clit2014, jan 2, 晚交了20天，我再也不想上gender studies了我要吐了，写这篇paper不知道经历了多少mental breakdown

Women’s Experience Matters: Redefining Feminist Cinema through Claire’s Camera

As Laura Mulvey points out in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, traditional narrative cinema largely relies upon the practice of a gendered “gaze”, specifically, male’s unconscious objectification of female as erotic spectacle from which visual pleasure is derived. Her account draws attention to the prevailing feminist-unfriendly phenomena in contemporary cinema, one that resides in the language of patriarchy, privileging man’s experience while making woman the passive object deprived of autonomy. Many feminist filmmakers and theorists including Mulvey herself urge a radical strategy that dismantles patriarchal practice and frees woman from the state of being suppressed by the male-centered cinematic language.To conceptualize a mode of cinema that speakswoman’s language, or authentic feminist cinema, this essay interrogates the validity of Mulvey’s destruction approach in pursuing a feminist aesthetic. By making reference to Hong Sang-soo’s film, Claire’s Camera, I argue that feminist cinema needs to be redefined by neither the immediate rejection of gender hierarchy nor the postmodern notion of fluidity, but by perspectives that transcend the gendered metanarrative of subject vs. object, and that primarily represent and serve woman’s experience on both sides of the Camera.

Earlier waves of feminism strived to call attention to, if not, eliminate the unbalanced power relation between men and women in the society, namely the dichotomy between domination and submission, superiority and inferiority, and self and other (Lauretis 115). Feminists such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir radically interrogated women’s rights in the political arena as well as women’s relative position to men in the society at large. However, the approaches of the earlier waves cannot prove themselves sufficient in pursuit of a female autonomy, owing to the fact that they are constantly caught in the power-oriented metalanguage which inherently privileges one over another. While it is argued that the objectification of the “second sex” is oppressive in nature, for example, the assertion already marks the subject-object dynamics between men and women by default. It fails to propose non-power based gender narratives, while obliquely acknowledging that the language spoken in this context is inevitably characterized by phallocentric symbols, ones that prioritize self over other, subject over object, male over female. In thisregard, rather than rendering a perspective that exposes and dismantles patriarchy, the outcome of earlier feminist approaches inclines towards “replicating male ideology” (Mackinnon 59), reifying the omnipresence of the patriarchal language and reproducing the effects of patriarchy.

A similar notion applies to defining feminist cinema. In terms of visual representation, feminist idealists encourage women to present their bodily spectacles, inviting interpretations free of erotic objectification. Despite the favorable receptions from the sex-positive side of the discourse, it is indiscernible as to whether these attempts truly free women from the dome of sex-negativism or reinforce the effect of the patriarchal language even more. This polarized debate, I believe, is due to the fact that the discourse is held captive by the language of patriarchy too powerful for one to extricate from, and that any rebellious gesture would appear to be an insufficient, passive rejection of the predominant ideology. To illustrate this point, Lauretis notes that Mulvey’s and other avant-garde filmmakers’ conceptualization of women’s cinema often associates with the prefix of “de-” with regards to “the destruction… of the very thing to be represented, …the deaestheticization of the female body, the desexualization of violence, the deoedipalization of narrative, and so forth” (175). The “de-” act does not necessarily configure a new set of attributes for feminist representation, but merely displays a negative reaction to a preexisting entity. It is important to be skeptical of its effectiveness in defining feminist cinema, as it implies certain extent of negotiation instead of spot-on confrontation with the previous value. A destructive feminist cinema can never provide a distinctive set of aesthetic attributes without having to seek to problematize and obscure the reality of a patriarchal cinema. In that regard, it is passive, dependent and depressed. More importantly, the question – how the destruction of visual and narrative pleasure immediately benefits women within the narrative and directly addresses female spectators – remains unanswered.

TakingClaire’s Cameraas an example, the film destructs the notion of a gendered visual pleasure by presenting the camera as a reinvented gazing apparatus, one that differs from the gendered gaze, and instead brings novel perception into being. Normally, when characters are being photographed, mainstream filmmakers tend to introduce a viewpoint in alignment with the photographer’s position, enabling spectator’s identification; that is, the shot usually shifts to a first-person perspective so that spectators identify with the photographer gazing at the object who is in front of the camera. Claire’s Camera, however, abandons this first-person perspective while generating new meanings of the gaze. Claire ambiguously explains to So and Yanghye the abstract idea that taking photographs of people changes the photographer’s perception of the photographed object, and that the object is not the same person before their photograph was taken. The spectacle, although objectifiable in nature, is not so passive as being the object constructed upon, but rather constructs new signification upon the subject. The notion of the gaze is therefore re-presented with alternative insights.

