Every Ang Lee film is a storytelling, this time with a new and ingenious way of telling a story. I don't know how the original novel was written, but I can imagine that Ang Lee must have put a lot of thought into adapting and writing the script. The backbone of the story unfolds from Lynn's (non-absolute) first point of view, in terms of time and place advancements and transitions, closely followed by a rugby halftime performance, during which there are multiple montages of recollections. Memories generally cover two areas: family background (mainly my sister's story) and the war in Iraq. Lynn's family, Lynn's story in the Iraq war zone, and Lynn's return to the United States at this moment combine to form a full-fledged image of Lynn, which is what Lynn is all about. (I can't go into detail about the piles) One of the great capabilities of new technology is "clearness" and "being on the spot". The expression of time and space in the film is approaching a kind of "reality" - this is a kind of closeness. It is the reality of personal time and space experience, rather than the historical and macro reality. Therefore, the story is not told in a sequential manner that spans several years, nor is it simple flashbacks and interludes, but "memory" (yes, it is reminiscent of "Last Year at Marienbad"). I admire Ang Lee's storytelling tempo very much. His precise grasp of the time point is a topic worthy of further study. The new technology brings more than just visual innovations, but with it comes a re-examination of time in film. One of the main reasons this film is enjoyable to watch is the good editing.
So, what about film aesthetics? If we divide the locations in the film into three based on Lynn’s present and memories, then it seems that Ang Lee has chosen at least three styles of lens aesthetics to express the three time-spaces: the stadium in the “now” is live, Lynn's family is cosy, homie style, and Iraq is full of yellow light and sand and blood and rain (admittedly it is a bit crude to classify it).
The live feeling of the stadium allows the audience to fully appreciate the high-definition live broadcast, which is even better than the live broadcast, which simply pulls the audience directly to the scene. Too clear and lacks the aesthetics of the film! Yes, these bridges do not need "aesthetics" in the usual sense at all. These bridges are for narrative, to render the atmosphere, and to show the hearts of the characters in the play. If we have long accepted the breaking of classical aesthetics by modern art, then we should accept such a new film aesthetic that is live broadcast and serves the purpose of the film.
And in the Iraq war zone, it all happened too fast. The fierceness of the battle is of course a good combination with the rapidity of 120 frames. There are shootouts and close combat shots, and the scenes are either open or cramped. Especially in the medium and close-up shots, the realism brought by the "fast" brings the audience into a kind of artificial reality. Close-up shots are great for showing action in tight spaces, and 120 frames becomes a close-up of time superimposed on space. Behind the superficial phenomenon of "clearer" is more characterization and manipulation. Of course, the war zone also has moments of slowing down, and Ang Lee also has shots with the usual aesthetic characteristics. For example, the conversation between Lynn and the old monitor under an earthen wall left a deep impression on me: the earthy yellow wall, the blue sky, a green tree swayed by the wind, two warriors - whether it is composition, color Or light and shadow, they are all shots of "beauty" in ordinary people's conception.
In addition, (not sure if my memory is wrong) when filming the dialogue/conversation of the characters, the front and back do not seem to be used a lot (probably because there are often more than two people participating in the conversation), but instead it shows the linear shape of the characters sitting in rows— — whether in a limousine or on a stadium seat, and while soldiers are lining up — the focus of the close-up with a very shallow depth of field moves from one face to another, presumably simulating the real vision of the human eye. So in fact, when Ang Lee was taking the lens, he did not give the camera many positions and possibilities, nor did he have a so-called comprehensive objective perspective, but gave the camera some kind of close to subjective angle. A fixed camera position, fixed frame, shallow depth of field, and the focus in the frame is expressed through the modulation of the focus. Sometimes the camera is simulating Lynn's point of view, and sometimes the camera is just watching as an "present" eye that the audience can easily bring themselves into. It's just that there are too many shots taken in the same way, and it is inevitable to be a little boring from the beginning to the end, and there is room for innovation on this point.
There are still shortcomings in the portrayal of characters in the play, especially those female characters are portrayed as face masks and some kind of avatars, but as a foil for Lynn's green leaves, these symbolic and even embarrassing characters can also be used. was forgiven. There are also some details of the plot that I also feel that I have not handled well. For example, at the end, my sister said goodbye to Lynn, which felt so sudden. But this is also different, probably not so important.
Speaking of the comparison between the American box office and the Chinese box office, my friend bluntly said that Americans dare not face their hearts...Anyway... In general, this is a moving and smart movie, combined That's the wisdom of making movies. He is not burdened with technology, he masters and presents technology. If it's not even a good movie with the spirit of exploring new technologies, then I really don't know what a "good movie" is going to look like :) Well, I just have a preference for Ang Lee.
View more about Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk reviews
