It has been planned since 2006 and was not released until before the general election last year, but the timing is indeed quite suitable, a thought-provoking film. However, there is indeed a certain threshold for appreciation. If you have no understanding of the historical background of the 1960s and 1970s, or the ideology of the left and right in the United States, you may only be able to watch the excitement. This style of intensive dialogue, if you are a person who can't even watch "The Social Network", then this film is probably not even lively. From the point of view of the film itself, the narrative method is actually quite unfriendly. At the beginning, it quickly explained the background of the leaders of various leftist organizations who brought their brothers together in Chicago in 1968. The mood was rising, but the camera turned directly to the aftermath of the arrest. The scene at the beginning of the trial, and everything that happened in the middle is presented through the process of the trial. It will feel a little confusing from the front, but it is also beneficial. This kind of narrative conveys the truth that the defense tried to restore again and again during the trial through direct memory. Show it, let people witness the truth of the past, and return to reality to see how the judges have unfairly made things difficult for the defense time and time again, and the defense's original fluke hope has been wiped out little by little, until the defense lawyers smashed the book. It may only be completely recognized that this is a political trial that has gone through the process. Let the audience really feel the sense of injustice and powerlessness. At the same time, the naked ugliness of the federal government interests represented by the judge is portrayed more and more deeply. Until the last little freckles read the defense's summary statement, the judge asked him to brief him as much as possible. , this moment reached the peak of its ugliness. The overall narrative and emotional pacing of the whole film is very good, and the so-called satire of Trump at the end has indeed achieved the goal of being released before this time point. There have been too many free and democratic American panties that have been cleaned up. Personally, I think that compared with the previous GME short-run incident, those in power stood on the side of Wall Street’s interests, blocked the WSB forum, and even the brokerage app directly pulled the network cable to prohibit retail investors from opening positions. Many, the violation of the principle of free market transactions has completely refreshed the cognition of "liberal democracy", so I am no longer surprised by the irony of this film. His really thought-provoking point is whether the underlying logic of the Republican ideology is correct, that is, more national resources should be allocated to the hands of large elite companies, resulting in better economies of scale, higher economic productivity and faster technological innovation , so as to better promote the production efficiency of the whole society, so that the common people can also enjoy better social well-being. For a long time, I thought that this logic is quite correct. It is quite correct from an economic point of view to invest resources in people and organizations with higher ROI output. In this case, the public makes decisions about the government. There is a strong information asymmetry, and it is impossible to understand the essential purpose behind some policies. For example, it has long been proved that the policy of raising the minimum wage cannot increase social productivity, but will lead to a decline in social productivity and eventually higher unemployment. However, the Democratic Party's vote base will still vote for this policy that seems to improve social welfare. vote. Therefore, some policies that seem to be unfavorable to the people, when most people cannot understand the results of the second and third layers, are easily incited, and the people's demonstrations and other behaviors are caused, which is a great waste of social resources. However, it is actually difficult for us to distinguish whether those in power are aiming at their own political interests or those who are really aiming at the so-called "make America great again", so we cannot directly infer that those in power must be making decisions for the sake of a more prosperous country. At the same time, it is difficult to ignore the fact that most of the political decisions of the US president are for votes. Assuming that Trump launched a war during his presidency, is he sacrificing others to "make America great again" or just to divert domestic class conflicts life to get yourself more votes? Another thing, for some of the slightly dull populists who marched on the streets, they may be influencing the society to move in the right direction, causing a huge waste of social resources, so what attitude should we treat them? ? Like some civilizations in the age of agricultural civilization, kill them directly to increase the resource ROI of all human beings and avoid falling into the Malthusian trap? Is this a greater degree of retrogression for the entire human civilization? Taking economic progress as the first principle of development may be inherently wrong. When we know that there will be old people and children who will be sacrificed like the age of agricultural civilization to reduce the waste of social resources, we will still say herd immunity, in order to Is the process of gradually losing some of the irrational human nature due to economic development, is civilization progress or regression?
View more about The Trial of the Chicago 7 reviews