That being said, as I argued earlier, the destructive approach is not so sufficient an attempt at defining feminist cinema, because the way it functions nevertheless indulges feminist ideology in the role of passivity, deprived of autonomy and always a discourse dependent on and relative to the prepotency of patriarchy. In the conversation scene between So and Manhee, So, who is almost the age of Manhee’s father, criticizes her for wearing revealing shorts and heavy makeup. In a typically phallocentric manner, he insists that she has insulted her beautiful face and soul by self-sexualizing and turning into men’s erotic object. Despite the fact that the preceding scenes have no intention to eroticize the female body or sexualize her acts such that the visual pleasure is deliberately unfulfilled and almost completely excluded from the diegesis, So inevitably finds Manhee’s physical features provocative and without a second thought, naturally assumes that her bodily spectacle primarily serves man’s interest. This scene demonstrates that regardless of feminists’ radical destruction of visual pleasure, practitioners of patriarchal beliefs will not be affected at all; if any, the femininity enunciation only intensifies the social effects of patriarchy. The conversation between the two characters embodies the self-reflexive style of Hong Sang-soo’s filmmaking, in a sense that it fosters debates within the theoretical framework upon which it is constructed, and constantly counters itself in search of a deeper meaning, contemplating questions such as do we believe in what we practice, whether it is patriarchy or its opposite? And is anti-patriarchy feminism determined enough to prove itself a destructive force against patriarchy rather than a sub-deviant of a predominant ideology? The scene proves the drawback of a destructive strategy, that the way it operates nonetheless subscribes to a patriarchal manner, and that in order to escape the secondary position with respect to the phallocentric subject, more needs to be done other than problematizing the subject.

To supplement the insufficiency of destruction, postmodern feminists such as Judith Butler proposes theoretical alternative to approach the discourse. Butler argues that gender is performative and fluid instead of a set of essential attributes. The notion of performativity indeed precludes the social effects of essentialism by introducing the idea of an identity continuum into gender politics, in ways that empower the socially perceived non-normative. On top of that, Butler believes that the categorization of sex “maintain[s] reproductive sexuality as a compulsory order”, and that the category of woman is an exclusive and oppressive “material violence” (17). Acknowledging the harms that essentialist perception of gender and sexuality entails, Butler bluntly negates the very categorization of woman. This radical negation, however, evades the reality that our whole understanding of the human race is based on gender categories, despite the corresponding inequalities generated from the instinctual categorization. In fact, it is when women as a collective community have come to the realization that the female gender is socially suppressed, that they start to strive for equality through the apparatus of feminism. Butler’s rejection of the gender categorization withdraws the sense of collectivism in the feminist community, which is “an important source of unity” for the marginalized (Digeser 668). Moreover, it deprives the feminist cinema of the necessity of delineating an authentic female representation, because within the notion of performativity there is no such thing as a fixed set of female representations but only distinctive individuals that conform to gender fluidity. Since identifying with a certain form of representation means to live up to a socially perceived norm from which one deviates, a performative cinema does not encourage spectator’s identification. The failed identification will not only drastically shift the spectator’s self-understanding but also cause more identity crises. Therefore, performativity is too ideal a theoretical concept to have actual real-life applications.

Whether it is her body or her social function, woman has become the commodity of patriarchy. As Lauretis puts it, “she is the economic machine that reproduces the human species, and she is the Mother, an equivalent more universal than money, the most abstract measure ever invented by patriarchal ideology” (158). Woman’s experience has been portrayed in the cinematic realm nothing more than being the (m)other and the provocative body. Historical debates have proved that articulating the problematic tendencies within gender differences only results in skepticism rather than new solutions. Thus, in order to negotiate a feminist cinema, filmmakers need to abandon the patriarchal meta-language completely, and reconstruct new texts that represent and treasure woman’s experience more than just being the other, that “[address] its spectator as a woman, regardless of the gender of the viewers” (Lauretis 161).

Similarly, what needs to be done in feminist cinema is more than just interrogating the gender difference between woman and man, but interpreting such difference in unconventional ways that liberate women from being compared to men and invite them to possibilities of having narratives dedicated to themselves. One of the ways, Lauretis suggests, is to regard woman as the site of differences (168). This signifies that the cinema needs to stop generalizing woman’s role based on her universal functions; rather, it needs to articulate her unique features, what makes her herself but not other women, from the way she looks to the trivial details of her daily life. In Claire’s Camera, the function of the camera conveniently transcends the diegetic space. In the narrative, it demarcatesthe “site of differences”, that is, how someone changes right after their photograph is taken, as well as how Manhee is presented differently each of the three times being photographed. The camera also magnifies her experience as a woman for spectator’s identification, mundane as it could be. In the last scene, the camera smoothly tracks Manhee organizing her belongings, packing box after box, casually talking to a colleague passing by, and so forth. Long takes like this fulfill what Lauretis would call “the ‘pre-aesthetic’ [that] isaestheticrather than aestheticized” in feminist cinema (159). Without commodifying or fetishizing woman and her acts, the film authentically represents a woman’s vision, her perception, her routines, and all the insignificant daily events which female spectators can immediately relate to. When a film no longer solely portrays woman as the “economic machine” that labors, entices men, and commits to social roles, it has confidently overwritten the patriarchal narrative with a female language. It fully addresses its spectator as a woman, appreciating and celebrating the female sex, not for what she does as a woman but for what she experiences.

