This is the harrowing story of a (not quite) typical mule: Maria Alvarez (Moreno), an intelligent and fiercely independent 17-year-old girl from Colombia who agrees to smuggle a half-kilo of heroin into the United States.

Walking out of the theatre, I found myself at a loss of words.

What struck me the most about the story was how un-exaggerate everything was. Let it be Maria’s job, her village, or her family. They were portrayed with moderation and care. The result was impressively real and honest. Maria’s job was not uncommon for a third world country’s village girl of 17. I’ve read far worse treatment and horror stories of factory workers in ShenZheng, China. The real evil was in the lack of a choice. All Maria had was the job in the flower factory. It was the only economic opportunity presented to Maria. It was what her family, even her entire village depended on. Sounds familiar? I thought of that British mining town in Billy Elliot.

Like all country girls who rebelled against their fate, Maria made a choice, the same choice all country girls in her shoes made, to go to the city. On her way, she was tempted away from the possibility of becoming a rich family’s maid; instead, she was offered an adventure. Traveling, America, and American dollars added together proven to be too big a temptation to turn down for a rebellious country girl. Was there really a huge difference for her, between pulling thorns off roses and swallowing cocaine pellets and carried them to America? Both were rich people’s merchandises, both were beyond her reach. She was one little link in the economy chain. The latter sounded a lot more exciting than the former, and it would take her beyond the depressing village outside of Bogota. She was, finally, presented a choice.

The subsequent story made me admire Maria’s intelligence and coolness. But it also chilled me to the bone to see how cruel and brutal the drug world was (is).

Would legalizing drugs clean up all these brutality? Would legalizing drugs prevent Maria and her fellow Columbian women from participating in this dark and ugly trade?

If so, then why wouldn’t any country take that step?

“Because drugs are evil and hurt people who use them. How could you legalize something so damaging to our very selves? How could any government give out any signal that drug abuse is ‘legal’, therefore, ‘ok’?”

Because not legalizing it made it worse? Because the huge profit margin is driving the drug trade into a frenzy, and it is killing poor people like Maria left and right? Cigarette is legal, isn’t it? It is harmful to people’s health, too. Why is that okay to endorse but not drugs? Since when human being became such innocent creatures?

“If you legalize drugs, then more people will become drug addicts. That would be disastrous and self-destructive.”

Okay. People have self-destructive tendencies. There are evils in these world, too many. People always have the choice of whether to become drug addicts, just like people have the choice of whether to smoke a cigarette. Are you saying that government has the right to make the choice for its citizens that the government knows what is best? What about education? What about the fittest survive? It is not like I don’t get drug offered when I walk down Telegraph Ave. in Berkeley, it is not like high school kids don’t get drug offers in parties, at playground, on their way to school, anyways. It is happening right now. How much worse could it get? Besides, once it became legal, it could take away the “adventurous lure” it has right now to the rebellious type. Couldn’t it?

Drug abuse is part of modern societies already. We have to deal with it. But if legalizing it could take away the huge profit for the drug lord, then it could reduce their incentive to produce them. It could dry up so many money sources for terrorist groups and anti-government organizations. It could save Maria and girls like her the fate of dying on ruptured cocaine pellets that they carry in their stomach. It could save them from being treated like animals (”mule”), whose stomach was cut open so their cargo could be retrieved. Mule’s life was of no consequence. The dehumanization of Maria and her fellow mules was not caused by drug’s own evil-ness directly. It was made possible by the huge profit of drug trade, and its huge profit came from their illegal status. It was made possible because of human being’s own greed.

If government wants to do good to the society, then it could place the choice into everyone’s own hand. Take away the possibility to make people even more greedy than they already are. Don’t tempt them. Trust them.

In Chinese modern history, there was a much revered national hero, General Lin Zexu. Who initiate the fight against the British in 1840’s. He burned all the opium he could gather in a huge public display. His angry words are still recited in today’s Chinese elementary school classrooms, “Opium is evil, it weakened our people, our soldier, our country…” But the fact was, Chinese society was weakened from inside before opium even appeared. The closed society has been quietly rotten away from top to bottom for centuries. There was little outlet for real talent of the society. There wasn’t much progress happeneing for the society as a whole. Corruptions were prevalent. Opium provided an escape. A dying plant happened upon a killer disease. It was easy to blame the disease. Even though General Lin Zexu won his opium war, the final treaty between the British and the Qin Dynasty turned out to be the first of many humiliating treaties to come in China’s Modern History. Burning Opium didn’t help General Lin’s cause. Burning the entire country might. That was exactly what Chairman Mao tried over a century later.

There is a little analogy in gardening. When a flower attracted diseases, it was often because the plant itself was weak and unhealthy, either from lack of water, light, or too much water, etcetera. To prevent disease from happening, you either make the plant strong and healthy, or you try to shut down all disease sources. The latter has proven to be a harder path. Shutting down flow of air would usually cause more problems to the plant. Exposing the plant to the natural elements was usually more healthy for the plant. As long as the plant was healthy, often it could fight off many diseases using its own strength.

