Dongshan made a comeback, and 683 contacts began to appear

Last time, the "New York Times" was furious at Hugo's choice of "vulgarity" and severely denounced it as a "stupid choice", but this time, the "New York Times" has reined in most of its firepower and has shown a completely different appearance.

The New York Times reported under the headline "Unusual Choices Highlight Lancaster's Vision," which is a 180-degree turnaround from previous reports on "vulgarity."

In the commentary, the chief film critic of the "New York Times" Ammond Camby said, "'Speed of Life and Death' is not a work that will make people exclaim 'perfect choice', whether it is the production team or the investment cost, this work can't find too many highlights to provide people to look forward to, but perhaps this is Lancaster's uniqueness, he is keenly aware of the innovation and specialness of the script, which is also an ability that many actors do not have."

How does a bus that explodes at less than 50 miles per hour travel in Los Angeles, a city that could be driven into a panic at any moment due to traffic jams? Whether it was the hero who stepped up to save the city, or the failure to cause a great disaster for the city.

Lancaster clearly and accurately selected a work that suits him best, maybe he doesn't have the strong body of Schwarzenegger, nor does he have the athletic skills of Bruce Yili, so he can't bring people the bloody thrill of punching like the traditional action movie actor, but his focused, resolute, and sharp temperament can burst out with infinite sparks with the 'speed of life and death', making action movies produce a certain fresh breath, which is undoubtedly an exciting work. ”

It's hard to imagine that the film critic who wrote this review and the one who scolded Hugo when he decided to play "vulgar" two months ago are the same person, Amund, the current leading film critic of the New York Times, who has made a magnificent turn in two months.

It can be seen that Ammond found the only loophole in the overwhelming skepticism - script innovation, and then based on this, expressed support for Hugo's choice. Armond wisely avoided all the disadvantages of the "speed of life and death", and only used the script to grasp the core, and then combined Hugo's temperament, which has to be said to be a very clever approach, which is undoubtedly a huge attraction for the broad mass base of the "New York Times".

But why did the attitude of the New York Times change so dramatically in two months?

In fact, if you carefully review the attitude of the "New York Times" before, you can find that they have been relatively harsh on Hugo's works for a long time in the past.

Although the "New York Times", as one of the most authoritative film critics in the United States, their reviews of movies are generally relatively objective, but because of the conflict between the East Coast and the West Coast cultural circles in the United States, the "Los Angeles Times" and the "New York Times" will also have a lot of differences in their views on the works.

Compared with the attitude of the "Los Angeles Times" in its comprehensive support, the "New York Times" has always had some reservations and a harsh attitude, especially compared with the "Los Angeles Times", "Variety", and "Hollywood Reporter", which are the three benchmark media in the Hollywood industry, the "New York Times" is always a more demanding party.

However, all the circumstances changed after the "Schindler's List", and it is worth noting that the "New York Times" first praised Hugo's work as "Sleepless in Seattle", which was the situation after the completion of "Schindler's List"; Later, the news that the "New York Times" Ammond criticized Hugo's choice of "vulgarity" was about the "glorification of the Nazis" debate at its peak; But now, all the controversy has subsided, and "Schindler's List" has the support of all Jews. That's the difference. When discussing the political tendencies of any media, it is inseparable from their origins, the consortium behind them, the cultural background, the geographical situation, etc., of course, in the political field, interests are the eternal core criterion, and all groups involved in politics are aimed at fighting for their own interests as the ultimate goal.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two non-Jews, and after their deaths, in l896, the Jewish tycoon Adolph I. Oaks (Adolph. ochs) acquired the newspaper, and then his grandson, Arthur Jr., Oaks, and Sulzberg. ochs。 sulzberger，jr。 Inheriting the "New York Times", under the leadership of four generations, the "New York Times" became the No. 1 newspaper in the United States, and also has a unique influence in the world, and now the "New York Times" provides news releases and pictures to 506 other media outlets in the United States, and is undoubtedly the No. 1 influential news media in the United States.

In addition to the distinct Jewish ancestry of the leaders and the consortium behind them, the current executive editor of the New York Times, Max. Frankl. Frane1) and editor-in-chief Joseph I. Lily Veld (Joseph. Lelyveld) are also Jewish.