In conclusion, the essay first challenges the destructive approach in feminist cinema regarding its sufficiency in pursuit of woman’s autonomy and its indestructible destiny to fall back into patriarchy. The essay then argues that the rejection of gender categorization in performativity theory frustrates the mission of defining a female representation. Hong Sang-soo’s self-reflexive film, Claire’s Camera, offers an apparatus to delve into the drawbacks of destructive feminist cinema and simultaneously renders a new feminist code, abandoning the patriarchal metanarrative and constructing a new narrative that truly prioritizes woman’s experience.

Works Cited

Butler, Judith. “Contingent Foundations: Feminist and the Questions of ‘Postmodernism.’”Feminists Theorize the Political, edited by Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott, Routledge, 1992, pp. 3–21.

Digeser, Peter. “Performativity Trouble: Postmodern Feminism and Essential Subjects.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 3, 1994, pp. 655-673.

Lauretis, Teresa de. “Aesthetic and Feminist Theory: Rethinking Women's Cinema.”New German Critique, no. 34, 1985, pp. 154–175.

Lauretis, Teresa de. “Eccentric Subjects: Feminist Theory and Historical Consciousness.”Feminist Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, 1990, pp. 115–150.

Mackinnon, Catherine A. “Desire and Power.”Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, Harvard University Press, 1987, pp. 46–62.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.”The Norton Anthology and Theory and Criticism, edited by Vincent B Leitch, W. W. Norton, 2001, pp. 2181–2192.

并不会有坐轮椅的光头叔叔用超能力帮你封印被剧透的记忆，所以请谨慎阅读。

女主角琴葛蕾作为X战警的一员，在执行营救宇航员任务时，本着“来都来了、吃了饭再走”的行动方针，吞下了一大团草莓味的耀斑，体内凤凰之力急剧膨胀。由于在任务中的出色表现，琴喜提新绰号“凤姐（Phoenix）”。男朋友把这个好消息告诉她的时候，琴激动地原地爆炸。

超能力失控的琴解锁了被X教授封印的童年记忆。她一直以为自己的爸爸多年以前因为犯了叛国罪被斩首，而且临刑前还听了自己的馊主意，灰溜溜地认罪，导致身败名裂，此刻她才知道原来爸爸尚在人世。

凤凰女几乎全知全能，却很不擅长察言观色。她站在爸爸家门口时，对方明明满脸都写着拒绝，她却还要做一番明知道不会产生作用的真情告白。最终爸爸浇来一盆冷水，导致她彻底黑化。这时她的X战警队友们赶来劝她回头，被她用刚刚领悟的如来神掌一一拍倒。

X教授说要让魔形女试一试的时候，我以为他是确信这位队友握着什么杀手锏，比如可以悄悄变成琴的父亲或母亲的样子来分散她注意力，再趁机把她拿下，结果就只是嘴炮而已。魔形女在本片中的主要作用就是说出那句“X战警不如改名叫X警花”的吐槽金句，除此以外就是跟隔壁《复仇者4》的黑寡妇一样，突兀地死掉，然后就莫名其妙地成为身边每个男人的生平挚爱白月光，用自己的死激励他们继续奋斗。不过人家黑寡妇好歹临死之前跟鹰眼打了一架，显露了一下身手，而魔形女的变身能力都还没来得及用就匆忙下线了。很多老观众对《黑凤凰》感到不满的一点在于，这是唯一一部完全没有金刚狼出现的《X战警》系列影片。大概是为了弥补这种遗憾，所以编剧安排魔形女收获了金刚狼同款死法。

凤凰女的第一次“找爸爸”以失败告终。闯了大祸的琴又继续进行第二次“找爸爸”，去万磁王那里寻求帮助。这段情节让我想起前年的国产片《嘉年华》。父母离异之后，女儿跟随控制欲极强的母亲生活，结果在遭遇重大变故时，母亲不但没有帮她，反而给她造成了更大的压力，于是女儿离家出走，去找那个看上去吊儿郎当、游手好闲的父亲。父亲虽然对她的困境也无能为力，但是总算提供了一些支持。

琴虽然误杀了魔形女，但是作为第一主角，不能一黑到底，如来神掌也不能总是拍向同胞。这时候一群外星人很识时务地凑了过来，主动找拍。最后琴满足了他们的要求，把他们逐一拍死，拯救了地球。赢下这场关乎人类生死存亡的大战役之后，琴的声望达到了顶峰，她终于可以实现自己的政治抱负，在阿拉斯加建立了变种人王国，加冕成为北境女王。而X教授则在她的支持之下，当选了美国除阿拉斯加以外的49个州的总统、欧洲移民和美洲原住民的领袖、全境守护者。

