HBO的“国会大厦四个小时”是一部有力的有缺陷的纪录片：电视评论
HBO’s ‘Four Hours at the Capitol’ Is a Powerful, Flawed Documentary: TV Review
当一群叛乱分子于1月6日派遣美国国会大厦，以破坏2020年总统大选的选举票的计算时，人们可能期望当天的事件在几个月后，几个月后引起共鸣。这次攻击似乎有时似乎是从我们的文化记忆中迅速消失的，这证明了一个政党试图将其移开的效力，因为它是一种热情而热情的抗议，失去了控制。国会大厦，”杰米·罗伯茨（Jamie Roberts）执导的纪录片。这部纪录片呈现了当天活动的滴答声，并带有如此痛苦的镜头，很难观看（而且很难相信罗伯茨和执行制片人丹·里德（Dan Reed）能够元帅）。破坏和攻击的意象在其上是强大的。这是在建立参与者的动机和行动的故事中，“国会大厦四个小时”摇摇欲坠，这可能是一个裁定e文件陷入了一个深处的缺陷。机智：我们遇到的第一个访谈主题是一个自我认同的“骄傲男孩”，该组织的成员发动了政治暴力以支持极右翼目标，包括恢复总统王牌。这个人穿着一件衬衫，指的是暴徒阿什利·巴比特（Ashli Babbitt）死亡的人，描述了“爱国人民和国会警察之间的战斗”，并指出：“当您真的相信一个暴政的政府基本上是在占领国家，您，您是'要让一些疯狂的东西掉下来。”一个疑问这增加了。那些冲刺国会大厦的人认为最终选举的结果是“暴政”，这并不是一个值得注意的见解。在T恤上广播这些主张以及阴谋表象，而无需进行任何导演干预，这是一个判断呼吁，在我看来是错误的。HBO的扩音器继续贷款给那些Ho冲进了国会大厦的延伸至“激进电影制片人”，他列出了各种Qanon-Adjacent的主张，并将国会内部的场景描述为“有趣的氛围。人们很开朗。”在这里，罗伯茨（Roberts）对观众的信任进行了信任，以发现讽刺意味，证词与人们磨碎和强调的视频相反，与怪异的音乐，Ethereal Music。 ''有责任必须将自己插入纪录片中，并直接断言这是不准确的。许多观众会理解，尽管他们目前所看到的并非实际上是暴力的，但后来出现的镜头是不可否认的。我们看到国会面对暴力暴民，参议员和代表戴着防毒面具以及暴民的纯粹人力的距离有多近，不断向“新鲜人”派往面对一支耗尽的警察部队。在其结构以及痛苦和情感上罗伯茨（Roberts）从访谈主题中提出的“四个小时”是一个真正的成就。因此，最令人沮丧的是，整个过程中最令人沮丧的是否认的说法，这些主张没有任何有用的戏剧性或信息性。我们知道，当天的事件正在不断地从世界上生活中最小化。这部纪录片削弱了其真正令人震惊的因素 - 录像带如此之多的收集和结构 - 有目的地分散或反映了被迷惑的世界观的陈述。观看新闻的观众将非常熟悉这两种冲动。一个可能不会从一个更直接地发挥作用的项目中受益的人，将故事的双方都带走，但使用更直接的策略来解决一个没有真相的策略。这里令人沮丧的是什么是如此清楚地骑着一条纪录片。它的某些访问权利是真正的信息，例如在C中美国国会议员巴迪·卡特（Buddy Carter）是佐治亚州共和党人，他降低了事件，因为“我们赢得了……我们正在赢得道德战争”。如果鲍勃·伍德沃德（Bob Woodward）和罗伯特·科斯塔（Robert Costa）的报道抛出选民，以确保可以相信特朗普的胜利，那并不是共和党人在1月6日赢得的一切。无论如何，批准的比较卡特本人都在骚乱的开端与他对选举的反对意见之间 - “我们必须战斗。这就是我正在做的事情，我正在为我的人民而战，为我的选民而战。陈述与一个骄傲的男孩不同？ Well, what Carter says is inherently newsworthy, as he’s an elected official;他的观点由于他固有的力量而赋予了法律力量的固有力量（无论人们对此有何看法）。叛乱分子的观点，除了完全期望的是，首先要通过武力获得权力，其次是通过说服其他人的公义。罗伯茨（Roberts）的纪录片将他们递给他们麦克风，并给了他们机会，做得太少了。正如我们从一天中从记忆中滑落的那样，这位男子几乎没有做出几个小时的屠杀，三年来竞选总统 - 对1月的想法有很大的诱人。6是一个异常但最终的次要事件。令人沮丧的是，这一观点的代表并非直接挑战，我们应该更好地了解：如果有近年来的教训，那就是言论，包括电视，尤其是对电视的倾向，对王牌的现实有令人不安的趋势。10月20日，星期三，晚上9点，“在国会大厦的四个小时”播出。ET在HBO上。
When a group of insurrectionists took the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6 in order to disrupt the counting of electoral votes from the 2020 presidential election, one might have expected the events of the day to resonate, months later, far more than they do. The attack seems at times to be rapidly fading from our cultural memory, a testament to the efficacy of one party’s attempts to hand-wave it away as an enthusiastic and passionate protest that lost control.
