Joshua Wong is undoubtedly impressive. Wong, a Hong Kong activist since the age of 14, has been a tireless democratic force under an authoritarian regime. It strengthens the nation in action.
He led protests, encouraged voters, informed youth, and encouraged other citizens to use their votes for the good instead of contenting themselves with a government that is not interested in serving men.
In 2014, he received a nomination for Person Of The Year according to Time magazine. A year later, Fortune recognised Wong as one of the world’s most famous leaders. For Wong, the compliments soon became a reality. There has never been a 20-year-old man with an excellent biography in the history of human civilisation.
In addition to providing context, it is appropriate to take the lead in this information. Above all, it is crucial to understand Wong’s place in modern times. This enthusiastic activist has become a makeshift politician whose motivations are just as pleasing for the most part.
That’s why it only took an hour to make a documentary-like “Joshua: Teenager vs Superpower.” Wong’s life is unparalleled. If someone tries to do a dramatic role for him, the audience goes crazy.
But as director Joe Piscatella noted in the film, Wong’s life is very real. Then we jumped into a new phase of Wong’s activism when he began to protest against the National Education Agenda imposed by the Chinese government. In a particularly shocking scene, the camera focuses on Wong, competing with Hong Kong CEO CY Leung.
And he was right. The curriculum is designed to limit latent thinking. Repeat what the professors have “learned”, and you will be rewarded. But unfortunately, this academic approach is more concerned with calling and answering than enlightenment.
Wong not only acknowledged hypocrisy but also expressed his disappointment. Leung answered quietly. He is a respected politician who does not publicly talk about the plight of rebellious teenagers.
This is where Piscatel’s problems begin as a documentary. “Joshua: Teenager Vs. Superpower” doesn’t want his subject to rest. It’s a high and low film; no ground, no moment of silence, remembrance, or exploration. “Joshua” remains disappointed. As if you saw a potential candidate delivering an ethical and well-trained 80-minute speech during the campaign.
Joshua speaks authoritatively but is not curious about his views; In fact, Wong’s robotic nature focuses, very briefly, on one scene. “I had no idea I could be his friend,” admitted a classmate and classmate activist. “He doesn’t show any emotion.”
Wong’s polished touch was not Piscatella’s fault. We cannot expect our documents to bring their members to life or fundamentally change who they are. However, everyone who works on this film understands what (and with whom) it has to do. To speed up Piscatella’s trials, he cut through countless index cards and interviewed interviewers (academics, lawyers, political commentators, journalists).
However, the film again refuses to become human. It will be apparent that every talking head will get the main questions. There is no statement in the document that does not appear to have been the subject of multiple acquisitions.
Documentary matters are less aesthetic than intellectual. “Joshua: Teenager vs Superpower” examines China’s socio-political climate with the simplicity of its name. The people of Hong Kong, namely Joshua, are heroes. The government is a villain. What happened to the Chinese authoritarian regime is appalling and incomparable to the film’s shortcomings.
A film is a film, and its reality needs to be taken seriously. Piscatella cared for his subordinates. He is not hasty or unsympathetic, but a specific curiosity of the film is missing. In general, the structure is similar to how events are described. It develops in approximately four steps:
1) Joshua leads an inspiring (as well as monotonous) monologue about the repressive nature of the Chinese government.
2) The film revolves around newspaper clips like shots on the ground of Joshua, who is delivering a protest speech surrounded by a sea of people.
3) It goes back to informal conversations, where (mostly) adults sang praises to Joshua (“brave”, “brave”, “admirable”).
4) Unforgettably, Joshua was arrested, arrested or silenced by the local police.
After each of these four steps, it is just as monotonous. At best, the brand can add pictures to the complexity. In “Joshua,” the music of Robert Amjarv and Bennett Barbakow may also have a stage director who calls his actors. “More emotions! Fewer emotions! You’ll be happy! Well, less happy. Now cry! That screamed a lot.” it appears next to what is given to us here.
Due to the presence of Joshua Wong, it is difficult to criticise his picture and image. What Wong has accomplished (and is doing) is a miracle. If this document serves as a mere introduction to Wong, it is a success. There are alternatives in magazine profiles, newspaper clippings, and YouTube clippings.
Whatever the format, Wong’s story – and the story of anyone who fights a system that seeks to oppress their citizens – deserves to be heard.