大概有不少人是抱着对前一阵子烂尾的那部电视剧的余怒来给本片打了差评，二者有着相同的主演，也确实存在一些相似的问题。但是总体而言，我认为本片大致是跟三年前的系列前作《天启》差不多水平的东西。如果你上一部看的《X战警》系列影片是《第一战》，然后突然就遭遇了本片，感受到落差是很正常的。而如果你是按照顺序一部部看过来的，从《天启》过渡到本片，那就没什么难接受的了。《天启》所能激发出来的观影期待值，配得上本片这样的续集。只不过半斤和八两总归还是有些差异，《天启》的名台词，“第三部总是最差的”，被前年的《金刚狼3》打脸了一次，本片的横空出世又从相反的角度再次削弱了这番言论的可信度。

作为天字第一号万磁王吹，我对该系列的一直以来的断言在本片当中再次得到印证：一部《X战警》电影的成败关键就看万磁王耍帅有没有耍到位。本片在这方面基本达到了令人满意的水平，除了第一场戏跟凤凰女比赛玩遥控飞机略显尴尬之外，老万的出手依旧霸气利落，无论是拨弄细小的刀片还是放大招捏火车，或锐利或钝重的金属质感总能与观众的兴奋点共振共鸣。

万磁王对于《X战警》系列的巨大价值不仅在于本身所能展现的那些极富创意的视觉奇观，还在于他生了一个好儿子。自从《逆转未来》的首秀以来，快银已经成为了该系列强化娱乐效果的最强武器。他的存在使得原本相对于迪士尼控制下的漫威宇宙而言显得过于严肃的《X战警》系列电影平添了许多轻松诙谐的桥段。这一次他又带着自己标志性的幽默感和标志性的银色胶带归来，还作为X战警团队的首发阵容在影片开头的危机事件中大显身手。只可惜故事刚刚进行到第二幕，他就跟魔形女双双下线，没能参与到后面精彩的火车决战。不过至少这次他的命保住了，没有重蹈隔壁《复仇者2》里他平行宇宙二重身的覆辙。那部电影里的快银牺牲之后，鹰眼用他的名字给自己的小儿子命名，通过这种方式来缅怀他；假如本片里的快银也牺牲了的话，又该让谁的儿子继承他的名字呢？难不成要让他老爸万磁王跟他后妈X教授再生一个与他同名的弟弟？

除了快银和魔形女之外，X战警的其他成员悉数出席决战，各显神通，当然毫无悬念地都被万磁王盖过了风头。金刚狼退出之后，肉搏戏主要由野兽撑起，然而他的打法主要就是扑击，爪撕牙咬致使敌人血肉横飞这类更具视觉冲击力的画面无法直接呈现，只好不断配以吼声企图营造氛围，可惜效果并不理想。暴风女的战法比隔壁的雷神丰富许多，但是最酷炫的还是雷电攻击，而且她这招是天生就会的，用不着像雷神托尔那样经历丧父、丧锤、丧目等一系列惨事之后才领悟。决战当中带给观众最多惊喜的是年轻的夜行者。这一次他终于不再只负责卖萌，而是结合自身特性，研发出了一套凌厉狠辣的快攻招式。这个在战斗中成长的年轻X战警也是本片少有的展现出一点人物弧光的角色。

火车决战虽然精彩，却也显得十分仓促。看的时候总感觉这里应该是倒数第二场大架，主角要在这里一败涂地、完全丧失希望，然后再次鼓起勇气进入故事第三幕。其实在购票之前，看到本片的片长，我就产生了不祥的预感。《X战警》这个等级的大片应该是怎样的体量，稍有观影经验的观众心里都有数。最后呈现出如今的面貌，背后有着复杂的原因，但是总归跟迪士尼收购二十世纪福斯这件事脱不了干系。

本片在上映之前经历了重拍和改档，据说这一系列操作都是为了避免与如今成了“一家人”的《惊奇队长》撞梗。可是无论怎么躲闪，该撞的总会撞上，《黑凤凰》里还是有着与《惊奇队长》相似的味道，最主要的一点当然是女主角的设定——拥有逆天力量却不能灵活自如地使用且记忆被篡改的女英雄。除此之外，两部电影都有外星人伪装成地球人的桥段，甚至连外星人如何一寸寸地换上人类皮肤的特效都有相似之处。《惊奇队长》虽然口碑一般，但是作为漫威电影宇宙的一员、迪士尼的亲闺女，最起码能保证足本足额。相比之下《黑凤凰》最大的优势，大概就是人多热闹，惊奇队长再怎么强悍，所用的招式也无非就是龟派气功和舞空术一类的，论趣味性当然不如变种人五花八门的异能才艺秀。不过惊奇队长有只橘猫，这却是X战警比不了的。

