It’s been a long time since I watched this play. In retrospect, there are two places that are most impressed. The first is in the second episode. Several Fox TV’s chief creators discussed basic strategies together. Roger Ayres creatively proposed: People only listen. They are willing to listen . The loudest sound in the room is the one that people want to hear. Prejudice and division of camps are the norm for mankind. Rather than blindly pursuing the wider the audience like most TV guys with blurred minds, it is better to split the market, abandon some people decisively, and fully embrace the conservative camp. Basic disk. I have to say that this is a compelling strategic decision, even though it was dismissed by most people at the time. Because journalism is more of the leftist social elites, they are going further and further on the road of political correctness, thinking that human beings have long been out of low-level tastes. Fox's sudden emergence gave them a slap in the face, and their fingerprints were red. Idealists should stop dreaming of a world of great harmony. Human nature is not so easy to sublimate, but it is easy to tame, as long as you understand his weaknesses.
The second is the penultimate episode. Roger was caught in a sexual assault scandal, and he quickly reacted and fought back in the media. The first is to publish photos of the women who filed the complaint now, so that the public Most of our curiosity and compassion will be lost immediately. Seeing this, I was shocked by Roger's insight into the dark side of human nature and his skill in manipulating public emotions. It is not so much that Roger is too despicable, but rather that people's sense of morality is too fragile. Roger is like a cunning child, grabbing the braids of human nature and asking for things.
Before watching the show, I told Roger. Els knows nothing about this person, and all his cognition comes from the play. For such a well-known contemporary person, Hollywood screenwriters should not fictional specific events, but a lot of subjective intentions. It is not difficult to see that the American screenwriters in charge of Bai Zuo used Roger as a villain to create a modern version of Macbeth, betraying everyone along the way, abandoning everyone and being abandoned by everyone, even more than Macbeth. The bad thing is that there is no trace of introspection and reflection.
The images of Roger and Ayres were established according to the character of the "hypophysical", telling the story of a careerist with a meager background after climbing to the pinnacle of power and becoming a dictator. Old-fashioned script. A TV series cannot explain how to build a trust-level media empire in a few years (the screenwriters didn't know it). Most of the highlights come from the actual events themselves. The screenwriters play more in some gossip. Locally, how Roger is at odds with Murdoch, with Murdoch’s wife, with Murdoch’s son, with the White House, with his subordinates, and with his mistress. , In short, if I didn't deal with the whole world, I finally wished that my wife was scattered, and the people betrayed their relatives. But is it true? Even from the very biased perspective in the play, is Roger really a self-destructive ending for many injustices? The screenwriter spared no effort to blacken him from all angles, but it is not difficult to see that this host is a successful example of a cold background, starting from scratch, counterattack with a dick, and achieving the peak of life by personal hard work. Ayres' final ending is not a dead end, more like losing to aging and disease, but as a fat man who enjoys the delicious food and beauty of the world, is it not a complete ending. It can even be said in a tragic way that his fall from the throne of power was actually another time when he was concealed by a bird and killed a donkey. Whether it was Jack Welch at the beginning or Murdoch at the end, in the eyes of those in power. Those who use value again are good partners, which will cause trouble. They are all bad assets and need to be disposed of as soon as possible. So compared to Ayers' dog-like growl, the coldness and ruthlessness behind Welch and Murdoch made me even more frightened.
It is not difficult to see that the script has spared no effort to blacken Ayres in both public and private morals. Yu Gong, the Republican tycoon, has an arrogant, arrogant and invincible image, like a vicious dog, barking everywhere, problems. It’s because I watched the whole show that I didn’t remember what political views he held. It seemed that he had a natural hatred of the Democratic Left. This was obviously impossible. I was slightly impressed that after 9/11, he was like a frightened beast. Fear and anger (isn’t this a common emotion for all Americans?); Obama was elected, he was like a concubine, and everyone felt overreacted. (In fact, Obama’s leftist policies, such as full-name medical insurance, dragged the government’s finances into it. The quagmire); the screenwriter did not write very specific, because the political differences are also not clear, it is better to shape his annoying face in artistic techniques, and let you know that he is a villain. Isn't this the play attacking his use of the media to influence people's thoughts? Thinking about it is also ironic. Ayers, who established the Republican Party headquarters in one hand, has never concealed his aggressiveness and aggressiveness. This is precisely the person he set up for himself and a powerful means of media propaganda. I personally think this is his superb marketing ability and The product of the energetic fighting character, but the scriptwriter used the routine of childhood character development (Els told Joe Lindsley in the old house that when he was a child, his father tricked himself into jumping off the bed and deliberately failed to catch it. Injury story), "Don't trust anyone!" This sentence became a spell for a neurotic father to send his son down a dark road. Hollywood routines are full of feelings. If it is a fictional character, I can accept it, but as a real character, I can hardly believe that there will be such a heritage between father and son. Els’ obsession with power is another perspective for the screenwriter to shape him. He holds power, speaks out, and defends his authority with paranoia and craziness, and does not allow others to be beaked. I have to say that Russell Crowe’s performance is still full of charm. He gave this fat man wandering at the pinnacle of power a wicked and confident smile. It may also be that I like Crow so much that I can't hate this power and lustful fat old man. Throughout the ages, a strong man with outstanding achievements in any field, no matter what he has done on the surface, is a tyrant in his bones. This is the iron law of human nature. A weak person cannot be an excellent LEADER. The friendly and pleasant looks of all great people are from crazy PS. As an old-fashioned and hard-line Republican, Ayres has a firm political creed. He is not a fencer with both sides. He is worried about the shrinking and loss of the Republican position and the decline of traditional American spirit and values. I don't necessarily agree with all his views, but I admire him for his strength as a warrior, and a fierce bulldog is better than a hypocrite who is full of benevolence, justice and fraternity.
