Let's talk about "October Siege"

Claudine 2022-01-22 08:04:48

I watched "October Siege" again, and I have some new thoughts. These new thoughts are only technical discussions on the film, and do not involve the issue of values. (I think values ​​cannot be discussed openly with strangers. This is completely related to personal living environment, growth experience, educational background, and many other very personal factors. Let's talk about movies in terms of movies.)



"October Siege" The plot that is most easily criticized now is its plot, which has many logical problems that cannot be ignored and avoided at all. However, many of the logic problems in the plot are not due to the skill of the screenwriter, but the congenital defects brought about by the "story" itself. As far as the "script" is concerned, the screenwriter has actually made a lot of efforts to solve this congenital defect. The screenwriter tried to conceal the problems that couldn't be solved. So I think the screenwriter of this film is still very good.

Here I want to explain first, the "story" and "script" I am talking about here are two slightly different concepts. "Story" is "an important person is going to Hong Kong, bad guys want to assassinate him, many people want to protect him, and then it's very nervous and exciting", while "script" is to turn this story into something that can be made into a movie. There must be elements such as characters and motivations.

Most of the logical flaws in "October Siege" questioned by some viewers are actually completely "fetal diseases" and are brought about by the presupposition of the story itself. For example, why does Sun Yat-sen have to come to Hong Kong for this meeting? Can't he call those representatives into the boat? Does he have to go ashore with such a big fanfare? Can't you sneak with makeup?

There is no way to answer these questions, otherwise there would be no movie. These problems cannot be solved by the screenwriter, and Chen Kexin has to judge. But since he thinks it's okay, it's not a problem. For a commercial film, as long as the opening can solve the problems of "audience entry" and "establishment of perspective", the problem of Sun Yat-sen's coming to Hong Kong can be covered up, at least not a fatal problem during the movie time.

After the audience went home after watching, he opened the refrigerator to find a drink, and suddenly pondered over this matter, but this problem has become a "refrigerator problem". Most commercial films have such problems, but it depends on whether the cover is good.



The opening of the film quickly completed the "audience entry", Jacky Cheung's role was dead and immediately established a murderous story setting, and then immediately set the premise that the bad guy would kill Sun Yat-sen in Hong Kong, the audience had no time to think about it. , Or didn't realize it or didn't care why he wanted to kill him in Hong Kong. As long as the audience passes this level, the audience will follow this story as a starting point, which is the completion of what I call "perspective establishment".

If the audience starts to question the story at this time, it can only mean that you are either too awkward or too real.



But this kind of story setting, especially Sun Yat-sen's setting, also brought a heavy burden to the following story. Because those people who will be sacrificed later must find meaning and value for them, so that the audience can accept the whole story emotionally. However, the appearance of Sun Yat-sen and the value symbols he represented made the value of this story too heavy, so that the story itself could no longer carry it, and the result was a bit of turning the cart before the horse.

(Therefore, many film critics of this film have completely separated from the film and talked about other themes later, because this theme is too eye-catching and has covered up the film itself. Of course, this theme of this film must be in terms of values. Many people agree. I am only discussing technical issues here.) The

choice of Sun Yat-sen and this background must be due to the feelings of the director or producer himself. Because from the perspective of the story, its focus is that good people come to Hong Kong, bad people want to kill him, the government sits on the sidelines, and civil righteous people take the initiative to protect it. From this point of view, it can also happen during the fall of Hong Kong in 1941, or during the Cold War in the 1960s, or it can happen in the contemporary era. There are many options. However, from a practical point of view, I am afraid that neither of the latter two options will pass the review. During the Japanese occupation, firearms had to be used, which made it much more difficult.

The above are all personal speculations, and I would rather believe that this is where the main creative's feelings lie.



When many people talk about the film, they will unconsciously divide the film into two parts: "front" and "rear". In addition to the so-called difference between "wenxi" and "wuxi", in fact, the narrative is clearly artificially divided into two parts.