经历了最近十几年无数美国漫画改编电影的洗礼之后，身经百战的观众很难再从这类影片当中发掘出新鲜感。《黑凤凰》不仅有与《惊奇队长》类似的桥段，跟同样是系列完结篇的《复仇者4》也能找到不少共同点，比如上面提到的魔形女与黑寡妇之死，除此之外，两部影片的结局思路也差不多：重要角色牺牲自己，其他人在他（她）的遗言中走向新生活。本片倒是没有明说女主角死透了，最后天上那只火红色的大水母似乎还有再次降临人间的可能。不管将来还能不能回归，本片至少没有像老版《X战警3》一样，让凤凰女被爱人扎死，我现在严重怀疑上文提到的那部烂尾电视剧就是受了《X3》的启发。

除了“壮烈牺牲”的桥段之外，影片最后X教授卸下肩上重任，选择与爱人共度一生，也跟《复仇者4》美国队长的归宿很接近。不过美国队长最后还把作为身份象征的盾牌交到了接班人的手里，X教授其实也可以考虑把他标志性的轮椅传给野兽，在那之前先把野兽的双腿打折，让他坐轮椅坐得更理直气壮。

全片最打动我的台词，是魔形女跟野兽提到的“我们是最后的First Class”。《逆转未来》也好，《天启》也好，《黑凤凰》也好，对我的吸引力全部来源于“它们是《第一战》续集”这个事实，我对它们的感情也都是从《第一战》那里匀过来的。《X战警》系列的看点全都在万磁王身上。武戏是如此，文戏也是如此。正因为《第一战》是唯一一部万磁王担任第一主角的电影，所以它是最好的一部。遗憾的是，自那以后，万磁王在系列中的地位就日渐边缘化，到了本片更是连话都没跟X教授说上几句。还好最后有那一场众望所归的老友重逢。

《黑凤凰》之后，延续了20年的《X战警》电影系列就暂时告一段落了，未来将会有融入漫威电影宇宙的新版《X战警》。对于该系列的重启，观众最关心的问题就是金刚狼找谁演。前一阵子有小道消息称丹尼尔·雷德克里夫会成为新版金刚狼。遗憾的是他本人已经出来辟谣了，我本来对此还挺看好的。哈利波特是邓布利多着意栽培的学生，金刚狼也是最让X教授操心的学生，由同一个人来演很合理。可惜裘德洛已经在漫威电影宇宙演了其他角色，不然新版X教授的人选也可以顺便定了，裘德洛最大的优势是头发少，剃成光头比较省事。

即便不选相同的演员，两位校长也总是会被人联系到一起：邓布利多有格林德沃，X教授有万磁王；邓布利多身边有麦格教授这样的得力助手，X教授身边也有魔形女，两位女老师都擅长变形术。不过很遗憾魔形女没有充分发挥自己的能力，她要是也学麦格教授那样隔三差五变成猫，说不定早就把琴葛蕾的心理问题给治愈了，不但自己可以免于一死，更关键的是还把凤凰女相对于惊奇队长的唯一劣势给追平了。

离婚案件和男主女主一大家子的杂事两条线相互交织，剧情并没有特别的大起大落，逻辑上没有太大的漏洞，如果撇开李小璐的负面新闻，整部剧还是非常值得一看的，各个角色的演技也都在线。

特别推荐的是其中几个离婚案件，虽然不复杂，但是非常的真实，并非简单的非黑即白，女主视角的推理部分让人眼前一亮，倒不是说有多出彩，但是却有理有据，比一些自我标榜推理断案的“神剧”要好太多了。

本来想打3星，但是出于部分人对于李小璐的偏见，就多给一星，算是对这部剧本身的支持吧！！！

在2019广州国际纪录片节上看的，作为开幕影片，它带给我太多的震撼和感动。无旁白，少音乐，典型的纪录电影，故事完整且脉络清晰，冲突足够强主题又鲜明，出色的摄影和收声，韵味悠长的留白，简直让人欲罢不能。再次强化一个观点——精彩的非虚构影像（不只纪录片）绝对值得人们在大屏幕上观看。

影片有好几个主题，简略述之：

1、人与自然的相互关系

养蜂女生活单纯，靠蜂蜜养活自己和母亲。她直爽、善良且知足，靠着“我一半、给蜜蜂留一半”的原始理念养蜂，去斯科普里卖蜂蜜换得生活所需。尊重自然，自然施予你馈赠，简而言之就是“可持续发展”。

