Last time, the New York Times was furious about Hugo's choice of "pulp novels" and severely criticized it as a "stupid choice". But this time, the New York Times restrained most of its firepower and showed a completely different look.

The New York Times reported on the title "A unique choice to show Lancaster's unique vision", which is a look of a 180-degree turnaround from previous reports on "Pulp novels".

In the comments, the chief film critic of the New York Times, Armond Camby said, "'Life and Death Hour' is not a work that will make people exclaim the 'perfect choice'. Whether it is the production team or the investment cost, this work cannot find many highlights to provide people with expectations, but perhaps this is Lancaster's uniqueness. He keenly sensed the innovation and specialty of the script, which is also a ability that many actors do not have.

How will the story develop if a bus that explodes under fifty miles per hour drives in Los Angeles, a city that may be in panic due to traffic jams at any time? Is it a hero who stands up to save the city, or does it fail to cause a huge disaster in the city?

Lancaster clearly and accurately selected a work that suits him best. Perhaps he does not have the strong body as strong as Schwarzenegger, nor does he have the agile skills of Bruce Lee, so he cannot bring people the bloody stimulation of punching and flesh like the male protagonist of a traditional action movie. However, his concentration, firmness and sharp temperament can burst out infinite sparks with the "speed of life and death", causing action movies to produce an uncertain fresh atmosphere. This is undoubtedly an exciting work."

It is hard to imagine that the critic who wrote this review and the critic who cursed when Hugo was confirmed to star in "Pulp Novel" two months ago were the same person. Ammond, the current leading film critic of the "New York Times", completed a gorgeous turn in two months.

It can be seen that Armond found the only loophole script innovation in the overwhelming doubts, and based on this point, he supported Hugo's choice. Armond wisely avoided all the unfavorable situations of "life and death speed", but just used the script to grasp the core, and then combined Hugo's temperament. It has to be said that it is a very clever approach, which is undoubtedly very attractive to the broad mass base of the "New York Times".

But why did the New York Times' attitude change so dramatically within two months?

In fact, if you carefully review the previous attitude of the New York Times, you will find that they have been relatively harsh about Hugo's works for a long time.

Although the New York Times, as one of the most authoritative film review media in the United States, their comments on movies are generally relatively objective, due to the conflict between the East and West Coast cultural circles in the United States, the two newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, have many differences in their views on their works.

The New York Times' attitude towards "smelling fragrance to recognize women" and "the heroic spirit" has always been relatively harsh and picky. Compared with the full support of the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times' views have always been more reserved and harsh. Especially compared with the three Hollywood industry benchmark media, the Los Angeles Times, "Variety Shows" and "Hollywood Reporter", the New York Times is always a more harsh side.

But all the situation changed after the "Schindler's List". It is worth noting that the "New York Times" praised Hugo's works for the first time, "Sleeping in the Night in Seattle", which was the situation that occurred after the completion of the "Schindler's List"; and the news that the "New York Times" Armond criticized Hugo for choosing "pulp novels" was the peak of the debate about "beautifying the Nazis"; but now, all the disputes have subsided, and the "Schindler's List" has received support from all Jews.

This is the difference.

When discussing the political tendencies of any media, they are inseparable from their origins, their consortiums, cultural backgrounds, regional conditions, etc. Of course, in the political field, interests are the eternal core norms, and all groups participating in politics have the ultimate goal of fighting for their own interests.

The New York Times was founded by two non-Jews in 1851. After their deaths, the Jewish tycoon Adolph Ochs acquired the newspaper in 1896. His grandson Arthur Ochs.sulzberger, Jr., inherited the New York Times. Under the leadership of four generations, the New York Times became the number one newspaper in the United States and has a unique influence in the world. Currently, the New York Times provides press releases and pictures to 506 other media in the United States, making it the unquestionable first influential news media in the United States.

In addition to the distinct Jewish bloodline of the leaders and the consortium behind it, Marx Frankel, the executive editor of the New York Times, and Joseph Lelyveld, are also Jewish.

