这篇剧评可能有剧透 看到有评论说这剧的案件没意思，不够刺激。但我觉得主旨很鲜明，就是要一般人更多地去关注小众。 小众不是弱势群体，小众也是可以和一般人一样正常地在这个社会上生活、工作。癫姐说Annie的理想是“让小朋友在被社会主流意识影响之前向他们灌输多元包容的观点”，这正正就是这...  (展开)

    我的脑海里总是会浮现出乔正初和青云在一起时的笑容，她弄脏了他的衬衫，她在他面前总是莽撞的灰姑娘，他的笑容，不苟言笑的CEO露出如此无邪的笑容，那个样子，春风再美也比不上你的笑，百转千回它将我围绕。所以 ，我可以理解和胖子共患难过的李青云，在知道正初做了那么多不择手段的事后，也经不起正初雨中修车身影的诱惑，还是和他发生了情欲。越是与他百转千回，他愈是她心里永远的痛。李青云本就是个活泼而烟火的女子，所以她会去走私手机，所以她会赌钱，她会不能理解胖子报警抓来富的地下赌场。她本性里本不是那种过多是非对错的女子，她遇见了他，优雅地如从天而降的王子，英俊多金，有风度有内涵，而且他深情的目光还穿过身边芸芸众生，单单看中了她。他为她付出了很多，不管他付出的时候他知不知道他将付出的是怎样的代价。命运这般无情，她是齐欢畅的幸运女神，遇见她，却毁了他乔正初的一生，她却是他一生最爱的女人。
    胖子虽与他共患难，却不曾为她做过什么，欢畅心里是他的弟弟，是太多的善恶是非，是不做一摊烂泥的再闯一翻事业，可以留给李青云的已经很少了。如果青云心里还有爱情，那那个人自然是乔正初而不是齐欢畅。至于最后共同生活的是谁，是另外一回事。最后几集我没有看，因为不忍，不忍编剧的残忍，他可怎么可以让乔正初输得那么一无所有，输得那么寂寞绝望。难道，只是为了衬托欧阳震华的第一男主角？

    苗乔伟真的很迷人，完全沉淀了他这个年龄的沉稳修养。刚看完《赌场风云》，准备追三哥其他的戏了，完全征服在他深深的笑意里。

 

这部剧不应该只有6分啊，太可惜了，我觉得可以和《下一张幸福》媲美啊。这个分数太对不起炎亚纶了吧，里面演员都很努力啊。炎亚纶其实演得很好，他把一个隐忍的路天行演得很到位，让人心疼。其实一开始我也觉得剧情有点假，但是当路天行说出一句独白“她喜欢的是那个阳光，笑容灿烂的暖男”的时候，我就能够彻底理解这个剧情了，然后我觉得故事情节发展得越来越好。小鹿是路天行最可爱的一面，但不是路天行的全部，那种挣扎矛盾表现得很好，最后路天行表现得是小鹿和一开始路天行的结合体，女主喜欢上也再自然不过了。终归这部戏很大一部分是炎亚纶撑起来的，这个分让我为炎亚纶打抱不平诶……希望更对的人看到这部剧，分数也能高起来！

这篇剧评可能有剧透 今日更新，多图预警。 这标题是上周起的，今日更新了九集十集。看过之后果然没有辜负这份评价与等待。李宗翰版杨铁心无意是最成功的，以至于配角要胜过主角了。当然这个角色成功离不开邵兵，宗峰岩，刘芊含，曾黎还有李宗翰这一票老戏骨的共同努力。今日看完更是很有感触，父辈...  (展开)

起因就是我上一周被推荐看一部“国漫之光” 看完第一集之后的感觉就是“就这？” 生硬的配音，糟糕的颜艺让我意识到，这不就是挺普通一国产动画嘛？ 好的点？ 一个好美术，总比更生硬3D动画好上许多。 画面有特色是这部动画唯一的优点。 真的，下次找个好编剧，没有好编剧就别...  (展开)

影片将镜头探向了边缘社会群体：跨性别者，非法移工，听障人士，剧情围绕这三种社会边缘人群中的个体代表展开。 影片虽然名为《迷失安狄》，但其实跨性别者在片中只是一个符号，他所代表的是不被认同的边缘群体。 不论是跨性别者安狄，还是非法移工苏荷，还有听障人士阿金，他...  (展开)