以我个人的感观，看电影时最不好的一种体验是：在你的情绪已经得到满足，并且开始收敛情绪等待片尾字幕出现时，镜头一转，故事继续发展下去了……

“山楂树之恋” 就给了我这种不良的体验。当影片的倒数第三幕——也就是老三送静秋过摆渡、两人“隔空拥抱”的时候，我满以为影片已近结尾，最多再接一段“20年后”的 “惘然戏”，可其后出现的却是魏红堕胎的戏码。从情节上讲这段插曲自身的冲突（堕胎）和故事的主要冲突（主人公的爱情）无关，其更大的意义在于一段高潮戏后平复观众感情，准备迎接最终幕。这种用无关主题的插曲控制节奏的处理算不上高明。于是为了有所弥补，这段戏里又通过静秋和魏红的对话，表达了一下静秋对于性的无知。不难猜想，编剧的本意是借此强化静秋的“纯洁”。然而在我看来，此处编剧太急于显露自己“性=不洁”的观点，却没抓住所谓“纯爱”文学中爱情纯洁性的来源，结果适得其反。

纯爱文学发源于日本，据说可以追溯到《野菊之墓》和《伊豆的舞女》。到上世纪80-90年代，纯爱文学作为类型文学的一种在日本流行开，代表的有《在世界中心呼唤爱》、《情书》等等。后来这一形式流传到台湾，演变成我们看到的台湾青春片，比如《蓝色大门》。纯爱文学作为类型文学，其并没有足够清晰的定义或者独一无二易于辨识的特征。以至于如今网络上的糖水小说但凡写爱情又不色情，就说自己的纯爱。

以我读到的那些来看，“纯爱”文学是日系青春文学的一种，不过其淡化青春期的其他冲突，着力描写男女间懵懂而出的爱情。如我们所知日系的青春文学或多或少着力于残酷，表达少年进入成年过程中的“异化”。因此附着在残酷青春里的纯爱，也会遭遇成人异化的挑战。纯爱文学的男女主人公随着爱情的推演，不断遭遇成人或曰“世俗”的价值观、道德观等对自身爱情的评估。在这一过程中如何保持自身爱情的独立性和纯粹性，构成纯爱文学的核心问题。而这种对抗世俗的独立性也正是纯爱的来源。

作为成人世界的爱情中最世俗的部分，很多纯爱文学并不特意回避“性”。回归本质，性只是表达爱情的另一种方式，它和拥抱、爱抚等示爱行为只在程度上有所区分。然而世俗的价值观中，性和爱在很大程度上已经被割裂开。性已经脱离爱情，变身为直接的欲望。因此面对性时，困扰纯爱文学主人公的是：明明做爱看上去已经自然而然，但他们依然会疑惑，如果真的做爱，那么他们的爱情到底依旧是既往爱情的延伸，还是会沦为世俗欲望的开始？他们一方面出于自身的愿望需要将爱情不断升华，另一方面又要避免世俗价值中爱情的堕落。这种矛盾也是纯爱悲剧的根源。

从这里回到“山楂树之恋”的倒数第二幕。之所以诟病其中“性无知”的刻画，是因为这种刻画事实上消除了纯爱文学原有的矛盾。纯爱文学中主人公了解性，也因此了解性的不纯洁，因此他们才会纠结于性是否会导致他们自身爱情的不纯洁。不论结果如何，做爱与否，经历这种思考后的爱情不会是一种向世俗妥协的爱情。反之“山楂树之恋”中，静秋并不了解性的意义，性对她来说只是某种无知的禁忌。联系时代背景、静秋出身以及其母的教育，可以想见静秋对于性的退缩，相反正是其对世俗的妥协。

纯爱文学中的主人公面对了不纯洁的可能，其动人之处也就在于，面对这种可能性，主人公却仍能以不同于“世俗成人”的姿态，在“世界中心呼唤爱”。相反，“山楂树之恋”利用时代建造好一座“纯爱”的道德樊笼。静秋只要安心地呆在笼子里，便自然而然地获得所谓的“纯爱”。那么这“纯爱”到底是造笼子人的纯爱（导演编剧的纯爱），还是笼中人的纯爱呢？仅从这部片子，我们不能回答这个问题：如果离开特殊时代背景的束缚，静秋的爱情究竟是什么样子的？是纯爱，是纵欲，或者其他什么？

最后还想对“山楂树之恋”的结尾多说一句。之前看到木叶对艾米的一个访谈，里面问起艾米对梁文道曾说“（这本书出现）只有琼瑶才会那么喜欢的素材，就是白血病” 怎么看。艾米先是绕口令一般，“一部不俗套的小说，不会因为写了白血病就变得俗套；同样，一部俗套的小说，不会因为不写白血病就变得不俗套”，然后又说， “说白血病只有琼瑶才会写，且一写就是俗套，等于说‘梁文道’的‘道’字只有‘林道静’才会用，且一用就是女性名字”。加上后来她对各种批评的反击，整段访谈看下来，让我觉得这女人攻击性太强，招人厌烦。

