I really like this kind of drama historical movie! Relying on dialogue to intensively output information between simple scene transitions can help me make up for the US judicial system and historical events while watching a movie, especially after the first US presidential election this year, I have a deep understanding of this movie. feel.
The film transitions smoothly between the present and the past, and cleverly uses the recall of past dialogues to avoid lengthy retelling. The identity comparison of applying for a demonstration venue) is even more ironic, not to mention the contradiction between the lawyer Kunstler's previous incitement to the conflict and Tom's claim, and the true meaning of the claimed "blood". Intensive camera switching is very effective in helping the viewer to experience the real thoughts and motivations of each character hidden under all the riots, arguments and conflicts.
To a certain extent, this film also has a bit of a stereotype-breaking meaning - Abbie, who looks like a dick, is actually a clear-cut bottom line, while Tom, who won my favor at the beginning of the film because of his elegant and calm appearance, ends up in the later stages. Gradually revealing his impulsive and cowardly side - but it's a big plus for him to read out the names of all the soldiers killed at the end of the film. On the other hand, Judge Julius Hoffman explains very well what is the scumbag in the judicial system, and uses his power to successfully turn the trial into a sentence. I understand that the director intends to portray Julius as the villain of the film, but some of his actions are really overdone and outrageous, which makes me wonder if such a thing has really happened in history, or is it more a tool to exacerbate contradictions? However, I don't know much about the history of the 1960s, and maybe the obvious biased behavior of judges at that time was acceptable. But the over-dramatic characterization of the masquerade judge and his embarrassed waving of his hammerhead in the final scene in an attempt to keep quiet is one of the few weaknesses of the film in my opinion.
What struck me most about the film was a series of conversations between Abbie and Tom about their respective goals:
A: "What do you mean when you said that I least want to see the end of the war?"
T: "Meaning you are testing your popularity for profit, there would be no Abbie Hoffman without war"
A: "What's wrong with me?"
T: "Okay, what bothers me is that in the next 50 years, when people think of progressive politics, they'll think of you, and they'll think of you and your idiot followers, handing daisies to soldiers, or trying to make The Pentagon floats up. They don't think about equality or justice, they don't think about education, poverty, or progress, they just think about a bunch of drugged bastards, confused, physical, lawless, full of foul language, and we're going to lose the election ."
A: "It's all my fault? Winning the election is number one on your wish list? Equality, justice, education, poverty, and progress are all number two?"
T: "If you can't win the election, it doesn't matter what comes second."
A: "We didn't make any money, I made some gimmicks, and the camera and microphone came along. I was shocked that you had to ask me to explain this to you."
T: "You're trying to trade a cow for magic beans, which is whimsical."
A: "You had fun when that bullet went through Kennedy's head. No assassination, no conflict, no Tom Hayden."
A: " That's right, we're not going to jail for our actions, it's our identities that put us in jail ! The next time you're dismissive of the cultural revolution, think about it, you and I, we Victory is defined differently."
A: "When you say 'if we're going to bleed, let it go all over the city', you don't mean the blood of the police, you mean 'if they're going to beat us, let everyone see it'."
It was this conversation that helped me re-interpret Abbie and Tom's respective character traits, and the true motivation and meaning of their respective actions. In essence, Tom is also an unbreakable supporter of the US judicial election system. He prefers to elect the right enforcers in a legal and peaceful way, and implement laws and regulations under the leadership of the enforcers to resolve conflicts, but at the same time, in the Beneath his coat of calm and toughness, he tacitly agrees that letting the revolutionaries bleed, rather than avoiding it, helps advance the process. In Tom's heart, he is separated from the bloody revolutionaries to a certain extent. This is a sense of hierarchy and privileged mission from "intellectuals" that he may not be aware of or even unwilling to admit. feel.
At the same time, Abbie truly realizes that the victory of ideas is the real victory, so that law enforcement officers can understand and agree with the meaning behind our actions, rather than go to a law enforcement officer who we all think is okay and wait for him to reform before he comes to power. is a way to change society. People on the top can't see our thoughts, fine, then I'll make some gimmicks and turn them into targets so that you can all see me and hear my voice.
As Abbie said, in a cultural revolution, if you can't fundamentally innovate your thinking, then no amount of refutation will be a bullshit. As long as your identity is wrong, you are wrong. It doesn't mean that Tom's ideas are wrong. He has his own considerations and background influences. Only for this kind of national conflict, this is not the most effective way to resolve conflicts.
After working in the United States for a year and witnessing a series of marches, legislation and the presidential election in 2020, I'm slowly starting to understand the demonstrations I once scoffed at. The first thing to admit is that the US judicial system is indeed relatively sophisticated, which ensures the smooth functioning of the country, but at the same time, this heavy and complex system also means that a single force is weak. It is very difficult and idealistic to try to rely on the rights of one party or the other to promote institutional reform, especially when the two opposing forces are evenly matched. What's going on between Democrats and Republicans. The third-party force from the private sector is like a catalyst, which can effectively break the balance of the balance and promote social development to a certain extent. In layman's terms, crying children have milk.
Exchange a cow for a magic bean? Who said no. I admire all the selfless reformers in history. They truly integrate themselves into the torrent of history, work hard to promote the progress of social thought, and look forward to this in exchange for a different future.
View more about The Trial of the Chicago 7 reviews
