感覺好多人覺得這部的重複叙事沒有螺旋升華，然後大家都想看的結局就是不說，總之沒有用（no point），讓我想到今年的warfare也有很多類似觀感。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.

還有感覺豆瓣上好多人說這個體現出領導人的草台班子，我覺得還好吧（？ 看的時候覺得不管是高級領導還是底層員工面對這種事件的展現出的專業性和humanness都挺真實的。昨天看完之後看了個劇本作者的采訪，他說電影裡整個美國政府組織的面貌都已經故意寫成best case scenario了，因為不想讓觀衆覺得這整個事件可以單獨責怪到一個無能力/瘋狂的領導人身上，從而把這個全組織一起面對危機reduce為個人過錯。