As soon as I smoke, I drink heavily, I have a bad temper, but I am a good prime minister. This is the image of Churchill created for us by the movie "The Darkest Hour". Interestingly speaking, if you read "The Darkest Hour" together with "Dunkirk" released a few days ago, and the "King's Speech" a few years ago, we would have a good understanding of the history of the United Kingdom at the beginning of World War II. A very three-dimensional understanding. In the style of "Historical Records", here is a book, a biographies, and a table of events, and then we just read the intersection of them. For director Joe Wright, who has filmed "Atonement", "Anna Karenina" and "Pride and Prejudice", historical dramas are his masterpieces. The film can't be said to be a masterpiece, but it definitely accomplished the task brilliantly. The scenes, lines, and characters are all exquisite and elegant, revealing a strong British style. The best scene comes from a meeting in the British House of Commons. A long-term view was taken. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party were at war with each other. The atmosphere was as exaggerated and warm as on the Shakespearean stage. The best line comes from the phone call that Churchill gave to the admiral. The admiral who was woken up in the middle of the night lied that he was not asleep. While reading the Bible, Churchill smiled and said: Is it the "Exodus" paragraph? The book of Exodus in the Old Testament describes the story of the prophet Moses separating the Red Sea with divine power to help the Jews escape from Egypt. At that time, the British army was trapped in Dunkirk and yearned for a miracle to appear. The introverted British humor is endlessly memorable. The best person is of course Churchill, and the honor belongs to the great Gary Oldman. In the past works, each character he has portrayed has its own strong personal style. But this time, the actor Gary Oldman disappeared, leaving the audience only Winston Churchill. If Daniel Day Lewis, Meryl Streep, and Colin Firth can win Oscars, then Gary Oldman has no reason not to get this award. It is an honor for the Oscar to present the award to Gary Oldman. 2. However, as I said before, this film cannot be called a masterpiece, because it just conforms to the well-known Churchill. At most, we saw the lovely side of his life. Therefore, Churchill's image is mainly supported by Oldman's performance, but as a character itself is thin. Although Churchill also struggled in the film, and at the end of the film, Churchill said: People who don't know how to change their minds can't change anything, but in fact the conflict does not come from within, but from outside. His inner world is always self-consistent, and his faith has never wavered. In short, the film attempts to create a flesh and blood Churchill, but the tone is always the main theme. The most important conflict in the film was actually avoided. That is, in the face of such a dark moment when soldiers are approaching the city, it is actually extremely difficult to choose between peaceful compromise or death by force. The film simply stands on the side of historical victors, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Halifax, who has chosen the appeasement policy, is portrayed as a sinister villain. To tell the truth, the image of Halifax in the film compares favorably with Lord Darlington in Kazuo Ishiguro's pen, and is a judgemental one. Also an advocate of the appeasement policy and an outcast of history, Ishiguro Kazuo gave Lord Darlington great sympathy to deeply understand the inner world of such characters. The film does not entangle these, all the pen and ink are used to depict the greatness of Churchill. This may be the difference between outstanding works and masterpieces. The film actually provided a point of conflict, that is, Churchill ordered the 4000 British troops in Calais to drag the German troops to buy time for the evacuation of the large troops. These people were abandoned like a valley. Is it possible to sacrifice the lives of a few people for greater goals? I think this is the essential difference between Churchill and Halifax, and it also makes them part ways. In fact, they are all trying to answer the question raised by the ancestor Shakespeare: survival or destruction. Regarding this question, the director gave his own answer. When communicating with the citizens of London on the subway, Churchill quoted the words of the ancient Roman hero Horaceus: (To the effect) the death of all creatures in the world will come sooner or later, to protect the remains of the ancestors and the temple of faith. The enemy died in a battle. This is the British version that is lighter than a feather and heavier than Mount Tai. This answer is of course extremely correct, but it hastily deprived the voice of the loser. Churchill claimed that he won the support of public opinion, well, the public opinion of a carriage. But there is no doubt that the whole country is bound to the chariot by his passionate speech and sacred patriotism. Of course, the final victory made Churchill's great achievement, but what if he failed? Is it true that, as Churchill said, he does not hesitate to subjugate the country and exterminate the species? I remember that in the final stage of World War II, in the face of the American offensive, Japan also yelled out the rhetoric of "100 million total jade pieces", intending to die with the Americans. Then, two atomic bombs extinguished the Japanese fanaticism. In the face of the atomic bomb, sacrifice becomes meaningless. So taking a step back, if there is no atomic bomb, but the two sides exchange lives, does such a method of death make sense? Of course, Japan’s