Director Sidney Lumet's grasp of character has always been outstanding. In the movie "Twelve Angry Men", the director portrayed twelve jury members with different occupations and experiences in the small space and short time of a day, such as a lounge temporarily prepared for the court jury by the school. With very different personalities and outlooks on life, the final result of the trial, which is diametrically opposite to the title, makes the audience think about the nature of the pursuit of justice and objectivity in the judicial system (so the film is also known as "The Great Trial Rebellion").
In the Network piece, this main line is called ratings. The heroine of the famous film "Kill Bill" insists on overcoming obstacles and chasing Bill for revenge. In UBS, Howard Beal committed suicide because of low ratings, and then went crazy because of his pursuit of high ratings. Finally, he was conspired to kill by TV decision-makers in front of national audiences. The case of the host being brutally murdered".
Many moviegoers said after watching the film that there is such a hidden danger of "one-sided pursuit of ratings" in the contemporary Chinese TV industry, and a similar "Bill Massacre" is brewing and lurking. The final solution is to strengthen the government's morality. Guide and carry forward the eight honors and eight shames and socialist core values.
But I don't think so.
In my opinion, the best way to correct wrongs is to overcorrect. If the most basic bottom line and rules of the media industry are stipulated - anti-social and anti-human are not allowed, and a film and television program rating system is implemented to replace censorship - other For example, the scale of program content and whether it is "healthy, lively, and positive" can be completely adjusted by the market, that is, by the rope of ratings. Perhaps this is contrary to the traditional concepts of "macro-control" and "government guidance" in many people's minds. Let me explain my views below.
Don't worry that the "sieve" of ratings will drown out good, high-quality shows. For example, the American newspaper industry in the 20th century had three climaxes of "yellow news", "excretion movement" and "sensationalism" that violated news ethics because of too fierce competition. Even the founder of the great Pulitzer Prize for journalism, Pulitzer No exception, President Theodore Roosevelt couldn't control it, he could only yell loudly. But what about the result? Major newspapers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, which still insist on serious, objective, and truthful reporting of news, have become the mainstay of American journalism.
And bad programs will naturally be eliminated. I remember that when I was a child, there was a program that let participants eat some kind of disgusting food to win prizes. At that time, there were also various criticisms: this kind of program did not care about "inheriting and promoting excellent traditional morality" or "establishing a civilized and healthy lifestyle". According to the previous management rules, such programs must be banned from broadcasting. Today, such programs have automatically withdrawn from the stage, but if the government intervened at that time, would it arouse the curiosity of the audience and increase the ratings, on the contrary, would it prompt TV producers to favor such "unhelpful and non-nutritious" programs? Furthermore, will the government's frequent regulation arouse the disgust of the audience, the discouragement of TV producers, and finally lead to the decline of the entire TV industry? Today's American television industry has programs that use extreme events (love triangles, cheating couples, brothers against each other, homosexuality, etc.) to stimulate ratings, but these programs eventually fend for themselves and gradually disappear.
These are because the audience is not a fool, they will see through and get bored. And, more importantly, in the ups and downs caused by such laissez-faire, the taste of the audience can automatically be improved more and more quickly than under the conditions of government regulations and restrictions - "(These stimuli) are nothing more than that."- -Therefore, there will still be a shift to non-popular and neutral programs; and the increasing taste of audiences has also pushed the level of TV producers to innovate and seek new sources of ratings.
Adam Smith compared price to the "invisible hand" as a lever for market adjustment; similarly, in the TV industry, ratings can also act as the "invisible hand", guiding the TV industry to survive the fittest and prosper.
Our condolences and grief over Bill's death, but considering that this is an extreme case and the film's infinitely exaggerated and fictitious elements of real events, so, I would say, in the old days, Bill died by a gun, not enough Pity; in the new era, the media age, the information age, Bill died in the ratings, but he wanted to wake up every TV person or student who aspires to be a TV person: If you can't make a program that meets the market and the audience's taste, you may become a TV person. If you fail, your name may be broken, and you may be like Bill, who is defeated and your name is broken. One of the most competitive words to describe the competition is "life or death", and it can describe the whole story:
in the fierce competition in the media industry, Bill lost, so, he died.
View more about Network reviews