Before talking about the settings of these two parts, let me first ask one question: Who is the protagonist of this film? The standard answer is generally "this is a group play movie", but the audience has to follow a clear plot to watch it, right? I personally think that the protagonist of the film is actually Sun Yat-sen, because all the story lines surround him, without him there would be no such story.

However, due to the problem of the story setting, Sun Yat-sen could only play at the end. As a result, the plot had to be divided into two steps. The relay race was used to maintain the tension of the plot until Sun Yat-sen appeared on the stage, and finally reached a climax (and the climax of the film is the best in the whole film. Poor).

As the first rod, the audience first followed Li Yutang played by Wang Xueqi, and all the plot tension in the first half came from the role of Li Yutang. I personally think that the first half of the film is relatively the best in terms of the structure of the play, because there are many characters on the scene, but they are not messy, everyone has a clear character line and foreshadowing, and there is enough space for character establishment.

The most important thing is that all the characters are connected by Li Yutang and brought to the end of the story by him. This structure was completed very naturally. During Li Yutang's adventure, the audience got to know all the characters who were going to appear later, and accepted them from Li Yutang's perspective.


In the first half, the person who has no direct contact with Li Yutang is actually Shen Chongyang played by Donnie Yen. As the biggest actor in the film, and the most functional actor (Kung Fu star), although he is very aggressive, he is not directly related to Li Yutang. Instead, the fourth wife played by Fan Bingbing completed the connection function. Sensational is very moving, but the character's motives and protection of Sun Yat-sen are really irrelevant, and Li Yutang has been playing soy sauce in the second half, which directly caused the embarrassment of Shen Chongyang also playing soy sauce in the second half.

Moreover, Shen Chongyang's scene directly squeezed the role of Liming's beggar. As the most powerful cunt character in the film, the beggar is also responsible for the most difficult stage of the final stage, but there is not enough drama to explain this character before, which personally feels a pity. (It is said that the beggar played by Liming was originally Wu Zhuangyuan. He lost his family business because of his unethical love and was bought by Li Yutang at a low price. Li Yutang made a fortune with this and felt guilty for the beggar. But there is no such information in the film. , It is estimated that it was cut out in order to control the length of the film later.)

So where is the time saved? It was the parkour scene of Donnie Yen. As a commercial film consideration, this kind of trade-off is not questionable. Anyway, as a fan of kung fu movies, I would definitely like to watch Donnie Yen Parkour, and I don't want to watch beggars talk about family history. But from the perspective of the completeness of the story, it is hurtful.


Later, in order for Li Yutang to take the initiative to participate in this matter voluntarily, Chen Shaobai was arrested. Under the stimulus of this event (there are also theatrical troupe events, but Chen Shaobai is relatively the main event), Li Yutang completed his attitude change, and let all the character lines that had crossed him begin to gather and prepare to enter the action scene . Then, when everything was ready to stop, perhaps for the sensational scene of the final climax, the director and screenwriter thought it was a good idea to kill Li Yutang’s son, so Chen Shaobai, played by Liang Jiahui, came back and started to run. The second paragraph.

Because the director and screenwriter wanted to kill Li Yutang's son, he, as the mastermind, had to break away from the following story, otherwise the story would not go on. But as a mainline character that the audience has been following, Li Yutang suddenly began to play soy sauce, and Chen Shaobai began to dominate the story. It is okay for audiences who can keep up in time, and audiences who can't keep up are likely to play.

Fortunately, here, with the arrival of Sun Yat-sen, the tension of the plot can already attract the attention of the audience, and the tragic choice of Li Yutang’s son has also added a lot of sensational scenes. The audience may not realize that this will be a problem. . (This is the skill of the screenwriter. If you can't solve it, you can cover it up.)


As the second half of the main action scene, the whole is very exciting. Although Donnie Yen has no time to tell the audience why he was born and died, the process of his birth and death is indeed one of the most exciting passages in the film. Although from the perspective of the plot, Shen Chongyang is basically out of touch with the main line, occasionally participating in the main line directly affects the audience's understanding of the main line story-isn't he here to protect Li Yutang? Why did you start participating in these things again?