resistance is not the same as that of Britain, and as the aggressors they take the blame. And let's go on, you all, I am full of sympathy for the appeasement policy and capitulationism. I naturally do not hold this view. After many years of leaving the historical scene, we can look at history more calmly and understand the choices and motives of the people in the play. Of course, there is no lack of selfish and cowardly people and things, but there are still some choices. We should also see whether those who are on the path of compromise and retreat also have the value they cherish. San recently watched a Korean costume movie "Namhansanseong" and tried to answer the question of survival or destruction. The difference is that the director does not presuppose a position, but gives the pros and cons of the film the same opportunity to express their views. This is also a film adapted from real history. It tells the story of the King of Korea and his officials besieged by the Qing army in Namhansan for 47 days during the "Battle of Bingzi" in 1636. This period of Korean history is actually very much related to Chinese history. In 1636, Huang Taiji changed his name to the emperor. In order to lay the foundation for future entry into the Central Plains, Huang Taiji first needed to fix his own "backyard", which was the vassal state of the Ming Dynasty, Korea. The so-called "Battle of Bingzi" was precisely the war in which the Qing Dynasty invaded Korea. Eight years later, in 1644, Li Zicheng invaded Beijing. Emperor Chongzhen hanged himself and died. Then Wu Sangui led Qing troops into the Pass. Within a year, Beijing changed hands twice. It is conceivable that the power of the two sides is compared, which is basically an egg hitting a rock. Naturally, the ministers of the DPRK and China were divided into two factions, the main war faction and the main peace faction. The film describes the conflict of lines between Choi Ming-gil, the representative of the Zhuhe faction, and Kim Sang-hyun, the representative of the Zhuhe faction. In the end, the Korean monarch Kaesong surrendered. The film focuses on Lee Byung-hyun's Cui Mingji and Kim Sang-hyun, played by Kim Yun-seok, and does not contain subjective praise and criticism, allowing the audience to think more objectively about the positions and choices of both parties. In my opinion, an excellent work, Will trigger thinking rather than provide answers. The film critic Yang Shiyang put forward his own thinking: "Stealing a life is not regarded as a grudge, is it loyal to die? Three prostrations and nine worships to cast off one's dignity in exchange for a city of people's life, is this a greatness or a shame? "We don't? Knowing the country’s grassland, only knowing spring sowing and autumn harvesting’ is the values of the people and the real life. The two ministers, one talking about practical methodology and the other talking about tragic values, how should you evaluate them? The end of the film has An intriguing detail. After Kaesong surrendered, Cui Mingji went to Jin Sang-hyun, and persuaded him that peace has come, why not go out and continue to serve the court. Kim Sang-hyun refused, saying that anyone can surrender, but he, the main combatant, can’t. If he even made a wall of grass, then the last dignity of the nation would be lost. In the end, Kim Sang-hyun hanged himself. This film is adapted from the historical novel of the same name by the writer Kim Hsun. The original novel can be said to be a household name in Korea, with a circulation exceeding 1 million copies. It is said that this book has also been praised by former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung. Kim Dae-jung gave a very positive evaluation to Choi Ming-gil, the representative of the protagonist in his meeting with Kim Xun. The image of Choi Ming-gil in the movie is not greedy for life and fear of death. He almost became a sacrificial offering to invigorate the army on several occasions. But he always insisted on the idea of peace talks. In his opinion, the lives of the people are higher than the rise and fall of the community. How should we evaluate such a person? A patriot or a traitor. Fourth, there is another interesting question in "Namhansan Mountain Fortress", is it Choi Ming-gil who really decided to surrender Kaesong? Choi Ming-gil only has the right to make suggestions, and the real decision-making power is in the hands of the king of North Korea. In fact, the king did not want to die, so he chose Cui Mingji’s proposition. However, we have seen that in the writing of history, the king is invisible. Whether it is affirmative or negative, all the focus is on Cui Mingji. In other words, the king decided to surrender, but the pot must be allowed. Cui Mingji is here to recite. This is the traditional culture of the concept of the emperor’s humiliation and death. How can the monarch surrender? Even the two emperors of the Northern Song Dynasty Huiqin were captured to the north to be decorated as "North Hunter", which means that the emperor went to the north to hunt. . Speaking of here, we can't miss someone, can we still despise Qin Hui with confidence in the future? He knelt in front of Yuewang Temple for a thousand years, really enduring humiliation. Closer to us is Li Hongzhang. Did Li Hongzhang decide to sign so many unequal treaties? He is nothing but negotiator and signatory. 