1. The ending echoes the beginning, expressing the director’s views on the downfall of the Gaddafi regime---the tyrannical regime should fall, this incident is a revolution, the United States has no substantial influence on this incident, and Britain and France are The main driving force for the development of the event; 2. It has repeatedly shown the staff's concern for their families, highlighting one of the mainstream values of the United States-family; 3. The comrades in arms encourage each other and reflect another value-friendship; 4. The end of the film shows the death of Libya The tragedy behind the armed personnel shows that the director’s political stance is not too concealed; 5. The diplomatic base needs the support of the US military and has not arrived. The director seems to want to express that the US government’s diplomatic behavior still complies with international law, at least in 2012 This is the case with regard to the Libya issue. In addition, does the director still want to criticize the negative view of responsibility that "work outside of power is not work" when it involves vital interests and will cause a certain negative impact on the US military's overseas joint operations.
While watching the movie, I also noticed the following 3 points:
1. After the incident, the whole country was in deep chaos and the residents were facing bad luck; 2. After the incident, Libya had many factions and political parties; 3. When the American soldiers evacuated, the local interpreter " "Amur" said, "Your country has to deal with this mess." Based on these three points, it can be considered that on the whole, stability is the prerequisite for development, and development is another prerequisite for personal happiness. Handling affairs requires subjective consciousness, that is, this matter. As a result, no matter whether it is good or bad, it is always up to me and insist on autonomy.
View more about 13 Hours reviews
