My movie world, started by "Darkest Hour"

"Darkest Hour", starring Gary Oldman, English title Darkest Hour.

The whole film does not focus on describing a special hour, the English title is just an idea, and the Chinese translation is even more impressive. Of course, in order to avoid ignorant speculation, I flipped through the Oxford High Order at hand. The sixth clause of the noun interpretation of hour reads as follows: [C, usually sing.] the time when sth important happens. Sure enough, Brits, you won.

Arrogance is scary. So does confidence. The opening scene of "Darkest Hour" focuses on the conflicts of interest within the United Kingdom. You can see a lot of arrogant people, but also a confident fat man. During World War II, you and I were very complicated, and in terms of the amount of information, it must have exceeded the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period by several levels. I will not discuss the internal relationship here, and this film review will also say otherwise. I spend time coding, but I mainly show it to myself, "external memory".

In the past, I have also written many "film reviews", and the titles are almost always in this form. The content also looks very random, which makes me even more broken. The reality is a little different. I use movie reviews and book reviews as notepads and diaries. What is recorded in it is the most elementary material processed by the brain. And I always read more and write less, so it is inevitable to leave such an impression on the general pattern and details of the text. Often, remarks that don't like a film will be called "useless" by fans.

What role does the film have for me? I like this topic very much. In the past three years, there have been more than 1,800 brushes, an average of 1.68 per day, and an average of 3 hours per day. These numbers are scary. But after three years, what is left? What am I looking at, what am I thinking. Some are for cohesion, and some are for entertainment. Whether it comes true, and whether it is gone with the wind. A lot of questions came over, both happy and silent.

I have the cheek to say that in the past three years, my aesthetics have been strengthened. In the past, I could only hold my fingers in a daze. Now, with a considerable amount of accumulation, I have received a positive response to the special things I have in my body, and I almost see many abilities. appearance. This is the part that makes me happy.

But can I really sharpen them and become my tools. Something else in my body, which is usually visible, is haunting me again, sending me down the slope of humanity. This is the part that silences me.

——

"The Darkest Hour" is a good film, a film that clears the haze and points the way, but it has not been called excellent. The comparison should be "The King's Speech" and "The Destruction of the Empire" , two noir films with the theme of World War II.

A film, the most moving is the story. There are many basic elements of the story. The ones standing in the front row, I think, are the acting and the plot. The rhythm and the pictures are slightly behind, the narration is part of the plot, and the soundtrack is at the end.

"The King's Speech" is very exciting, it's not that Uncle Face is better than Dad, but the difference in rhythm; "The Destruction of an Empire" is very exciting, and it's not about acting, but the rhythm is different.

From a two-dimensional perspective, what is most directly presented to the eyes of the audience is the picture. But the picture is the support of the acting and the plot, and it is difficult to exist independently. When analyzing the acting skills in detail, I also have the feeling that the acting skills of the actors serve as a platform for each other, to support the performance of each plot. In the end, what should be delivered to the audience should be a plot curve with clear layers and ups and downs.

It's hard to say that there is a situation where the acting is dropped in "Darkest Hour". But disconnects abound. For example, the interaction between Miss Layton, the typist, and Churchill was very weak. For example, Mrs. Churchill's performance was also somewhat self-centered, and the most serious one was a scene in the subway. Everyone seems to be an independent unit, and there is no scene of clenching a fist. Everyone is working hard - who will carry this pot? Of course the director. The director behind the camera failed to control the situation, and there was a scene with several "hills" rather than a gradually heating up crest.

The same situation is rarely seen in "The King's Speech" and "The Fall of an Empire." The most interestingly talked about scene in "The Destruction of the Empire" is actually not how devoted the head of the state (you see, definitely not a super-star), but how much everyone has been working for the helplessness and powerlessness of the head of state. The rage and the fire finally appeared, that is, the sign of the empire's collapse was conveyed from the leader to the audience. In the subway scene of "Darkest Hour", the little girl said what she should say very hard, but she was very embarrassed.

What is rhythm?

Anything that cannot be seen, touched, and especially cannot be quantified, may be called "pretend".

For example, if you see a beautiful woman running in the park, and you say "Wow, the girl looks so beautiful", you are actually saying that her butt is so upturned and twisted, you are admiring her with her lower body. Most people with long-distance running experience envy the attitude of the African runner, because he uses his hips to run instead of his buttocks. The body is extremely stretched, and the power is close to the optimum. The stride, stride frequency, and arm swing are the ultimate results of a lot of training, thinking, and adjustment. His rhythm is beautiful. Beauty is an appearance, which can be perceived by "sensual organs", while power requires "rational organs" to observe and think.


The same is true of rhythm in movies, it's hard to quantify. It is possible to discuss, and there will definitely be a lot of opinions. But someone with shooting experience will definitely be able to give a better explanation to the rhythm. Because the long history of human civilization has not brought earth-shaking changes in the body, the aesthetics based on the body will not be much different.

So, why take the blame for this movie to the director? I feel compelled to explain my "curve theory". Due to space limitations, I put screenshots.

Anyone who is observant is most capable of self-education. Regarding a saying accepted in youth called "mountain and water are different", I think that many people with keen observation ability will be more in awe and yearn for the two images. Water, in a way, is more representative of the curvilinear perspective I'm talking about. Whether a film is good or bad, or good, largely depends on the director's skill. Whether he can integrate acting, plot, picture, rhythm and other factors into a complete and unbroken story is the basis for whether he is to blame. Actors rarely participate in post-editing, and the screenwriter will not be the one who executes it. The overall quality control of the film is almost tied to the director. The comparison of excellent films is not about acting, fame, and production costs, but about the curve.

I have thought about the similarities and differences between reading and movies, and one of them found that movies are not controlled by one person, but reading a book is reading the thoughts of "one person". Ta can use his talents to the fullest, and block the interference signal, especially the signal from others. But movies can't. The rich information properties determine its production properties.

"Darkest Hour" fails to pull the tension to the extreme in many places, let alone the excellent curves. Towards the end of the film, the length of this curve is more complete, and the director's ability is more unabashedly displayed in front of us. The curve is very flat, there are many breaks, and the director can't escape.

The opening chapter of 8.5 is especially the appearance of Daddy Dog's Ignition, and 8.3 is given to the whole film at the end of the film. "The Darkest Hour" is worth watching, worth watching repeatedly, and worth collecting.

Add a little more at the end. A few days before watching this movie, I watched a BBC documentary, Class and Culture. This is another work that broadens my cognition after Lawrence's "History of the Middle Class" which I read in 2015. This work also provides a background for understanding some of the plots of "Darkest Hour". That was the inflection point when Britain reached its peak and then gradually declined. If you think about it, it's really interesting. History ah.



This review is so broken, haha. It was written anyway. More exercises like this will be done in the days to come. I'm a person who falls too easily into quotes, examples. What does it mean to me? I also hope to discover more possibilities through this exercise.

View more about Darkest Hour reviews