I think it's valuable for a deep-minded audience, and I don't like to comment on art with class-critical ideas, if the creator of this work thinks he's doing it. Finally, the writer said that the first man met his parents, and I thought of Bataye at once, and that the reason why there was no thought in the viewing might not be clearly related to the distinction between actor costumes. Even during the sighting I never thought of psychoanalyzing to understand the story, and then on the way back on the bike I found it interesting to have more reading. I understand that the boy is like I understand myself, and if I continue, of course, more specific people. I know that a work expects an ideal reader, although it may not be true, but the relationship between the author and the work must be private, and from this perspective, I think that each reader's relationship with the work is private, although it may not be ideal, but they are as specific as actors. Finally, I don't know how you or the public understand the proletariat and the bourgeois, at least through this event. I hate stereotypes, such as those expressed by the audience in their statements. Finally, those who wish to divide the classes will see that the truth belongs to all humanity in love with the individual.