一段由警方角度来追击美国著名雌雄大盗的故事。故事本身简单，但背后的故事却更另人沉思。

二人在逃亡抢劫的过程中，人们把他俩当做偶像，争先恐后与他们合影拍照，握手拥抱。

在二人死亡的消息传出后，由数万人涌入小镇，抢夺他们身上以及车上的物品当做纪念品，在二人的葬礼上又有数万人前去悼念。

那么，他们做了什么丰功伟绩值得人们如此追捧和怀念？

答案是抢劫和杀人。

在人们的心中，他抢劫抢的是银行（实际上更多的是加油站和奶站），那个人们的吸血鬼！他杀的是警察（其中也有平民），那些作威作福的家伙！结合当时美国的大萧条背景（1/4人口失业），你就不难理解人们心中对政府的怨气和愤怒，以及将二个幻想成罗宾汉式的侠盗形象！

是一部诚实的纪录片，但展示方式有点难以接受，不同的故事分集讲出来其实挺好，这样做又乱又没有层次感。。。

主要剧情：

席拉的活动在于建立一个全球体系，交流疫情，做培训演练等等使得大家能够有所准备，在疫情到来时可以有效应对，但是她缺钱。（今年1月她生宝宝，不知道她的组织应对新冠干了什么，值得研究一下）。

丹尼斯离开国际开发总署在越南研究禽流感，主导全球病毒体计划，侦测未知病毒威胁。（这部分不太清晰他到底在干啥）

美墨边境的拘留中心里，给移民免费打疫苗，本来很美好温馨，最后说断供了，政府不再出钱，川普够狠。

俄勒冈的凯兰是反对强制接种的家庭代表，与防疫中心在议会对峙。

埃及的米歇尔在刚果控制埃博拉疫情三年。埃博拉疫情中WHO的救援受到当地武装组织的冲击。

美国乡村医院的唯一医生荷莉牺牲了家庭和健康照顾病人，最终因体力不支而辞职，更多乡村医院因资金不支而倒闭。

Distributed Bio在研发一个普适的流感疫苗Centivax （篇幅超多，这个对新冠作用如何？）。

印度一个医生在swine flu中的两个主要病例治疗过程 （说实话有点神奇化，印度医生治病注重心理建设。。。倒也没毛病）

其中比尔盖茨闪现了一下说我们没有准备好。中国这么重要这么volunerable却没有给个片段哦。美国的H1N1也讲的太少！

所以为了点题，如何预防流感大爆发，需要一个运转的准备机制，群众的防疫意识和支持，疫苗普及，，牛逼的疫苗，专业善良奉献的医生，以及很多钱去做到这些。总的来看有钱的地方在做准备，没有钱的地方，主要是死扛

11月比较闲，花了点时间认真看了这部46集连续剧。

讲述了北洋水师从成军到覆灭这段历史，感觉基本符合原来的历史真实原貌。

一位正者无敌且执着的丁汝昌，一位八面玲珑且呆萌可爱的丁立世。还有三大主人公，海盗世家出身的尤木友，擅长坑蒙拐骗的李文章，还有军人世家出身的龙翔宇。看完这部电视剧，让我重新审视了我的电视剧观，不要太过于带有自我色彩去看一部电视剧。艺术本来就是源于生活，高于现实的。如果电视剧都那么严谨了，肯定会失去他的娱乐性。

看这部电视剧，前期我是以娱乐性来看待的，经常让我笑个不停，三个人物关系之间的各种相生相克，互相之间的配合与不配合，夹杂着在北洋水师的各种酸甜苦辣。一开始一群由海盗转化为北洋水师夫役，在北洋水兵的序列里面显得格格不入，但也恰似一潭死水里面荡起了一圈圈涟漪。由开始的小偷小摸、不尊号令、没有正形。最后成为一群合格的北洋水兵。

看这部电视剧，我一直想想李大骗子是怎么样能吹那么大的牛，还有一个海盗头子能如此机智聪明，一个官二代能如此忠贞报国。但是通过对比，一切都是那么自然。中国自古有上九流和下九流的说法，其实每个层次的人都有他的江湖，始终是脱离不了人性这个范畴。穷酸秀才出身的李文章，能吹牛吹到日本的情报人员对他言听计从，在那个时代背景上其实不可能的，因为信息传播没有那么快，只是他作为读书人，能把自己的臆想和时代相结合起来，而且他还会日语和英语，没有出过国在那个背景下也是不可想象的。穷酸秀才的李文章在最后的时刻，从旅顺到威海卫，一路抗争，一个最怕死的，变成最英勇的，但是结果也是牺牲。在这个片段，我一直琢磨，为什么他当时不用日语喊让这些日本兵回家，但是后来想想也释然了，因为那样可能风险太大，而且通过前川的嘴更有说服力。