There is no explanation for this in the movie, but it is directly covered with action scenes and tense plot, and the audience will pass without careful attention. I think with Donnie Yen's action scenes, not many viewers will care why he appeared here. (This is supported by action scenes. If actors like Dawn come to play, the audience may be much larger.)

But I still feel that the whole story line of Donnie Yen is a bit overwhelming. Knowing that the line of the beggar will be cut so much, it is better to merge the roles of the beggar and the bad police-this has no effect on the integrity of the story.

Moreover, Liming himself has no real skills, so although his action scenes should be the climax action scenes in terms of plot, the final effect achieved is entirely made by editing, which is really a bit unsatisfactory. If this action scene is given to Donnie Yen, it is estimated that the final effect will be much better. However, there must be only this one for Yen Zidan's play, and from the point of view of an action star, it is indeed a bit wasteful.

It is said that Fan Bingbing's play was added later because of the adjustment of Donnie Yen's play, so if Donnie Yen and Liming's play were merged, Fan Bingbing would be unnecessary. Although I personally think this is a good thing from a story perspective, it may not be the best choice from a commercial perspective. (Moreover, this adjustment involves Li Yutang’s role, so it’s easy to say, but it’s really troublesome to operate.)



All the righteous men died one by one, and the audience began to feel a little anxious--their death was acceptable, they The ideal of dying for it is acceptable, but is the value of their death a bit unworthy?

Because the audience knows that it is not Sun Yat-sen in the car, but Li Chongguang. And Li Chongguang was going to die in the end, and the audience knew this when the kid made a choice at the beginning. Why did they die? Because the leader wants a meeting. Why are leaders meeting? Because he wants to work for the welfare of the people.

As a result, there are dead people here and meetings over there. The meetings are repeated. When the audience's anxiety reaches a certain level, Sun Yat-sen's narration appears in time in the movie to appease the audience. Their sacrifices are meaningful and valuable. I think this is also a point where part of the audience is easy to play, because the bet is on the values ​​of the audience-the audience believes that this is a sensational point; if the audience does not believe it, it will become nonsense from here on.


The final climax of the so-called "Odessa Steps" battle is the worst part of the story in my opinion. From the overall plot, this is the climax of the film, regardless of the intensity of the story or the intensity of emotion, it must exceed the previous highlights. However, when I got here, Sun Yat-sen was gone (unless there is a scene of "Iron Fist invincible Sun Yat-sen" here, but if this is the case, there will be no such movie, and the censorship can't pass it), Li Yutang has also been playing soy sauce. The big masters (Yen Zidan and Liming) are also dead. The last resort for the director and screenwriter is to kill an innocent child who is loved by everyone.

Because this is a preset ending, many details of the scene cannot withstand scrutiny. It's not that nobody). When the movie is here, it's just a bet on whether the audience believes in the movie. If you believe in the movie, everything is fine and you should be moved; if you don't believe in the movie, there will be nothing more than nonsense.



Watching a movie is not so much a struggle between the screenwriter and the audience, as it is a love between the screenwriter and the audience. Both parties were speculating about each other's off-strings with great interest, and occasionally felt joyful in secret.

I have said so much nonsense above, but I actually want to say that the screenwriter of this film is very powerful, and all the links are intertwined. I say so much here, but it's just because the movie has already been filmed, so I can say it's a pity here and there. As far as the screenwriters are concerned, they are people who walked out a path in a barren land, and they are very stable and have few flaws. That alone made me stand up and pay tribute.



(Finally, I’m complaining about the domestic copy development. This time I watched the film version. There was dust everywhere on the screen, and when the book was changed, the color and brightness of the pictures on the front and the back were not uniform. When the movie was shown in a certain theater, it continued to be virtual. Jiao. Alas~)

View more about Bodyguards and Assassins reviews