This year, to be precise, the fall of the newspaper industry has been one of the hottest topics in the Internet industry. The war of words between media giants and Internet upstarts has set off successive waves of flat ground. The background is a well-known sad reality: under the aggressive erosion of the Internet, big newspapers have closed their doors one after another, and this trend cannot be undone. Signs. Just last week, the Orville Award, the most important journalism award in the UK, presented the newly added blog award for the first time, and its symbolic significance is self-evident.
So two generations of reporters in the movie-one played by Russell Crowe, only used to old-fashioned computer and character interface text editors, and one played by Rachel McAdams, transformed into a newspaper by a famous blogger-meet and form a working partner ( Coupled with the looming romantic sentiment), the metaphor behind this is enough to make the audience smile. Sometimes you may even think that this is not a suspenseful film depicting political murders, but a documentary depicting journalists. Although it has nothing to do with the main line, when you hear the editor played by Helen Mirren yelling: "Don’t talk to I’m talking about the behind-the-scenes story. The only true behind-the-scenes story is that this newspaper is about to fail.” When you hear the reporter played by Russell Crowe coldly refuting the politician played by Ben Affleck, “Even today, people can still Distinguish the difference between boring text junk and really good news", when you hear Rachel McAdams reject Russell Crowe’s proposal to let her post the manuscript online first, and say, "I think everyone will still tend to When you read this story on paper, you will feel that this line is so clear and clear to the point where it is overwhelming.
But the question is, is this a sincere line?
Since the theme is that the reporter bravely reveals the shady scene, and Russell Crowe starred in the lead, it is hard not to recall the "The Insider" ten years ago. In the film in which Al Pacino plays the reporter and Russell Crowe plays the informant, the reporter is a lonely hero, and his opponent is the shady in the traditional sense: capital, politicians, and the omnipresent system. There, the audience can feel the ubiquitous tension every minute, can see the struggle like a struggle, and see the conflict between idealism—although it is an exaggerated literary idealism—and reality. The glorious tradition of American journalism is no longer a new subject in Hollywood, but in that film you can at least still feel the real flesh and blood of journalists, not just as a cliche moral model.
And all this is completely absent in "State of Play". As an audience, you know that the director is praising journalists. This is great, then?
What is presented to the audience is a work with well-rounded technique, smooth plot, steady rhythm, well-proportioned structure, well-made, and accurate performance. ——You have to admit that it is not easy to do these. But on the other hand, after watching the movie, you will hardly leave any deep and indelible impression on each of the above aspects. Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck's performances are as good as ever, but they are far from their best performances. Helen Mirren’s acting is also very good, but you don’t know what she can do besides losing her temper. Actors of her level are just as good even if they only play tantrums, but it’s a pity to only use them for tantrums... …Rachel McAdams' appearance in the play is very beautiful and very temperamental, as is Robin Wright Penn. I can't think of more sentences to comment on.
It is this moderation that puts the film in a certain awkward position. All the character tension comes from the details of the plot without meaning, and all the emotional conflicts fall into a familiar cliche. You don't know where it is in the end, or whether you should watch this movie with any "serious" attitude. For about two hours, the audience comfortably enjoyed the meticulously laid out suspense and the excitement of intellectual challenges, and then all the truth came to light, the real murderers were dead, the heroes and heroines hand in hand to greet the future in peace. If this is all the director wanted to do, he succeeded.
However, those laments about the fate of journalism in the Internet age therefore appear to be extraordinarily hypocritical. Since it is just entertainment in the end, what is its greatness, and what's worth sorrowing about its decline?
At the end of the film, the protagonist’s carefully crafted headline report finally came out, and then accompanied by the subtitles is a gorgeous documentary-style shot, scene by scene reproduced such a report from the computer to the workshop, from plate making to printing and then to Every detail of transportation. Even though the movie's theme music had already sounded at that time, every audience in front of me-myself included-watched the complete epilogue motionlessly. I can't help but admit that this ending is excellent from conception to shooting. It echoes the whole film very well and has a long aftertaste. Even when it is taken out alone, it is still pleasing to the eye. As a nostalgic, aria-style ending, it touched me.
But after thinking about it, this is just a well-designed sense of vicissitudes, just like all the similar fragments in the whole film. So the emotions it evoked were quickly replaced by the entertainment mentality it should have. I waited contentedly for the end of the subtitles, and then calmly left the cinema.
View more about State of Play reviews
