"The top seed of the awards season is on fire?"

This is the cover title of the latest issue of Variety magazine, as one of the most professional magazines in the Hollywood industry, "Variety" and "Hollywood Reporter" go hand in hand, and their views can often be considered the most valuable voices in the industry. Pen? Interesting? Pavilion wWw. ｂiquge。 info is not only because they are professional, but also because they are experienced and know the rules of the Hollywood industry well, including the likes and preferences of the college judges.

Michael Kettenbach said at the beginning of this feature that although it is only October, it is clear that the fire of the awards season has been ignited, and the Venice Film Festival and the Toronto Film Festival have come to an end, and a group of excellent word-of-mouth seed players have been born, but these works have not yet landed in North America - "good night, good luck" has been directly ignored, so the future of their awards season is still unclear. However, the emergence of "fruit hard candy" began to disrupt the whole pattern.

This is exactly the kind of feature dedicated to "hard fruit candy".

It's hard to imagine that "Variety" magazine actually produced a special article to report on "Fruit Hard Candy", just this one move, you can see the strong influence of Lance on the West Coast today, and it is not surprising that the stubborn forces on the West Coast dislike and reject Lance.

"Admittedly, this is not a work that the Academy will like, strictly speaking, it is a work that is enough to anger the Academy judges. On Wednesday, Vanity Fair magazine held an internal screening of "Hard Candy" at the Goldwin Theater in Los Angeles, with only 200 critics, producers and actors in attendance, causing controversy and turmoil. ”

First of all, this is a very interesting thing, because "Fruit Hard Candy" has always adhered to the screening route, and does not wait to expand the screening, and even the college public relations of the awards season is not interested, so far Chaos Pictures has not made any movement, and the direct result is that as the base camp of the Oscars, there are only a handful of audiences in the Los Angeles area who have watched this work - no one should forget that there were only four media reviews before, in other words, even industry insiders can't see this work, Many college judges were very indignant and expressed their "refusal to watch".

But on the contrary, Chaos Pictures is still unhurried, and Lance is staying in New York and has no intention of responding.

Under such circumstances, "Vanity Fair" communicated with Landmark Cinema and Chaos Pictures respectively, and took the initiative to launch this internal test screening, on the one hand, to warm up for the awards season, and on the other hand, to cater to hot spots. In addition, only a small number of people know that behind "Vanity Fair" is Warner Bros., who seems to be planning to use "hard fruit candy" to spark hype and disgust the college judges, but to hype up Lance's name, and then wait for an opportunity to bring "good night, good luck" back to the light of day, after all, this work is a well-deserved hit of awards season before it was plagiarized.

Such tactics are common during the awards season, but no one can be sure whether Warner Bros. will succeed or shoot himself in the foot.

As a result, such an abnormal situation emerged: the main creative team of the film was not present, but an internal test screening at the college public relations level was held, and it was held by a third party.

"This in-house preview was a disaster, and Scott-Foundas pointed to the screen and yelled, 'Shame on you!' It's unbearable! Disgusting! Erotic/Erotic! Litter! And Hope-Holiday doesn't mince words, 'I was tortured for two hours just to watch a movie like this?' The whole film is a disgusting scene that keeps repeating! Even Steven Lea couldn't hide his disgust, 'It's like an unending ordeal, it lacks the pure and complex plot of the City of God, the deep and delicate layers of killing people with the knife, and even the stunning and imagery of Sin City, which is disgusting.' ”

In this feature, Variety magazine published comments from as many as 23 viewers who participated in the internal preview screening, presenting their feedback clearly and intuitively. Such a bold and novel choice can be seen in the attention of "Variety" magazine to "fruit hard candy".

"Perhaps, Lancelot-Strello should be glad that he didn't show up, otherwise the scene would have been even more terrible and more chaotic. But I couldn't help but think the other way around, why didn't Strello attend the internal preview screening? Why isn't Chaos Pictures looking forward to winning the awards season like other works of art? One step further, why does 'Fruit Hard Candy' always adhere to the niche route of screening? I'm reminded of what Strello said at the screening in New York, 'This is an experimental film'. Perhaps, this is the answer.

Because Strello knew that the academy judges wouldn't like it. I think that's why we can't have great films.

