But everyone with a discerning eye knows that although Leary, the killer in the story, failed to assassinate the president and lost his life, the film belongs to him.
No way, except for real events, it is impossible for a fabricated story to make the president assassinated. Firstly, it does not conform to historical facts; secondly, the evil forces cannot be promoted.
The angle and content of story narration are conventional action movies. It is nothing more than a lonely hero who goes deep into the tiger's den, destroys the bad guys, promotes justice, and talks about love to do bad things or something. So the first time I watched it, I almost skipped the Eastwood scene. In order to write this post-view, I watched the whole film carefully, and as expected, those parts are very vulgar and boring. This is what I don't like about this video very much. According to my wishes, I will re-edit or re-write the script and make up some plots. I can guarantee that the production will be free of flashy and vulgarity, but I cannot guarantee the return on investment, or even the cost of recovery. It may be straightforward. It's time to deal with insurance companies. So the film is so vulgar, I can understand.
The reason for this idea is that the film is not vulgar, because the part of the killer Leary is so thought-provoking. Those vulgarity are not worthy of him.
This is the specific situation. Leary used to be a capable cadre of the former Central Intelligence Agency. Under the training of the government, he gradually lost the humanity that a normal person should have, and became a tool of murder. In this case, Leary's conscience reminded him that he should be lost, and the CIA system immediately banned him. So he almost lost everything, love, friends, and a normal lifestyle. The plan to assassinate the president is not entirely an attempt to retaliate against the government, because he understands that even if the president dies, there will be latecomers, and his life can only be used once. According to him, he wanted to make his life meaningful, and this meaning has two meanings. One is to use his actions as a mark in history to warn future generations, and the other is to conduct with Horrigan, a federal police officer and the president’s bodyguard. A deep soul exchange. In fact, from this point, it can reflect the terrible loneliness of Leary. He doesn't want to be alone, so he would rather use his life in exchange for a spiritual confidant forever.
Leary understood all the unfortunate things about Horrigan, and suffered the same as her own. Leary talked to each other sincerely, and never told a lie from beginning to end. And during the period, he used his life as a bet to make Horrigan face him, and also saved Horrigan's life. Horrigan was out of his duty, and at the same time disgusted Leary very much, and tried his best to arrest Leary. In the end, Leary was conspired by Horrigan’s conspiracy. Horrigan also extended a helping hand at a moment of life-threatening. He stated that it was only out of work duties, but mainly because he didn’t want to owe Leary’s previous help for rescue. In fact, he was not sincere at all. And he wanted Leary to die quickly. In the face of hypocritical help and unsuccessful dating plans, Leary voluntarily gave up his life, and also scorned Horrigan by refusing to help.
When Horrigan returned home with his new girlfriend and a new life attitude, Leary's voice came through the phone message: "Hello, Frank, things are over when you hear this message. The president is likely to be assassinated." If I die, I won’t live. I’m thinking, will you kill me? Who will win this game? It’s not really important. Friends don’t have to talk about winning or losing. What’s important is the process of the game. Now the game is over, you You should face life again. But I am worried that you have no life to speak of. You are a good person, but good people like you and me are destined to be alone for a lifetime. Goodbye... and good luck. "
I watched this video several times. Every time I heard this final phone message, I couldn't help but feel sad for the character Leary.
I think the sadness at this moment does not lie in Leary’s unfortunate life, nor in Horrigan’s insincerity towards Leary and his stubborn attitude in the story, but in the world’s inability to give people like Leary and create such characters. Creators have a formal position, they can only hide under the mainstream forever.
But a crucial question is this so-called mainstream, is there justice without the slightest bit of evil? Or does it mean that there is an element of evil in it, or that this kind of justice is only an appearance, and it is the evil that hides behind it that manipulates it? It must be like this. In that case, is Leary still evil? A white corpse was washed into a foul-smelling sewer. Did the corpse continue to contaminate the sewer, or did the sewer corrode the corpse? And how did these people become corpses? In places far away from the gutter, when people talk about these things, what will people know?
The assassination of Kennedy is mentioned many times in the film. If the screenwriter wanted to expand the scope of the theme, he would definitely not say that Oswald was the assassin, because now everyone knows that Oswald is just a scapegoat, so Leary's question of Horrigan is strongly hypothetical. This can easily remind people who are interested that there is no justice within the government. If this article is also fully reflected in the film, the meaning may be even more profound. At the same time, the tragic color of the character Leary will also intensify more times.
