Look at the problem and analyze it separately.
There are many film critics arguing about what the president should do, and then Barabara piles up, but generally they only stand in a one-sided angle and beat him to death. It is not advisable.
Focus question: Should the president apologize.
Here should first consider why the president apologized? It's "what", not "why". OK. What does the president stand for?
The first is that when the president is facing an incident, his position must be the government. At the same time, the president is also the core of the government. As the head of a political party, if he can be easily threatened, then not only will the authority of the government decline, but it will promote terror. The commotion of the terrorists gives support to the terrorists, as if to say that as long as there are hostages, they can use the government and the president. So how do you ensure that this incident is not a conspiracy, call the president to a certain TV station and then I blow up, or let the president have to say something, things can't be looked at so simply. Therefore, the director is a leader and a beneficiary. He can clearly see the issue of whether the president will come or not. The president is absolutely impossible to come. So the director thought of a suitable way to get the ratings he wanted, so he got promoted and made a fortune. When the issue escalates to national security and party authority, this tragic story of who's injustice suffered can't stand, and you can only be a terrorist attacker. Then, why should the president apologize? It should be for the inhumanity of the party's executives and the death of who is the cause of the imperfect internal system of the party. The focus is not on the individual, but on the internal problems of the party. Like all the people to apologize, of course, he does not necessarily need to apologize himself, but the state needs to express and take reform measures. So it's impossible for a president to come out and say sorry to you, blah blah blah. There is a certain aspect of human nature called sizing up, the more you promise, the more you want (this seems to be irrelevant).
And because of this problem, the government is inhumane, the government is ruthless, or there is a similar contradiction in the rule of the Virgin Mary.
The government is a very large institution. At the center of the political party, or the focus of power, it should be ruthless, uphold justice, and put aside personal interests. It can only make plans and decisions for the collective interests. to look at the big picture. Without discussing the character of those in power in the power center circle, some people may be a little bit more cruel and some people are a little more tender, but the overall ruling plan should be like this, and the deviation will not be very large. As for the executors of the party's policies and plans, there is direct or short-term indirection with the people, and there are only a few lower-level units in the middle. They should maintain humanitarianism and regard themselves as a member of the people, not a high-ranking party organization. Whose problems can be better resolved to avoid such tragedies.
As for who committed the crime, from the moment the button was pressed, he was a terrorist attacking criminal. No matter how big a tragedy was, he could not cover up the fact that he committed the crime. It also includes the male protagonist who detonated the button at the end. Some comments are more or less meant to say Whoever pushes that button when desperate, I can only say that for some people it does, for me it doesn't. Just die in desperation, you press it to trigger the next injury and massacre, and the moment you press the detonator, more innocent people will be victimized. In the end, this scene actually makes the people watching it very cool. The catharsis and dark coolness of a kind of revenge is estimated to make many people feel surging. If you want to fuck me, I will fuck you. I can't criticize you for anything, and there's nothing wrong with it. Hatred can lead to hatred, but most of the time we are not the authorities. Just like the male protagonist in a movie, it is difficult for us to maintain an absolutely objective rationality when we are in the business. As a passerby bystander, the director in the movie knows very well that this incident is so cruel, passers-by can't put themselves in their shoes to generate empathy, news must have enough provocative power, can lead to war, and can make the whole people angry, then With ratings, he can be promoted. It is possible to appeal to the conscience of the people, but it cannot be forced, as is the natural selfishness of human beings. The film just depicts a person's misery to make you easy to empathize, but in reality, you don't feel anything, because it didn't happen to you at all. So no matter how you use humanity, love, and conscience, don't try to influence me outside the story.
Collectives, institutions, political parties, countries, this is a big interest group. It is normal for conflicts to arise in the face of your personal interests, money, and life. It is just how to mediate and balance them. Standing in different positions will lead to different conclusions.
But from a personal standpoint, I just want to spit on the male protagonist in the film and say Bullshit! Go Die! (Ha Jung Woo's acting is really good)
View more about The Terror Live reviews
