The first half of the film appears to be a panorama of the struggle, with the camera finding a balance between prisoners and guards. In the first half, the police are the key point. After throwing old fists at the passively resisting prisoners, the policeman who was the focus of the camera often showed a blank look on his face, which brought out the helplessness and embarrassment of the British government. The injured hand also seems to show that such a movement, and the attitude of the British government towards prisoners, will eventually lead to a lose-lose outcome, and there is no winner for both sides. At this time, the film tries to make the director lead the audience into such a historical event with an open vision and an open attitude through the almost equal care for both sides of the struggle.
It is a pity that the director's ultimate intention is to express the latter part of the hunger strike with energy. The director secretly prevented Fassbender from appearing too soon, as if to let the audience see a gorgeous hunger strike show and fully experience the process of self-abuse. If Fassbender appeared too early, it would be as if It was someone who pulled off the bride's red hijab early in a prank, and the director obviously did not allow it. The result is that from the beginning of the film, the camera is like a scalpel, and Fassbender is like a living specimen under the scalpel, showing the production process of a "fire stick" bit by bit. The long and difficult process has made the audience feel that "you are about to die". At this time, the incident receded to the back, and even disappeared, and the camera obsessively showed how Fassbender was starving himself to the brink of death. The main theme of the film has been almost completely abandoned here. The film here appears to be split: the first half seems to be a documentary, the second half a biopic, or a living taxidermy. This structural setting makes the appearance and behavior of Sands, the leader, extremely abrupt, and people can't help but ask: Is Sands a leader? How did he become a leader? The portrayal of Sands in the first half of the film is nothing more than a beating, a scene of tearing a Bible page and smoking a cigarette, and a scene of venting with inmates during Mass. Even in a plot that highlights Sands' leadership, the camera just reluctantly hides behind the crowd and gives Sands a shot of being submerged in the crowd. This kind of restraint on Sands seems to want to let Sands have a total explosion in the later scenes, so that the audience can fully appreciate what is called "amazing". So the policeman who was the focus of attention in the first half made a sudden curtain call early, and his performance against the other side ended with a long shot of a prison guard washing the floor with a mask on. It seems to symbolize the British government's idly by: you love to play and play on your own. So the stage was completely emptied, rivals and comrades all evaporated, and only Sands and the doctor were left on the stage, performing their one-man show in a gloomy pale blue light, and everyone inside and outside the show became Audience, watch this hell show.
It is shameful for a director to use an actor's desperate hunger strike and a reality show as a gimmick for the film, especially when the director is completely obsessed with the performance of this reality show and ignores the film. If the film's realistic techniques and the use of long shots showed the director's ambition before, the performance of the reality show later revealed the director's true thoughts and interests. I can only dismiss it as "lazy".
In fact, the director originally had two choices, either to make a documentary, or to make a biopic. The director finally made a nondescript graft. The struggle in the second half of the film focuses on Sands alone, with the others receding into the ending subtitles. The struggle is not a single person. The director clearly told the audience in the first half that although the struggle was disorderly, the second half suddenly left the director playing with Sands' body. It's like the director is pretending to be excited and mysteriously telling the audience that there will be a super big firework to see, but what the audience sees is just a little light on the head of the match, leaving the audience with an unknown loss, especially Coupled with the long and restless process of making fire sticks.
When the camera lens covers Fassbender's body fascinatedly for a moment, it is the director's weakness and incompetence that is revealed. Can a struggle, a wake-up call for the audience to be achieved only in this masochistic way? The answer is obviously no. Many classic films that also show struggle do not deliberately show the cruelty experienced by individuals, but make people get more profound spiritual shock and spiritual shock, and this film is in addition to the shallow level of discomfort and pity. In addition to the feeling, it can't make people get more. Discomfort and pity are usually the perceptual experiences that thrillers bring to the audience, and this film does not call itself a thriller.
When an actor fights to the point of being a reality show, it's a kind of sadness in a sense, and it deviates from the definition of an actor. A dedicated actor does not need to use his life to prove his devotion, and an actor's excellence does not need to be expressed through his dedicated devotion. Of course, as an actor, most of the time, I can't help myself, but it is undeniable that the attention caused by this kind of life-threatening performance is comparable to a performance of extraordinary significance. Whether it's worth it is another matter.
When I saw Fassbender's death, I couldn't help but think of another death, Christian Bale's performance in "The Mechanic", and now I think back to "The Mechanic", except for Bell's death, in fact Can't remember anything. Whether it is worth it or not, only the actor himself knows. It is undeniable that the script and the director have taken care of themselves since then. It's just that this kind of gimmick won't always be new. Once it works, it may not work twice or three times. When Bell was there, people were filled with infinite respect and emotion, but what remains here is doubt and pity. I hope those directors will stop using such gimmicks to tempt actors to fight for their lives.
View more about Hunger reviews