与之相反的例子是邻居一家，为多赚钱不给蜜蜂留蜜，为种草给牛吃烧掉树木，父母亲互相责备，一家人被蜜蜂蛰到崩溃。最后牛病死了五十多头，一家人被迫搬离。虽未交代为何得病，但按影片的自然逻辑，这就是不尊重自然的结果，同时也回应了“恶人自有恶报”的朴素观念，正如养蜂女母亲安慰女儿时所说“他们会有报应的”。直线式思维让影片更易理解，当然，因果报应并非如此直白就能显现，强烈的反差和冲突可能是作者有意而为，尤其是竟能拍到邻居和采购商联手偷蜜的镜头，不得不让人思考这是如何做到的。

2、人与人的关系

养蜂女和邻居一家的关系是影片冲突的主要来源，她应对冲突的表现也流露出可贵的本性。一开始双方融洽友爱，她与孩子们听广播、荡秋千、看摔跤比赛。养蜂女还把养蜂技巧传授给邻居父亲，但对方养蜂贪得无厌，造成养蜂女蜜蜂死伤惨重的结果。在与邻居沟通未果后，养蜂女几经沉思，将自己的蜜蜂转移到远处河上的垂木中，这源自她的善良和隐忍；而当邻居父亲与采购商联手砍断垂木、偷走蜂蜜导致蜂群死了之后，影片给了养蜂女几个镜头：站在河边沉默且悲伤，在屋里坐着抹泪，向床上的母亲低声哭诉，每一个都展现着农家女的隐忍，更让人感受到她在不幸面前的脆弱和坚强。

寒冬已至，她问母亲：春天还会来吗？母亲回答：春天是什么？我经历太多寒冬了（So many winters have been gone through）。

这是一段充满哲学意味的问答，预示了母亲的死亡。养蜂女与母亲相依为命，母亲曾开玩笑说她还有好多年要活，女儿得一直照顾她。不曾想，在这年冬天，可能由于邻居的间接原因，母亲就离去了。母亲离去时的拍摄手法简洁精妙：养蜂女在门外竖杆找广播信号，叫妈妈帮忙，喊了几声一直没有回应，镜头切换到大远景，雪封的空谷中穿来惊慌的回声，下一个镜头屋外中景，烛火如豆，再一切，养蜂女在母亲床边嚎啕大哭，握着母亲的手，抚摸母亲的脸庞。这是电影式蒙太奇手法，由于真实更显张力。

养蜂女与母亲的关系也是影片一大重点。她对母亲关怀备至、照顾有加，去市场时总想着给她买好东西，另一方面，她对母亲未把自己嫁出去心怀芥蒂，但在母亲戏谑的回答中，她一边笑一边说，有你我怎么会离开呢。母亲离去后，她的脸上时常挂着泪水，还疯狂地出门驱赶野狗，在深夜的风中哭号。这一段让人潸然泪下，被加诸的悲剧命运令人心灵相通，影片达到高潮，所有情绪在这一刻释放。

3、人与自我的关系

养蜂女爱美，会在卖了蜂蜜后去买昂贵的染发剂，虽然她未婚，又终年包着头巾。她的美，就像只爱黑暗里展露，透过烛火才能仔细端详的长发，被粗糙的外表、巨大的嗓门所掩盖。而当看完这部影片后，相信没有人会说她不美。

给关系最亲近的邻居老三吃蜂蜜时，她的眼神写满慈爱，这眼神的背后，是她单身无子的哀伤、生而为人的孤独和延续后代的渴望。然而这点温情也离她而去了，她默默接受，看着车子走远，重新陷入孤独。而当母亲也离去后，彻底回归孑然一身的她，走向冰雪荒原，只有一直相伴的黑狗跟随。观众猜测，她要离开了吗？要去城市寻找幸福了吗？

答案是否定的，坚强的自我终于显现，她爬上片头层爬过的荒山，一点金黄在萧瑟中显现，那是她的蜂蜜，她的希望，和她的自由所在。经历过挫折和苦难，她与自我、与自然、与命运和解，重新露出笑容。逆光剪影中，她和狗狗分享着蜂蜜，品尝生活的复杂滋味。

这才是升华，人的来时归处，永恒的哲学命题，永远震撼人心的影像主题。

纪录片的力量来自真实，回应时代关切、展现人性力量、反应社会问题，都是它的使命，也是纪录片人的职责。随着人们越来越关注自身、关注心灵，纪录片的价值一定会更加得到更多关注。