这篇剧评可能有剧透 引言 安徽省滁州市全椒县，大约四五十万人的县城。不算小，被誉为“”千年古县”，我在此地出生，上学，成长，亲戚无一例外，都在县内。二十多年的经历让我对这篇全椒有了更加细致的关注。 地名记 全椒，“椒”寓意山丘，“环滁皆山也，其西南诸峰，林壑尤美”——《醉翁亭记》...  (展开)

终于耐着性子把《阳光像花儿一样绽放》看完了，其实是看了10集，然后看不下去了，就直接下载了海岩的原著《深牢大狱》看完的，书还是比电视好看多了啊，起码不急人。

 

先说说剧中的男一号，就是周一围演的刘川，就是他看得让我着急死了，当时看到刘川我都难受，这个人也太磨叽了，看了原著才知道周一围其实是演的太好了，刘川就是这个德行，他基本上完全符合海岩小说中的人物形象，性格有点太晕，父亲去世了不知道好好处理公司的事务，却想着请朋友来自家的饭店吃饭，朋友的女朋友也敢要，还分不出好赖，社会经验就跟那小孩似的。

再来说说刘川的外形，白净瘦高，睫毛长长地，嘴唇厚厚的，抹个香香还抹脖子，就是一副不知人间险恶养尊处优的富家子弟模样。有人说他是陆毅第二，可我觉得周一围和佟大为才有几分像呢，而且声音都像，可能是唇形都是厚厚的吧。

剧情不说了，看着急人，就因为刘川半天不说话，人家说东他想西，答非所问，我都不知道他是怎么从公安大学毕业的，看了小说后才知道正是因为奶奶从小把他管的啦，什么都替他做主，都包办，所以他才生活能力处事能力低下。他做为孩子算是听话的但是又叛逆，做为男友看久了审美疲劳后就基本上没有魅力了，做为男人太女性化，做为警察太没有头脑了。

 

然后是他的女朋友童蕾演的季文竹，这个女人在电视里看着太让人讨厌了，看了海岩选演员的时候，童蕾以为自己是要演小柯这个角色的，因为她觉得自己的性格和小柯比较像，如果是这样的话，童蕾选择了演季文竹就是最大的失败，因为剧中人物就是一个无情无义、水性杨花、见异思迁的形象，演好了大家不喜欢她，演不好骂什么的都有，毕竟她对于大家来说还不是很熟悉，演了一个不好的角色就把自己定位在那个形象里面了，自己把自己的形象搞坏了，剧中的这个季文竹就是俩字：特贱。

再来说说季文竹的选角，看了小说后认为和小说描写的一点都不一样，既不像小说描写的娇小白净，也不美丽，童蕾个子太高，也不是甜美可爱型的，但是也不是都市时尚型的有明星气质，她的外形就是像剧中刘川说的具有古典气质，所以说起来有点土，难怪网友说季文竹演鸡很合适呢。海岩剧的确可以捧红人，但是包括这个季文竹和《拿什么拯救你我的爱人》里的印小天和于娜也就是那么回事，起码我个人认为是失败，这三个人演技太差了。

 

最后说说王络丹，这个小女孩的外形和身材包括性格都是讨人喜欢的，所以即使演了单娟那么狠毒的一个角色也只会让我觉得她演什么都演得蛮好的，这个和她别的几个形象完全不同，确实很有可塑性，小太妹的样子太像了。

 

看完了这部小说，让我觉得刘川太可怜了，刘川自己觉得自己很倒霉，要不是代替了庞建东也许就不会坐牢了，但是话不是这样说的，凡事主要要看直接原因，刘川坐牢是因为伤害了单娟的妈妈，而不是因为代替了庞建东参加睡眠行动，虽然最早的起因是这个，但是这不是主要原因，如果都要往早了推，也可以怪景科长让他当卧底，也可以怪监狱长让他参加行动，也也可以怪钟大给他的鼓励，，反正谁都可以怪一下子了，而且假设还是庞建东参加睡眠行动，那结果就不一定会是这样的，所以事情最后弄成这样，主要还在刘川的自己本身的性格缺陷，即使没有这事，也许别的事情也会通过他的这种个性让他变成阶下囚。