1901 is the last year of Li Hongzhang's life. At the age of 78, he will attend the signing ceremony of the "Xin Chou Treaty" with Qing Wang Yiqiu. It stands to reason that this character should be signed by China's highest representative, Yiqiu. But Li Hongzhang replaced him: "The most difficult word in the world is your own name. You have a long way to go. Let the old ministers sign this traitorous treaty." Li Hongzhang’s biographer Liang Qichao commented: I respect Li Hongzhang’s talents, I cherish the knowledge of Li Hongzhang, and I grieve the encounter of Li Hongzhang. Of course there are emperors who make different choices. For example, the Emperor Chongzhen who hangs himself in Meishan (now Jingshan). No matter how rigid he was when he was alive, Chongzhen finally used his own fame and fulfilled the circulated evaluation of the Ming emperor: "The emperor guards the gate, and the emperor died." Of course, the dilemma facing Chongzhen is incomparable to the king of North Korea. For North Korea, surrendering is just a change of suzerain state, while for Chongzhen, surrendering means subjugation. On the European battlefield of World War II, there was also such a sharp contrast. In the movie "The Darkest Hour", Churchill asked members of the House of Foreign Affairs: Would you like to let the Nazi flag fly in Buckingham Palace, in Windsor Castle, and in the Houses of Parliament? Similarly, the British stuttering King George VI refused to go into exile and supported Churchill in the end. Of course, as a symbol of a country with no real power, George VI did not have the power to decide, but George VI's statement gave Churchill moral legitimacy, which is a force that transcends politics. In the same face of the German invasion, the Danish government and the king called on the people to "give up any resistance" to the invading army. The German occupation of Denmark only killed 2 people and wounded 10 others. I think Denmark’s thinking is similar to that of the North Korean king. First, the contrast of strength is too great, and the outcome has long been doomed; second, after all, Denmark is different from countries such as the Soviet Union and Poland. There is no racial conflict between the Nazis and Denmark. Just like the Qing Dynasty facing North Korea, you just surrender. So in the face of a powerful enemy, what factors affect a country's choice? I found that the answer seems to be very sad, and the course of the crisis is actually full of contingency, and it often depends on who is in power at the time. When encountering a hardliner like Churchill, he naturally chose to fight to the end, and if he encountered a weak person like the King of Korea, he had to surrender. And most people can't help themselves, only being trapped in their destiny. Five human beings have come to this day, in fact, there is enough ordinary heart to look back at history, those wounds that we dare not touch, the choices we don't want to face, we need to face and reflect again. The literary and artistic works are taking on such a function. Therefore, movies like "Namhansan Mountain Castle" or "Eavesdropping Storm" provide us with such reflections. Although "Darkest Hour" is well-produced and exquisitely performed, it actually avoids the important and plays the old tune again. The benefit of reflection is that it gives us the opportunity to correct our narrow ideas, and also to have a deeper thinking and understanding of the correct ideas. For example, for a person like Li Hongzhang, how much responsibility should he bear in the face of a major change that has not occurred in three thousand years? Is it appropriate to wear the hat of a traitor on his head? I think this is something we need to correct. Similarly, for people like Wang Jingwei, Petain, and Halifax, no matter what reasons or difficulties they have, their choice is still unacceptable and unforgivable. Survival or destruction is a question, and why you live and die is also a question. Wang Jingwei and Petain thought that they had given the people peace and given them a chance to survive, but they did not realize that this choice deprived the people of their dignity and the will to resist. They may also find it difficult to understand that not every living individual puts alive first, and some people choose to be dignified and refuse to live. A few days ago, media person Luo Zhenyu also talked about French Marshal Petain and Wang Jingwei in his program. In the face of these characters, Luo Zhenyu believes that there should be no controversy. He commented: "Everyone will explain their behavior. Reasonable and reasonable. With human intelligence and unbearable behavior, it is not easy to find an upright defense? However, if they are also reasonable and forgivable, then how can our entire nation face those who are on the battlefield of the Anti-Japanese War? Martyrs killed in action? If traitors are not punished, who will come forward next time the national disaster is at stake?" In fact, Luo Zhenyu has been worried about it. The so-called hero will not choose to give up just because you let them down. In times of crisis, there will always be people who choose to come forward and destroy their homes. On the other hand, no matter how history is evaluated, there are always people who choose to compromise and retreat, treason and surrender to the enemy. These are two sides of human nature. Those who do not need to choose are only the aggressors who create this dilemma. Regarding the issue of choice, writer Zou Sicong said: “We have to be clear that in a country composed of people, there are very few right and wrong options. Most people choose one of many wrong options and bear the consequences for this and bear the consequences. Consequences. This choice of'choose one wrong answer from a bunch of wrong answers' is what I call the'tragic moral choice'. And it is destined that in this world, only good people will do those'tragic moral choices.' 'Choose', because the wicked do not need morality and never want to choose."
View more about Darkest Hour reviews
