1.1 points shocking bad movie, after watching my direct work injury! How outrageous is a film that can anger the world?
The kind of drama you want to see is coming.
Julius Caesar, who made great achievements in battle, rose again at night.
At this point, the messenger entered with a huge blanket, saying that it was a gift from Cleopatra Cleopatra.
But then, the plot goes where you didn't expect.
Lift his hood:
Caesar's eyes were "black".
For the record, Sir did not mean to break people's beautiful illusions about this historical anecdote, nor did he mean to target race and women.
Just to show how outrageous this so-called historical "documentary" that Netflix just came out is.
Douban 2.5 (may continue to decline), IMDb shocking 1.1 points, global audiences are extremely surging about it, and are very disappointed with Netflix.
Not only can it not accept that black actors play Cleopatra, but also its blatant tampering with the history of other countries, all kinds of mistakes and omissions, beyond recognition.
△ Mistake in the crown: Cleopatra's Ptolemaic period did not have a double snake logo
After the trailer for "Cleopatra" was broadcast, it was also protested by many Greek and Egyptian netizens, and the joint signature has collected about 70,000 signatures. However, the joint signature was suddenly deleted by the platform on the 15th.
In recent years, European and American entertainment is no longer the original European and American entertainment, but European and American entertainment (blackened).
The phenomenon of "blackening" of European and American film and television dramas is not uncommon, but if you play a fish, let's not say anything, and directly beat people's ancestors into blacks, who can be happy?
There are many historical research contents on the Internet, Sir will not mention it for the time being.
Everyone stepped back, Sir rushed first, see what it said?
Brave people like me savor this earth-shattering dung work with great curiosity, and peel it off and taste it painfully.
My evaluation is that this shaping is not as good as the two-dimensional "Cleopatra".
It's scary, it turns out that "blackening" is only a small point among its many stinky problems.
Below, please follow the pace of Sir's complaining and experience the "sense of power" of this "Genesis Score" work together.
In order to comfort Sir who is injured at work, you are optimistic about it~
△ First put the "Yu Po" of the same scene at the beginning to comfort everyone's wounded heart
I tried poison with the expectation of watching a serious documentary, and the result was a plate of inferior Mary Sue, or the kind that had been in the back kitchen for three years.
I laugh at the rarity of European and American productions.
You just shoot something else, this kind of Mary Sue heroine plot, put in our internal entertainment, can only be said to be at the level of elementary school students.
Looking at the quick-cut shot at the beginning of the film, looking at such a "classic" copywriting, and watching this confident head, I have already matched this narration with the uncle's voice of the mango trailer in my mind.
I really want to shake this director: wake up, stop grabbing horses! Look up at you, this is a documentary!
You're shooting Cleopatra, not Centra.
Why do you want to pile up so many "Su" settings for her?
At a young age, he became a pharaoh, respected traditions, and loved the people.
△ Cleopatra when I was a girl, this hairstyle gave me a sense of déjà vu of Rainie Yang. In fact, Egyptian pharaohs were all shaved and wore wigs for cleanliness
Her husband was short-sighted and killed Pompey, who was hostile to Caesar at the time, and while in exile, she whispered: "Caesar will not forgive him, he does not know what Roman dignity is".
Of course, Cleopatra, as a political figure who stirred up history, was inherently intelligent.
But isn't this kind of shaping with Caesar's forced "soul rhino" a little too emotional?
Not to mention the overly exaggerated typology of sound and picture.
Cleopatra was reading a book in the girlhood, and there was a "bang" in the background, and the music sounded, step by step, as if God was telling her:
Your father is dead, and you big heroine should come to power.
An avenue, stepped on by her into a thin road, solipsism, absolute protagonist, directly set the tone for this so-called "documentary".
There are also cartoon-style portrayals of positive and negative characters.
The younger brother, sister, and minister, who are political enemies, each have "stupid", "tea" and "yin" written on their faces.
The shots given to them are all staying in the dark fence, while the heroine helps Caesar walk in the bright sun.
It is clearly said that those who are hostile to the big heroine are "rats in the gutter".
So much is laid ahead, Cleopatra loves knowledge and has political foresight.
As a result, the cause of the war between Rome and Egypt was the "robbery of women in public" that we have seen a hundred times.
Why did this pediatric rivalry appear in the documentary???
And watching the whole drama, Cleopatra's political means are still dependent on the male kings, using fertility as a bargaining chip to eradicate dissidents.
I understand that the main creator wants to create a charming and powerful heroine, but why does the technique have to be fabrication, trampling and attachment?
Can the creation of a "Mary Sue" godhead become a new generation of cultural icons?
With exaggerated typological techniques and genre-based audiovisual like a bad Internet drama to complete historical documentaries, then "recording" is no longer "recording".
It is a stinky and long outline of European and American political correctness that should be recited as "theme points."
In fact, the starting point of this film to shape the characters is good.
I want to provide a new and fair perspective to women who have been named "beautiful and beautiful" in history, and enhance the sense of power of female characters in history.
But his heart is not sincere.
The intention is too obvious, and the results are very pale.
