Fraught with over obvious symbolism, Hartley's early feature is nonetheless a joy to watch. Hal here shows us his uncanny ability to cast his characters perfectly came early in his career.
Adrienne Shelley is a near perfect foil to herself, equal parts annoying teen burgeoning in her sexuality (though using sex for several years); obsessed with doom and inspired by idealism gone wrong she is deceptively – and simultaneously – complex and simple. Her Audrey inspires so many levels of symbolism it is almost embarrassingly rich (e.g., her modeling career beginning with photos of her foot – culminating her doing nude (but unseen) work; Manhattan move; Europe trip; her stealing, then sleeping with the mechanics wrench, etc.)
As Josh, Robert Burke gives an absolutely masterful performance. A reformed prisoner/penitent he returns to his home town to face down past demons, accept his lot and begin a new life. Dressed in black, and repeatedly mistaken for a priest, he corrects everyone ("I'm a mechanic"), yet the symbolism is rich: he abstains from alcohol, he practices celibacy (is, in fact a virgin), and seemingly has taken on vows of poverty, and humility as well. The humility seems hardest to swallow seeming, at times, almost false, a pretense. Yet, as we learn more of Josh we see genuineness in his modesty, that his humility is indeed earnest and believable. What seems ironic is the character is fairly forthright in his simplicity, yet so richly drawn it becomes the viewer who wants to make him out as more than what he actually is. A fascinatingly written character, perfectly played.
The scene between Josh and Jane (a wonderful, young Edie Falco . . . "You need a woman not a girl") is hilarious . . . real. But Hartley can't leave it as such and his trick, having the actors repeat the dialogue over-and-over becomes frustratingly "arty" and annoying . . . until again it becomes hilarious. What a terrific sense of bizarre reality this lends the film (like kids in a perpetual "am not"/"are too" argument).
Hartley's weaves all of a small neighborhood's idiosyncrasies into a tapestry of seeming stereotypes but which delves far beneath the surface, the catalyst being that everyone believes they know what the "unbelievable truth" of the title is, yet no two people can agree (including our hero) on what exactly that truth is. A wonderful little movie with some big ideas.
全世界都在看？只是在看，并不能帮我们什么…
理想和灯塔常有，但成为灯塔的理想不常有。民主和理性常有，但理性的民主不常有。体制和进步常有，但体制的进步不常有。
影片这个节点上映意图很明显，就差把“川普滚蛋”四个字打在公屏上了。结构比较工整，但两个高潮部分的技法让人耳目一新，把庭审、stand comedy、事发现场和历史影像四种材料揉和在一起，如同一首赋格曲一般，各声部你追我赶，最后在同一个旋律下交汇并戛然而止。小雀斑的表演自从影帝后一直带着霍金的那种羞涩和蜷缩，感觉总有什么在束缚着他。
这部电影展现的叙事合剪辑技巧真的是教科书中的教科书
法官大概是被告派的卧底，帮助被告塑造受害者形象
那一代人其实往往也在失控的边缘，peace 和love 也可能演变为暴动，而法庭给了一个特别平复情绪的地方。
历史总是不停重演，抗议是个说不清的复杂话题
这世界上根本就没有所谓自由和自由的天堂 motherfucker
对于这样一场必输之局，Aaron Sorkin挑选的中场戏和结尾高潮处在家的模拟论辩真的非常牛逼，从冗长而充满挫败感的整场审判中揪出了这两个闪光点，然后用力堆叠，可以说高潮戏80%靠剪辑，看起来实在太过瘾了。
你藐视你的政府吗？
庭外与庭内，过去与现在，双线交织的叙事，节奏明快，政治主张鲜明，放在当下时局看，颇有几分不言而喻的深意。
很有张力的法庭群戏，台词和冲突设置满分。看过的片子里，cultural revolution真是影响了全世界，从北爱尔兰（以父之名）到巴黎（戏梦巴黎），再到芝加哥的Abbie Hoffman。
最近无意中连看了几场法庭辩论类的电影，只有这一部看的人热血沸腾，而且是在其余故事线极为淡薄的情况下，把法庭戏份拍得如此精彩。末尾让我想起了《辩护人》的感觉，但是是不同的处理，这里的诠释正如最后一句台词：全世界都在看着！是一种强烈的共鸣感。
也是上课看的，学生都不爱看。对于这段历史我也不了解，虽然有点感兴趣，有些点还是能看懂的，但是还是太晦涩了
两个多月没有看电影，享受每一分钟。跳出电影的话，对选举的热爱有点迷信了？
情绪是在的，也理应被调动，但并不是每次站起来都要配乐慷慨激昂一番的，Sorkin做导演就有点太陶醉自己了，以至于我反而想看个纪录片冷静冷静。
金句台词、爽感、高频剪辑，索金的风格，在野心十足、自我挑战的《茉莉牌局》滑铁卢后，索金收敛了一些，这部就整得很好。结构特别工整，tom和abby两个角色完全是卡着点儿地在对立、撕逼、弥合、揭露、再弥合。。群像人物都各有各的锋芒，配上本身就令人热血沸腾的民权运动主题、nb配乐，整个人都热泪盈眶了。。。。不过法官的形象，似乎还是太脸谱化了一些，不知道历史中是否真的如此。。。画面整体似乎特地调成照度不足的样子，是在暗示ZZ的黑暗吗hhhhh
艾伦索金式爽片是真的爽，爽到想再刷一遍news room。曾经的故事还在世界的大地上发生着，但好像这样的“反抗”越来越少。
一次取巧，它宣扬的，不过如此。很多技巧都太典型，以至于我拒绝被它洗脑。
说鸡确实够鸡，但能做到这么鸡也是人中凤凰了。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