看来环境决定性格，性格决定命运这话一点不假，不信命还真是不行啊，监狱都快成心理诊所了，钟大的很多话还是蛮有哲理的，刘川的性格害了他自己，我只能叹口气了。

7月4日，有幸在天津看了《栀子花开》的点映。本来不打算写影评，但因为找东西打开几年没上的豆瓣电影，看到很多奇怪的声音，突然觉得有话想说，那就说两句吧。 -----------------我是分割线--------------- 让我从头说起。 何老师，也许我更喜欢叫他毛毛虫，童年的我抱着娃...  (展开)

文 / 赤叶青枫

如果你现在听到“仙侠剑”这三个字还会以为和《仙剑奇侠传》或《仙侠奇缘之花千骨》有什么关系的话，那么只能说明你OUT了——这是一部青春偶像悬疑武侠剧的剧名，目前正在中央8套热播，讲述的是因为一把名为“仙侠剑”的神兵利器及其剑谱引发的一连串江湖恩怨的故事，其中，既有刀光剑影、血雨腥风及恩怨情仇，当然也少不了英雄美人，儿女情长和风月情浓，可算是近几年新派武侠剧的代表作之一。

《仙侠剑》首先最打动人之处是其回归了传统武侠剧的风骨。与最近两年荧屏热播的其他古装武侠剧不同，《仙侠剑》并非改编自网游或时下热门网络玄幻小说，而是根据清代武侠奇情小说《儿女英雄传》改编。提到这部小说，也许很多人一时之间会感到陌生，但如果说到电影《侠女十三妹》和电视剧《十三妹》，估计很多70后、80后会有些印象。前者可以说是内地第一部3D武侠动作片，当年可谓风靡一时；后者则是由黄杏秀、翁美玲及汤镇业等人领衔主演的TVB经典剧集，而这两部影视剧作品亦俱是由《儿女英雄传》改编而来。如今《仙侠剑》再度挑战经典，在内涵上，它并非只强调你侬我侬的小儿女情怀和一味的打打杀杀，还不忘突显除暴安良的侠义精神以及江湖道义，传承传统武侠剧特有的武侠精神。

另外，在剧情内容上，《仙侠剑》并没有局限于原著故事本身，而是在尊重原著的基础上进行再创作，不再让“十三妹”何玉凤一人独挑大梁，而是着眼全局，强化了宋声秋等其他人跌宕的命运线及剪不断、理还乱的多角虐心感情线，并且对于风雨飘摇、恩怨难解的江湖格局也有一定程度的刻画，同时还融入浓重的玄幻元素，再加上一众主演都是帅哥美女，颜值颇高，因此可看度可算得上是与时俱进，较为符合时下观众的观剧喜好。

值得一提的是，在黄杏秀版的《十三妹》中，汤镇业饰演的是玉树临风、俊朗多情的书生安骥，因机缘巧合之下蒙十三妹路见不平拔刀相助，遂发展出一段感情纠葛……估计任谁也想不到，多年之后，汤镇业机缘巧合下参演同样一个故事改编的《仙侠剑》，角色则已由当年那风度翩翩的少年郎变成了大反派兰钟岳。今昔对比，其演技自然愈发精湛，但外形的改变则令人不禁唏嘘感叹岁月的无情。比较而言，倒是剧中饰演魔教毒王遗孀白梅雪的田丽保养得宜，如今年近50的她容颜与14年前在赵文卓版的《风云雄霸天下》中所饰演的聂风之母“武林第一美女”颜盈几乎没有什么变化，堪称不老神话。

除了汤镇业和田丽之外，张晨光、梁家仁、高雄、徐少强等诸多港台老戏骨也纷纷加盟此剧，甘当绿叶，为蒋毅、刘庭羽、陆昱霖、徐申东等影视新人保驾护航。也许很多人只看重一众年轻的主演，比较痴迷他们的颜值，揪心他们的命运或感情纠葛，并不太在意这些前辈的表现，但其实正是有他们在，剧的质量才更有保证，新人的发挥也才能愈发稳定。

