Regarding the advantages of this movie, I have already listed almost the same at the beginning. If I have to add some more, maybe the restoration of history in details can be counted, but these are for a Forman movie, Not enough. Perhaps, the image of the heroine holding the corpse's hand at the end and the changes in several major historical backgrounds in the film can be relatively suitable for a political ideological criticism and interpretation, but at least judging from the current film, I don't think this is necessary anymore. The hallucinations I had created by the title and some of the shimmering highlights in the middle finally dissipated, and all I saw was a tragic tale of Foreman's chef, Goya's beauty, and historical condiments. Goya's role in it may be slightly larger than that of the clue characters, but his influence on the plot is just like Goya himself in the big historical environment in the film. The actor only ranked third on the cast. I thought it was due to the actor's fame at first - this is the same as Mozart's reputation as a Salzburg prodigy, but Salieri took it. The character of the little golden man is very different, at least Tom Hess is still a protagonist at the Golden Globe Awards.
My immediate feeling is that Foreman himself has no idea what to say, and the result is that almost everything you see in it seems to come to an abrupt end. It started with religious persecution, well, the oppressive themes can be carried on, "Dark Middle Ages" (although the film is a long way from then, but it can still be seen as the aftermath), "Inquisition" don't say in the great The Chinese dynasty is classified as black and five types, and in Western society that is accustomed to political correctness, it can be regarded as a stagnant dog. One point, so I clicked it very simply, 15 years later, the French rushed up, so, freedom, equality, fraternity, how can you be satisfied with one red flag overpowering another red flag? We have to look at the problem dialectically, so what we see is that one kind of tyranny has replaced another kind of tyranny - but this is simple, and it is not objective, the benefits of the great revolution still need to be mentioned, so the director's attitude is Ambiguous again. The ambiguity is not far away, new changes have begun again, the British are back, and the church is in charge again, wait a minute, why is this? Seeing this time, I suddenly realized that it is difficult for me to find a reason for him here. I dare to feel that these are just historical backgrounds, everything has good and evil, and our task is just to show it realistically. Does sadness hold in the middle? All of a sudden, "prosperity, the people suffer; death, the people suffer" is about to come out... The director finally shook his head: Actually, I just want to show two people, one is pitiful, the other is both hateful and pitiful... Take a break, I've been disoriented by you. Don't blame me, you can only blame you for having a good sense of direction in the past. The words that old horse knows the way can't be used by anyone.
But if that's the case, what is Goya? I noticed that the film's perspective has always been detached, both good and bad, and Goya's own perspective is only slightly revealed in a few passages - and that's just to highlight the good or bad of the era That's it. Does Goya have no personality? The director did not forget to give him some personality, such as stubbornly drawing real pictures to not please the queen, but in this movie named after him, the paragraphs showing his personality are a bit redundant. More often, we All I saw was that he was either smirking vulgarly, or he was at a loss for what to do in the face of the emergency - just like Bush Jr. who just got the news of 911 with a little book in a daze. Goya is completely soulless in the Spirit of Goya.
Javier Bardem has really become popular in the United States recently. In addition to the principled pervert in No Country for Old Men, his interpretation of the role in this film is also very good - a bit treacherous, but more is just an ordinary speculation It's not even that bad, because of the limitations of the role, his performance space is still a little smaller. I don't know when it started, Boman decided to stop being a good girl, so he began to destroy his image desperately. If he wasn't abused like in V for Vendetta, then at least he would be as tacky as in Blueberry Night. This one is from scratch. Hard work comes to the end-although the nude scene never has a mid-shot appearance, which makes people feel that it is too naked (it may also be an appearance + naked remuneration that cannot be negotiated), but the image of a hard worker is still well-shaped. But apart from destroying the beauty, this role is really not difficult. If you want to make a breakthrough in the acting career, you must not only disfigure.
When it comes to the suspicion of naked substitution, it may actually be a problem of the director's style. Since the name of the painter is used, the natural picture should emphasize some beauty, and express it by switching between close-up, middle scene and bystander close-up. Soft, but as mentioned earlier, since the director adopts a naturalistic attitude towards history, he must have the splendor and rationality of the neoclassical era in his style grasp, and he does not dare to let go of his hands and feet at all, resulting in form and content. It became contradictory. How could such a film be made well?
But after watching so many movies, there is still a possibility that no matter how high the director's IQ is, if the film company is mentally handicapped, you can't do anything about it. Isn't the theatrical version of Kingdom of Heaven just smashing Ledley Scott's reputation with the company's mental retardation, so I have a deep suspicion that this one I've seen of Spirit of Goya isn't a director's cut, a gimmicky tragic tale would be enough for the company.
Guessing is guesswork after all. The dish in front of me is still in the name of Foreman, so I can only sigh and read it.
View more about Goya's Ghosts reviews
