I think this is a good movie, but a good movie should not only be fresh and shocking, but also unique in its art scene. Direct analogy is not good.
The controversy of this shooting incident is still being discussed (the last year’s mourning ceremony is put at the end of the film); as for "Oscar Day", it is only at this inconclusive moment that the incident itself is taken out, trying to show that the director wants a moderate The point of view is replaced by the artistic energy of the film.
This film is based on real people and real events. On the occasion of New Year's Eve in 2009, the police patrolling the subway shot and killed the passenger Oscar, which caused a huge social shock.
However, as a panoramic view of the movie, it is not a reaction of society. The plot only restores what the party did 24 hours before Oscar's death.
Such a modest point of view is obviously deliberate by the director.
I am very new to this incident in North America, and I started to do my homework after watching this film.
The discussion extending from the shooting case has a strong and wide-ranging effect. For example: the motive of racial discrimination (Oscar is black)? The abuse of power by the military and police? Is judicial commutation shielded or not? The legitimacy of guns? The breeding of evil at the bottom of San Francisco society? ...Seems to avoid the point of view of the movie, at least avoid the focus.
Is it not clear? No, not at all.
Ryan Coogler chose this sensational subject as his debut debut as a director. If there is no artistic attempt, it is not a big deal.
It can only be imagined that he does not intend to turn this incident into a movie like "Runaway Jury" (Runaway Jury), laying the foundation for all disputes about guns based on the actors' eloquent dialectics. Present it.
What he shot is more like last year's Nordic film: "August 31st, I am in Oslo" (Oslo, 31. august). All the narrative energy is placed in the protagonist’s momentary life, taking a detailed picture of the few things that can happen to a person in an ordinary day, and then letting the audience infer everything about this person by themselves.
I haven't watched many movies, and I don't know whether this tone has a specific name or inherited the context of a certain business card.
On the whole, "A Day at the Oscars" should be as "objective" as possible, presenting the Oscars in a posture of restoring the truth. (Although the result of any point of view is not objective, only as objective as possible)
However, the director chooses several splicing methods of events, and he can still smell that the director's obviously induced indicator needle is hidden in the backbone of the plot.
Oscar is a young man with ordinary advantages and obvious shortcomings. He lost his job in the store because of his lateness and inertia, and his relationship with his family became tense, but he wanted to give himself a chance again. Then, no more, he was misunderstood by the police on the subway and shot to death.
If you just want to restore the so-called truth, all you need to do is to shoot the subway incident in the last 20 minutes of the film. Foreplay about Oscars during the day and afternoon is not necessary.
But in the end, it became the present presentation, which shows that this is the ingenuity of the director who wants to present his artistic point of view.
The previous long period of Oscar's life seemed quite dull; the director's strength in cutting into the character's personality from the incident was calm, and a few short dialogues could show the shortcomings of Oscar's poor emotional control, and his skill was sharp.
Although the skills are so good that they are not like novices, the plot is still very boring without any suspense.
The director deliberately does not allow the film to flow into popular challenges, does not cause excessive sentiment, and has a good intention; if it is not sensational, it is a little risky.
However, it is also possible that the director felt that the first video of real people and real events was enough to catch people’s appetite, forming what Hitchcock called a "chair bomb," maybe...?
The first video shot on the spot with a mobile phone, Up to now, there are still tens of millions of clicks, so it is not difficult to imagine how widespread it was back then.
In this era of the Internet, it is no longer uncommon to see real-world websites and instant uploads on historical occasions-this is a really cordial fact from the eyes of Taiwan, which has only experienced the service trade incident.
Taking pictures with hands as the beginning of the movie, the effect is equivalent to subtitles based on real-life adaptations, or feature newspaper headlines, which has become a means of bringing authenticity to the audience.
It's just that the director emphasized the importance of this video too much, and several unexpected coincidences were created in the film to rationalize the appearance of this video.
Therefore, in the movie, the white woman who filmed this paragraph happened to be a customer that Oscar knew during the day. The villain who encouraged Oscar to fight in the subway happened to be Oscar's enemy in prison. A coincidence is a coincidence, and it is too Greek tragedy to put it in a little deliberate daily life.
For the prison villain's scene, the director was also forced to plant a scene from the memory of Aomu's visit to the prison. It was not a long time, but it broke the limit of the film's twenty-four hours and destroyed the neatness of the whole film, which is a pity.
To sum up, the choice of official points I watched in this movie was too deliberate, almost almost reckless. The director tried so hard not to be biased, but instead made me look tepid in the first half. There is a feeling that I can choose one of the front or the back to cut off, and the other one...
View more about Fruitvale Station reviews
