讨论 惊曝内幕

As investigative thrillers go this was a real dud. Why do writers think journalists should be the centre of a story? The conceit of writers focusing on writers is bare faced. For a nearly three hour long film it has precious little actual story, and a jumbled narrative in which a lot of what is going on makes no sense whatever.

  • Why for example is Bergman in Wisconsin?
  • What is the meaning of his chat with the FBI (?) agents in the cafe?
  • Why the inserts of material about the unabomber?
  • Why is a schoolteacher holed up in what looks like a 4 star hotel?
  • Where and why did his wife go?
  • What happened with the Kentucky contempt of court issues?
  • What exactly is so groundbreaking a scoop about tobacco and nicotine being addictive or that additives are in cigarettes? I'm pretty sure everyone on the planet who could read knew all that.
  • Why does Wigand have to be named and shown in the interview? Before whistleblower laws came into play, such people were frequently disguised in TV interviews, as rape victims today often still are.

I really could go on and on with these sorts of unanswered questions.

But the big problem as I see it, is that the REAL story here should have been about Bergman's deposition in Mississippi. Because it is that and the ensuing events that resulted in the multi billion dollar damages paid by Big Tobacco. Even if it wanted to be a story about crusading journalists (like All the President's Men), and it isn't because the journalists at the centre of the story drop the ball, and their principles, completely, only a media fixated individual would hang around to watch nearly 3 hours of journalists making phone calls or shouting with producers and lawyers.

Short version: the media is almost never the story.

While I'm here, the principal actors are first rate in this. Pity the material didn't deserve it.

2 回复(第 1 页,共 1 页)

Jump to last post

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

As investigative thrillers go this was a real dud. Why do writers think journalists should be the centre of a story? The conceit of writers focusing on writers is bare faced. For a nearly three hour long film it has precious little actual story, and a jumbled narrative in which a lot of what is going on makes no sense whatever.

I don't know, Jacinto, maybe they were inspired by the film and comicbook Superman? But seriously, some people believe that writers should stick to what they know something about from first-hand experience. Personally, I am not a hardcore adherent to this idea, but it has been rather helpful to me. And so you can start to see why some writers focus on writers in their writing. Ha.

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

As investigative thrillers go this was a real dud. Why do writers think journalists should be the centre of a story? The conceit of writers focusing on writers is bare faced. For a nearly three hour long film it has precious little actual story, and a jumbled narrative in which a lot of what is going on makes no sense whatever.

I don't know, Jacinto, maybe they were inspired by the film and comicbook Superman? But seriously, some people believe that writers should stick to what they know something about from first-hand experience. Personally, I am not a hardcore adherent to this idea, but it has been rather helpful to me. And so you can start to see why some writers focus on writers in their writing. Ha.

Part of the problem with that idea today is that many journalists and authors come straight out of Journalism, Communications, and Creative Writing courses and don't really know 'other lives'. I don't want this to go down the rabbit hole of 'coastal elites' or 'the culture wars'; my only real concern here is the effect that has on honest and good writing.

What we have here is writers (and actors and directors) with shelves full of statues and banks bursting with cash, putting a chemistry teacher in one the world's premier hotels and assuming that is so normal it doesn't require explanation.

The story wanted to be framed as some kind of David and Goliath struggle. The truth is that it was about one of America's largest companies, CBS, going after a relatively small tobacco subsidiary in Brown and Williamson. That was probably a deserved take down. The inclusion of part of Wigand's story doesn't shift this core narrative, particularly when it was done so faithlessly.

They told the wrong story. And probably because of the media's often masturbatory obsession with its own process.

找不到电影或剧集?登录并创建它吧。

全站通用

s 聚焦到搜索栏
p 打开个人资料菜单
esc 关闭打开的窗口
? 打开键盘快捷键窗口

在媒体页面

b 返回(或返回上级)
e 进入编辑页面

在电视季页面

(右箭头)下一季
(左箭头)前一季

在电视集页面

(右箭头)下一集
(左箭头)前一集

在所有图像页面

a 打开添加图片窗口

在所有编辑页面

t 打开翻译选择器
ctrl+ s 提交

在讨论页面

n 创建新讨论
w 切换关注状态
p 设为公开 / 私密讨论
c 关闭 / 开放讨论
a 打开活动页
r 回复讨论
l 跳转至最新回复
ctrl+ enter 发送信息
(右箭头)下一页
(左箭头)前一页

设置

想给这个条目评分或将其添加到片单中?

登录

还不是会员?

注册加入社区