The loss of "The President's Killing Bureau" to "The Descendants" is well-founded and has standards to measure. I say this to break the popular notion that movies are unanalyzable.
I think it is very important that there are 7 crossovers in the whole film, which are 5 crossovers in the second minute paragraph, 19 minutes 30 seconds and 1 hour 0 minutes 28 seconds. Intentional crossing the axis means the director's ambition in a certain filmmaking technique. George Clooney came prepared, but personally think that this kind of exploration is unstable and has little meaning. The first few shots of the movie are very important. 1. It is necessary to bring the awake audience into a dramatic situation. 2. It is the preliminary establishment of the film style. Therefore, directors who have interests such as winning awards will show the difference of the film in the first few shots. I have never seen 5 crossovers in the first 3 minutes of the film. This is a form of filling in the film. I don't want to call it an innovation, because I think the intentional crossovers appear in the first few minutes of the film. It's not important, what's important is the promotional significance that the cross-axis itself brings to the film. For example, the cross-axis paragraph of the dialogue in the glass factory of "Love Letter" is very innovative and has aesthetic functions. As for the off-axis passage of "The President's Killing Bureau", I have a contemptuous attitude. The reasons are: 1. George Clooney has no talent and has to be special. The consequence of this is that the film is full of director traces and clumsy techniques. 2. Cross-axis skills cannot bring beauty to the film, so it is impossible as a visual modification. All the cross-axis skills in movies bear the special demands of the director. The function of this paragraph is to introduce the unique charm and work talent of the male protagonist. Because there is only one plot, the amount of information is small, and the lines have no room for speculation, so we can only work hard from the language of the film itself-the scene is used with a sense of ritual. the stage; the strong main light source in the lighting hits the stage, the brightness contrast is strong, and the visual impact is strong; in photography, fixed focus, long lens, fixed lens, the role is from blurred to clear, it is a kind of scene scheduling; The ventriloquism of simulating bombs that understands meaning but has no language meaning, and has reverse meaning, hinting at contradictory lines in the plot; a host table on the props rises from the stage to enter the painting, which is also a scene scheduling; the characters in the performance are very obvious. The director uses these special skills to shape the particularity of the characters. On the contrary, it brings the audience a chaotic feeling, the plot is ambiguous, and the information transmitted by the director cannot be smoothly accepted. The director's attempt to produce an unusual and historically significant film sequence from all angles of the film itself failed. This failure, obviously naive and ridiculous, made me question the sincerity of the director himself. The function of the second over-axis is to suggest changing the direction of the play, which is reasonable, and the illusion of over-axis on the panorama is very subtle to the audience. The function of the third cross-axis is to increase the dramatic tension and imply the emotions of the characters, which is also reasonable.
The director's innovative intentions can be seen throughout the film.
In the photography at 03:08 seconds, only the front windshield of the car is framed in the lower left corner, which increases the richness of the mechanism of the picture, increases the depth of field, and adds a little special beauty.
At 03:13, it cuts from the empty camera street sign to the crowd holding the sign and shouting. It is a montage of shapes. Functionally, it completes the transition smoothly and visually, and it also has the meaning of explaining the campaign situation in the plot. This is a very common technique, and it only shows that the director has the skills he should have.
At 11:54, the street lights are still on during the day. Is this purely for the aesthetics of the picture? Or regional differences? This is uncommon in American films that focus on the logic of everyday life.
17:15 The question of one person is cut to the third person to answer, the dialectical relationship of lines, and the transition technique. The function is to save time, increase compactness, and perpetuate the ambience.
At 20:54, the protagonist looks outside, and the voiceover is the voice of the conversation in the bar. After 2 rounds of dialogue, it turns to the scene of the bar conversation. There is a bit of after-flash meaning, a kind of relationship between sound and picture. The relationship between time and space is to omit measurable time and transition to a nearby space.
35:18 The background is a red and white translucent American flag, and the two silhouettes argue. The pictures of tension express the emotions of tension, which are very consistent.
01:13:41 In the photography, the spotlight through the rain is sprinkled on the protagonist's face, which is very beautiful. It is a very suitable choice to use complicated pictures to express the anxious heart of the characters, and the special pictures suggest the change of the plot.
01:34:30 A 47-second close-up of the push shot. It is not uncommon for movies to end with a moving shot, but what we see now is that the director uses a push shot to end the movie, leaving the audience with an open ending that makes everyone think. The real protagonist is not the character, but the heart of the character, or the heart of all Americans.
At 00, when the president was blowing his cows to the sky, the protagonist looked at him coldly in the excited crowd. The protagonist gets everything, but still can't be happy because he doesn't actually get the life he wants. At 01:31:15, a new girl came to report, and there was a line in the line, "It has nothing to do with the president." This sentence concealed the director's desire for a healthy order in the political field and confessed the director's concept. At 01:32:13, the reporter asked the protagonist: "Am I not your friend?" The protagonist said, "You are my best friend, ida." The reporter took the necessary part in the occurrence of all evils in the story. , but the fault is not the reporter. After the reporter stated that he is not the protagonist's friend, the protagonist still said this, which means that the protagonist's heart has transformed, and what exists in his heart at the moment is kindness. Later, I can rely on the work of journalists to achieve success together. There are also more subjective descriptions such as the protagonist going to a wedding, suggesting the inner hope of the characters.
It is obviously ironic that a speculatively sincere story ends up being written by an insincere director. With such a strong desire to come out, it can only be said that George Clooney has the cunning that a politician should have. The important thing is that this script is adapted and has almost nothing to do with George Clooney.
The quality of a work of art lies in what the artist is saying, how he says it, and how much of it is sincere.
"And then we've never had a disagreement about what kind of world we should leave to the next generation, a better world or a worse one." - "President Kills"
View more about The Ides of March reviews