The Lost City of Z is a very long way from a true story — and I should know
A new Hollywood film hypes Percy Fawcett as a great explorer. In fact, he was a racist incompetent who achieved very little

The new film The Lost City of Z is being advertised as based on the true story of one of Britain’s greatest explorers. It is about Lt-Col Percy Fawcett. Greatest explorer? Fawcett? He was a surveyor who never discovered anything, a nutter, a racist, and so incompetent that the only expedition he organised was a five-week disaster. Calling him one of our greatest explorers is like calling Eddie the Eagle one of our greatest sportsmen. It is an insult to the huge roster of true explorers. Had the advertisement been about a soap powder, it would fall foul of the Trade Descriptions Act.

Percy Fawcett joined the army immediately after school, with a commission in the artillery in 1886. The next 20 years involved garrison duty in Ceylon and postings in Malta and England. The only significant events were getting married and becoming a devotee (like many others) of the charlatan psychic Madame Blavatsky. Fawcett’s game-changer came in 1906, when he was 40. The army let him take the Royal Geographical Society’s course on frontier surveying. Far away in South America, Bolivia had just sold its rubber-rich province of Acre to Brazil, so it needed its new north-western boundary mapped. The Bolivians approached the RGS for a mature surveyor to do this. The society’s secretary asked the newly qualified Fawcett whether he wanted to go; he accepted, reported for duty in La Paz and was at work on the new Amazonian frontier by the end of the year. This survey was the best thing Fawcett did. But he described it as boring, because the new frontier was all along rivers. This was the height of the great Amazon rubber boom, so he and his team cruised from one comfortable rubber barraca to the next, taking their regular measurements.

Fawcett’s only publications were a series of papers in the Geographical Journal about his mapping work. But he kept a journal, and in 1953 his son Brian edited this and other papers into a book called Exploration Fawcett. He emerges from it as a typical Edwardian colonial officer — friendly with South Americans but looking down on them, appalled by the cruelty at some rubber stations, full of gossip about life on this remote but boom-rich backwater, and uninterested in nature apart from banalities about dangerous snakes and irritating insects.

In 1908, the Bolivians asked Fawcett to survey another of their frontiers with Brazil: a small river called Verde, far away at the north-eastern corner of the large landlocked country. The preparations were appalling. Fawcett took minimal supplies, since he was accustomed to being fed by rubber stations. This was the end of the dry season with the river at its lowest. So they soon had to abandon their boat and continue on foot. After only a week, all food was exhausted and they were really starving. Fawcett casually remarked that five out of his six peons died from the effects of this five-week disaster. This was the only expedition he led into unexplored territory.

The Bolivians invited Fawcett back in 1910, this time to map part of their boundary with Peru. It involved paddling up a frontier river called Heath and two meetings with indigenous peoples on the banks. The first group fired arrows and guns over their heads. But Fawcett waded ashore with presents and shouting a few words of ‘Chuncho’ (the Peruvian word for all forest peoples) that he had memorised but did not understand. That was the only time that Fawcett attempted any language other than Spanish. Further up the Heath river, Fawcett met a tribe he called Ecocha (now Ese Eja) whom he really liked. They were ‘embarrassingly hospitable’ with their food, so Fawcett spent a few days with them and recorded something of their ethnography. He returned for a second visit in 1911.

After a final survey for the Bolivian government in 1913, of the upper Beni river in the Andes, Fawcett went sightseeing in central Bolivia. He and two companions were paddled down the big Guaporé river. They stopped at Mequens on its Brazilian bank to visit the Swedish anthropologist Baron Erland Nordenski?ld and his attractive wife, who provided guides to take them on a walk inland to visit a people they called Maxubi (now Makurap). The Maxubi were friendly and hospitable, but continuing on a forest trail Fawcett met another tribe (probably Sakurabiat) to whom he took a violent dislike. When one aimed a drawn bow at him, Fawcett shot the man with a Mauser revolver — absolutely forbidden by Brazil’s Indian Service. He described them as he imagined Neanderthals or Piltdown Man to have looked: ‘large hairy men, with exceptionally long arms, and foreheads sloping back from pronounced eye ridges… villainous savages, hideous ape men with pig-like eyes.’ No Amazonian Indian has body hair or looks remotely like this — I know, because I have spent time with over 40 different peoples. These two groups, and the two on the Heath, were the only tribal people seen by Fawcett. He liked two of them. So it was strange that he wrote racist gibberish that ‘there are three kinds of Indians. The first are docile and miserable people, easily tamed; the second, dangerous, repulsive cannibals very rarely seen; the third, a robust and fair people, who must have a civilised origin.’

