The professor tried to awaken the students with good intentions, but it was difficult to be understood, and he was almost defeated several times in the tongue battle. He is wary of the disillusionment and abandonment of political ideals felt by the younger generation, especially a political student, if he can’t recall the ideals deep in the students’ hearts and re-establish a reference point that can be used to maintain beliefs, then Obviously, the students who have cracked and then may be destroyed by a single blow, once they have a group of nihilistic worldviews, once they enter the society, they will only quickly get lost and accelerate their evolution, becoming a thorough, smooth and sophisticated in all aspects and fields. , Sophisticated cynics. The so-called "sophistication is a developed mind and a shrinking conscience." Perhaps the only thing that professors are most reluctant to do is to cultivate, tolerate, and even transport such cynics personally.
So the film interspersed with memories of two other young, relatively poor economic conditions, relatively lower social status, and immigrant students of color who dropped out of school to join the army. Of course, this case is very controversial, because it involves what a student's true job is-to learn knowledge and enrich oneself in the good time of limited youth. It is still at the moment of practicing faith, to donate life hastily, at least to temporarily donate time, energy, and safety of life to the proposition. A value judgment question, which is the value of the two life choices. This is a small subtopic that needs to be explored in addition to the film's motif.
The professor is cautious in this respect, and he must have gone through countless self-questions, self-answers, and left and right hands. Therefore, at the last supper, the two students were given a final exhortation and reminded them to make the final trade-off. This makes the idealism of the professor get rid of something similar to religious sentiment, instead of blindly inspiring others and younger generations to easily fight for something so-called noble and regardless of everything and even life. He reminded the other party of the possible price, how heavy and huge, and the possible results, how disappointed and disillusioned. Then, he saw the two young men's reluctance to hesitate.
Are ideals ridiculous and contemptible? Idealism, is it stupid and naive? In the film, there is a very interesting scene in which two black students stand on the podium in a presentation, facing the collective suspicion and ridicule of the entire class from offstage and working hard to defend. That was a good rebuttal from the idealist to the cynic. Of course, the ideals buried in our hearts should not be ashamed of us. (However, the crowd and reality often inculcate us that we should be so). On the contrary, the self-righteous, rational, wise, mature, shrewd cynics who are not ashamed and self-satisfied are really to be ashamed.
I just talked about the "deeply buried" ideal. Why is the ideal buried deep? The whole reality is that too many vulnerable people often choose not to expose their enthusiasm and innocence in the face of the molesting of cynics. This is why when the two students finished their presentations, the professor sat down, with a look of approval on his face. Then came the respect, and then only watched. It was watched by the wind and the wind, and the watch of the strong man who knew that he would never return. But it is irresistible and can only be seen.
The other part of the film focuses on the tit-for-tat linguistic confrontation between a female journalist who still has an awakened conscience and a politically cynicist superior. The MP played by Tom Cruise belongs to the elite class of power, but with clever advocacy and use of idealism, he cleverly pave the way for his career. The extreme expression of cynicism of the above is crowning and grand. Of course, the use of enthusiasm and integrity has always been under the banner of nobleness. The most important thing is that politicians lack awareness of their own hypocrisy and utilitarianism, but show a sincere and progressive attitude everywhere. Put all political behaviors into slogan-style and advertising-style preaching first, and invite female reporters to assist in this preaching. The senior female reporter naturally sees the cunning and the vagueness of political rhetoric. She sees what the so-called "at all costs" exchanges for things and the plan to advance are ultimately for what is to be achieved and what is impossible to achieve. . But it's really difficult to fight with one's own strength, and in the end it can only bend and cooperate under threats.
The film is full of reflection.
Criticizing and complaining that this film does not provide the audience with a basic standpoint, or that the screenwriter and director’s words are vague, I assume that it stems from a kind of impetuous personal mentality. After not carefully comprehending and deliberation, I will speak rashly (this is indeed a dull form) , The topic is also heavy for the film, but it does not affect its excellence). Or, it's basically because the two groups of people are essentially isolated in their thinking. Of course I have hinted that the physiological, intuitive, and natural rejection of a cynicist to this film cannot be ruled out.
I think the position of the film is quite clear. In this film, the image of Robert Dreyfu sitting behind the table is almost the representative of the film's position, the embodiment of the position, and the declaration of the position. The female reporter played by Meili Streep expresses how helpless and weak when a position is under pressure. It is the conflict, entanglement, and war between idealistic elements such as conscience, principles, and standpoints and reality. Finally, "disagreement acceptance".
Having said that, the director of any film is not obliged to provide corresponding answers in addition to the title. The movie itself is a form and process of thinking and exploration. Furthermore, this kind of thinking and exploration is not rigid, there should be no fixed formulas, and there is no need to be uniform. This is the charm of the movie itself. Viewers who forcibly ask the director to provide an answer may be lazy in thinking, or they may be conservative in their viewing habits, and may need adjustment and breakthroughs in their viewing habits.
In fact, in this world, the vertical history, the horizontal global integration of today’s international society, the vertical and horizontal intertwined culture, and the natural universe, there are no standard answers to all aspects, divisions, and many or even most of the questions. At all. Truth shrinks between the folds of complex phenomena, because of the difference in angle, because of the depth of understanding, the answer is not so easy to judge arbitrarily.
The director himself, in fact, can be just a questioner, or just a confused person, waiting for the announcement, waiting for the rescuer, and waiting for the verdict.
View more about Lions for Lambs reviews
