感觉好多人觉得这部的重复叙事没有螺旋升华，然后大家都想看的结局就是不说，总之没有用（no point），让我想到今年的warfare也有很多类似观感。These kinds of storytelling didn’t bother me, cuz I actually think that having no point is the point. War and power struggles between countries, especially with nuclear proliferation involved, are insanely complicated on a grand scale, while they’re destructive for everyone, civilians and the people working within national agencies (basically parts of the machine). And when you look at it on the individual level–the lives lost and the lives that will be lost—these issues all just feels exactly pointless and stupid, but still unstoppable.

So I understand why there’s no resolution in this film. When people say it’s lazy because the writer didn’t know how to end it, honestly, I think it’s impossible to neatly wrap up the kind of story they crafted. The focus of the film isn’t about giving an answer or solution anyway, so it’d be weird if they did. A concluding resolution of a fictional situation would be more reductive, imo. It would flip the whole message (the bleakness and pointlessness of the nuclear threat) on its head and turn it into a regular Hollywood thriller. Nothing wrong with that, but I don’t think that’s what Bigelow was going for.

however, I mean it still belongs to the genre of political military thriller, adding Bigelow’s experienced execution, and the fact that it was directly released on Netflix makes no effort to let people think this is more or different than a regular thriller. so the kind of response it received is entirely warrented and they cant blame anyone for it.

还有感觉豆瓣上好多人说这个体现出领导人的草台班子，我觉得还好吧（？ 看的时候觉得不管是高级领导还是底层员工面对这种事件的展现出的专业性和humanness都挺真实的。昨天看完之后看了个剧本作者的采访，他说电影里整个美国政府组织的面貌都已经故意写成best case scenario了，因为不想让观众觉得这整个事件可以单独责怪到一个无能力/疯狂的领导人身上，从而把这个全组织一起面对危机reduce为个人过错。