剧情反转的好,是部好片子,有些地方需要解密,“老板娘怎么知道的团长是共产党”“英子也是共产党或者是被团长利用故意安排”“英子铺床发现团长房间有药品”“药品和烟土有没有被调包”,好人和坏人都死的干净利落,演员演的好,善良的脸演了坏人,坏人的脸竟然是好人!有点新龙门客栈的味道。
重新复盘,解开谜团,副官趁夜色在马槽旁即将发现秘密时,被团长杀死。团长觉得药品放在马槽已经不
剧情反转的好,是部好片子,有些地方需要解密,“老板娘怎么知道的团长是共产党”“英子也是共产党或者是被团长利用故意安排”“英子铺床发现团长房间有药品”“药品和烟土有没有被调包”,好人和坏人都死的干净利落,演员演的好,善良的脸演了坏人,坏人的脸竟然是好人!有点新龙门客栈的味道。
重新复盘,解开谜团,副官趁夜色在马槽旁即将发现秘密时,被团长杀死。团长觉得药品放在马槽已经不安全,让英子铺床时将药品转移到床的隔板下,说明英子和团长都是共产党!老二虽然也是共产党,但是不知道药品的下落,最后团长将装满药品的箱子给老二时,老二的表情有点惊讶就可以说明这一点!
俄罗斯的电影现代气息越来越浓烈了,而且科幻的成分也很重,现代感是很强的了。俄罗斯的电影现代气息越来越浓烈了,而且科幻的成分也很重,现代感是很强的了。俄罗斯的电影现代气息越来越浓烈了,而且科幻的成分也很重,现代感是很强的了。俄罗斯的电影现代气息越来越浓烈了,而且科幻的成分也很重,现代感是很强的了。
俄罗斯的电影现代气息越来越浓烈了,而且科幻的成分也很重,现代感是很强的了。俄罗斯的电影现代气息越来越浓烈了,而且科幻的成分也很重,现代感是很强的了。俄罗斯的电影现代气息越来越浓烈了,而且科幻的成分也很重,现代感是很强的了。俄罗斯的电影现代气息越来越浓烈了,而且科幻的成分也很重,现代感是很强的了。
整个警察体系都贪,那些该保护人民的英雄摇着警帽一脸奸笑地搜刮着市民的血汗,吕洛真人说不会这样收钱的。
一开始还是有一些分桩不均的乱象,但吕洛有本事在为贪污设了一款又一款严密制度。令每个人都有钱收,令贪污变得理所当然。而且一定程度安定了社会。
还有应对查黄赌毒那招致死地而后生,这本事不得不说一个服字。
或者正如郭富城那句:“如果你稍微有一点正义感,香港早就变
整个警察体系都贪,那些该保护人民的英雄摇着警帽一脸奸笑地搜刮着市民的血汗,吕洛真人说不会这样收钱的。
一开始还是有一些分桩不均的乱象,但吕洛有本事在为贪污设了一款又一款严密制度。令每个人都有钱收,令贪污变得理所当然。而且一定程度安定了社会。
还有应对查黄赌毒那招致死地而后生,这本事不得不说一个服字。
或者正如郭富城那句:“如果你稍微有一点正义感,香港早就变成一片乐土了。
他曾经也满怀正义感的,至少影片是,那个时代不容许正直啊!所以我经常都觉得英雄只是罪恶的陪衬。
回到影片,两大天王的演技都尚显稚嫩,并无可圈可点,不过私心认为是刘德华称帝之前最好的一个角色。
邱豆豆与张敏同台斗美,刘郭同台,这都是90年代的足绩。
超喜欢达叔与秦沛老戏骨的演技。
尽管剧中没有明确地说明Chuck首次发病的时间,但Chuck在Jimmy考取了律师执照时仍然是正常的,得知Jimmy希望进入HHM之后,Chuck告诉Howard不能招Jimmy,再之后他就开始发病了。这个病显而易见是心理疾病,因为没有任何现实事件表明电磁会对Chuck造成实质损害,而Chuck也只有在意识到电磁存在的情况才会发病。其发病的症状是呼吸急促、颤抖、紧张、出汗……