但愿以后能在大屏幕上看到更多这样好的纪录片。

一大早上，爸爸到楼下车里等待孩子下楼，然后送他去上学。

结果，孩子走出房门和妈妈道别后就突然消失不见，楼道口没出现过，监控中没有，楼上楼下整单元的邻居家没去，更没有在爸妈寻找他的过程中回到家里。

这到底是怎么回事？是孩子懂密室逃脱？还是出现了神奇的瞬间移动？

【详细】

14629439

又看了一遍育婴室这个电影。仔细想了一下这个故事为什么到了后面会感觉并不恐怖，还有点无趣。仔细研究之后，个人感觉应该是故事做了很多调整和剪辑，所以作为一个恐怖片把恐怖元素删除的太多了，导致故事的逻辑不顺。首先，一个半小时的电影，有八分钟用来讲述育婴室的来由，但是，这八分钟故事的重点又放在了战争残酷、乱世人命如草芥上。对于育婴室又没提及，反而是在后面的正片里回扣了育婴室。坦白说，这八分钟，完全可以裁掉。个人感觉，导演似乎对这个前序故事，做了调整，导致其变为鸡肋。主线故事，按照电影里给的线索，蒙少晖的妹妹是蒙少晖获救之后出于气愤扔进洪水里的。蒙少晖的母亲因为内心的愧疚或者类似复杂情感，参加了孟婆主持的育婴室，因为某些原因但是失败了，二人也许都是自杀（？）。蒙少晖因为某种原因，也许是被母亲放弃所以精神失常，或者把妹妹扔到洪水里后精神失常，或者后面被母亲的自杀刺激到了，总之产生了自闭的症状。蒙少晖被治好之后，被催眠隐藏了记忆，跟父亲一起搬离了家乡。为了让蒙少晖一直忘记过往，所以蒙少晖的父亲和他的女友一直给蒙少晖吃药。先不提一直给蒙少晖吃药这个事情是否合理，单纯说作为恐怖片的基点，恐怖事件根源是蒙少晖的妈妈和妹妹。在这个故事里，妈妈和妹妹会回来找蒙少晖吗？妹妹不好说，个人感觉妈妈应该不会回来找的吧？因为在妈妈遇到那个选择的时候，本来就是怎么选都是错。其实我也不明白为什么妈妈不能把妹妹交给蒙少辉，她自己留在屋顶就好了，让和尚照顾一下两个孩子，也不是不可行的呀。而妈妈、妹妹会回来找蒙少辉应该有一个具体的理由。但是影片并没有给出一个说得过去的理由。还有中间女友装神弄鬼的吓唬蒙少晖……就很突兀。如果说她是被附身什么的，倒是说得通。但是，影片里就只是单纯的吓唬人……也不能给蒙少晖治病，也不能吓走蒙少晖……还有蒙少晖最终一定要找到妈妈和妹妹的灵牌这件事。其实在泰国或者中国传统的文化里，灵牌如果放置不好是会让灵魂是不安的，以及为什么妈妈、妹妹的灵牌会单独拿出来放置，影片里也没有给出合乎恐怖片逻辑的解释。并且在这个故事里，蒙少晖的父亲做了什么呢，他是一个什么样的角色呢？电影开头，给出来一些军装照片，这是在暗示蒙少晖父亲是军人，所以长期不在家吗？到了影片的最后，蒙少晖跟妈妈、妹妹取得了暂时的和解。但是，这个故事有着一个恐怖片的开头，但是发展和结尾却不是一个恐怖片该有的发展和结尾。而似乎是是一个伦理道德片，如果你是妈妈遇到选择困境该如何选择呢？总之，这个电影故事走位有点飘忽不定。虽然影片结尾三个作为罪魁祸首的男人装模作样的留下一个尾巴。但是，按照他们的故事，根由是在他们三个身上啊。为啥如此的理直气壮？妈妈和妹妹，为什么不是回来找他们三个？如果，他们三个完全说谎，那么，这个故事又整体垮掉。所以，这个所谓恐怖故事，就一直在是而非是之间犹疑。又不太恐怖，也不足以推理，也不够让人深思。

很早就听说过石油是“工业的血液”这一说法，说明石油对于工业发展与建设的重要性自然是不言而喻的。但石油也并非黄河之水天上来，人们将石油的功用发掘得淋漓尽致，但却很少思考石油的来源这一关键问题。

最近正在中央一套和爱奇艺、优酷、腾讯视频等网络平台同步热播的《共和国血脉》另辟蹊径，从一个全新视角阐释了新中国成立后对于工业尤其是重工业发展的快速步伐与迫切需求，并以石油为关键线索，讲述了一批青年共产党人奋斗攻坚在石油一线的热血故事与激情岁月，更让观众感受到了石油这一宝贵资源的稀有和来之不易。

新中国成立初期，百废待兴，最需要的就是加强工业建设来迅速提升综合国力，因此，工业之血液——石油就成了最急需的珍贵资源。值得关注的是，《共和国血脉》中的故事主角并非一开始就是我们想象中的石油工人形象，而是出生入死的出生入死的革命战士。从中国人民解放军某部到“中国人民解放军石油工程第一师”的巨大转变，让解放军战士们放下手中战枪、脱下身上军装，从最基础开始学习石油开采相关技术，一步一步成为经验颇丰、无畏险阻的石油人。

