Cal被描述成了一个非常“理想化”——至少很符合我心目中的——记者。不修边幅的衣着外貌,破车,杂乱到相当境界的办公桌堆满了各种文件报纸资料信息以至于根本看不出有办公桌的样子,很在意笔,说话刻薄,傲慢。但同时,极敏锐,思维缜密又善于联想和推测并有勇气有能耐证实自己的推测,执着,干练,勇敢,不达目的不罢休,最重要的是,他相信真实的力量,相信真实的新闻的力量。
从新闻,或者“真实”,这个角度说,电影列出了“真实”身边的三个角色:一,新闻的主角,隐瞒者欺骗者,就像片子里的Stephen以及PointCore的那帮混蛋。二,真实的报道者,像Cal这样只站在真相一边的人。三,制造新闻的人,这也是我觉得这个片子比较有意思的地方,带入了Della这个新入行的小姑娘,曾经小有名气的博客评论家,曾经会抓着只言片语不加求证就去网上爆料的人。当然,也包括为求发行量求“爆炸性新闻”效果而要求Cal仓促上版的总编以及确实这么做着的众多纸媒。
虽然Della或者其他纸媒的这一特性只能算是一笔带过,但还是想借题发挥的说一下,在真实面前,无论欺骗或臆想,都是一样的,没谁比谁更高尚,说白了,都是假的,程度上的轻重并不能改变本质。只是在缺乏公信力的时代,在“真实”缺席的每一个时刻,臆想派都显然更能引起共鸣,都显然更能一呼百应,都显然更易被视为“正义的化身”。我觉得挺可笑的,不过更可悲,相当可悲。当然,对于那些,不用动脑或者只要稍微查证一下就知道是假的的言论还会有那么多人深信不疑广为传播给他个星星之火就立马说其燎原的人,只能表示深切的沉痛的无语。
“用事实说话”曾经是一句挺激动人心的话,曾经我还挺爱守着看七点半以后的节目,看他们套话,看他们藏着的摄影机里录下的那些嘴脸。只可惜,到了现在,这已经完全成了种讽刺,实打实的讽刺。Cal在电影里说,他相信人们最终是能够分辨出什么是真实的新闻的。然而,在这样一个环境下,我们却没有机会没有渠道接近真相。更悲哀的是,没有谁愿意也没有谁能够充当“真实”身边的第二个角色。
我挺羡慕片子里表现出来的新闻环境,尽管也有压力有冲突有威胁有恐吓,但至少还是在“坚决”,在“勇敢”,在“绝不罢休”的气魄和行动力下足以抵抗的,是有可依靠的保障的(比如那48小时)。毕竟新闻报道原本就不该是“替谁说话”的问题,而应该是告诉人们,究竟,谁,做了什么,为什么。
以前我真一度挺想做个记者来着,不过鉴于我完全不具备像Cal那样的“执着,干练,勇敢,不达目的不罢休”,也惮于环境,在没开始前我就作罢了。说来可笑,唯一一次算是以实习记者的身份去了一个普通的不能再普通也丝毫谈不上什么重要的会场,刚到那儿,先就给塞了个文件夹,我当时傻,差点当场当着给我那人的面儿打开,不过幸好没。后来打开看,里面包括一份样本新闻稿,已经写好了所有的内容,以及,300块钱——有必要吗?真令人灰心。
另外一个比较有意思的是这个结局,看的时候我就想到Trompenaar的理论来着,美国果然是普遍主义的啊。如果换了我,我觉得这太难了。
整个电影看下来可以说非常引人入胜。尤其在能够制造紧张感的背景音乐的配合下,我整场看的都很激动!画面处理上有些镜头有点头晕,有些镜头很巧妙,总的来说就像海报给人的感觉一样,比较昏暗,灰色,有点纪实风格。还有影片结束后的字幕部分,有点开眼界的感觉!!不知道国内的大型出版社是不是也是这阵势?
It is a tightly constructed story about special reporting done by serious journalists at a fictional newspaper “Washington Globe”. In addition to the familiar elements on any major story that could break out in Washington D.C. - a rising star Congress man, a sexual scandal, multiple murders, a possible corporate conspiracy, a couple of truth-seeking reporters, some not so competent cops, many corrupted officials - the plot has enough twists and turns to keep audience interested.
I enjoyed the movie and i couldn’t say i had figured out everything before the main characters did. So that’s quite something.
What interested me even more was the ever persistent undercurrent played out through out the story: the future of traditional paper based newspaper.
When the final credit started to roll, the curious audience who stayed till the end was treated to an educational quick documentary on how a newspaper comes into being - creation of the layout, converting layout into photographic negative, etching the newspaper image from the negative onto an aluminum plate, placing the plate onto the printing press, cutting the final paper, collate the papers into one set, bundle them together, load them into trucks.
It was a bit nostalgic to watch. Even though one of the main characters, the blog writer working along side the serious real journalist, said serious story like this should be read on paper. It is obviously something the script writer wants to believe, but i hope he has enough sense to understand he is simply romanticizing a lost cause.