尽管剧中没有明确地说明Chuck首次发病的时间,但Chuck在Jimmy考取了律师执照时仍然是正常的,得知Jimmy希望进入HHM之后,Chuck告诉Howard不能招Jimmy,再之后他就开始发病了。这个病显而易见是心理疾病,因为没有任何现实事件表明电磁会对Chuck造成实质损害,而Chuck也只有在意识到电磁存在的情况才会发病。其发病的症状是呼吸急促、颤抖、紧张、出汗……具体症状有一集Chuck描述过,这里就不列举了,这些症状非常像惊恐发作(Panic attack)。对电磁敏感导致Chuck无法正常地工作和生活,因为在现代社会中,电已经成为我们生活和工作重要的物质基础,离开了电,很多事情无法完成。Chuck通过对电磁敏感规避了他最擅长的律师工作,也规避了他再在事业上取得更大的成就(当然,他已经取得了很多成就了)。我认为,电磁敏感导致的这个后果实际上是Chuck希望看到的,也正是Chuck本人把自己放到这个困境里。而他为什么这么做,是因为他内心汹涌澎湃的俄狄浦斯冲突,以及深层的但不能被自己解释或接受的内疚。也许有人会觉得这种说法是无稽之谈,但如果仔细想一下,就会觉得这个观点实际也不无道理了。从Chuck和Jimmy的原生家庭来看,Chuck排行老大,想必父母在他身上寄托了不少希望,而Chuck也通过自己的努力来达到了自己在社会和文化意义上的成功。Jimmy作为次子,父母出人头地的一部分愿望已被Chuck实现了,因此寄托在Jimmy身上的愿望就没那么大了,加上Jimmy本人乐天、幽默、爱交往、聪慧的特点,他得以插科打诨,快快乐乐地长大。说到这里还需要说明一点,即Jimmy一直是在父母身边长大的。这是为什么?有可能是因为Jimmy那个“慷慨的”不懂人情世故的爸爸对Jimmy的需要。剧中提到过,Jimmy的爸爸是一个老好人,非常容易被伪装成受害者的坏人所欺骗。而小小年纪的Jimmy,不得不照顾自己的爸爸,去扮演揭穿坏人把戏的角色。Chuck成了成功的律师,Jimmy做了街边混混,也是这个家庭的需要:这个家庭需要一个像Chuck这样的成功人士来实现父母的愿望和理想,也需要Jimmy这样一个人来保持家庭的温暖和亲密。一直以来,这个家庭就是这样运转的,虽然大家不是非常满意这样的状态,但是在一定程度上也还可以接受,家庭系统也还是相对平衡的,这么多年来,也一直相安无事。那这种平衡是什么时候打破的呢?也许是从Jimmy入狱后母亲泪如雨下地请求Chuck帮助弟弟时,母亲去世前喊着Jimmy的名字,让Chuck感到了巨大的被抛弃感和嫉妒感。Chuck也许一直在期盼自己能和弟弟一样,享受母亲平等的,甚至是不公平的偏爱,Chuck欺骗弟弟说母亲去世前无话是一种情感上的报复,是攻击性的表达,也是嫉妒的表现。我们可以想象,Chuck很想对母亲说,我都这么优秀了,你怎么还是最爱弟弟?Chuck嫉妒的背后是他对母亲对整个家庭的愤怒,而愤怒的背后是悲伤,对自己得不到更多的爱的悲伤。但他无法攻击母亲,他压抑了自己的愤怒和悲伤。压抑了的情感不会消失,而是会在合适的时机卷土重来,甚至会以更为激烈的方式来表现。因此当Chuck得知Jimmy在野鸡大学拿了学位靠网络函授课程考上了律师执照,甚至想在HHM上班的时候,他感到了强烈的嫉妒。正如他后来说的,我这么努力才爬到现在这个地位,你这个混混居然想跟我一样?!于是开始阻碍Jimmy在事业上的进步,无论Jimmy如何照顾他,对于他来说,混混一样不成器的Jimmy是不配跟他在同一个地位的。成功已经成为了Chuck的一个标签,他怎么舍得把这个标签让给别人!也正是这个时候,电磁敏感出现了。我猜测,电磁敏感是Chuck对自己阻碍Jimmy的行为的惩罚,是内疚感驱动的结果。尽管Chuck在意识上厌恶、鄙视Jimmy,但在他内心里,Jimmy永远是他的家人,他是爱Jimmy的,但他的爱只能做到把Jimmy送进mailhouse,而不能忍受Jimmy与自己平起平坐,换句话说,Chuck的爱是有条件的,其条件是,你不能/不配跟我一样成功。在Chuck的潜意识里,他知道Jimmy非常照顾自己,也知道自己应该帮助Jimmy,更知道他不应该破坏Jimmy的前途。因此,意识和潜意识的冲突,造就了电磁敏感这个怪症,Chuck通过让自己不能工作,来惩罚自己对Jimmy的攻击和报复,也缓解了自己太过成功,超越了原生家庭的社会经济地位带来的焦虑。