如我上面所说，纯爱本身蕴含了悲剧的种子，因此纯爱文学也大都是悲剧收场——这其中请出白血病的不在少数。这里我谈谈我有一个时期很喜欢的片山恭一，虽然他最著名的《在世界中心呼唤爱》也不能免俗的用到了白血病。我想谈的是他早期的《世界在你不知道的地方运转》和《满月之夜白鲸现》。这两部作品的最后，女主人公也患上了厌食症、强迫症一类的精神疾病，因为住进医院而不得不和男主人公分离。但是如果我们追溯她们的病因，就会发现其恰恰在于她们对纯粹爱情的追求。比如《世界在你不知道的地方运转》中薰不想用“婚姻这一形式将爱情固定下来”，这一想法再进一步的根源则来自对父权的反抗。薰的厌食症来自这种想法和男主人公渴望的婚姻的双向挤压。可以发现通过这种方式来构造一个悲剧，那么这种悲剧是无法和爱情分割的，我们不能问“如果她不得病，他们的爱情会怎样？” 两部小说的女主人公在最后说会努力康复，努力和男主人公在一起。但是另一方面我们会发现一旦她们这么做了，她们的爱情就失去了打动我们的独立和纯粹。这是一个无法解开的死结。

“香澄望着乳白色的浓雾，好像在追寻着永远失去的东西。然后她静静地摆脱我的手，慢慢地按原路返回。我呆呆地站着，目送她远去。我没有感觉到绝望，也没有感觉到希望。我告诫自己不要以现在的心情去规定未来。”——《满月之夜白鲸现》·片山恭一

有时候我会想，为什么片山恭一在写出这种的情感之后，还会去写白血病呢？也许并不是作家想写，而是读者既渴望生离死别的感动，又讨厌太过复杂绝望的情感吧。

blog原文：http://sakinijino.com/archives/2168

第一次听闻《九零后》这个片名，难免会有被“误导”之感——尤其是在知道与剧集版《西南联大》有联动之后。而看完本片，才明白何谓“九零后”——这是一群年过九旬的当年联大学子的采访记录，以他们的回忆为主线，串联起清华、北大、南开三校合并的历史场景，回忆彼时群星闪耀...  (展开)

其实我是有心理准备这是一部烂片的，主要是冲着赵文卓的武打去的，但是没想到呀、没想到……我一直认为再烂的片子也有它的亮点，这部片我只能说：武当山的风景还不错！忍着恶心看到80分钟，我还认为这是一部近代的武打片，可是最后那白龙道长抢到7个宝物竟然要升仙了，突然就变成了魔幻片，我去……前面倒是来点铺垫呀，这样莫名其妙的峰回路转，谁心脏受的了呀，幸好前面没坐人，不然我喷出去的一口可乐，你让我怎么跟人解释！万一被人打了，谁负责？嗯？谁负责？

这纯粹就是一看多了八九十年代武打片的大叔，捣鼓捣鼓挑了其中几个最差劲的桥段，拼成了一部即便回到八九十年代也是最差劲的剧本呢……竟然就这样通过了种种审核被使用了……文卓大哥，你自己说对剧本很苛刻的，怎么会演这个呢？你和吴京这一代内地打星，就缺一个好剧本一个好角色，就可以进入新的层次了呀，时间不多，别再接这种烂片了

尤其狗血的是樊少皇和徐娇这条副线，一个四五十岁的大叔和一个还没发育完全十四五岁的小女孩演对手戏，就算爱情可以超过年龄的界限，但这即使是在大陆也犯法呀……犯法的呀…

还有杨幂，她算是用一部部作品逐步摧毁了多年前凭借【上书房】【北京童话】在我心里竖立起那个灵动可爱、演技张弛有度的形象……作为武侠迷，再次奉劝那么没有武功底子的女星，千万别去演打戏了……看三岁小孩打架也比那有劲呀……最后她还莫名其妙的死了，那一刻我终于忍不住，冲出了影院

还有场面调度和美术，都不知道是谁找的，本来有条件建立唯美、神秘的武当山画面，可偏偏让一些普通的、肮脏的、破旧的场景建筑，就那么原原本本的展现出来了，什么是电影，什么是电影呀，又不是拍纪录片，用点设计、布置一下行吗？……唯一的一个能说出好的地方 ，还是靠武当山自己，跟创作团队没有任何关系…

这篇剧评可能有剧透 题材就很吸引我——独酌。 第二集结尾处这段女主独白点明了独酌的理由：真正能够理解内心的人不多，还不如独酌更能够安慰自己。在这个浮躁的世界里，人与人之间的相处在于交心，而不是流于表面的声色犬马。 整体风格稳定地保持到了最后，大结局最高收视破5，毕竟没有大牌明星出...  (展开)

这篇影评可能有剧透 ——江湖男士遇难事，江湖无险因江湖。 映后导演和男女主演到场，正如所说，概念来自“片子拍一半女主角死了怎么办”。故事分两条线。一条是两个发小“制片豪洨”和“导演稳死”得到老大龙哥资助，要求拍一部有日本机场和“大嫂”做女主的电影。怎奈大嫂性情中人，和导演聊聊梦...  (展开)