The article uses three scenes that take place at the same time and in different places to switch back and forth. The first scene is the senator (senator) played by Tom. To the reporter played by Aunt May for propaganda to sell the so-called new military strategy that the U.S. government is carrying out, but in the eyes of long-term professional reporters, this new strategy is completely untenable (there is no factual reporter to follow the film) or even It was a so-called guerrilla war like the Vietnam War in 1955. In the end, Aunt May had to succumb to the importance of keeping the job and continued to sell the government's so-called new strategy to the public. The second scene takes place in the office of a professor at the University of California (what the campus didn't say), and the professor played by Robert is giving earnest persuasion to a potential young boy who is slowly losing his passion and enthusiasm for political science. The third scene tells the scene of two voluntary enlisted students fighting and dying on the battlefield under the implementation of the new strategy.
How should I put it, the setting of each character in this movie is actually based on the American background at that time, 2007 - the sixth year after the 9·11· terrorist attack in the United States. The new strategies that the government has shown to the public through the media for a long time, the importance of counter-terrorism, the importance of maintaining world peace, etc., seem to group the issues of war from all walks of life in the United States to the same thing, that is, we are fighting terrorism, which is what we are in 9 • Reflected and shared after 11. No one finds himself being led by something inexplicable and incapable of upward promotion.
The most direct manifestation is of course the two students who voluntarily enlisted in the army, gave up their studies in the middle, and decided to use practical actions to defend the country where they did not enjoy her too many benefits, even if they were told, this is likely to be an indiscriminate battle. In the midst of meaningless wars, they set off resolutely; we know what led them? A senator who claims to be a top student at West Point, an orator who has never participated in any actual combat. Typical "soldiers for political benefits", is it worth it? They didn't answer, but their eyes were firm.
Ah, and our journalists, a tangled body hoping to find evidence in this scoop, who admitted in a debate with Senators that he'd spent the past 6 years helping the government sell all sorts of policies to close The tangled body of the human heart; why only "tangled body" is used to describe her, because she is a "journalist for commercial benefits", she wants to maintain the objectivity and rationality of journalists, but also submit to the burden of mother and family; is it worth it? ? She didn't answer, but the last report was put on the rolling news below the news channel to broadcast.
And that professor and student! The professor is the ideal in this type of film, on the one hand he does not need to bear the pressure of work (teaching political science is to give him the right to criticize politics), on the other hand he can influence others "unscrupulously" (awakening the students). Civic awareness, tap more potential stocks), was drafted (recruited), and it was this hard-working experience that gave him a better reason to persuade in front of students. What about this talented student? He said, "Politics, professor, is really just telling you how to win, just to win. It doesn't matter how stupid or duplicitous or shameful you look. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, they If I can't solve the problem, what can I do?" Why did a student who was originally full of passion and hope in politics become so negative and so cynic? Among them, the [?] of "students for [?]" ] It is what I mentioned above [no one finds himself being attacked by something inexplicable and has no ability to improve upwards], this thing, I think, is the over-exaggeration of American society in the long-term fight against terrorism [propaganda] ] And make anti-terrorism a commercial and political selling point, and then the numbness and habitual psychology formed from it. Is such an idealistic professor, such a passive student, such a conversation worth it? They didn't have a final discussion result, but the student stared blankly at the screen when he saw the rolling exclusive news. At this moment, the curtain fell. The movie ends there.
Are these questions answered in the movie? If you asked me that, I would tell you that there is never an answer in politics, let alone a movie that just wants to throw such a question for everyone to discuss. Then you ask: "What's the point of watching this movie?", I will answer: "Who am I, where do I come from, and where do I go? Are these questions answered in "Sophie's World"? ? Discussing issues is a pleasure in itself.”
View more about Lions for Lambs reviews
