In my mind, Director Si has always been a representative figure of American directors. He is a good player in commercial films and has a lot of high-scoring literary and artistic films. Some time ago, I sorted out my own film list, especially when I was in the top ten, I was surprised to find a There are none of the films directed by Stephen.
So I pulled out the director's movie and watched it again.
Lincoln belongs to the more historical, personal, and biographical tag films made by Director Stephens. This genre also includes Schindler's List, Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan, Bridge of Spies, Munich, etc. Of course, the happy terminal can also be Reluctantly squeezed in, these films are performed by characters, military affairs or events, probably in several ways.
From an artistic point of view, the core idea that Si Dao used in these films is the logic of knowing the small things, that is, under the changing circumstances of history, looking for the entry point of small events to enlarge and finally express his hidden core ideas.
Reflecting World War II, selecting a Jewish perspective, and then selecting a small event from the Jewish perspective, a list of saved few people;
The Empire of the Sun, reflecting China and Japan, chose a British child's perspective. I don't want to mention the plot, I understand everything, and it is in sharp contrast with the above.
Saving Private Ryan, the title of the movie has already been pointed out, it is also a small person, a small event
Happy Terminal, Forrest Gump Hanks hasn't even stepped out of an American airport.
In a word, all the films of this type directed by Stephen use the same theme and express similar ideas in the same way, without exception.
I personally find it quite boring, and Schindler's list, including the highest score, is only politically correct.
After careful thinking, I found that this method is really not suitable for particularly large historical events, reducing the difficulty of the movie (such as Nolan's Dunkirk), but also reducing the experience of watching movies.
No scenes, simple characters, limited lines, uninteresting themes.
Take this Lincoln as an example, the name is very domineering, called Lincoln, not the assassination of Lincoln, the Civil War, the abolition of slavery, etc. It seems that it is not a small event, a small person, but in fact, Si Dao is still using the old method.
The topic of the film is only a single simple, which is to describe the voting process of Lincoln's push for the abolition of slavery in 1864, when the Civil War was about to end.
The title of the movie doesn't match the content at all.
The theme of the event is restricted by the director, and the course of the event is restricted by the historical reality...
So if this film is edited, you can simply understand how Baidu's American slavery was abolished.
All the five-star movie reviews have mentioned that this movie only has lines to watch, but in fact, whether it is freedom or political power in the barrel of a gun, they are all words that are familiar to the general public. Look at the people of the 19th century with the eyes of modern people. The lines, in terms of advanced nature, will not be too shocking, unless the person who said this is a particularly powerful celebrity.
For example, if you ask a passerby to say in a historical movie that the best strategy is to subdue the enemy without fighting, how can you feel the shock? If you ask a passerby to say that power comes from the barrel of a gun, you don't feel very much.
In the movie, Lincoln didn't speak much, and he was telling jokes many times. Even in the last and most important event, Lincoln didn't participate in the voting session. He just returned a fake letter, corresponding to the exchange of dirty means. It's just a matter of making the right decisions.
Abolition of slavery is about winning by vote. Knowing that you have won, how else can the director film it?
The whole incident is all about voting, voting is politics, it is canvassing, and canvassing is nothing more than those means, interests, feelings, betrayals, come and go, that is, to be loyal to history but not to really describe history (who dares to be really dirty? filming??), what's the difference between such a movie and reading the encyclopedia by yourself?
After summing up Lincoln, I can be said to have discovered the core problem of Director Stephen. When making literary films, I always choose the wrong theme and events (except for Schindler's list, which is really politically correct), and filming commercial films is not as good as Cameron. Letting go, et, Jaws, Jurassic, also limit the logic in very small scenes, small events, small people, the only thing that is a little different may be Indiana Jones, Minority Report.
Looking at it this way, it seems that in my heart, the film with the highest score by Director Stephen is actually Minority Report, the handsome Tom Tom movie. It is not that popular, but it is not unpopular.
But fortunately, director Si's films, whether commercial or literary, have stable visuals, event advancement, character construction and settings. Except for the big bad film at the end of the world, there will be no big bad films, which is basically guaranteed. You can watch it, you can watch it, and you shouldn't fall asleep in the first 40 minutes, and you won't deliberately add some personal artistic hobbies, such as jazz music, such as crazy editing, such as crazy multi-line operations, such as Diablo Hue...
It can be said that the biggest feature of the two directors is that no matter how they jump between business and literature, they can always remember that the movie is for the audience, not for their own obscenity.
View more about Lincoln reviews
