This is not just a film that "brings the media's eyes and promotes idealism". Its well-organized theatrical text contains three themes: one is how the media, which represents the power of public supervision, can overcome the government's overreaching power; the other is how a newspaper can get out of business difficulties and become a winner in market competition; Women who have been housewives for 15 years, how to overcome the shadow of lack of self-confidence and gender pressure, and achieve growth in life. These three themes all belong to the traditional "heroic narrative" of "dilemma-challenge-victory", and are perfectly unified in this one event, making the film "enduring" and can be interpreted from any angle. topic.
Comparing with "Focus", you can see this obvious difference. All the characters and behaviors in "Focus" revolve around this report on the religious scandal. Group portraits such as editor-in-chief, editor-in-chief, and reporters perform their respective duties and perform at different levels. In The Post, with the progress of the central incident, three clues are interspersed and advanced alternately: media revelations and government interference have formed a background of value contradictions, the value orientation of the newspaper and the business considerations of the board of directors have formed a real risk, the female president The embarrassing state of existence and the complex situation she faced formed a personal inner conflict. When the event entered the climax of the countdown to the press release, these three contradictions were also brought together into one focus-the thrilling conference call. The heroine stands alone listening to the war of words of the men on the phone (and it's a low-angle shot), and they all try to convince her, and she has to make the decision to make or break out of this darkest moment.
Can you imagine if you use parallel lenses for this scene to show the pictures of multiple characters at the same time, what will be the difference? At least it will distract the tension of the plot and lose this huge sense of oppression. In the eyes of the "old man" Si Dao, there is no need to do that at all. Just using the most traditional close-up and slowly advancing the camera into Streep's face is enough to hold the audience's breath, expecting her to say that decision. Even those who knew that history would have known the answer long ago, but the plot would still lead them to this emotional high point. And this is only the first climax in the sense of "grabbing the horse", followed by a gentler but more powerful second climax: after the editor-in-chief admitted the legal risks of the report, a picture like a classical oil painting appeared: a man dressed in black At one end of the long table, the directors surrounded the hostess in a white nightgown, while the editor-in-chief in a light-colored shirt stood on the other side. Finally, she got rid of the pressure and persuasion of these people, went to another camp, and announced: "This is my company." Thus took the most decisive step for the newspaper and her personally.
After that, the machine roared and the printing press started. The camera swept over the typesetter and the stereotype, and the nostalgia of the 72-year-old Steward was revealed: it was a media belonging to the age of industrial machinery, and the title had the pounds of real money, and it could even be directly converted into the weight of a report. In a sense, the courage and sense of news of reporters and editors are also "forced" by the fierce market competition. It is unimaginable that such professional qualities can be cultivated in an environment where uniform distribution of front pages and apportionment subscriptions are rampant. And the heroine finally walked out of her empty office and mansion, came to the newspaper office and printing factory, and began to become a real publisher. The editor-in-chief no longer regards her as a point-of-sight gold master and an information source for high-end circles, but accepts to fight side by side with her.
This is Spielberg's "tidy, ingenious, textbook" Hollywood script, with a cartoon core of "brave overcoming adversity and evil" (although Ni is not really a stupid boss). It looks like a person can write it, but I don't seem to be able to learn its essence: in addition to having a movie star and a queen who really has the temperament of that era, the small characters - bold and firm informants, unexpectedly depot The ordinary reporter, the young and nervous intern, and the "pretentious" celebrity of the New York Times all have their own personalities. And behind the super-powerful ability to dominate all of this is a mature and steady self-confidence: this is the justice and value I believe in, it is also what the world yearns for, and it is the cornerstone of this country.
The ending is actually equivalent to the beginning of "The Great Conspiracy" in 1972: the president who dares to ignore the First Amendment will not rush to this street, but also to the next one. For this reason, it is estimated that someone will add Si Dao to the "Bai Zuo Luxury Lunch". I hope that the biographies of Trump can be photographed at this level in the future, but I don't know if there will be such real craftsmanship by then?
View more about The Post reviews
