sad idiot sad movie

A distressed fool, a distressing film - "Watergate" adaptation of the movie "The President's Team" "Watergate" Question: If you are a reporter 1. The clue provider has a different attitude before and after, denying that he said it If you are slapped in the face, what should you do? 2. How to overcome fear and ensure your own personal safety? 3. How to use the ability of thinking and logic to identify information in an indirect way? (He didn't say anything, he was silent, the tone of his speech...explains...) 4. How to grasp the emotions of the clue provider, appreciate the psychological state of others, and use the charm of language to make people who resist speak? At the same time, avoid invalid interviews and avoid being beaten. 5. How to meet people who are deliberately avoiding and dodging? 6. How to quickly sort out trivial information and consult massive data? 7. How to effectively judge and control the trend of things on the whole? 8. How to balance strong purpose and necessary human touch? 9. How to "negotiate" and get along with superiors? Are you lucky enough to meet a superior who believes in yourself and protects you? 10. How to face the overwhelming accusations, even the criticism of the institution you work for (whether you are wrong or not)? Most importantly, how does it end? 11. How to grasp the speed difference between the report and the progress of the event to avoid "backfire" and "self-defeating"? … The above questions, let’s ask them for the time being, sucks. After all, movies do not equal facts. The judiciary is deliberately omitted in the film, and it is their "absence" that makes the two reporters "omnipotent". Ershuo in "Pinocchio" once asked: Are we going to report what the masses want to know (see), or what they need to know? On closer inspection, what exactly do "want" and "need" refer to in different situations, how much overlap between the two, can they be clearly distinguished, and so on. Probably can't tell why. This question also appears in the film. The people don't care, and the peers don't care. What are the two of them insisting on? Should we talk about politics? It involves a high level and a wide range, which is shocking. Are they "playing with fire"? If you touch it, if you talk about it, you may be behind bars, and the situation may remain the same. Maybe because what you eat has to be pulled out, you deny the meaning of eating itself? (I don't know if it's appropriate) Maybe it's frustration in most cases, it's taking form, but this is the only way to go. How about the emergence of a reasonable system that is not accompanied by a multi-party game? Fear of ending does not necessarily mean giving up on starting. The film and its crew have won four Oscars and been nominated eighteen times. In fact, when the scandal was displayed in this way, it was already amazing and irrefutable. Of course, once again, there are preconditions for the appearance of such a plot. Boss, give me a pound of feelings, haha.

View more about All the President's Men reviews