Into this cultural forgetting strides HBO's “Four Hours at the Capitol,” a documentary directed by Jamie Roberts. This documentary presents a tick-tock of the events of the day, complete with so much harrowing footage that it’s hard to watch (and hard to believe Roberts and executive producer Dan Reed were able to marshal). The imagery of destruction and assault is powerful on its own terms; it’s in building the story of the participants’ motives and actions that “Four Hours at the Capitol” falters, making what could have been a definitive document into a deeply flawed one.
To wit: Among the first interview subjects we meet is a self-identified “Proud Boy,” a member of the organization that wages political violence in support of far-right goals, including the reinstatement of President Trump. This individual, wearing a shirt with a conspiratorial slogan referring to the death of rioter Ashli Babbitt, describes “fighting between patriotic people and Capitol police” and notes, “When you really do believe a tyrannical government is basically taking over the country, you’re going to have some crazy stuff go down.”
One questions what this adds. It’s hardly a noteworthy insight that those that stormed the Capitol believed that finalizing the outcome of a free and fair election was “tyrannical”; broadcasting these claims, as well as conspiratorial imagery on a T-shirt, without any directorial intervention is a judgment call, and in my view, the wrong one. The continued lending of HBO’s megaphone to those who stormed the Capitol extends as far as an “activist filmmaker” who lists off a variety of QAnon-adjacent claims, and describes the scene inside the Capitol as “an interesting vibe. The people were cheerful.” Here, Roberts places trust in his viewer to detect the irony, placing the testimony in counterpoint to video of people milling about and underscoring it with eerie, ethereal music.
It’s hard to imagine the right way to treat footage like this: It is not Roberts’ responsibility, necessarily, to insert himself into the documentary and assert directly that this is inaccurate. And many viewers will understand that though what they’re seeing in the moment is not literally violent, the footage that comes later is undeniable. We see how close Congress came to facing a violent mob, Senators and Representatives donning gas masks, and the sheer manpower of the mob, constantly sending forward “fresh people” to face down an outmanned police force. In its structure and in the pain and emotion that Roberts elicits from interview subjects, “Four Hours” is a real achievement.
What’s most frustrating, then, is that studded throughout are denialist claims that serve no useful dramatic or informational point. We know that the events of the day are being minimized constantly, from living in the world. This documentary undercuts its genuinely startling element — the gathering and structuring of so much inside footage — with statements that are either purposefully dissembling or reflecting a deluded worldview. Both of these impulses will be intimately familiar to a viewer who watches the news; one who doesn’t might have benefited from a project that played things a little more straight, taking both sides of the story but using tactics more direct than ironic counterpoint to address the one that doesn’t have truth on its side.
What’s frustrating here is that the documentary so clearly rides a line. Some of its access to the right is genuinely informative, as in the case of U.S. Congressman Buddy Carter, a Georgia Republican who decries the events because “we were winning … we were winning the moral wars.” That’s not all the Republicans could have won on Jan. 6, if Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s reporting of a plan to throw out electors to ensure a Trump victory is to be believed. Regardless, the approving comparison Carter himself draws between the beginnings of the riot and his own objections to the election — “We gotta fight. That’s what I was doing, I was fighting for my people, for my voters,” he says — is a chilling view of just how close, in aim and in rhetorical style, insurrection and standard-issue 2020s politics are.
What makes depicting Carter’s statements different from a literal Proud Boy’s? Well, what Carter says is inherently newsworthy, as he’s an elected official; his perspective carries weight because of his inherent power to bring it about by force of law (whatever one might think about that). The insurrectionists’ perspective, in addition to being exactly what one would expect, gains power first by force and second by convincing others of its righteousness. And Roberts’ documentary hands them the mic and gives them the opportunity, doing too little to push back. As we’ve seen from the way the day is slipping from memory — with the man who did so little to call the carnage off for hours poised to run for President again in three years — there is a great seductiveness to the idea that Jan. 6 was an anomalous but ultimately minor event. What is dismaying about the representation of this point of view, not directly challenged, is that we ought to know better: If there’s a lesson of recent years, it’s that rhetoric, including and especially on television, has a troubling tendency to trump reality.
"Four Hours at the Capitol" airs Wednesday, Oct. 20, at 9 p.m. ET on HBO.
本文资料/文案来自网络，如有侵权，请联系我们删除。
|
发表于 2022-7-5 04:18:43
发表于 2024-2-10 09:39:39