"Washington Post": This is a battle for freedom that we have lost before we even started

Ethan 2021-12-02 08:01:26

If you think about it properly, you will find that the films nominated for the 90th Oscars for the upcoming 90th Annual Academy Awards are more interesting than those in previous years. In the successive "little years", a group of powerful films finally appeared. "The Shape of Water" broke everyone's prejudice against traditional monster-themed films and led the number of nominations. "Three Billboards" has won widespread attention and favor with its profound script and meticulous emotional portrayal.

However, among the many high-quality films, what made me shed tears was not a poignant fantasy love, nor a narrative about human nature, but a real history, "a war" . Willing to describe it that way.

The two opposing sides are the Nixon administration and the American press. It was a period when journalists had the most dignity. It was a period when practitioners knew exactly what they should fight for. If it looks now, it is like an idealism and A beautiful dream intertwined with romantic feelings.

The film tells the famous Pentagon document incident in American history. In 1967, Robert McNamara secretly organized a team to conduct a comprehensive study of the Vietnam War, whether it was out of conscience or guilt. What he called the report "leave it to future generations to fully understand the Vietnam War" was produced while concealing the national security department and even the President of the United States.

Dr. Ellsberg, who participated in the investigation and understood this document, could not bear the government's concealment of the truth, so he took the risk and copied the 7,000-page report in full and handed it to the then newspaper tycoon in 1971. "New York Times" researched and published a newspaper to publicize the behind-the-scenes truth of the U.S. government, with a view to ending the Vietnam War.

However, in the face of government pressure, the New York Times finally stopped reporting. The Washington Post , which was still a local newspaper at the time, took over the banner and fought for freedom of the press and the truth.

The Oscar trip of the "Washington Post" can be said to be quite strong. Although it has only won the best picture and best actress nominations, it can reach the finals with a small-scale screening in the United States on December 22. Enough to see the quality of this film.

Spielberg, Tom Hanks and "Nominated Harvester" Meryl Streep, this is almost an academic killer lineup. For Spielberg, who has no chance of missing a hand, this famous historical subject can be regarded as his most handy type.

The "Washington Post" has what we can expect to be quite satisfactory, but it also shows exciting excitement.

Remember "Spotlight," which won the Oscar for Best Picture Award two years ago? It also discusses the value of news and the beliefs and bottom lines that journalists should adhere to. It also involves the game between reporting the truth and business. But if you compare it, it’s not difficult to see Spielberg’s strong personal style, his vision, where he focuses, or that is best demonstrated in the multiple themes contained in this film. It is a historic duel, and the accompanying sense of ritual and precise emotional outburst is exactly what "Focus" tries to avoid.

For "Dream Maker" Spielberg, the story of the "Washington Post" looks like a myth today, radiant and radiant. The film does not always suppress its emotions like "Focus", and seriously discuss the news. Ethical issues and the difficulty of investigation are more like praising pure journalistic ideals through films. This is more important than ever in the eyes of both the United States and China.

Will the exposed Pentagon documents cause negative losses and additional damage to American soldiers? This is one of the important perspectives that "Focus" will take, and the "Washington Post" has no way to struggle more on this issue, although this film also involves the commercial elements of the Post’s upcoming launch to prevent the film from falling into duality. The point of opposition, but due to the nature of the event itself, there will be a sense of "war between good and evil".

The villain is the government trying to hide the truth, whether it is the frustrated Nixon or the secretary of defense with a surviving conscience. The two completely different faces of the Minister of National Defense when facing the truth and when facing the people at the beginning have provided sufficient motivation for this group of rebellious reporters.

As Spielberg showed in "Bridge of Spy", he did not take a step of innovation in audio-visual language. Everything in the "Washington Post" reveals a trace of old-school calmness and the support of Industrial Light and Magic. Films such as "Number One" are different. Films that rely more on narrative can magnify the director's ideas, but "The Washington Post" still stays in the era of "Schindler's List" in all aspects. Just like the first rivalry between Tom Hanks and Aunt May, a strong sense of the stage rushed to the face.

Fortunately, one of the film's screenwriter Josh Singh was a "mining master" , he served as the "Focus" screenwriter and 2013 to "WikiLeaks" as the focus of the film "crisis decrypt" the writer, in several The few works that involve news are hard stuff , so the "Washington Post" did not fall into the clichés that biopics often fall into. There is a convincing relationship between the person who makes the decision and the remarkable historical event. The details are portrayed.