Unfortunately, our real world is just such a falsehood. Any ideology in which evil prevails, whether true or false, will touch the sensitive nerves of social managers. In addition, the general public can only simply understand things, so out of humanitarian and inhuman considerations, Leary It is just a delusion that characters of this kind become positive characters, and the writers and actors who created them will ultimately not be recognized and praised by the mainstream public.
It is reported that the film producer once wanted to invite Robert De Niro or Robert Duvall or Jack Nicholson to play the role of Leary, but in the end it was John Malkovich. Presumably, if these highly respected actors take over this role, they may get more attention and praise than John, and maybe they will get awards.
John's performance is very superb. This role has been nominated for numerous awards, and he has not won a single award. It's a pity, but through what I said above, this is also an inevitable result.
I hate the role of Horrigan. First of all, according to the needs of the film, in order to make the theme more sunny and beautiful, as well as the vulgar need of visual observability, he must have a relationship with his female colleague. Boring routine! Secondly, Horrigan was stubborn and always attacked Leary with malicious words. At the end of the story, he didn't show that he had any thoughts about Leary, whether he agreed or denied it, but was so indifferent and impolite. I think this is largely due to Eastwood's limited acting ability. Because according to the hard work of the screenwriter, Leary gave up his life and built a communication platform to invite Horrigan to join. Horrigan should have some reaction to his heart. The theme of the screenwriter must be Horrigan's deep pity and hatred for Leary in his heart.
My suggestion is that when Horrigan answered Leary's phone call, all his colleagues were questioned by Leary in the presence of his colleagues. His direct reaction must be anger, but more of annoyance into anger. Under this angry expression, the actual mentality should be carried out in life. Reflection. He should be at a loss, even for a second. But the old Eastwood is just an action actor, and the external portrayal is also a consistent personal image, so the internal portrayal requires him to be like this.
But the more annoying Horrigan is, the more my psychological focus will shift to Leary's side. Because of Leary's sincerity and hard work, Horrigan became a real bastard. It is ridiculous that this kind of bastard is still a hero praised by the public.
Although the heavyweight actors that the producer wants to invite can be qualified for the role of Leary, the most suitable candidate in my comparison is John Malkovich. The character Leary is more hidden in the dark, with a lot of lines and very few action scenes. This requires an actor who is good at performing with voice to play it. John is very suitable. But I think that if other actors play Leary, maybe the director and screenwriter will change the content and methods of creation accordingly to match the characteristics of the actors, so the effect of the film is really unpredictable. What can now be asserted is that under the cater and request of the director and screenwriter, the role of Leary was performed very well by John.
Leary saved Horrigan's life on the roof, but Horrigan just grabbed Leary's hand and pulled out a gun to shoot him. Leary was a little bit dumbfounded and said, "I just saved your life, so you want to kill me? If you want to save the president, you can only kill me. Are you willing? Exchange your own life for his life? Or life is too precious Now..." Horrigan still raised the gun after hearing this. Leary didn't let go of the hand holding Horrigan hanging in the air, but swallowed the muzzle firmly into his mouth. Then he threw Horrigan to a safe place.
The action of swallowing the gun was improvised by John, and the director was very satisfied with it. From this action, I can learn that John's understanding of this role is sufficient and in place.
In every telephone exchange, John's lines were very good, relaxed but deliberately ridiculed, raised questions of reflection on life, smart judgment, always sincere, and the excitement and anger of being touched. There is no separate recollection of the role of Leary throughout the film, but there are some records in the archives of the original department, and the cold evaluation of him by the head of the department. This character's vivid emotional exposition is spread out in the telephone conversation time and time again. And John made this character's thoughts and feelings be extremely profound. When I listened to Leary whispering in a soft tone, I had mixed feelings in my heart. The appearance of this feeling can only show the realness and richness of the emotions shown.
I would like to express my sincere tribute to John Malkovich's outstanding performance.
Eastwood appointed director Wolfgang Petersen to take up the post. Although I don't have any feelings about the director of this action film, I am extremely fond of his directing this film and the emotional description of the villain in "Air Force One". And these two actors who play villains are also my beloved ones.
Putting aside all the innuendo about the political situation and falling into personal feelings, the film left me a sentence: I may be your enemy, but friend, please cherish it.
View more about In the Line of Fire reviews
