civil rights epic

Vickie 2021-11-27 08:01:20

Sorkin's film should be called speech film: a film that is driven entirely by dialogue, connects the shots with dialogue, and takes dialogue as the main or even sole action. What’s particularly obvious in this film is that a scene is often cut from a character’s sentence to half, and then the character in the next scene completes the sentence. The speech montage is created by contrast, extension, and repetition of words, while the rest of the sound effects (cup sound, applause, method) Hammers, door slamming) are one of the few punctuation marks between uninterrupted lines. The soundtrack is insignificant. In this film, only short-lived scenes like police-civil conflicts that do not center on recognizable dialogue exist as imperceptible bass harmonies (this is not the case with "Social Network"). Fortunately, speech is the characteristic of the court and the core of civil disobedience. The struggle for the right to speak has become the most intuitive (heard) drama conflict in the film, and all emotional transfers are also ignited by the plot related to the right to speak and speak. The disadvantage is that the film has become a large-scale mansplain spiritual scene in the 1960s. This fascination with speech and the limited progressive politics of white men represented by Sokin are two sides.

Rodrigo 2022-03-24 09:01:43

It’s a routine to watch too many such films. The main theme is social, craftsmanship and deliberate. There are several highlights in editing (combination of narrative and flashback). At first glance, they are heading for the Oscars. It is estimated that they will follow the social fortune of this year. The Dongfeng takes some nominations. I found more interesting places outside the play. The character played by Little Freckles is Jane Fonda's ex-husband. In the battle for Oscar winner, Keaton, who was reversed by Little Freckles at the last moment, played a supporting role, and the two appeared on the same scene.