我想先对所有黑老九门的（系列）真人的sb们说cnm 好了我要说为什么说系列 原因很简单 三叔 认可这里所有扮演者以及所有的一切 并且每个门都出一个系列电影 所以我说系列 并且给 黑狗们着重加注括号 然后我还想说的是 作为三叔的真正粉丝 三叔喜欢的认可的 做粉丝的理应无条件认可 如果你不喜欢 请你不要给这个系列任何评价 也希望不要给这个系列留下任何你的痕迹与尿渍 因为这个系列和你们没有任何关系 好吗？ 井水不犯河水的道理都懂 然后目前三叔 已经出了二门 四门 九门 七门的系列电影 我简单概括下 之后的几门还会有 而且会很多 就像哈利波特系列一样 希望喜欢老九门的请给予更多的支持 谢谢

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.

春节期间，没怎么看电影，连续追了几部国产剧集，先是《平原里的摩西》，然后是《狂飙》，现在在看《三体》。

过节中，电视剧《狂飙》全社会“爆棚”，我是中间插入追剧，前几天和大家一起看完了大结局，在网络的推动下，整个社会集体观剧、讨论，显示了该剧的巨大影响。感想不少，先谈谈对演员成材及培养引起的思索。

反派男主高启强的扮演者演员张颂文成为了网络热点，“演技爆裂”，“网友急呼，查查他，不像是演的”，“他的微博浏览流量超过5.7亿”等等。一个演了二十多年戏的演员，一夜爆红，确实罕见。同时，这部剧集中各个角色精彩，众多演员惊艳，还带红了许多其他不为人知的各类演员。我特别感兴趣和骄傲的是这个剧中张颂文等7-8位演员，竟然都是我们北京电影学院表演系早年的毕业生！

据查：1999张颂文是先上的表演系进修班，2000年进入张华老师带的高职大专班，和演员周一围、车晓等同班；剧中扮演唐小龙的林家川也在该班学习（后来又考上张华老师的表演硕士研究生），他们应该是2003年毕业，至今也有二十年了！扮演高启强夫人陈舒婷的演员高叶是2006本科班的，导师是陈邑、崔新琴，与她同班的有现在很红的朱一龙。 扮演刑警李响的演员李健是2002表演高职班的，导师是张辉。老默的扮演者演员冯兵是200？班的学生。戏份很少的扮演总写举报信的谭思言的演员是叶琪山表演2003本科班的；扮演安欣女助手姜超的刘若清是也表演系的毕业生。而扮演杀手疯驴子的演员王佩禄则是电影学院的毕业学生，哪系哪班还没查到，也已经是演了十几年的小角色的资深演员了。

还有更老的毕业生。演坏市长赵立冬的鲍大志是马精武、李冉冉老师带的1982表演系首届短训班的，和导演赵宝刚、演员朱琳、高强等都是一个班，后来考上了北京人艺学员班，算老演员了；文革后第一班的1978表演班的沈丹萍，她毕业后主演的《被爱情以往的角落》（1981）轰动一时；扮演只有两场戏的省领导李牧的演员张潮，也是表演78班的老同学。

罗列调查得这么细致，还可能还会有遗漏和错误，因为我一辈子都是搞影视教育的，对母校表演系培养出这么多有才华的毕业生，拿出了如此漂亮的成绩当然感到非常高兴和自豪! 另外，这一现象也促使我思考和研究了一些表演人才的培养问题。

1、影视演员的队伍要采取多种方式或格局来培养。

演员是个很风光的职业，特别是在影视剧繁荣、网络舆论发达的今天，许多一夜成名的“小鲜肉”、“流量明星”红得发紫，酬金天价，充斥着主流的屏幕及热点。可是，今天这么一部社会反黑剧，却突然带红了一批许多不为人知的、中年的、“二、三线”演员，实属罕见！其中最突出的是已经从我们电影学院表演系毕业近10 - 20年的张颂文、林家川，李健、高叶、冯兵等，网络上比比皆是他们和扮演的角色之热点新闻。他们毕业后不为人知的艰苦岁月，“被拒绝了800次”等经历也开始曝光出来。这说明了表演专业实在是个风险极大、被动艰苦、机遇难逢的职业，风光无限的“流量明星”是少数，大多数从业者需要信仰坚定，长期准备、漫长奋斗。