When Fawcett was in the cattle country of central Bolivia in September 1914, news came of the outbreak of war. So he hurried home and by January 1915 was back in the artillery. In his late forties, he was too old for frontline service; but he fought a good war, ending as Lieutenant-Colonel.

In one of his pre-war lectures to the RGS, Fawcett had spoken of possible ancient ruins in the Amazon forests. He was now told about a scrap of paper dated 1743 in which bandeirantes imagined that they had seen a deserted city in the jungles. (The bandeirantes were slavers who scoured the interior of Brazil for Indians to capture. Although most of these thugs were illiterate, others did write reports about their travels — none of which said a word about seeing ruins.) Fawcett gave this imaginary ‘lost city’ the codename Z, and finding it became an obsession.

The easiest forest tribes to visit in Brazil were on the headwaters of one of the Amazon’s southern tributaries, the Xingu. A German anthropologist had contacted a dozen amiable peoples there in 1884; and since then they had been visited by seven groups of anthropologists or Indian Service officials. All had walked in by the same trail. So in 1920 Fawcett tried to follow this route — even though it was nowhere near where the chimera city might have been. His plans went wrong, so he got no further than a ranch halfway along the trail. In 1921 he searched for the mythical city down on the Atlantic coast, by train inland from Salvador da Bahia; but, hardly surprisingly, the miners there knew nothing.

In 1925, by now penniless but desperate, Fawcett tried again to reach the upper Xingu tribes. He now took two inexperienced ex-public schoolboys, his son Jack and Jack’s friend Raleigh Rimmel. The old surveyor made two suicidal pronouncements. One was that the trio should travel light, with nothing more than small packs. Everyone in Amazonia knew that you could not cut trails and keep your team fed with fewer than eight men. (I can confirm this, having done months of such cutting and carrying.) But Fawcett sent their pack animals and porters back, and continued with only his two novices. His other dictum was that Indians would look after them. This was equally dangerous. The Xingu tribes pride themselves on generosity; but they expect visitors to reciprocate. All expeditions in the past four decades had brought plenty of presents such as machetes, knives and beads. Fawcett had none. He committed other blunders that antagonised their hosts. So it was only a matter of days before they were all dead.

Twenty years later, Chief Comatsi of the Kalapalo tribe gave a very detailed account of Fawcett’s visit, reminding his assembled people of exactly how they had killed the unwelcome strangers. But the German anthropologist Max Schmidt, who was there in 1926, thought that they had plunged into the forests, got lost and starved to death; this was also the view of a missionary couple called Young who were on another Xingu headwater. The Brazilian Indian Service regretted that Fawcett, who was obsessively secretive, had not asked for their help in dealing with the Indians. They felt he was killed because of the harshness and lack of tact that all recognised in him.

Such was the sad tale of this incompetent, whose only skill was in surveying. But the disappearance of an English colonel while searching for a mythical ancient city in tropical rain forests was a media sensation. Two expeditions went to try to learn more. There was revived interest in the 1950s with the publication of Exploration Fawcett and the Kalapalo chief’s account of how they killed the Englishmen. Then it was forgotten until 2009 when David Grann, a talented writer, published The Lost City of Z. Unfortunately, Grann hyped the story out of all proportion and wrongly depicted Fawcett as a great explorer.

As he cheerfully admitted, Grann had no experience of rainforests. But he let his imagination run riot, with pages about ferocious piranhas, huge anacondas, electric eels (actually a fish that has never killed a man), frogs ‘with enough toxins to kill 100 people’, ‘predator’ pig-like peccary, ‘sauba ants that could reduce the men’s clothes to threads in a single night, ticks that attached like leeches (another scourge) and the red hairy chiggers that consumed human tissue. The cyanide-squirting millipedes. The parasitic worms that caused blindness…’ and so on. Everyone who know tropical forests, including me, knows that almost every word of this is nonsense.