In addition to using real video recordings and low-saturated tones like historical photos to create a sense of history, The Washington Post also introduced the old-fashioned feminism in recent years through Kay Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post, played by Aunt May. problem.

There are many fragments of the film that reveal the unfair status of women in that era. For example, when it comes to politics, all the women voluntarily retreat to the next room and start discussing fashion. Even newspaper publishers always suffer from shareholders. Our contempt, in the eyes of many people, Kay itself is not competent for the position of issuer.

The growth process of Kay's role is almost textbook-like, from the trembling of his speech at the very beginning to the final decision made against all opinions, becoming the commander-in-chief in the true sense of this battle. But it may be a problem of the capacity of the film. In this year's competition for the best actress in the "Group of Death", this role is not eye-catching , even with a little speculative color.

After all, Spielberg did not have the personal edge feeling of Gilmour del Toro. He was still unable to naturally highlight the themes of the times carried by Kay like the portrayal book, and copied the sense of ritual used on the printing press to Kay. It was a little deliberate on the body, and the clear picture of the board of directors and the exchange of men and women was fair enough, but at the end, when Kai walked out of the court, it was a little unnatural. It should have been a great victory. The backbone of Kai was highlighted by the newsman. To be strong, what is needed is an equal perspective, rather than a soft holy light and a uniform female along the way.

On the other hand, watching Tom Hanks's performance, it is difficult to fault, not to mention that he and the role prototype he plays are old acquaintances. Unlike many dull biopics, the role played by it is not to fill a specific historical event, but to really promote the event itself to become history , and there is no obvious sense of separation between the portrayal of the characters and the historical background. This is also Spielberg's old-fashioned place.

Unlike the story of "a reporter alone against a huge machine", the game presented by the "Washington Post" is the appearance of the culmination of this professional ecological chain. The compromise and confrontation between business giants, newspaper magnates and top politicians , this It also leads to a network of relationships that is difficult to present at the bottom of the ecosystem, which is the choice between personal friendship and professionalism. Politicians will get closer to journalists in order to benefit their own public opinion.

This may be both familiar and unfamiliar to Chinese people. What is familiar is this intertwined network of relationships. "Relationship" and "authority" have been highly bonded since ancient times, while the unfamiliar is the unwavering professionalism. "The only way to defend publishing rights is to publish." This sentence even drew a wry smile from many people because of the high level of power inequality we face and the entire social system cannot tolerate such persistence and rebellion. Nixon did not. Ability makes the entire journalism disappear, no matter how powerful he is, there is also the possibility of being restrained. This is where we look the most dreamy.

The first time I watched this movie was in Hong Kong. I shed tears of excitement when I saw the editorial office, like a headquarters, full of determination, fighting for the truth and freedom of the press, and abandoning the narrow commercial disputes before and jointly defending the news. , Isn’t this exactly what I longed for back then? And the second time I saw it on the computer yesterday, but I was extremely sad.

After a few times I didn't know how to write, I found out the article about "Focus" that I wrote two years ago, and suddenly realized the source of this sorrow. At that time, I was struggling with writing and writing, my childishness was still incomparably naive, and there were positive reflections and vigorous hope between the lines.

I analyzed how a journalist should stick to his own principles, uphold journalistic professionalism and inherit good journalistic ethics values. I believe that despite the chaos, we will always rely on this sacred industry to complete our mission and replace it. Passed down from generation to generation.

However, what about now? If I had to use one word to sum up the emotions of my two movie viewings, then "Focus" represents hope, and "Washington Post" is "remembrance." It is also an elegy for Spielberg to take the past to satirize the present.

If you give me hard demands, I can also use this "dead" obsession to pretend that we still have the opportunity to make changes in the environment, and that our survival can coexist with dignity, and tell the next generation of "everything" It's not that bad yet". But I don't want to deceive myself. This is an era where blind ideals can lead to death. I hope every reader of mine can clearly realize this.

I can't help thinking why that is an admirable era in the film? It is not that people are simply using the media, but the form of the media shapes the communication process and people's usage habits, which in turn affects the entire era. The newspaper industry now seems to be able to even label it as "classicism". Its serious requirement is to have sufficient rationality from editors to readers. What it pursues is not the catharsis of emotions. Each piece of report is the truth. , Is to make changes, not to instigate emotions and build the 10W+ in this post-truth era .

