you must have seen the movie "In the Clouds" directed by Jason Reitman. Ryan, a veteran in the "layoff company", always leaves early and returns late every day. He flies in the air 322 days a year, always rushing to the next company waiting for him to lay off employees in the past. However, Ryan was lonely in his heart and had nowhere to go-rather than fulfilling his duties, he simply avoided everything about family, responsibilities, etc., wrapped himself up, pretending to be happy. This is a film about unemployment and loneliness. During the financial crisis, the lives of ordinary people who need to vent themselves but have no channels are plain but thought-provoking. No wonder the National Critics Association named "In the Cloud" as the best film of the year.
What I want to say is another movie about unemployment, called "Big Company and Little Boss", also known as "Advantage Cooperation" and "Private and Private Confidential". This movie is about a 51-year-old middle-aged man named Dan (Dennis Quinn), a middle-aged company, and his position was suddenly replaced by a 26-year-old young man named Carter (Tover Grays). A series of stories that happened after the replacement. The director and screenwriter of the film are both Kritz Weitz, yes, it is one of the two directors of "American Pie," the "Wize Brothers". Based on this alone, you can roughly judge "Big Company, Little Boss" The similarities and differences between "" and "In the Clouds", if they are described as one dish, then the latter is garlic spinach, and the former is Gong Bao chicken.
Unlike the two films in terms of whether the style is plain or the best, I prefer to analyze it from the perspective of finance. An interesting phenomenon is that "In the Cloud" is a film that mirrors financial beings through a clever angle. It is supposed that the taste of finance should be stronger. In fact, it has already inadvertently taken all the fragments of financial elements that may appear in psychology. The language of "translation", for example, the interpretation of the "knapsack philosophy". As for "Big Company and Little Boss", this movie that sounds like "American Pie" should use sexy or even exaggerated techniques and universal language to express likes, dislikes and emotions, but in a lot of places, it is very direct and indifferent. The addition of translation adds financial elements.
For example, the first, middle, and second parts of the film all mention a concept-mergers and acquisitions. First, the "Sports America" magazine where the actor Dan was located was acquired by the tycoon Teddy. It was at this time that Carter "airborne" from a communications company under Teddy to "Sports America", replacing Dan as the director of the advertising department; in the middle; Well, when Carter took office, he mentioned the words "collaborative marketing" and "omnimedia" again, which was very trendy; at the end of the film, it was about mergers and acquisitions again, but this time it was for Teddy to be acquired── He changed hands of "Sports America" magazine, because there are too many old scalpers like Dan who insist on his bottom line and professional ideals. In other words, Teddy is a big player in capital operation, buying an orthodox copy. The magazine obviously didn't fit in with the aura, not to mention that he didn't make any effort in the choice of professional managers, so when he smelled the smell of gunpowder, he would act early and get rid of it, so as not to have many dreams at night.
Adding a lot of financial language to a "like "American Pie"" movie is really unique. Of course, what needs to be mentioned is that in 2004 when "Big Company and Little Boss" was released, the topic of corporate mergers and acquisitions was very popular in Europe and the United States. The United States accounted for seven of the top ten global mergers and acquisitions in the previous year, and AOL announced that it would change the company's name back to the pre-merger Time Warner two years after taking down Time Warner for $63 billion. Kritz Weitz obviously wants to use a film to reflect the impact of corporate mergers and acquisitions on the work and life of ordinary people, but for this kind of financial language, shouldn’t we “sink” a little bit more, and make the merger The ups and downs are expressed in more plain details, rather than being slightly cramped as they are now.
In fact, we can also read the director's hard work. He took at least two methods. One is a contrasting setting. The plot always switches between Dan and Carter’s joys and sorrows. For example, Dan was so excited when he knew that he was in his 50s and yelled "It’s great." Of course, he knew it at the same time. How much financial pressure he will have next, and at the same time, Carter was as excited after being promoted. He woke up his wife in the middle of the night and shouted "Too excited", although he didn't think about it. He didn't have any advertising experience but only Talking about the theory of marketing innovation, whether the road ahead will be bumpy. This crossover promotes the film to move forward in a natural way. For example, Dan moves out of his office and then moves in, Carter moves into Dan's office and then moves out, and the performance of some close-abbreviated details on the desk can make the previous or The financial elements that are being performed or even appear immediately after are not so obtrusive. The second method is a close-up shot. There are many close-ups in this film. In this way, the emotions of each character in each event can be transmitted to our eyes in the most original way. This is a benefit. Yes, all the financial elements that sound more professional at first have their character and come to life.
The best part of the integration of many methods is the clip where the movie will end, Dan and Carter go to meet potential customer Kalbu together. A few simple lines and the punch mark on Carter's face resolved the topic of "how much decision-making power the rich second generation should have", refined and powerful.
Of course, whether it is a comparative interpretation, a psychological analysis, or a mashup of descriptive images and explanatory images, financial elements only serve the theme of the movie, as "big company and small boss" wants to tell us, the boss Never sad. But you can't deny that if the financial element finds the best sense of form, it will add a lot of color to the movie. Look at "Wall Street" in the 1980s. It tells a professional story so vividly, but when it comes to "Wall Street 2", everything is suffocated again. It is not so much an old story. It is better to say that the director and screenwriter are no longer in finance and economics. The way of expression and expression of the elements is painful. From this point of view, "Wall Street 2" is inferior to "In the Cloud" and "Big Company Little Boss". This is a bit of an egg, just like you can't force Kritz Weitz to shoot the capital market version of "American Pie", but mashup is king, and it is also a topic of mergers and acquisitions, spin-offs, and rich second-generation decision-making power. , Christopher Nolan shot "Inception".
View more about In Good Company reviews
