"Bridge" is a Nordic suspense drama. The background of the play is Denmark and Sweden.
First, let's talk about the atmosphere creation of the play.
The exteriors, interiors, and characters in the play are basically in cool colors, with minimal colors, styles, and samples, giving people a feeling of depression.
The location is either abandoned factories and buildings, or a large expanse of empty space, perhaps because of winter, there is no sunlight outside, and the empty and cold location is hidden in a cloud of fog. With the atmosphere of suspense, murder, and terror, it is very popular. It was also empty, and there was nothing but fear.
Although derailment and betrayal are indispensable in any country, in this drama, derailment and betrayal are directly expressed in a "sexually cold" way, and the process of people's derailment is shown to you. Directly and simply, derailment is common to the point regardless of the main line. The character is still a branch character, no matter the decent and the villain are cheating or collaborating with each other, no matter whether the other party is married or unmarried, let people see the complexity of the emotions of human beings.
When the male protagonist himself had a family and the family was in harmony, he had only met Charlotte three times before going to bed. I was shocked. I was shocked but felt understandable (understanding does not mean that he would do this kind of thing). More aware of the complexity and multi-faceted nature of human beings, Charlotte went to bed with the male protagonist in order to avenge her cheating husband, the change and choice of people in a specific situation.
The first few episodes of the first season are very furious. The first is killing and dismemberment. One of the killed is a famous politician. After that, there will be a new clue and character in almost every episode. The clue and the new character are very embarrassing. Forced, I feel very incoherent.
In the first season, many social issues were involved, such as the problem of homeless people, whether the law is fair, the issue of child labor, and so on.
The murderer used extreme cases to draw people's attention to these issues, and even killed many innocent people.
During the viewing process, I couldn't help but wonder: What kind of person was the murderer and what kind of experience did he have? So that he would care about these issues, what was the original intention of the murderer? Do you want to attract people's attention to solve these social problems, or do you have a different plan?
After watching the first six episodes, I felt that the murderer was a person who cared very much about social issues. He was very smart and very intelligent, and even made people involuntarily think that he was a "hero" calling for justice and fairness, even though he used extremely cruel Way.
In the seventh episode, the murderer's mystery was finally unveiled. He used to be a policeman with a very tragic life experience. His wife’s affair was his best friend. He has been kept in the dark. His wife and son died in a car accident, and soon he was framed by a colleague and a psychologist and lost his job. (Suffered very unfair treatment) After losing his job, he became a porter from a policeman, and was later driven away and turned into a homeless man! (Too miserable, really miserable villain!)
He originally decided to commit suicide, but later changed his mind to retaliate against those who were unrighteous to him.
He killed those who caused his misfortune one by one, and he also brought many innocent people. The clues in front gradually merged, and they were basically connected with the murderer.
However, there are two important clues that were hyped up at the beginning. The dead politician in the first episode, Stephen and Veronica in the next few episodes seem to have nothing to do with the murderer, and there is no explanation at the end. .
The first season gave people the feeling that they were top-heavy, with too many clues at the beginning, and they were discussing social issues so intensely that when they watched it, they looked forward to the feeling that this drama was discussing unfair social issues that need to be resolved, although the murderer I did suffer a lot of unfair treatment, but the revelation at the end focused too much on personal grievances and retaliation, instead of talking about social issues, and I felt that it was not right at the beginning. For example, the murderer killed the male lead’s innocent eldest son in revenge for destroying his family. Although doing so would make the male lead painful, his eldest son is too innocent!
Finally, talk about the roles inside.
The hostess is very special. She is different from ordinary people. She is completely ignorant in terms of interpersonal relationships. She is extremely honest and direct. Such people are often out of gregariousness. But she seems to have endless energy, always staying up late to work overtime, investigating cases all night, and proficient in all aspects of knowledge, is a very good agent, a bit like a robot.
When I watched the first season, I felt brave, strong and energetic. I still envied and liked her.
Looking later, she was actually not a robot. She also had empathy and emotion, but she didn't know how to express it.
The male protagonist is an indescribable person. He showed me the complexity, multi-facetedness and contradictions of human nature. In the play, he is a colleague of the heroine and an important police officer in charge of this case. It is difficult to define and explain whether it is a good person or a bad person.
At work, he is responsible for investigating cases and has strong ability. He has a high EQ. He also takes care of female protagonists with low EQ. He can be said to be a good policeman and a good friend. But in his romantic life, he can't stand the temptation. He is very unfocused and has a lot of dark history.
He had five children with three women and three children with his third wife. As a married man, he slept with a woman who had only met less than three times. After being discovered by his wife, he made various excuses for himself. To shirk responsibility, as his eldest son said: Whenever he faces a problem and wants to solve a problem, he always chooses the easiest thing among all things.
There is no responsibility or responsibility at all.
Greening his colleague and a good brother indirectly caused others to ruin, and there was no guilt at all. The other party didn't know that his wife was cheating on him, so he continued to be brothers as if nothing had happened. (This kind of friend is terrible, and the chicken thief is terrible.)
After knowing that the murderer was going to retaliate, he was also grateful that the murderer didn't know that his wife was derailed by him, and told the hostess not to tell anyone about it.
As a result, his own wife and children were deceived and kidnapped by the murderer, and almost died, indirectly killing his innocent eldest son.
The male protagonist’s mistake is a moral one. He may not be guilty in law. Even if he hurts others deeply, he will not be punished except for the murderer’s revenge. He does not feel guilty for hurting others. So when the murderer retaliated against him, everyone felt that he deserved it.
To a certain extent, I think the male lead is a very hypocritical person, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, hypocritical, cowardly and shameless. While making friends with people, while ruining people's families, there is no sense of guilt at all.
The last is the villain, he is really miserable, and his experience has been unfair. Encountered the double betrayal of his wife and best friend, lost his wife and son in a car accident, and was framed by colleagues and lost his job. It can be said that a series of blows and unfairness followed.
The male protagonist is a chicken thief, and he is also very lucky. He has not been framed by a colleague. He has a boss who appreciates him and a friend (female protagonist) who helps him.
The first part wants to discuss the issue of fairness. Judging from the life experience of the male protagonist and the villain, the lives of the two have formed a sharp contrast. The villain has encountered injustices in all aspects, angry and revenge. The male protagonist has always been lucky and fair. The balance has been tilted towards him.
There may also be issues of fate and luck. However, after the male protagonist has occupied the time, place, and harmony, and even destroyed other people's families, he still faces the villain and said: "It is because of Michaela) that the villain's wife chose me, so you will retaliate against me?"
How innocent he said that, really a peerless great white lotus! Please, brother, you two are not pursuing Michaela at the same time, but you ruined your best friend family! You ruined your best friend's family, you ruined your best friend's family!
It's really shameless, too thief, too green tea, too despicable and shameless.
It is really unfortunate for the villain to meet such a friend.
View more about The Bridge reviews
