Chapter 683

Last time, the "New York Times" was furious at Hugo's choice of "Pulp Fiction" and sternly denounced it as a "stupid choice", but this time, the "New York Times" has restrained most of its firepower, showing a drastic different faces.

"The New York Times" reported with the headline "Lancaster's unique vision with distinctive choices", which can be said to be a 180-degree turnaround from the previous report on "Pulp Fiction".

In the comments, "The New York Times" chief film critic Armon Camby said, "'Life and Death' is not a work that makes people exclaim 'perfect choice', whether it is the production team or the investment cost. , this work can't find too many bright spots for people to express their expectations, but maybe this is the uniqueness of Lancaster, he is keenly aware of the innovation and speciality of the script, which is also the ability that many actors do not have .

How does a bus that explodes at speeds under fifty mph drive through Los Angeles, a city where traffic jams can cause panic at any time? Is it the hero who stood up to save the city, or did it fall short and cause a huge disaster for the city.

Lancaster clearly and precisely picked a work that suits him best, maybe he doesn't have the physical strength of Schwarzenegger or the athleticism of Bruce Lee, so he can't do it like a traditional action movie. The male protagonist usually brings people the bloody stimulation of punching to the flesh, but his concentration, fortitude, and fierce temperament can spark infinite sparks with the 'speed of life and death', making action movies not necessarily fresh. It is an expected work. "

It is hard to imagine that the film critic who wrote this review and the film critic who scolded Hugo two months ago when he was confirmed to appear in "Pulp Fiction" are actually the same person, Almond, the current "New York" The leading film critic of The Times completed a gorgeous turnaround in two months.

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

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

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

Although the "New York Times" is one of the most authoritative film review media in the United States, their reviews of films are generally relatively objective, but because of the emotional battle between the East Coast and West Coast cultural circles in the United States, the "Los Angeles Times" There are also many differences between the two newspapers, the New York Times and the New York Times.

"The New York Times" has always been more harsh and critical in its comments on "Scent of Scent and Knowing a Woman" and "Heroes of Righteousness". Compared with the attitude fully supported by the "Los Angeles Times", the "New York Times" There are always some reservations and strictness in his views, especially compared with the three benchmarking media in the Hollywood industry, the "Los Angeles Times", "Variety" and "The Hollywood Reporter", the "New York Times" is always the more demanding party.

But everything changed after "Schindler's List." It is worth noting that the first time the New York Times praised Hugo's work was "Sleepless in Seattle," which was "Sindler's List." Le's List" was completed; and the later "New York Times" Armond criticized Hugo's choice of "Pulp Fiction" was at the height of the "glorifying Nazis" debate; but now, all the controversy All have subsided, and "Schindler's List" has the support of all Jews.

This is the difference.

When discussing the political tendencies of any media, it is inseparable from their origins, financial groups behind them, cultural backgrounds, geographical conditions, etc. Of course, in the political field, interests are the eternal core criterion, and all groups involved in politics are based on Self-interest is the ultimate goal.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two non-Jews, and after their death, in 1896, the Jewish tycoon Adolph. Ochs bought the newspaper, followed by his grandson Arthur Ochs-Sur, Jr. Sulzberger (Arthur. Ochs. Sulzberger, Jr.) inherited the "New York Times". Under the leadership of four generations before and after, the "New York Times" has become the No. 1 newspaper in the United States and has a unique influence in the world. At present, the "New York Times" provides press releases and pictures to 506 other media in the United States, and is the undisputed number one influential news media in the United States.

In addition to the clear Jewish ancestry on the leader and the consortium behind it, the current executive editor of The New York Times, Max. Frankel and editor-in-chief Joseph Lelyveld, are also Jewish.

There is no doubt that the Jewish ancestry of the New York Times has put them firmly on the side of their countrymen in terms of political leanings, and now Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" has been Jews all over the world have reached a peak, and the New York Times is no exception. The humanistic care shown in this film is the greatest comfort and encouragement to the survivors after the Holocaust.

Although it is said that Hugo played the murderous Amon Goss in the movie, after understanding, everyone knew that Hugo had worked hard to play this role, and even got into the play so deeply that he fell into This is the fundamental reason why Hugo did not take any work for seven months after ending "Schindler's List".

At this moment, Hugo has won the hearts of all Jews, and he has become an important role in the Jewish community in Hollywood after Steven Spielberg and Woody Allen, "The New York Times" The change in attitude is the most reasonable explanation.

Opportunity is the most important thing in Hollywood, but what is more valuable than opportunity is the network. In many cases, the strength of the network has the decisive ability to turn the tide of the battle. This is also when Steven was planning to shoot "Schindler's List", everyone thought this work. In the case of smashing the pot, he is still reluctant to give up lightly. Because "Schindler's List" maintains Steven's connections, but also the entire Jewish group hidden behind this true historical story.

Tracy Jacobs, Ron Mayer, and Martin Baum did not hesitate to enter the "Schindler's List" crew, just because they saw the vast network of people contained in this work, and they had the absolute power of one-shot fatality. energy.

And now, Hugo has become a member of "Schindler's List". More importantly, the entire "Schindler's List" is a huge crew of nearly 1,000 people. Just talking about the protagonist, Rain Guo must also be behind Liam Neeson and Ben Kingsley, but Hugo, relying on his dedicated acting attitude and superb performance, stood out from the crew, won the favor of Steven, and also won Jewish support.

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

Now, the connections Hugo has won through Schindler's List are quietly at work, and the New York Times is just one of them.

The other two media in the top ten sales in the United States, the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, also have Jewish ancestry. The Washington Post is now run by Jewish Katherine Meyer Graham, as is Dow Jones executive Peter Kann, owner of The Wall Street Journal. Jewish, he also serves as the director of the "Wall Street Journal".

Although these two newspapers are not professional movie magazines, and the entertainment section is only a part of them, but because of their huge sales, they have always been regarded as the ranks of the authoritative media in the industry.

The "Washington Post" reported with relatively neutral remarks, "Hugo-Lancaster's new film is a hot action movie!" As for Hugo, it is undoubtedly eye-catching and expected that Hugo will challenge action movies again after three years.

The "Wall Street Journal" reported with a very interesting headline, "Lancaster Says No to Checks!" The point of view in the report is also very interesting, they believe that throughout Hollywood, costs have generally increased and actor salaries have continued to rise. . With the increasing role of brokerage companies in the film industry, Hugo has the courage to break the rules of the industry and return to the situation before the 1990s: actors with a salary of less than 10 million help the film company to control costs together and complete it conscientiously. work, which is undoubtedly a huge breakthrough. They also believe that Hugo's move is actually more popular with film companies. After all, an actor with good quality and low price is liked by everyone. What's more, Hugo's popularity and recognition are also top-notch. Therefore, the pursuit of Hugo by major film companies in the future will surely become intensified. However, the remuneration cannot impress Hugo, so what can it be?

Compared with the "Pulp Fiction" period when it was almost full of doubts, this time the "Los Angeles Times" has won a group of reliable and powerful allies, which has won a wider breathing space for the more difficult "Life and Death", This is undoubtedly what no one expected.

Nicholas noticed this keenly. The power of Jewish connections has gradually emerged. This is undoubtedly the decisive turning point in Hugo's career!