再讲讲里面的海盗头子，因为热恋上了官二代的小姐，选择了投奔北洋水师当一个夫役，可能类似于在军队里打杂那种。我看到的可能是在那个时代，阶级固化已经到了一定层度。当上升已经没有希望的时候，在海上当自己的海大王还逍遥自在一些。当时代走入现代，进入蒸汽化时代，一切都要顺从潮流，潮流就是科技发展带来的各种革新。这也让我想到了现在，移动互联网时代下的现在，互联网会改变一切行业。传统不会消亡，他会以另外一种形式继续生存下去。在海盗头子身上反应的是那种江湖气息，一言不合就开干。在大东沟海战之后，朝廷开始推卸责任的时候，清政府要抓捕丁汝昌的时候，他发动定远舰准备维护统帅，而洋教官马克第一个支持，江湖气息其实也不是中国人所具有。

最后到了龙翔宇，永远以官方、正义的角色出现的。在我眼中所看到的就是他有家族的培养，那种自带的气质等等。在一个地方，哪里都是主动者，哪里都有人给开适当的后门。从地方到北洋系统，和地方官差，在军队和胡千总。

看来看去，里面交叉着好几对矛盾，人与人之间、民族与民族之间、中央和地方之间。

一千位读者，就有一千个哈姆雷特。我觉得这个电视剧还是一部特别符合历史真实事实的剧，总比那些抗日神剧要好很多，而且题材也非常好，让我们了解下那些我们不太了解的历史。

历史虽然是由胜利者书写，但是我们也要多缅怀下那些在时代背景下留下深刻烙印的人物。在当时的时代背景下，那样的条件和环境下，他们也是时代的精英。

现在他们真的建了一道墙。你有料到吗？——《无主之作》

绝不要选择一个政党..选择艺术..它们是鱼和熊掌..只有在艺术中..自由才不是幻想..只有艺术家才能在这场灾难之后让人们重新获得他们追寻自由的感觉...每个人..不管他是收垃圾的.或是农夫..都有机会成为艺术家...那时他能够将自己的主观能力随意地展现出来...如果你们没有自由 .没有完全的自由... 那就谁都不是 ...当你们让自己获得自由后. 也让这个世界有了自由...你们是神父 ..你们是革命家 ...你们是解放家。——安东尼乌斯 ·范· 维顿教授如是说 ///对着库尔特脱帽致意的瞬间让人莫名地感动。

本片源自实真实人物的真实经历

【详细】

10159500

什么沙币结局啊，不会写就别写，给自己玩没了是啥意思，特战队员之间连最起码的尊重都没有？什么勾八，本来不想说的越想越气，结局什么玩意啊，还留个悬念，自己都噶了，写自己前妻回来有什么勾八用。前面的剧情还勉强凑合，就不能把自己和女主的结局写的好一点，本来可以直接杀了的，女主会武术啊，硬是不动手，狙击手也是，非要男主没了才开枪，什么吊结局

将对一部普通作品的喜恶态度上升为对其他观众和武术指导的人身攻击，毫无道理的抹黑、辱骂，把他人贬为“劣畜”。将他人不一致的意见上升为自己的“淹死于屈辱”，口口声声表示要杀死、折磨他人，用词极为不堪入目，留给人的印象就是恶毒暴虐。再加上“把世界打扫干净”之类中二言语，不禁让人担忧其精神状态，怀疑其是否有偏执妄想型精神障碍。精神病患者发作时常伴有很强的攻击性，需要被控制起来。一般这种过度偏激暴戾的人我都建议先去看心理医生，检查下犯罪倾向，再来谈其他问题。

【详细】

12572399

其实我是个挺虚荣的人

——王晓振

第一次见晓振是在映后交流，楼梯上走下四个人，有个大哥哭的满脸通红，特激动，我寻思这可能是导演吧，周青老师一身米色西装抱着小说，还有个男人穿着文化衫牛仔裤，看起来像是工作人员。

结果文化衫男说：我是导演王晓振。

【详细】

12782465

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.