Fawcett himself gave a simple account of his four surveying journeys for the Bolivian government. But for Grann, ‘in expedition after expedition… he explored thousands of square miles of the Amazon and helped redraw the map of South America’. Fawcett admitted that he was ‘a greenhorn in the jungle’ and knew nothing about nature. But Grann wrote that he moved ‘inch by inch through the jungle, tracing rivers and mountains, cataloguing exotic species… [until] he had explored as much of the region as anyone’.

For Grann, Fawcett was competing against other explorers ‘who were racing into the interior of South America’. The only study that Fawcett made after leaving school in 1886 was his RGS surveying course. He never mentioned any library research. But for Grann he was ‘almost unique’ in viewing 16th- and 17th-century chronicles ignored by other scholars; he re–evaluated El Dorado chronicles and consulted ‘archival records’ and ‘tribesmen’ in ‘piecing together his theory of Z’. Not a word of this was true, either.

Grann wrote that, as an author, he would have been lost without my three-volume, 2,100-page history of Brazilian Indians and five centuries of exploration. He quotes quite often from my books. So he had no excuse for describing Fawcett’s brief visits to three indigenous villages as the ‘discovery of so many previously unknown Indians’, from whom ‘he learned to speak myriad indigenous languages’, and adopted ‘herbal medicines and native methods of hunting [so that he] was better able to survive off the land’. Equally absurd was his rubbish about cannibalistic tribes, blow guns with poisoned darts, or Kuikuro menacing him with ‘gleaming spears flickering’ from the undergrowth (they never used spears, or had metal even, before their contact 130 years ago).

When the colonel vanished, Grann writes that ‘scores’ of explorers tried to find him, and that ‘one recent estimate put the death toll from these expeditions as high as 100.’ Actually, only one search expedition reached the Xingu, led by George Dyott in 1928. (It found that the three Englishmen had been killed by Indians.) The only other expedition was in 1932, but it got only as far as the Araguaia river far to the east. The death toll from these two attempts was zero. In 1935 a ridiculous actor called Albert de Winton went by himself to the Xingu and was killed by Indians who wanted his gun. So if we count him, the death toll is one — well short of Grann’s 100.

These and a great many other passages are artistic licence and hype of an absurd order. Hollywood believed everything Grann wrote, and then hyped it up more. People wishing to learn about the maverick colonel should consult his own fairly modest memoir — not the recent fantasy book and film about him. But I could recommend scores of writings by real explorers.

John Hemming is a Canadian explorer; the three volumes of his history of Brazilian Indians are Red Gold (1978), Amazon Frontier (1985) and Die If You Must (2004)

不要看不起任何人，他只是和你看到的世界不同罢了。智宥虽然患有自闭症，但她很聪明，且“上帝给你关上一扇门，就会给你打开一扇窗”。人心真是难测。“信惠总是一副笑脸，却在利用我。可妈妈总是一副怒容，却在爱着我。叔叔您几乎都是笑脸，叔叔您也要利用我吗？”智宥在被信...  (展开)

我在佛系父母组也发过类似的帖子，但是很多人都误会我是重男轻女。就是因为我知道这个世界对于女人来说更难，所以我和Shuan一样，在一开始知道自己的宝宝性别时，没有特别的激动和开心，反而是担忧和惶恐。 我原本以为东亚文化—尤其是我国—这种特殊的重男轻女思想让事情更糟...  (展开)