近年来弘扬主旋律的影视作品并不少见，然而电视剧《共和国血脉》之所以能够突出重围并让观众眼前一亮，正是因为该剧所选择的题材非常新颖，以国家石油事业从起步走向崛起的艰难历程，展现了一代石油人的坚韧品格与爱国志向。剧中的主角石兴国、许茹、刘大勇这些年轻人来自五湖四海，却都因为石油这样一个共同目标而走到一起来，他们各自的命运也终于与石油难解难分，青春、爱情、家庭等无一不染上了石油的色彩。石油开采的新颖题材和一代石油人的拼搏奋斗，显然是当下荧屏比较稀缺、同时也能够激起观众兴趣的故事主题。

尽管《共和国血脉》中的故事发生年代距离当下已经有几十年的历史，但剧中一个个鲜活立体的人物形象以及他们所传递出的责任感、使命感仍旧具有很强的现实意义。如果要用一个词来概括这种崇高精神与无言力量，想必应当是奉献。在那个科技尚不发达的年代，有人跳进泥浆池，甘当“人肉搅拌机”，有人立下宏伟誓言“打不出石油就不回家！”，甚至还有人不惜付出一生时间和宝贵生命，为中国石油事业贡献自己的一份力量……一个个鲜活的例子无一不向观众证明：人是可以为了一种信仰而去奉献、去牺牲的。

玉门、柴达木、克拉玛依、四川、大庆、胜利……这些朴素的油田名字因为石油人不竭奋斗的光辉历史而熠熠生辉。在《共和国血脉》中，你会明白石油何以被称为工业之血液，也会看到那些“流血流汗不撤退，拼命也要找到大油田”的一代又一代石油人，是以何种方式延续着油田的血脉。

谁看谁震惊，太毁三观了！谁看谁上头。标签是喜剧，我就觉得它是伦理剧还是那种荒诞伦理剧情不着地，三观还不正。可以说啊这个字的编剧更是以一己之力坑害了一众演技。他也是看了。男生看了妈卖批，不知一开始编剧就为我们展现了啥玩意叫普通又幸福的一家人。爸爸王大山开了个面馆，做的面看着平平无奇，生意却可谓红红火火，没人觉得他清汤寡水，反倒纷纷暗声叫绝。更厉害的是，面馆生意红火的同时，哎，王大山还有时间跑去高尔夫球场。熟人侃大山，学高尔夫球。妈妈罗晴开了个买手店，日常就是卖卖衣服给客人做个推荐。实不相瞒，我很羡慕，尤其羡慕他还有很多空余的时间来做自己喜欢的事情。这介绍一出来，不知道人还以为开买手店多咸呢，还很多空余时间搞了。老罗，那也是个人物，年纪大吧，有钱收藏古玩不说，还承认了新媒体的快车把直播带货玩的那叫一个六六六啊。光是会玩智能手机，这一点就足以甩开全国百分之七十五的老年人了吧。啊当然了，这个数据是想说的，但事实应该差不离吧。至于全家人的宝贝，王小妮也是个有志青年。想成为一名脱口秀演员。咱就说说这一家人啊，人设看似普通，却没一个接地气的，可以说和现实生活完全隔离。也不是说开面馆的人就不能去打高尔夫。但是你开面馆卖衣服真的就这么闲了，普通老人会这么有钱吗？啊，一家人的职业日常都这么着吧，已经不是一般的脱离大众生活了吧。话说回剧情啊。我大声这个男人算得上是二十四孝老公了。他在家就没让老婆做个饭，洗过碗。结婚二十多年从没发过脾气，红过脸。老婆晚东他不敢往西，老婆放屁，他不敢拉稀，老婆是天，老婆是地，老婆就是天下第一。但是有一说一啊，我是真的盖特不到王大山喜欢罗晴哪一点？喜欢她说话不讲理，动不动就爱翻白眼儿，看起来就不好相遇，难道这就是传说中的各花入各眼，情人眼里出西施。光要是这样也就算了，可是你们知道吗？王小咪就不是王大山的孩子，两人没有一点血缘关系。这个气管炎实则是个接盘侠，结婚之前就知道自己要喜当爹了。即便如此吧，他丝毫不后悔，愣是把别人的崽当成了自己的娃，疼爱的不得了啊。而且就我看来呀，对于让别人喜当爹这事儿，罗晴是丝毫不觉得愧疚，直到他看见了女儿王小咪崇拜的脱口秀演员雷子，她才开始慌了，直接把台上表演的女儿扯了下来，回家开始乱吵吵乱嚷了：“那都是瞎凑热闹起哄架秧子，谁不会呀，你赶明让。他们孩子上台是数落他去。他们家长乐意啊”。

【详细】

137051181

小说原著写的不错的，这些自以为是的NC编剧不能照着小说好好拍吗？为什么非要把剧情改成这狗样子。。。。。。多少不错的小说，就被活生生毁了！！！！！建议去看看原著小说，洗洗眼睛，这狗头电视剧实在太辣眼睛了。不知道编剧导演咋想的，好好的剧情被改的面目全非！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！