The film mostly aligns "male/female" with "decent/villain".
The newly succeeded Cleopatra has two wisdom maids by his side, so the younger brother Fang naturally forms a male villain alliance.
After Cleopatra befriended Caesar, there was a scene of banqueting the Roman wise men, and equating this "male/female" counterpoint with "Rome/Egypt".
The film's portrayal of Egypt (or the use of imagination to occupy it) is black-dominated, traditional, and equal between men and women.
And this film also has a double standard in terms of destigmatizing women.
Since under the banner of women's equal rights, why on the one hand, Cleopatra is portrayed as a glorious politician, and on the other hand, the sister who competes with the imperial power is portrayed as a scheming woman who "robs men" with a slip on the soles of her feet?
Real feminist works should not have such a childish female competition scene.
The film does add some old-style biographies rarely portrayed the pain of ancient women's childbirth, emphasizing the greatest sacrifice of women being neglected, which is true.
But the film uses such lines to instrumentalize women's bodies:
△ This is not Cleopatra, but the one in her stomach
This kind of "fake equality, real power" is revealed again when shaping Cleopatra's emotional line.
Between Cleopatra and Caesar in the film, it is called a soul mate and goes hand in hand.
In layman's terms, this is called "strong CP".
The short paragraph at the beginning of "having a soul in the heart" is talking about the fate of the two destined for heaven.
It is also said more than once in the film that the queen's appreciation for Caesar lies in "his long-sleeved political skills."
The bed scene between the two also has a heart-wrenching song soundtrack.
There are also scholars explaining:
Just said: These two kings of the world have engaged in Xipi to show you, don't you kneel and lick?
And in actual history, the king who had more emotional entanglements with Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, was trampled on fiercely in this part.
Anthony's historical achievements with the spirit of Dionysus are indeed inferior to Caesar's, but it was he who had three children with Cleopatra and died in the same battle.
This emotional line is also the focus of other Cleopatra-related works.
This one did the opposite, giving Anthony the character of a "scumbag" and "cowardly".
Later in the war, it was Cleopatra who personally came to inspire the army, which allowed Antony to pick up the courage to confront Octavian.
In this film, Mu Qiang is far greater than true feelings.
Stepping on the little daddy and licking the big daddy is the real narrative strategy.
At the end, after repeatedly emphasizing Cleopatra's loyalty to the country and high character, she took a bath.
It is also the only shot in the film that involves the gaze of the female body.
Then commit suicide by taking poison instead of the rumored use of poisonous snakes.
In the film, Cleopatra is completely untied from the "femme fatale".
The character is clean, but she is crisper than a piece of paper.
In the film, Cleopatra emphasizes the need to defend the autonomy of the country before she dies:
"Let the Ptolemaic Empire stretch, and Egypt not become a Roman province."
The ending is even clearer that this film aims to create an "African queen" and inspire "female resonance".
The producers wanted to create a goddess image for black Americans and establish cultural confidence.
But in order to be excessively "correct", the truth is ignored, and even the history of other countries is arbitrarily smeared.
It's not that they didn't find ways to cover up their "historical inventions".
The opening scholar said:
How to say, there is a kind of want to pull the fig leaf, but the lack of silk and dew can only cover the rotten in one go.
What the film wants to recall is a "blackened Egypt" that is very different from the real one.
What he wanted to be was a vassal of the Roman Empire's powers.
Cleopatra here did not trust men so much, she trusted her father, with the will of the Ptolemaic family.
Therefore, under such a strong will of the father, desire and ambition need to be praised, and killing needs to be praised.
Even four hundred years ago, Shakespeare had already explored the contradiction between dictatorship and democracy, love and reason in Julis Caesar's assassination, and adopted an objective perspective.
Today, four hundred years later, there are still documentaries that put all the bright positions on Caesar in the assassination.
How to make a monarch documentary more sincere?
First of all, it is necessary to treat him as a "person" rather than being overly "godly".
There is light and dark, and "people" will be three-dimensional.
The BBC documentary filmed Frederick the Great, who had an important feat for Prussia, but with an old coat.
It is a kind of self-elimination, refusal to be seen as an individual. Because growing up, he was strictly forbidden to be who he wanted to be, and he preferred to wear this distinctive, symbolic coat.
A sacrificer, because of this gap in character, becomes more three-dimensional and radiant.
And the original complex Cleopatra.
But in a pile of overexposed lights, it became more and more blurred.
Sixty years ago, the Hollywood film industry was shining and luxurious.
Elizabeth Taylor, who played Cleopatra, dressed as a goddess, stepped down from the Sphinx, showing her wealth, power and domineering.
Behind the strong flowers and cooking oil of American film commercialization.
Sixty years later, one of these hegemonies has spread from commerce to culture.
Under the banner of political correctness, they will not hesitate to seize and tamper with the history of other countries to compete for their place in Western discourse.
And no matter what kind of crown, clothing, and even skin color are attached to the descendants.
The real Cleopatra is always experiencing the scouring of the river of time.
The picture of this article comes from the Internet
Editorial assistant: It's Tu Yile