凤凰涅槃，主体构建
——浅析电影《人鬼情》

   作为当代中国影坛上当之无愧的“女性电影 ”，《人?鬼?情 》并不是一部“激进的、毁灭快感 ”的影片。它只是借助一个特殊的女艺术家——男性的京剧女演员的生活 ,象喻式地揭示、呈现了一个现代女性的生存困境。远婴在《女权主义与中国女性电影 》中认为《人?鬼?情 》是“一部女性生活的寓言 ”,它“以一种张爱玲所谓的中国式的素朴与华丽陈述了一个女人的故事 ,并以此呈现了一个进退维谷的女性困境。”该片上映于1987年，并于1988年获得第八届中国电影金鸡奖最佳编剧奖和巴西第五届里约国际影视录像最佳奖等多项大奖，这也体现了我国女性主义电影的成功。
   就电影本质而言，一般认为,第一电影符号学的模式是语言学的模式,而第二电影符号学的模式是精神分析学的模式。而提及精神分析学，就不得不提拉康，这位法国20世纪最具影响力的思想家。他发表于1949年苏黎世第16届国际精神分析会上的著名论文“镜像阶段”历来受到批评家的重视。该理论指出，幼儿大约在6个月到18个月的时候，在镜子中看到了自己的映像，并逐渐发现镜中形象和自身的同一性，于是认识到了自身的存在，由此产生了最初的自我概念，从而与镜像产生了认同作用，而这一认同成为后来自我认同过程的根源，也被当作是所谓“主体”的形成过程，这个阶段的儿童开始在大人的指引下学习语言,即开始从想象界进入由符号组成的象征界。正如拉康所言，镜像阶段是一出戏文，为主体制造了一系列幻影，把支离破碎的身体转变成一个完整的形式。
  《人?鬼?情 》片头段落是一个极具戏剧性的影像，首先是特写的装有红、白、黑三种油彩的化妆碗，接着便是坐于镜前的演员依次化妆的整个过程。直到镜前的女人完全的消失，取而代之的是一个奇丑无比的男性形象——钟馗。接着便出现了镜前钟馗与秋芸的对视，此时的主体即秋芸被置于一个看和被看的状态之中，秋芸在看着钟馗的同时，钟馗也在看着秋芸，就如同卞之琳的那首诗“你站在桥上看风景，看风景的人在楼上看你。”，此时(主体)秋芸被置于镜前，可以看到客体（钟馗）的镜像，但却看不到客体本身。
   此段落完全可以被当作是一个“镜像”的最初阶段，此时的秋芸（也即钟馗）完全像是一个6到18个月大的婴儿。她注视着镜中的另一个人，充满了好奇与幻想，通过镜子她以为自己看到了另一个人，一个独立于自我主体的“他者”，并且开始了对“他者”的连番试探，通过试探，秋芸发现镜中的“他者”（钟馗）完全由她控制，遵从她的一举一动，由此，钟馗便自然而然的成了秋芸理想自我的体现。通过这个理想自我，秋芸与作为“他者”的钟馗建立了认同关系。此一认同从本质上看既是一种心理需求，也是一种虚幻，它表示的是作为主体的秋芸趋向于整体性和自主性的努力。通过镜子，处于无助中的秋芸由此进入了“想象界”，成为了一个彻头彻尾的“妄想狂”。既然作为女性，自己无法被拯救，那就让自己成为一个拯救者，能够拯救他人也是好的。
  在秋芸身上我们看到了主体同自我之间的差距，一个现实的人生没有和主体所认同的位置重叠。秋芸的生活也没有和她自己认同的形象结合在一起，虽然这种差距对女性来说是普遍性的。她渴望被拯救，需要被拯救，然而现实总是差强人意，面对拯救者的缺席，她站了起来，在幻想中把自己和戏文中的钟馗等同起来，在拯救自己的同时也拯救了他人，在嫁妹的同时，也把自己嫁给舞台。
  如果把整部影片当作是秋芸自我主体的形成过程，那么除去片头和结尾，影片的中间段落则可以被理所当然的看作是秋芸进入“想象界”后的全部经历。随着接触的进一步深入，秋芸与钟馗两者建立了真正的认同，并由此进入“象征界”，从此开始作为了一个完整的存在，而这些都以结尾秋芸与钟馗的直接碰面为标志。如果说，先前两者异时空从在是认同不成熟的体现，那么此时两者同时空的接触，无可非议的便成为两者精神契合的外现。随之秋芸把自己嫁给了舞台，也完成了自己的凤凰涅槃。
