The Greatest Showman - Chapter 2422

[Two thousand three hundred and eighty-five]

Crackling, crackling, and the endless stream of questions being thrown out one after the other, as if not breathing at all, Bradley spit out a whole bunch of it—

though it was a Cannes interview, but it was also a post-Oscar In the first interview, the questions in the minds of reporters can be poured out like a surging river. Bradley is only showing the tip of the iceberg. He can’t wait to pack all the questions and throw them out.

Renly couldn’t help laughing happily, “Slow down, slow down, we still have time to talk slowly. But before reading the journal, I can answer some questions first, the Oscar is undoubtedly a very important award, but as As I said at the beginning, this is a pressure and a motivation, and I am looking forward to becoming a better actor. So, on the topic of the little golden man, we can leave it to the work to answer.”

Pause, Renly raised He started the journal in his hand, “For example, ‘Lobster’. How is this work? I think, this is the perfect answer.”

Gavin and Bradley exchanged glances again: use the work to speak.

Sure enough, it’s still Renly, who is full of confidence, and the calm aura displayed from the inside out is indeed not comparable to any casual actor, even among superstar actors, it is second to none.

It is still the familiar “Screen” field publication, which clearly lists the comments and scores of the ten specially invited media. The invited media may be slightly different each year, but the authority and professionalism are guaranteed enough – what’s more, the field Journal ratings are only one of the reference data for media reviews.

The only interesting detail is that some of the rating columns are vacant, which also means that the reporter in charge of commenting has not watched the movie yet, and has not submitted comments and scores. – Of course, there are also very few special cases. You may miss it if you miss it. The reporter makes a conclusion of “don’t watch it” based on the comments and information of the peers, and will not re-watch it later.

After all, the film festival has only 11 days in total, and the number of participating films is too large. In the case of limited time, everyone must make a choice.

However, for “Lobster”, which went through the frenzy of the premiere yesterday, all ten comments came on the stage, and there was no shortage of them, which proved that the film was “not to be missed”. Evaluation, in the Cannes full four-star scoring system gave their own feelings.

Italy’s “Daily Facts”, two stars, “Excellent concept, stunning shots, but the finished product is still incomplete.”

In further detailed comments, the Italian media said, “Yorgos Lanthimos is in The form level is indeed masterful, but the core beneath the form surface is messy and shallow. Renly-Hall, Rachel, Weisz and other actors performed very well,

but they still failed to achieve Give the film more content than form. The same subject matter, what would it be like if it was shot by David Fincher?”

Russia’s Medusa, one star, “Empty forms, rigid performances and The absurd atmosphere does produce enough dark humor, even enough to make people hilarious; but how exaggerated the laughter is and how empty the content is, the excellence of the form further sets off the emptiness of the whole movie, just like the emperor’s new clothes Average.”

In the summary-style one-sentence comment, they said, “The gimmick is higher than the essential work. Don’t watch it.”

You can clearly feel the depression of the Italian and Russian media between the lines, obviously under the high expectations. Ushered in a disappointing ending.

Renly finished reading in a low voice, but the smile between his eyebrows slowly permeated, and the corners of his mouth couldn’t help but rise: This evaluation was completely expected. Strictly speaking, it could not be regarded as an attack. The look of this work is somewhat close.

Apparently they both expected more, but only got a “beginning” in the end, and it was a real disappointment that Oggs left all room to think for the audience.

But it is also the effect that Oggs really hopes to achieve.

As for satisfaction or not, it can only be said to be a matter of opinion.

“I thought the criticism would be more violent,” said Renly with interest.

Bradley couldn’t help laughing, “How to explain?”

“You know, when we were promoting ‘detachment’ in Berlin, praise and criticism were polarized. In fact, Tony and I were very happy that the movie received such a review. , because the emotions of liking and disgust are at the extreme, which means that our works can really arouse the feelings of the audience, rather than 60 points of works that have been seen and forgotten.” Renly’s vivid explanation was immediately clear at a glance.

Gavin couldn’t help but asked curiously, “You mean that ten ten movies are more worthy of celebration than sixty ten movies?”

“Yes, that’s what it means.” Renly nodded in affirmation without hesitation.

Bradley and Gavin both fell silent, recalling the deep meaning of Renly’s words, but the two reporters had their own unique interpretations, which was also a very wonderful moment.

