But the overall pros and cons of the film is not the focus of this article. The point is that the individual sees an interesting narrative technique in the film: the use of props, scenes, lines and other narrative elements to reuse or connect back and forth to create a dark effect.
This is Cohen's mark!
For example, a coin. In the Soviet spies, it was only used for intelligence transmission; on the American Blackbird Squadron, the instructors made special demonstrations before the war to prevent the captured chloride from committing suicide. The objects of the same style are compared in the air, and the latter is even more cruel. For another example, the court pronounced a verdict. When the U.S. judge sentenced the Soviet spy to 30 years in prison, the auditorium instantly exploded and the defendant’s lawyer was almost besieged. Later, the Soviet court sentenced the captured U.S. spy reconnaissance plane pilot to only ten years in prison, and only served his sentence in prison for the first three years. The auditorium immediately stood up and applauded... The original unanimous approval + standing applause, in the ordinary Hollywood scenes involving the Soviet Union, it is definitely derogatory, which represents the rigidity of the system. But appearing in this film echoes the previous experience of the male lead lawyer in and outside the American courts, but it has an unexpected dark effect: Who is more irrational (irrational happens to be the theme of Woody Allen's new film)? ...
But note that this type of dark arts must be reused every other time. Because whether it is a coin or a sentence, due to its characteristic that it is always in the focus of the narrative of the picture, it can only reappear after a few paragraphs. Otherwise, the audience will inevitably feel your contrast quickly and strongly-close to Eisenstein's juxtaposition of suppression and slaughter, Diablo becomes a public derogation that may cause great controversy.
On the contrary, when the narrative elements that carry the black dots are not so eye-catching and not easy to attract the attention of the audience, you can boldly adopt the method of "convergence before and after". For example, Hanks visits the prison and sits at two ends of a long table with Soviet spies. Shostakovich is played in the box on the table. The two have similar tastes and cherish each other. The last line was given by the spy, "You have to be careful too!" Then the screen changed and entered the next scene. The TV in the bedroom is showing an American police drama, Hanks’s daughter, curling her hair, holding snacks, lying on the sofa while eating and watching... The general audience will only be distracted by the subsequent shooting ( Formed a narrative sound and picture hook with "You have to be careful"), but may have overlooked the cultural darkness in the subterranean: the Soviets locked in chants are still painting, listening to symphony, and comfortably convinced the Americans lying at home. (At least the younger generation in the United States), but only watch TV and eat snacks.
For another example, at the end of the film, Hanks sits side by side on the plane with the rescued American soldiers. Opening the portrait left by the Soviet spy, he was instantly moved and filled with emotion. At this time, the American soldier next to him was aggrieved, "I gave them nothing!" (I gave them nothing.)... On the face of it, this line of course said that he did not sell state secrets to the Soviets, but encountered the CIA. The cold-eyed and contemptuous, very wronged. It further proves that the United States and the Soviet Union are the same in their treatment of released agents. But after being juxtaposed with that portrait, it is still dark in the hidden realm: you are out of stock, and the brothers will only play cards for entertainment, and naturally they can't give them anything!
Of course, regardless of whether it is a derogation (the patriotic and fanatical police indulge in shooting threats, the pragmatic CIA does not save college students), or the various dark scenes mentioned above, the United States is far better than the Soviet Union. The bottom line of political correctness in this Hollywood blockbuster cannot be broken. Therefore, in the end, it is still necessary to show the many negative aspects of Su and Dong one by one, and it must be in the form of the focus of the picture narrative. As a result, he was surrounded by gangsters and dropped his coat when he first entered Berlin; he was arrested for speeding and squatted in the room overnight because of an East German lawyer;
It’s worth intriguing that, no matter how intuitive and strong the subsequent "correction" methods are, the feeling they bring to the audience is the same as the rescue story itself. After all, it is outdated, clichéd, and unsurprising-you don’t know Su Dong Is the iron curtain like? Haven't you seen the crossing of the Berlin Wall in "The Bourne of Berlin" 40 years ago? On the contrary, the real "novelty" of the film comes from the deliberately low-key arrangement of coins, portraits, music, television, court verdicts...
Yes! The dark elements of Cohen's style appear in the main theme of salvation in Spielberg format! Although this kind of mix-and-match is not enough to create a classic in art (the story is outdated, the main line leaks the topic), but "Spi turns black & Cohen into the master" itself may be the focus of this film. It represents an intensification of anxiety—anxiety has always existed, and Cohen and others, who have coldly examined the roots of the United States, have also continued to express this emotion at the author's niche level. Now it seems that Hollywood seems to think it is necessary to elevate it to Spielberg's mainstream level...
View more about Bridge of Spies reviews