The Oscars will never go back to the golden age of the seventies, and now all the members of the academy have become cautious, conservative, and safe, although in the past few years, there have been excellent works such as "A Beautiful Mind", "Gladiator", and "American Beauty", but they are all short-lived. This film award seems to be beginning to focus on works that show the goodness of human nature, just like the Annie Award. ”

Of the 23 comments from the participants in the internal preview screening, as many as 10 expressed strong disgust, but 13 did not hesitate to praise and love the work, and even four even mentioned "A Clockwork Orange" and Stanley Kubrick. Just as Oscar never liked Stanley Kubrick, every Lance work is also revealing the scars of the academy, only, this time, the "fruit hard candy" seems to go beyond the bottom line.

The reasons why the college judges dislike "fruit hard candies" are actually very simple: first, more than 70% of the judges in the college are white men over the age of 60, and no man wants to see himself "castrated" on the big screen; Second, in "Hard Fruit Candy", the law and moral bottom line are unscrupulously challenged, and the two protagonists have given up the formal means of justice and adopted inhumane methods to enforce their inner justice, just like after the rumors of Iraq/abuse/imprisonment, the White House tried every possible way to cover up the facts, no one likes their "humanity and rights" to be brutally trampled, especially not to be spread out by Lance like this.

Finally, and most importantly, following the crime trilogy, Lance is one step closer this time, almost completely excavating the darkness of society, especially Jeff and Hayley are both representatives of the American middle class, Lance not only let Hayley escape punishment, but also implied that Jeff "reformed", which is as if to say that justice through the legal route has no effect, and the choice of violence is the reality of society. This kind of 'distorted values' is infinitely magnified, and such works with incorrect views will naturally be treated coldly. In addition, considering that Lance has grossed more than 200 million in three consecutive works, which also means that Lance's influence on young people and the American box office market, even if "Fruit Hard Candy" is an experimental film, the impact is incalculable, and the judges are naturally more demanding.

"Is 'fruit hard candy' disgusting? Damn, this movie is so disgusting that I won't want to touch my wife for the next three days. Because this movie shows the ultimate crime, isn't the behavior of fetish/child/fetish disgusting? Is the process of punishing sin with justice all innocent? Could it be that the filth of the Iraq war is less severe than the 'hard candies'? The mistake of the Oscars is that the judges believe that films should reflect an idealized version of life, rather than explore the dark side of human nature, which is why we can't have great work.

'Hard Fruit Candy' is obviously not 'How Good Life Is', but unfortunately, it is real enough to truly reflect the current state of society and also explore social issues. That's what makes this work so wonderful. ”

This feature of "Variety" magazine directly pointed the finger at the college, which can be described as shocking. In particular, it is even more intriguing to read it in reference to the media review that has just been released, and in another section of the feature, Michael Carttenbach analyzes the film from another angle.

"While everyone is lamenting the ten-minute long shot and the deafening wave of reflection, no one should ignore the energy and spirit that the two actors have put into the film.

Ellen Page, the eighteen-year-old actress, gave an amazing performance, and her mature and wise and controlled performance perfectly shaped the character of Hailey, which made people shudder at the same time, but they couldn't help but start thinking, what is the story behind Hailey? Under the cover of that punk exterior, the scarred soul erupted in a sigh. This sharpness and profundity have become the most outstanding part of the movie.

If Peggy was a huge surprise, then Lancelot Strello once again shook the world of every audience with a solid and delicate, restrained and strong performance. There is no doubt that Strello brought out the essence of the performance with great freedom and freedom. 'Hard Candy' is a work with a restrained but rich lens language, and the audience often needs to associate with it outside the limited space of the picture, while Strello's performance perfectly interprets the picture beyond the camera, even more vivid, more shocking, and more crazy than the lens itself, and the power of the eyes makes people involuntarily think of the peak of Marlon Brando.

The only thing that needs to be discussed now is whether Strello is competing for Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor this year. But there's no doubt that he'll be the top seed pick so far, no matter which division he's up for. However, the question is, are the rigid, conservative, and rigid college judges willing to bow their arrogant heads and face up to the 'fruit hard candy'? (To be continued.) )