Although the facts revealed by the protagonists of this film are indeed shocking, and the courage and perseverance of the journalists in them are also admirable, but for some reason, whenever they see the camera on their faces, When the close-ups of expressions such as perseverance in the face of difficulties, sympathy for the suffering of victims, and affectionate gazes of mutual encouragement were featured, I seemed to see the collective of protagonists with thick eyebrows and big eyes in Chinese-style theme movies. Attached to them, such a performance naturally has a false and empty element, which weakens the shock of the film. Anyway, I don't like this kind of recurring theme-style shots.
The so-called "resistance" and "difficulty" that the reporters encountered in the film seemed very powerful on the surface, but after reading it, I found that there was no resistance at all.
Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers always say that our professional ethics, we can't provide a list, and then the male reporter stalks casually, and the Armenian lawyer representing the victim arranges him to interview the victim; The lawyer who claimed to have a good relationship with the church and would never give you a list of priests who sexually abuse children, said that he had already sent a list to the newspaper, so go back and check the briefing yourself (╯▽╰ ) and the lawyer who defended the church, when the head of the Spotlight quartet finally went to him, they all got out of my house, and they didn't help, and they were chased out in the next second. A circle was drawn on it - hehe.
Courts, courts, at first, various people said that the relevant files were either sealed up or taken away. In short, you absolutely couldn’t get it. As a result, the newspaper office made a random motion and asked the court to unblock it. The judge was still the only one. Irish Catholics, have you met resistance? Obviously everyone is very cooperative. In addition, the Armenian lawyer representing a group of victims said that he also has 14 files that can be unsealed. The male protagonist went to the court to check the file, but the administrator said he couldn't read it. As a result, the male protagonist went to the judge casually, and the judge gave him permission. The biggest resistance in my view of the whole film actually came from the court's file custodian. It will be off work again, the files will be sealed for a while, and the printing room will only be able to print for a while. Finally, the male protagonist took a bribe of dozens of dollars - it is really the biggest resistance! Everyone else is saying no, but as long as the protagonist keeps chasing after others, his body will be very honest, okay!
Church, church, the church is really gentle, right? In this film, the church is too embarrassed to call itself "resistance"? However, he has been emphasizing that our city of Pau should unite Barabara, at most a little hint that your editor-in-chief is an outsider, and you still need to mix in the local area. Ladies and gentlemen, you have never seen how some totalitarian countries or evil religions make you disappear in minutes? Really, the church is weak.
Victims too. At first, everyone seemed to say that the victims were silent, and they all chose to remain silent. It seemed that it would be very difficult to find victims and ask them to speak, let alone ask them to provide evidence in their real names, but the result was casual. The reporters interviewed the victims and obtained the interview materials they wanted. And although it is said in the film that many of the victims committed suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, and the only survivors who can be interviewed, at least from the perspective of the main victims in the film, they are not living well. It's too tragic. Maybe because they are adults, they have been somewhat bearish about the events of the year. Even if they often feel unbearable and cry because of it, the impact reflected on the screen is really weak. Relatively speaking, the kind of fear and loneliness that may be directly photographed in the eyes of children who have been recently victimized is more impactful. It is a pity that the United States' regulations on the protection of children in movies make it impossible for this film to make such a breakthrough, and the lack of such a breakthrough makes the film lose a lot of shock in the content of the story, so that the audience does not follow the heart-wrenching and painful substitution. The feeling makes the whole movie lukewarm. A long time ago, I saw a Canadian movie "The Boy of St. Vincent", which was also about the animal nature of the priest. Although the whole movie was terrible, the protagonist, the little boy, was powerless to resist the huge pain that he could only be at the mercy of the behemoth of the priest and the church. And torment, it made me substitute a kind of pain in advance when watching "Focus", otherwise the whole film would be really unbearable.
In short, because the film lacks breakthroughs and the obstacles set up are not difficult enough, the film's expression of its theme is greatly reduced.
Finally, I know that this film wants to express the two main themes of defending freedom of the press and defending justice, but in the eyes of us onlookers, the angle chosen by this film is inevitably a bit of a coincidence, giving people a sense of flaunting freedom in order to flaunt it. A sense of freedom. Although the Catholic Church is a powerful group in the United States, after all, the United States is a Protestant country where Jews control the regime and blacks are absolutely correct. The major American media and Hollywood are also Jewish bosses, feminism and the recent rise of LGBT equality. It is absolutely untouchable, and if you say no, you can't wait to be criticized. So why do you want to advertise freedom, you can only use the Catholic Church, which looks powerful but is actually very weak. Although the Catholic Church is not innocent, there are also many white Catholics + Latinos in the United States, but this advertised news Why don't you take pictures of the dark side of blacks, Jews, and LGBTs because of your freedom? I'm sorry, don't you dare? Politically incorrect, isn't it? What does that mean? Is your press really free? It's all superficial freedom, and it can only be said that it is slightly better than some countries. Therefore, the selection of such a theme in this film does not touch me much, nor does it make me feel awe of the journalists and the freedom of the press they insist on. Of course, there were also films in the United States where journalists challenged the authority of the government and social groups, but this "Focus" alone has a warm rhythm, the content of the story that was originally shocking but was not painfully filmed, and the clichés. The question of the perverted Catholic priest made me think that it is no exaggeration for some people on the Internet to say that this year is a disaster year for the Oscars.
PS: A personal idea: If the film replaces the Spotlight reporters with non-Catholics, but they were afraid of the coercion of the local church and the government colluding with the government, they dared not report the truth of the relevant incident. The new editor-in-chief (not the Jew in the film), after learning of such a thing, based on his inner conscience and insistence on press freedom, starting from his own subordinates, one by one, he encouraged everyone to discover the truth and infect those who were previously indifferent. The relevant personnel, break down layers of obstacles, and finally reveal the truth to the world, that is, focus on shaping a person like the editor-in-chief, rather than distracting efforts, and set the editor-in-chief as a Catholic to form a sharp opposition between faith, conscience, and ethics, so that I think it will be more powerful than it is now.
View more about Spotlight reviews
