Trust a reporter as long as she's not a mother,'cause they'll crack. The truth is, if I had known that writing the fucking story would separate me and Timmy, I would never done it. But here we are, the story's been published and the path's been chosen, and there's no way back.”
Because it is about the pursuit of truth represented by female reporters and the opposition represented by prosecutors The contradiction between the maintenance of national interests, so I am very interested in this film. I also like it after reading it. However, due to my lack of understanding of the American judicial system, I understand the issue of female journalists being charged and thrown into prison, and then thrown into prison again after coming out. I told classmate Liu Qiankun about this video last time and asked him to tell me about this issue after he went back to watch it. There has been no contact so far, so I don’t know.
Although the female journalist was eventually thrown into prison, at least it can be seen that in the United States, individuals can be tried in public on issues of national interest, at least, at least, they can be refuted. But by comparison, in your country, when you encounter a problem that violates national interests (in fact, it is party and government interests), there is basically no trial. It is a common practice to be secretly taken away by the National Security Council and then detained. It is said that on July 1st, there were still people in Hong Kong who held a parade. Some people complained for the imprisoned author who wrote the XX charter. I won’t say much about these things here. Blogs are harmonized, and people are harmonized. By the way, I still want to stay in the hustle and bustle of the fireworks world and eat two more delicious foods and look at the handsome man.
There is another issue that interests me in the film. Just like the opening paragraph, this is what the female reporter Rachel said to her defense lawyer. Very insightful and thought-provoking.
When Rachel was first detained, the press criticized him for his actions and made statements attacking the government to defend Rachel. But with the passage of time, the disparity of power gradually emerged, and it is difficult for a weak individual to confront the powerful government power in terms of time and spirit. The drama that can be seen appeared at this time. She began to bear being gradually forgotten by the press. Her husband changed from initial support to advocating compromise. The child gradually became alienated from Rachel, and other women began to appear in her husband's life. The title of the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism did not give her much motivation to change her plight. Although there was an urge to regain her attention from famous TV programs, this urge was not due to the practical significance of her reports, but rather Out of curiosity about a woman, curiosity about her gradual loss, curiosity about her fear, fear, and loneliness when she saw that she was in the process of being dispelled. The driving force that news and public opinion could have shifted from this, and she was completely thrown into a situation where no one cared and understood. Perhaps people were angry and sympathetic at the beginning, showing the greatest admiration for her persistence and bravery. But in the end, people became incomprehensible about this action, hatred and contempt for this person, and her persistence turned into a funny and meaningless performance.
A man who has made sacrifices for great justice is likely to be recorded in the annals of history and remembered by the world. And when a woman makes such a sacrifice, people will often choose to pay attention to her pain cruelly and forget to give help and respect. People will see: Oh, this woman has lost her husband, lost her child, and she has endured it. Abandoning the evil consequences of her family, she is destined to be alone for a lifetime. There is a kind of power thinking and secret curse that can't be resisted in this tone.
At the end of the film, it cleverly explained the identity of the informant that Rachel insisted on refusing to disclose, who turned out to be the daughter of the agent's mother. The audience will most likely be moved and shocked when they see this place. Rachel chose to give up her right to freedom in order to protect the little girl's promise. I don't want to understand this behavior in the sense of motherhood. The reason why it touches me is that it can also be seen that as a woman, she has the same tough qualities and noble virtues.
The director did not clearly ask the audience to support what to oppose, and did not try to make the audience stand in line. He just presented: In the so-called pursuit of facts, are all facts good and harmless? This is a very difficult problem, and it needs to face the conflict between ideals and reality.
View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews
