The long-shot monologue at the very beginning (which is repeated at the end) makes people feel questionable. What is meant by "you can get a Pulitzer Prize if you write this way"... has long implied that the theme of the film is news and truthful. The problem... Afterwards, it was logical that the male lead appeared on the scene, and his kind face deceived everyone, so that when the old editor was fired and the new editor took office, the film was about the trust between the editor and the reporter. problem. (That face won’t be associated with a liar.) I
have to say that the male pig’s feet’s acting skills are superb and have deceived everyone. It is true in reality. He has deceived the strict censorship system, which makes me I thought of the forgery of the "New York Times", a major incident that also happened in the American newspapers a few years ago. (The wave behind the Yangtze River pushes the wave forward) In
the cross montage at the end, the male lead's obscenity in the classroom can't tell what he thinks in his heart. With conclusive evidence, he can still be calm when editing. Speaking, deceived all colleagues, and some even pleaded for him and were willing to resign. When the new editor-in-chief took office, he took the initiative to go to the office and get close to other people. After all, he was really a smart and thoughtful man, and his cleverness didn't take the right place. It was sad.
Let's talk about the male second, the real hero, for the truth of the news, for the honor of the magazine, and to resolve the crisis of trust in the news industry, he did bear too much pressure. It is said that for paper media, editors and reporters should trust each other and develop a tacit understanding for a long time. It cannot be said that the reporters under his opponents do not trust, but in the face of "news truth", any emotions should be succumbed to industry norms. In reality, Charles Wren died on the battlefield during the report on the Iraq War. The constant pursuit of the truth is what every journalist should do. They should appear in the place closest to the truth, which is also in contrast to Stephen who made up news when he never appeared in any news. It is ironic.
The last thing I want to reflect on is the self-discipline and supervision of the entire industry. In the strict supervision system, some people will find loopholes. This is undoubtedly clearly shown in the film; how to avoid it? The imperfections of the supervision system can be compensated by self-discipline. It seems that most people think so. But self-discipline is the most trustworthy. Everyone has a double personality. Maybe Glass is not a bad person, but he did do bad things. To borrow a sentence from other movies, "He is a bad guy". In addition, the male lead in the film turned out to have such superb acting skills, and will make people sympathize when the truth is revealed. Where, why should Stephen’s sympathy be shown to protect the truth of the news? The true
reproduction is of great significance today and in the future. I especially hope that friends in the press will take a look.
View more about Shattered Glass reviews