The popularity of the Internet has contributed to the prosperity of the self-media. It seems that it spreads faster and everyone has more say. But in fact, how many of them can be called "news"? Rather than just a few quick "rumors"? The biggest advantage of newspapers is its non-recyclability, and the greatest convenience of the Internet is not in the hands of the people . A report can spread across the country within a few hours, but it can disappear within a few minutes. As if it never existed, do you think this is freedom?

Many people mention the recent Tang Lanlan incident incidentally when mentioning this movie, but how did we quickly degenerate to this point in a few years? The emergence of the journalistic ethics issues involved in the Tang Lanlan incident is enough to prove that there is not much journalism professionalism left in our country today, but who is the main responsibility? Do we have good reporters? There have been.

News has a surname but no root. This is the most absurd magic realism. In this war without gunpowder, I did not see the "evenly matched" brought about by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The endless ban has been overwhelmingly advanced, step by step. When this huge machine thought it had mastered the truth, it also made its credibility irrecoverable. The masses would rather believe the rumor than the official announcement, or even sneer at it.

At the same time, the 2017 "Report on the Ecological Changes of China's Investigative Journalist Industry in the New Media Environment" also ruthlessly exposed the reality we are facing. In a few years, we may not need this report. Those who really provide high-quality news have become marginal figures who are on the verge of extinction , and there are more and more moths who can make money by simply washing their manuscripts.

The “Washington Post” portrays the masses very rarely, but a few shots illustrate another problem. The degeneration of the media, no matter what the national conditions, can not be achieved by the power alone. Freedom of the press can cultivate the rationality of the masses, and this rationality can ultimately endow the media with a strong supervisory power, and then it is possible to make the media a true conscience.

The core difference here is that besides the authority, does anyone or organization have the right to think about what is better for the country and make their own choices? This question is even the majority of the people. The default is "none".

Events blocked by several public reaction is not difficult to understand why more and more outrageous news events occur, who for the moment preferences and abuse of power clamoring for banned words again and again applauded , not knowing that this is a A little bit to dismantle the dying press freedom and journalism professionalism.

This kind of chaos became the ethos because of the lack of rationality, and the high pressure that existed from the beginning to the end disgusted this rationality from the very beginning. So what kind of rationality is this? In short, "I don't agree with your views, but I swear to defend your right to speak ". The victory of the press in the "Washington Post" came when most people had this idea. .

But in the 21st century, what I see is still the popular "I don't agree with your point of view, so I will find a way to eliminate you" extreme class struggle thinking, and it can also be seen why we have come here "as a matter of course". At this step today, there are historical factors that cannot be ignored.

It seems that the government, the people, the business community, the media, this ecosystem has been deformed to what extent, and this is why the "Washington Post" comes from the reality of the image gave me a look, "blowing Dream Giants" feeling, if I don't understand this history, I even think this is a fantasy film.

The ending of the film is a magical stroke. The real war between the angry Nixon and the media has just begun, and the "Presidential Team" can directly launch the "American Historical Film Universe". So what about Trump, who talks about "fake news" now? The movie seemed to tell him, "We're never finished with this." What about us?

"Washington Post" is not worthy of our thinking about journalistic ethics or freedom of the press. What we should think about is the survival of news.

News was supposed to be the first draft of history, but now it can only be memorialized with 404, and history has become a little girl who can be dressed up.

The standing people have disappeared, and the kneeling people will suffer. If the news goes on like this, they will die.

————————————————————————————————————

If you are interested in my articles and my friends, you can follow our public account "funnygrape" (funnygrape)~!

View more about The Post reviews

Extended Reading
  • Jordane 2021-12-02 08:01:26

    The textbook-level Spielberg actor scheduling class was so cool to watch. A few mirror games, a few indoor scenes, that multiplayer phone scene... it's pretty much. However, there are still some flaws of stepping on the wrong point or using too much force, such as a scene where the court meets an opponent's female assistant or finally walks out of the court through a group of hippie women.

  • Lew 2021-12-02 08:01:26

    Streep's interpretation of Mrs. Graham's inner transformation through a series of subtle expressions and eyes on this end of the phone is the most magical performance on the screen this year. Aunt May performed in this powerful drama focused on female characters. It is an unquestionable achievement, and Spielger’s craftsmanship as an effective carrier maximizes the talents of each department in this tight-paced film creation team.

The Post quotes

  • Kay Graham: Alright, then. My decision stands. And I'm - going to bed.

  • Ben Bradlee: No matter what happens tomorrow, we are not a little local paper anymore.