The Internet is fast displacing the paper based newspaper as the main information source for the readers. It is a matter of time before serious journalist acknowledge the writing on the wall. Given the technology we have today, given the ease of publishing any story on line, why should we keep serious journalist special report to an outdated 19th century technology, as beautiful as it looked on screen, it is so redundant.
It reminded me of the scene in another movie, duplicity, where Clive Own character asked Julia Roberts character running around in a vast office building looking for a compromised copier in some random employee’s office to sent a copy of a “top secret” formula. While all she really needed to do was taking a photo of it with her cellphone and sent it out as an email attachment or a MMS message.
However beautiful and incredible piece of achievement something may look, an industrial process or a dinosaur, when environment changed, then it either has to adapt to that new environment or become distinct.
Still, it was a little sad to watch the end of something so beautiful.
New York Times just ran a great article on exact this topic: Dinosaur at the Gate , By MAUREEN DOWD. Published: April 14, 2009 on-line (
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/opinion/15dowd.html?_r=2).
"When I ask him if human editorial judgment still matters, he tries to reassure me: 'We learned in working with newspapers that this balance between the newspaper writers and their editors is more subtle than we thought. It’s not reproducible by computers very easily.'
"I feel better for a minute, until I realize that the only reason he knew that I wasn’t so easily replaceable is that Google had been looking into how to replace me. "
加半颗吧,克劳好肥
故事情节不是我的口味,但是总体看来却不乏味,你在这片子里能看到多少熟悉的面孔和大腕呢?BEN真的很NICE呵呵!
略有俗套的剧情,对手戏精彩非凡。情节丝丝相扣,当以为真相大白尘埃落定之时,却又来一次惊天大反水,精彩!
我觉得这部电影根本不止这个分数吧。虽然有两个多小时,但是一点也不感觉拖沓,节奏把握得很好,小高潮一个接一个,结局还算是意外吧。云集众多演技派,长发的肥罗素叔也还是好有魅力啊!!
故事俗套,但是对话和对手戏都很精彩
没有看过那个更获口碑的03年迷你剧版本,但这个电影版真的很不错,节奏流畅又迭荡起伏,演员群的表现也都很出色!
我看的出导演想拍个好故事,故事其实拎出来大体看还是过得去的,但是片中有很多没有交待清楚的地方,另外片中卡尔和柯林斯老婆的支线真的是没看出来有多大价值,导演是想让片中人物更饱满一些,可在我看了这条支线纯属充数
结尾并没有那种令人畅快淋漓的感觉,以至于等影院里的人都散场了,我还是固执地看完了那个报纸印刷过程的片尾。
阵容挺豪华啊,克劳罗素是真不适合这个发型,剧情很抓人,但看片结束仔细想来,剧情之所以抓人,剧情只是其中一小部分原因。音乐的功劳不可抹杀。
精彩,过瘾。这简直就应该是美国大学新闻专业学生必看影片啊,罗素克劳留着长发腆着肚子饰演不修边幅却机智老练无畏的华盛顿记者,真想不出谁还能比他更有型,悲催的小本啊,那张扑克脸,还是安心当导演吧,自导自演才是你的出路。
结尾有点小失望,但片尾让我看到了印刷出版,哈哈
肮脏的政治造就了这部电影的成就!除了叙事稍显凌乱,情节还是很吸引人的,对于最后颠覆的惊讶只在极度重罪中有过
从剧情上看,实在很一般,但从新闻从业者的角度来看,又觉得很振奋,这部电影唯一的成绩就是丰富了克劳那个记者角色,其他实在是很狗血。
看个电影还碰上放错胶片,RP啊~ 演员表演中规中矩,整体风格紧凑,不过情节突转生硬了些说服力不足,音乐不错,手提摄影机风格的晃动画面看得眼晕,总体值得推荐,可惜没有特别的闪光点
虽然悬疑和合理性欠奉。不过拍得很发人深省啊,关于民主,关于真相,关于美国的政治,男主角演技很牛
3星半 总体还不错... 虽然Russell Crowe的形象很符合角色 但也太让人心碎了 T Tb
故事紧凑,一波三折。这里一口气涵盖了海外军事、国会风云、政商勾结、媒体运作等多方面的题材,但是显得杂而乱,而且对悬疑的铺设不够耐人寻味,主线冗长,细节处又不够明了,无法有足够的观影动力。还有,罗素克劳实在是太肥了~~7分
另类意外结局,记者视角。拉塞尔克劳形象最丑的一部
电影悬念感拿捏的很好,那场车库躲避戏堪有《沉默的羔羊》结尾之韵味。不过最要命的是,三位主演左脸都有颗明显的痣。
大银幕久违的侦探片,很兴奋。各方面表现都良好,但是就是给人有点“为了紧张而紧张为了惊险而惊险为了悬疑而悬疑”的感觉,或许这种故事还是用电视剧能讲得更好。