Obviously, “Lobster” is absolutely impossible to win the praise of the French media like “Drunken Country Ballad” two years ago. The evaluation of the official magazine can be regarded as a section of the discussion frenzy, showing different gaps between different audiences. Everyone has a different point of view.

Russia’s “Medusa” only gave one star, such an extreme and resolute attitude, just like the reporters who slammed out of the premiere scene, after all, there are still a few; it is like evaluating four stars out of the box The same is true of the media: there are not many, only two.

The Los Angeles Times of the United States, four stars, “The mechanical cold, the rigid action, the emotional soundtrack, and finally merge into a wonderful and brilliant comedy, just the right performance to light up the whole work, and guide step by step. The audience walked out of the cinema with question marks in their heads. Undoubtedly the best of the year!”

France’s Le Figaro, 4 stars, “weird, fresh, cold, humorous. Ogues-Lanthimos once again successfully established He has developed his own set of dystopian social logic, pointing to the definition of contemporary society everywhere, and the narrative trend based on love reveals a kind of gentle cruelty, which makes people applaud!”

List the highest and lowest scores separately, and you can immediately find many interesting little details:

first, two four-star and one one-star, the two extreme scores are in the minority after all, and a total of ten companies are included in the field journal. The media accounted for 30 percent.

Second, the media with the highest ratings came from France and the United States, the latter still from Los Angeles; the media with the lowest ratings came from Russia.

It is true that the geographical influence is still relatively weak. After all, each major media sends a representative to score, and personal subjective factors have obvious influences, but they can still explain some things more or less.

Third, the focus of the four-star and one-star is actually the same: the stylized narrative mode and video atmosphere, the four-star call it “excellent comedy”, the one-star call it “empty”, like and hate. All revolve around the same event, further confirming the role of individual subjective factors.

This also shows that “Lobster” is an author’s film similar to “Transcendence”. The same content and elements, as many people like it, as many people hate it.

It’s just that the author’s style of “Lobster” is far less bold and adventurous than Tony Kaye, and the final feeling of being “stinged” is not so much.

In addition to the highest and lowest scores, the other seven media all gave a relatively moderate two or three stars, either neutral to like a little, or neutral to hate a little, such an ambiguous attitude has become the main theme of the official field magazine, continuing The state after the premiere ended yesterday.

Among them, four Samsung.

American “Time”, Samsung, “The ingenious collision and fusion of different elements brings a unique viewing experience; but at the same time it is also intrusive and interruptive, even a little empty and empty. This may be Renly -Hall’s performance was the most obvious and incapable of acting out of the director’s mind. But it wasn’t his fault.”

France’s “Liberty”, Samsung, “Most of the film rolls in the stomach with an uncomfortably weird, goosebumps rush; but ‘The Lobster’ still manages to show Reims Moss’s reflection on postmodern social relations, the narrative style that is free from the boundary between humor and irony, undoubtedly brings the audience a more interesting reflection space, and those questions are precisely the success. The natural performance is still a highlight , the light of Renly-Hall stands out easily, every minute and every second is a pleasure to enjoy.”

British “Sight and Hearing”, Samsung, “Lance Moss is slightly out of his comfort zone, UU reading www .sonicmtl.com’s less pessimistic and more playful dark humor style makes the viewing process less ‘dogtooth’, but Lanthimos still managed to find a perfect balance for the film. Excellent. The audio-visual language complements the rigid performance style, the hilarity of the audience and the frenzy of reflection after the conclusion once again proves Renly Hall’s perfect adaptation.”

Thailand’s Bangkok Post, Samsung, “Lanthi Moss broke the His boundaries, more daring attempts within social and cultural frameworks, result in a grotesque and wonderful black comedy, with a multitude of ritualized emptiness that will undoubtedly challenge the audience’s bottom line; but the soundtrack and editing But it gives the work a richer layer and makes watching the movie more enjoyable. The performance is undoubtedly pleasing to the eye.”

If you read these reviews carefully, you can find that either they are fully praised, but the score is still only three stars; or three stars. , but picked out a lot of faults in the detailed elaboration. This self-contradictory commentary method just presents the conflict in the minds of every film critic.

It’s not that I don’t like it, but I can’t say I like it. The whole feeling is very unique.

In fact, the same is true of the other three two-star reviews, only the “two-star review” seems to be dominated by dislikes compared to the “three-star review”.

[End of this Chapter]