There is no doubt that the Jewish heritage of the New York Times has made them unswervingly on the side of their compatriots in terms of political tendencies, and now, Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" has been pushed to a pinnacle by Jews all over the world, and the New York Times is no exception, and the humanistic care shown in this film is the greatest comfort and encouragement to the survivors of the Holocaust.

Although Hugo played the murderous Amon Gos in the movie, after understanding, everyone knew that Hugo worked hard to play this role, and even once entered the play too deep and fell into a deep nightmare, which is the fundamental reason why Hugo did not take on any works for seven months after ending "Schindler's List".

At this point, Hugo has won the hearts and minds of all Jews, and he has become an important player in the Jewish community in Hollywood, following Steven Spielberg and Woody Allen, and the change in attitude of the New York Times is most plausible.

Opportunity is the most important thing in Hollywood, but what is more valuable than opportunity is networking, and in many cases, the strength of network has the decisive ability to turn the tide of battle, which is why Steven was still unwilling to give up when he was preparing to shoot "Schindler's List", when everyone thought that the work would smash the pot. Because "Schindler's List" maintains Steven's connections, but also the entire Jewish community hidden behind this historical truth.

Tracy Jacobs, Ron Meyer, and Martin Baum did not hesitate to enter the crew of "Schindler's List", just because they took a fancy to the vast connections contained in this work and had the absolute energy of killing one blow.

And now, Hugo has become a member of the "Schindler's List", and more importantly, the entire "Schindler's List" is a huge crew of nearly 1,000 people, just in terms of the protagonist, Hugo must also lag behind Liam Nissen and Ben Kingsley, but Hugo relied on his dedicated acting attitude and superb performance effect to stand out from the crew, won Steven's favor, and also won the support of the Jews.

The role of networking is usually difficult to summarize with a simple number or icon, and more often it is hidden under the surface of complex things, which is unpredictable. For example, there are still many people who don't know how Hugo and Steven are connected, and the biggest hero behind him, Green Hill, has never been exposed by relying on the strong strength behind him.

Now, Hugo's "Schindler's List" is quietly working, and The New York Times is just one of them.

The other two top 10 best-selling media outlets in the United States, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, also have Jewish ancestry. The Washington Post is now led by Jews Catherine Mayer Graham (. Graham), the owner of the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones Group (DowJones) CEO Peter Ichon (Peter. Kann) is also Jewish, and he is also the director of the Wall Street Journal.

Although neither newspaper is a professional film magazine, and the entertainment section is only part of it, due to their huge sales, they have always been among the industry's leading media.

The Washington Post reported with a relatively neutral statement, "Hugo and Lancaster's new film has been selected as a hot action movie!" They didn't do much analysis of the "speed of life and death" itself, but focused more on Hugo, believing that Hugo's challenge to action movies again after three years is undoubtedly eye-catching and expected.

The Wall Street Journal ran with an interesting headline, "Lancaster Says No to Check!" The point in the report is also very interesting, they believe that in the context of the general increase in the cost of Hollywood, the rising remuneration of actors, and the gradual increase in the role of agency companies in the film industry, Hugo has the courage to break the rules of the industry and return to the situation before the 90s: actors are paid less than 10 million yuan, and help film companies control costs together and complete their work conscientiously, which is undoubtedly a huge breakthrough. They also believe that Hugo's move is actually more popular with film companies, after all, a high-quality and inexpensive actor is what everyone likes, not to mention, Hugo's popularity and recognition are also top choices, so the pursuit of Hugo by major film companies in the future will presumably become white-hot, but the salary can't impress Hugo, so what can be?

In contrast to the "vulgar" period, which was almost a matter of suspicion, this time the Los Angeles Times won a group of reliable and powerful allies, which gave the more difficult situation of "life and death" a wider breathing room, which no one expected.

Nicholas was keenly aware of this, and the power of the Jewish connections was gradually revealed, which was undoubtedly the decisive turning point in Hugo's career!

(The text to be continued is provided by (Diandian Chinese Paper), with the title (daughter-in-law) in the front row.) ）