There is no doubt that the Jewish descent of the New York Times has made them stand firmly on the side of their compatriots in terms of political inclination. Now, Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" has been pushed to a peak by Jews all over the world, and the "New York Times" is no exception. The humanistic care displayed in this film is the greatest comfort and inspiration for the survivors after the Holocaust.

Although Hugo plays the murderous Amon Goss in the movie, after understanding it, everyone knows that Hugo has worked hard to play this role, and even got too deeply involved in the role, so he fell into a deep nightmare. This is the fundamental reason why Hugo did not take on any works for seven months after ending the "Schindler's List".

At this moment, Hugo has won the hearts of all Jews. He has become an important role in the Jewish group in Hollywood after Steven Spielberg and Woody Allen. The change in attitude of the "New York Times" is also the most reasonable explanation.

Opportunities are the most important in Hollywood, but what is more valuable than opportunities is connections. Many times, the strength of connections has the decisive ability to turn the situation around. This is also the reason why everyone thought that this work would be ruined when Steven planned to shoot the "Schindler's List", but he was still unwilling to give up easily. Because the "Schindler's List" maintains Steven's connections, and it is also the entire Jewish group hidden behind this true historical story.

Tracy Jacobs, Long Mayer, and Martin Baum are willing to join the "Schindler's List" crew at all costs, because they are attracted by the vast connections contained in this work and have the absolute energy of one blow.

Now, Hugo has become a member of the "Schindler's List". More importantly, the entire "Schindler's List" is a huge crew of nearly a thousand people. Just in terms of the protagonist, Hugo must also fall behind Liam Neeson and Ben Kingsley. However, Hugo has stood out from the crew with his dedicated performance attitude and superb performance effects, winning Steven's favor, and also winning the support of the Jews.

The role of connections is difficult to summarize with a simple data or icon in normal times. It is often hidden under the surface of complex things, which is unpredictable. For example, many people still do not know how Hugo and Steven are connected. However, Green Hill, the biggest hero, who is hidden behind, has never been exposed due to his strong strength behind it.

Now, Hugo's connections won by "Schindler's List" are quietly playing a role, and the "New York Times" is just one of them.

The other two media outlets in the United States, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, also have Jewish ancestry. The Washington Post is now run by Jewish Katherine Meyer Graham, and the Wall Street Journal owner, Peter Kann, executive president of the Dowjones Group, is also a Jewish person. He also serves as the director of the Wall Street Journal.

Although neither of these two newspapers are professional film magazines and the entertainment section is just a part of it, due to their huge sales, they have always been among the authoritative media in the industry.

The Washington Post reported on relatively neutral remarks, "Hugo Lancaster's new work selected a popular action movie!" They did not conduct much analysis of the "speed of life and death" itself, but focused more on Hugo, believing that Hugo challenges action movies again after three years is undoubtedly eye-catching and expectant.

The Wall Street Journal reported with a very interesting news title, "Lancaster said no to the check!" The views in the report are also very interesting. They believe that with the general increase in costs in Hollywood, the continuous increase in actor pay, and the role of agency companies in the film industry gradually increases, Hugo has the courage to break industry rules and return to the situation before the 1990s: actors take less than 10 million yuan in pay to help film companies control costs and complete their work diligently, which is undoubtedly a huge breakthrough. They also believe that Hugo's actions are actually more popular among film companies. After all, a good and low-cost actor is loved by everyone, not to mention that Hugo's popularity and recognition are also top-notch choices, so major film companies' pursuit of Hugo in the future will surely become white-hot. However, the pay cannot impress Hugo, so what can it be?

Compared with the "Pulp novel" period, this time the "Los Angeles Times" won a group of reliable and powerful allies, which won a broader room for breathing for the more difficult "speed of life and death" that was undoubtedly unpredictable.

Nicholas noticed this keenly, and the power of the Jewish connections has gradually emerged, which is undoubtedly the turning point in Hugo's career!
Chapter completed!