it be possible to retain the right person to establish a stable relationship and, if so, could it be a better trick?
It's not a style or a taste of beauty, and it's common in life for people who are genres, styles, pioneers to talk, not to sharpen their profile to make their work more rich, good things need to be settled in life. The dishonestness of their work represents an implausibility of life, not bigness, and disrespect for the audience itself. If the lead team can't even do the most basic stage, there is a great fear of a bunch of clichés coming out of the back.
I hope I can see more energy in the future. Don't talk about it. It's not funny.
To say that I, like the murmurs above me, am afraid of many things, and in many ways anaesthesia, and to say that others are not polite, but that I hide themselves, but that many of the words in it are also about shooting myself, weak, hypocritical glass.
At the end: smile in the fall.