In terms of personal morality, it is the more vigorous aspect of the whole drama, focusing on the two "control freaks" and "sexual harassment." Ayres is an advanced player manipulating public opinion. The screenwriter upgraded him to a "CONTROL FREAK" naturally, placing cameras in every corner of the office, blocking every escape of the mistress, and stipulating the dress and skirt length of the female anchor, the most dramatic It was forcibly brainwashing newspaper editor-in-chief Joe Lindsley, and he was almost disabled. Ayres monitors and controls almost everyone around him like a pervert, and enjoys it. I have to say that nothing new has been unearthed. The desire for control is the basic standard equipment for powerful figures, and it is not strong and shocking. Maybe I am afraid that I am a real person, I dare not dig deep and make up randomly. Anyway, I don’t see anything special. Cameras will be available in most office spaces. Subordinates who betray themselves will be ruthlessly punished. Female anchors are required to dress. Sexy, of course, is due to ratings considerations. Els knows too much about the nasty and careful thoughts of the audience. You may think it is nasty, but is he alone or the public who rushes to it? The whole show seems to want to tell us that Els has built Fox into his own dictatorship that he can fully control. The problem is that this is neither a secret nor a special case. Organizations with strong executive power must be like this. A big man is right. The basic requirements of those around you are obedience and obedience, and all talents and abilities are ranked second. In reality, I haven't seen any leader who can really tolerate that his subordinates are not on the same channel as himself at all. Which leader does not grasp as much of the psychological and physiological information of the following people as possible, and has reached the greatest degree of control over his own group. Sometimes we see some company bosses talking about "rule by doing nothing" and "Internet-style flat management" in some talk shows. Everyone is a social person, whoever believes is stupid. Once there are decisions that involve resources or power, they follow the banner of a small power core. I don’t know if this phenomenon is correct. I only know that any organization as small as three people is as large as a company. This is the case for all billion-billion countries. It is a bit ridiculous to condemn a person with a common phenomenon.
As for "sexual harassment", I am afraid it is the eye-catching label besides "Fox" on Ailes. It is the fuse that triggered his downfall. It can even be said to be one of the beginning events of the "ME TOO" movement that is now in full swing. The positive energy of this incident was overwhelming. In the end, more than 20 female staff led by Gretchen of Fox TV filed a complaint of "sexual harassment" against Ailes. The devil finally fell and justice was done. I dare not frantically defend the behavior of "sexual harassment", but there has always been confusion about the definition of "sexual harassment in the workplace". Women, or sex itself, has always had a resource attribute, which no one can deny. It is resources that will be coveted. Women know that their sexual attractiveness is both an advantage and a weakness. If I say that "sexual harassment" does not exist at all, and some are just "sex trading", it is estimated that they will be drowned by saliva, but I can't help but want to ask, these more than 20 excellent women (not excellent will not work at Fox) endure After years of "harassment", it was miserable. What was it that prevented them from escaping from this cage? Some people say that they have to live and support their families. There is no way. Isn’t there a workplace where there is no sexual harassment in the huge United States? For example, Gretchen, as a former Miss America, does she have nowhere else to go? The answer is yes, but there is no such good platform, environment and compensation as Fox elsewhere. So they chose to stay. Everyone has weighed it, but this does not mean that when a feminist movement comes, they will not quickly stand in line and become victims. If it is a storm of public opinion in the opposite direction, they will continue to tolerate it, as if nothing happened. This is survival, there is no justice, only reality. In the play, the female employee Beth who succeeded Laurie Luhn as the new mistress of Ayres was complacent after she took over, the villain was determined, and the rain of Ewha when she later exposed Ayers's sexual harassment, I felt pity, in the end, which is her true face Woolen cloth? How much justice is there in the "ME TOO" this vigorous movement in which even the faces of the victims are so vague?
In short, watching the complete drama, I don’t like Roger Ailes, but at least I admire him. The most annoying thing about him is just manipulating public opinion (or the public brainwashing, this is actually a time Whether it’s the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, whether it’s the two Republicans or the Democratic Party, he plays better than anyone in the game that everyone is passionate about.
View more about The Loudest Voice reviews