  然而必须清楚的是，尽管镜子在一定程度上提供了主体与镜像的同一性，然而这种同一性又是不一致、不协调的，因为主体和镜像之间的关系是依据并建立在想象和异化经验之上的。这种不一致、不协调被拉康称作是“自我的异化”。一个极富协调和组织的自我影像投射到自我之外的镜面时，镜像阶段确实在婴儿的生活中产生了一个新的视觉经验和心理感受。但关键问题是，婴儿与镜像之间的关系从本质上看则是不同的。
  可以理解，因为镜子的力量是双重的。首先是封闭性，这可以从物体和形象的一一对应关系中看出来：它捕获了人的目光，人被这个形象所吸引，并且把这个形象当成自己。其次是引导性：它将人的思想引导到一个地方，一个类似于真理但并非真理的地方，使得人可以看清楚真相的某些方面。因此说镜子的作用类似于洞的作用，具有迷获功能的洞。洞可以将人囚禁在其中，也可以通过它达到彼岸。
   影片中的钟馗和秋芸就是这样，我们可以把钟馗当作是一个理想化的秋芸，甚至是象征化的秋芸，却不可以把他当作是真正意义上的秋芸。正如我们不可以把镜中的自己当作是真正的自己一样，虽然表面没有什么区别，但究其本质而言，实属不同的物种。秋芸作为一个客观存在的实体，是看得见摸得着的，而钟馗则不同，就某种意义而言，他充其量也只是秋芸一厢情愿的臆想，一段乌托邦式的梦境。
影片中的场景设置极具戏感，采用套层叙事的方式，展现了人（秋芸）与鬼（钟馗）之间的感情交流。桥段之间通过《钟馗嫁妹》的京戏段落来起承转接，画面舞台感十足，充分利用光线的切割作用，对画面进行多角度的切割，画面在纯黑色背景中打下一束光的舞台效果，从而使极大地丰富了画面内容，恰到好处的渲染了整部影片的气氛，其表现的戏剧张力令人惊叹不已。
  为了进一步研究婴儿对于自体和客体的区分，1934年梅兰妮?克莱茵引入了“好客体”和“坏客体”一说。根据这个客体被感觉为令人沮丧的还是令人满意的，孩子重新看到了客体的好与坏的分裂(例如:好妈妈，坏妈妈)。对于儿童来说，令他感到高兴和满足的客体，即为“好客体”，自然令他沮丧或是不满意的客体就是“坏客体”。
  这个术语在允许了我们彻底地重新思考精神现实领域的同时，还指出了不管是精神病患者还是正常发展的人中间，所有的主体由于作为部分客体的丧失都经过了被迫害的抑郁状态，而影片中的秋芸即是这样一个主体。
  影片中秋芸对于母亲甚至是自我性别的逃避，很大程度上就是因为童年时期，母亲这个作为当时儿童自体必不可缺的客体的缺席而引起的。在秋芸的童年记忆中，母亲充当了一个“坏客体”的形象，这使得秋芸对于自己的女性身份充满了焦虑、恐惧甚至仇恨。因此她总是在逃避，实际上也是在逃避男权社会中作为女性的命运悲歌。
  作为被拯救者，秋芸无时无刻不在等待着拯救者的出现。然而，作为拯救者，现实生活中围绕在秋云身边的男性，总是在秋芸最需要他们的时候缺席。对于秋芸的“生父”我们无法给予他以正面的研究，因为他自始而终都没有直面过观众，也没有面对过秋芸，在秋芸的主观视角里他只是一个后脑勺，可以说在秋云的世界里他是一个名副其实的“缺席的在场”者，尽管秋芸极力逃避他的存在，但他还是对秋云的生活带来了不可磨灭的影响。
  在拉康的镜像理论中，眼睛是一种欲望器官，因此，我们可能从观看行为中获得快感，但眼睛又是被充分象征秩序化的器官，通常人们只会看见那些想看、可以理解或可以接受的，而对于其他的存在视而不见，其原因就在于眼睛这一器官受到了象征秩序的充分掌控。因此在秋芸的主观世界里生父只是个后脑勺。
  相对于生父“缺席的在场”者，秋芸则是个纯粹的“在场的缺席”者。虽然作为影片的主角，她无时不在，但另一方面，她却无时不缺席。浓浓装彩下的那个人，不是她。扮鬼生存的她属于舞台而不是现实。
  作为一部经典的女性电影，本片实质上是对女性命运的一次讴歌。既然无法被拯救，那就勇敢的站起来，成为拯救者。