电影发明的头50年，从业人员多数是以片场中“师傅带徒弟”方式培养出来，上世纪5、60年代影视教育才正式进入大学课堂，适应了时代对影视从业者的文化层次要求。但是，现行的大学教育模式，即从18、9岁的高中毕业生中培养影视创作人才的本科教育，并不完全适应影视业发展的需求。影视表演专业它即需要年轻，甚至年幼的新鲜人才，也需要有阅历、学历经验丰富、有才华的表演者。《狂飙》一剧这次一下子涌现出这么多的所谓“二、三线”中年演员的集体“闪耀”，就是一个证明。张颂文、冯兵等都是入学前就过业、当过兵，年龄在24、5以上，有过一些社会实践经验，靠考入“进修班”、“高职班”的方式进入表演课堂。而“进修班”在学院是没有高教部认可的学历的，不受重视。可是如果只卡着一个本科、研究生学历的表演教育模式，就会把许多具有表演才能和潜能的人才，特别是有过社会生活阅历的，年纪偏大的人才拒之门外。电影学院自80年代改革开放初期起，在本科之外就连续招收各系的进修班，一年、二年的，自费，不管住宿，但却给许多有才华的人走入电影艺术殿堂打开了大门。

其实影视表演还需要发现和培养一些年纪更轻的人才进入。不说当年红遍影坛的中外明星山口百惠（14岁首演）、玛丽莲梦露（14岁首演）、周璇（15岁首演）、林青霞（17岁首演）等，就以撑起近半个世纪中国武术电影的演员李连杰（12岁武术全国冠军，19岁首演电影）、成龙（7岁学艺，17岁入电影圈）、甄子丹（从小学武术，21岁首演电影）来说，就更不是当下的大学的学历教育模式可以培养的人才了。影视表演教育也应把培养这类童星的“少儿”、“中专”表演模式纳入眼中。想想刚才提到的三位中国武术明星都已进入老年，有较长的时间咱们影坛上没有出现新的、有光彩的、20岁左右的中国武术明星了，没有明星就没有辉煌，它说明曾经风光一时的中国武术电影短期中是不会再现辉煌。这也是特殊型青少年演员培养缺失的结果。

2、创造健康、法制的演员成长环境。

演员张颂文在没火的时候，就录过视频说：“中国有百分之九十九点五的演员其实都过得不怎么样，有些过得差的甚至吃不饱饭，一年可能才赚几千，但是每天工作时长已经达到一天的四分之三了，收获和付出不成正比。”

我们的不少毕业生，22、3岁毕业后找不到工作，只好改行；能够像张颂文这样坚持理想，做表演教师等工作坚持丰富、发展自己并最后成功的人是少数。学校、老师只能管学生求学的几年，之后十年、二十年以致更长的路要自己去走。个人努力很重要，但是创建一个健康、法制、支持人才成活、成功的机制与环境也很重要。

我看到过一篇博文说到这一问题，“原创张颂文称中国99%演员收入极低，我看改善办法有一个！” 2023-01-31 12:09https://yule.sohu.com/a/635840991_121624591 文中说道：提升99.5%演员的合法收入，办法有一个，就是依法成立演员工会。最近，我国的新版工会法颁布，并于2022年1月1日起实施。还有一位学者的论文，讲述了国外影视工会情况的研究。http://www.yulelaw.com/law/law/getContentDetail?id=f1f2b4a77bf8498c834e0f2f5f8bd22d&classify=2

这些社会法制建设的问题，也是我们每一位从业者都应该了解和关心的事情。

艾晴晴一出场我觉得这姑娘挺好看的。后来没想到她那么烦人……

烦人点：1.她喜欢张立冬。但是明知道张立冬和春花是两情相悦都要领证了。她还当着春花的面表白张立冬还是对着春花说的（弹幕：我好喜欢艾晴晴的勇敢追求爱）我开始也觉得她很勇敢。可是后来她还是不断缠着张立冬难道这不是小三的行为？对春花那么说不是小三的挑衅么？（每一个小三都是勇敢的追求爱。不然是做不出来当三那种事的而且还理直气壮一副我们才是真爱）

2.桑涛和胖胖都互相喜欢在一起了。她背后说人家男朋友的坏话。挑唆人家俩人迫使人家分手（她有什么权利评论别人？还说桑涛不是真爱。她很了解桑涛？）给搅和黄了自己天天缠着张立冬还当人家春花的面表白真双标……

3.胖子跟她说话（假意追她）她却连人家心里想什么都要管。管的也太宽了吧？张立冬帮姚大连卖酒厂她也要说张立冬来管管？（这里我觉得姚大连已经很可怜了帮帮忙不正常么？）她太能多管闲事了吧？

4.春花被她气走了。她还跑来春花的餐厅帮忙问张立冬怎么不能接受她（她还挺生气）拜托人家和春花是真心相爱的你是倒贴人家的。嫌人家不接受你走啊？还说什么春花已经走了？好意思说这话？咋走的你心里没点逼数么？

那些说喜欢艾晴晴的你们三观呢？说没结婚别人有权利追求爱情。是有权利但是在道德上正常人会去破坏别人的感情么？如果你男朋友（女朋友）身边就有一个这样的人？希望你也能说出这样的话？

