Discuss mediocrity in a mediocre way

What it shows is rough and direct. Such a biographical film seems to be profound. Some people also say that "it has reached a height rarely seen in a biographical film." However, what I saw was that it just wrapped Hannah’s very profound and representative thesis about the "banal evil" in the whole movie, so it seemed to bring the movie into a kind of "unprecedented" Profound", but it lacks truly valuable content. It's like a painter who wants to express the beautiful Helen, but only covers her with gorgeous decorations, but can't really express her beauty. What it brings to the audience is more of a kind of pleasure, a result, a kind of halo and achievement, rather than something unprecedentedly profound.
In the movie, a Hannah who smokes from start to finish, even given a two-minute smoking scene at the beginning.
In daily life, it is really common for a person to think about a problem and smoke a cigarette, but when you use a literary way, or a way of images like this to express it, or even strengthen it, This can give others more interpretation. For a female philosopher, this bears an obvious sign, and one should avoid focusing on it instead of strengthening it.
What can this reflect, or how can it help people understand Hannah? Only misinterpretation. This rough way should not be used to embody an independent woman, which even makes people unable to see more or more important content than the character of Hannah itself. But there are more difficult ways to resist.
For example, what others say about Hannah. When Hannah wanted to write for The New Yorker because of the Eichmann trial, members of the newspaper talked like this: "Unbelievable, that Hannah Arendt actually wanted to write for us. "..." She You should beg like everyone else for the opportunity to write for "The New Yorker." "Frisis, she wrote "The Origin of Totalitarianism." A book, go and read it. "She was the first writer to portray the Third Reich in our Western language and culture. "It's brilliant, but abstract."
Wow, it's brilliant. An image of contempt, an image of triumph, and an elderly man came to a conclusion. The performance of the three of them will bring the glory and reputation of this kind of influence to the extreme in the singing and tune of others. I don't think the director knows what implicitness is. Of course, this is a conventional routine. But this paragraph hit me so naked, unable to prevent it. As in the trial of Eichmann, people saw the tipping point of pleasure in Hannah's thinking, doubting, and twinkling eyes. Because people know that the important work "Eichmann in Jerusalem" is about to be born. Then reached a climax on the podium.
Because this is a biographical film of Hannah Arendt, if it weren't for this positioning, I don't think I would be so disappointed, at best it would be an ordinary movie.
It has a polite appearance, people always get together to talk about various profound topics, but Hannah in the film is arrogant, always seems to be able to grasp the overall situation, and always close-up smoking and thinking shots. , And the rude and shriveled way of expression all show that it uses a mediocre way to discuss mediocrity.

View more about Hannah Arendt reviews