还有说春花天天丧个脸…… 可她除了丧个脸没缺点吧？又漂亮又能干又善解人意（但在艾晴晴这件事情上任何一个女人也无法忍受）她做到仁至义尽了。

看到现在我要被编剧还有艾晴晴 张立冬气死了 能不能快点解决了？拖拖拉拉。强行拖了18集

服了

现在的电视剧要么粗制滥造，要么充斥大量工业糖精，即使有是有名有姓演员拍的剧，也很多看一集就被或尴尬的台词或尴尬的表演被劝退了！

小网剧《好想和你在一起》，却让我一口气看了八集，欲罢不能。尤其是女主戚年这个角色真的越看越可爱。

这部剧腾讯独播，改编自《美人宜修》，没有大咖，也不是大IP，多数是新人演员，连编剧也是新人。胜在剧情节奏流畅，有点甜有点沙雕还有点小清新，演员演技在线。

女主张雅钦的戏，我这是看第三部了，虽然她不是那种惊艳大美女，长得也不算甜姐儿，但是演技胜在自然，是我目前继赵丽颖之后，能把傻白甜消化得自然可爱灵动的，为数不多的年轻女演员啦～台词基本是原声，还带着微表情，更增加角色的可爱度～

妹子演戏的细节处理挺细腻的，眼神、表情、声音和肢体的运用结合的挺好，很自然。之前一寸相思打戏也特别惊艳。但是公司对妹子毫无商业活动和包装不说，拍的戏多数都是公司投资的。网剧虽然是主演，但是角色傻白甜居多，幸亏妹子演戏比较用功，之前《酋长的男人》里的星月和戚年还是能区别开的。

感觉妹子的演技被低估了，希望看到她能演一些傻白甜以外多样化的角色和好的制作团队，比如一寸相思的苏云落就是我的入坑角色。希望老板和各路制片人给机会，小演员出头不容易啊，只能努力努力再努力，相信金子总会发光！

故事讲得很好，画面，音乐也都很棒，但就是看的开心不起来。

十三岁即将失明的少女，生活放荡带两个孩子的母亲，社会边缘症的孤独少年，我真的不知道该怎么说这些人了。

有一点艾娃自己倒是很清楚的，自己或许天生就是个不良少女，从她把婴儿一个人丢在家里不管不顾，在房顶上拿弹弓打底下的孩子，还有跟着那个少年拿枪去抢劫可见一般。或许这两个孩子都该回去到远古蛮荒时代，力量便是一切。本质上他们是一类人，融不进主流社会的人，叛逆，自我，无规则的人。看结尾就知道，两个如此年轻又边缘的人，出去去哪儿能好过？进入最底层，抢劫，偷盗似乎并不是不可预料的事情，他们以为的天堂都在幻想当中。

十三岁的孩子，心智还尚未成熟，能懂得什么叫做感情？更多的恐怕是一种本性相吸罢了，一种逃离的渴望，一种释放内心恶意的渴望，促使他们走到一起。其实本不必如此的，可是艾娃出生在这样一个家庭，母亲十三岁就开了荤，看那样子就知道并不是个好妈妈，活的虽洒脱却低级，不过这也是这样一种人的本性罢了，没有精神上的追求，就只在物质世界。不能带给孩子一个好的环境不得不说是一个遗憾，不然这艾娃应该会更好一些，而不用去重复父母的命运。

上行下效，一个家庭环境真的很影响一个孩子，作为一个十三岁的孩子，本能的对大人们的性的世界有着本能的厌恶，从她拉着一票小孩子去围观自己母亲的叫床就可见一斑。然而当她碰上那个少年的时候，她却又本能的学着母亲，拿身体去诱惑那个少年，突兀的掀起上衣向少年展示自己的胸部，本能的以性来诱惑少年达到占有对方的目的。嘴上对母亲说不介意她这个年纪就跟男孩子发生关系回避，一副不想听的样子，然而一转头却跟这个少年睡在了一起。这就是环境的影响，不知不觉中影响了年少的孩子。

我看这位母亲也未必跟这孩子说过避孕之类女孩子该注意的事情，这种行为的后果必不难预见，而这样两个不成熟的少年少女，能做什么父母？不过又是重复上一代的命运罢了。这个年纪的孩子在心智上还远为成熟，对性行为也好，爱情也罢，都缺少一个成熟的认识，贸然进去只会导致恶果。

对这样的家庭，这样的一群人，我很难产生好感，他们活的跟一个动物一样。有些人的青春就是这样，但我还是觉得青春不应该是这样，它应该更美好一些，单纯而纯粹，人生的路很长，一时的放纵带来随后几十年的后悔真的划不来。

不要过度悲伤啊，人生总要向前看啊，不然离开的人看到我们这样怎么放心的下呀……道理我们都懂，可是真正做到很难。

小悠不傻，她只是无法接受，所以拒绝接受，又控制不住自己。

我不敢轻易评价俊浩这样做的对错，因为我没有经历过那种痛苦，因为那是他们的爱情，我没有立场。

虽然是谎言，但俊浩确实用他的方式让小悠走出来了。也许是因为，他才是最了解她的那个人。