正如剧中Chuck主治医生说的,Chuck的电磁敏感是某种情感的体现,需要专业的心理治疗。但Jimmy似乎总在反对治疗,他觉得哥哥能在家里就可以了。我不想过度解读Jimmy的想法,因为更愿意相信Jimmy内心是真的想为Chuck好。不过,Jimmy的一味纵容,也许是一种移情,Chuck不能自理/自立,就好像是他当年的父亲一样那么弱小,而他通过照顾Chuck实现了照顾弱小的父亲的愿望。Anyway,很喜欢这部剧,嗯。
无神却女神,我为什么起这样一个标题,Netflix拍出这样一个卡司强大的主旋律西部片不就是讲述了一个寡妇镇在寡妇镇长夫人带领下,不爱红装爱武装,拿起逝去父亲丈夫的武器,在强大的主角光环下以较为有限的损失全歼以Frank Griffin为首的西部土匪的故事吗?然而,在其中穿针引线的却又是Roy这位男性
无神却女神,我为什么起这样一个标题,Netflix拍出这样一个卡司强大的主旋律西部片不就是讲述了一个寡妇镇在寡妇镇长夫人带领下,不爱红装爱武装,拿起逝去父亲丈夫的武器,在强大的主角光环下以较为有限的损失全歼以Frank Griffin为首的西部土匪的故事吗?然而,在其中穿针引线的却又是Roy这位男性的成长过程,这不得不说编剧Frank没能坚决贯彻女权主线的宗旨了。西部世界第二季要到明年春天,Netflix是打算用这部电视剧冲冲艾美奖?毕竟Michelle Dockery大小姐在这里露点,Jeff Daniels有一半的时间是独臂出现,Scoot McNairy大部分时间是半失明的高度近视状态,不拿个提名说不过去,拿奖更好。
难道是我格局太小了?还是我包容度不够?感觉自己越来越跟不上港剧的三观了。还有那种父母没有尽责,甚至小时候伤害过子女,然后另一个人让他体谅父母叨逼叨叨逼叨,原谅啊,爱啊,做一堆事情感动自己的事情让他和父母和好。神踏马一家人在一起要齐齐整整。可能想我这种坏人不适合看这种港剧吧。话说香港人都这么圣母的吗?
难道是我格局太小了?还是我包容度不够?感觉自己越来越跟不上港剧的三观了。还有那种父母没有尽责,甚至小时候伤害过子女,然后另一个人让他体谅父母叨逼叨叨逼叨,原谅啊,爱啊,做一堆事情感动自己的事情让他和父母和好。神踏马一家人在一起要齐齐整整。可能想我这种坏人不适合看这种港剧吧。话说香港人都这么圣母的吗?
2022年12月,中国科幻和中国动画迎来了它们毁灭式的里程碑。
别在这里搞什么原著党路人党,五星一星对立的战队,没有意义,这是完全就是水军的理论,观众斗观众,这是最愚蠢而且没有任何意义的行为。就算要站队也只能站中国科幻和中国动画的队。
2022年12月,中国科幻和中国动画迎来了它们毁灭式的里程碑。
别在这里搞什么原著党路人党,五星一星对立的战队,没有意义,这是完全就是水军的理论,观众斗观众,这是最愚蠢而且没有任何意义的行为。就算要站队也只能站中国科幻和中国动画的队。
??文末有2022.2.9的二次更新??
??文末有2022.2.9的二次更新??
剧情方面讲述了一个完整的迷宫之主的故事,最后的罗德烈让我很感动,这补上了为什么现任迷宫之主也在寻求罗德烈零件的原因,只是罗德烈最后清醒的太快,而且还通过嘴遁的方式解决,让我感觉结尾太马虎了。F4与迷宫之主的打斗没有亮点,迷宫之主的水平也忽高忽低。
出现了一个腹黑呆萌的神秘少女安利洁,一个拥有骑士精神的安米修,以及和上一季小黑洞有关的煤老板,煤老板需要看他的卡片才能了解他行为的合理
剧情方面讲述了一个完整的迷宫之主的故事,最后的罗德烈让我很感动,这补上了为什么现任迷宫之主也在寻求罗德烈零件的原因,只是罗德烈最后清醒的太快,而且还通过嘴遁的方式解决,让我感觉结尾太马虎了。F4与迷宫之主的打斗没有亮点,迷宫之主的水平也忽高忽低。
出现了一个腹黑呆萌的神秘少女安利洁,一个拥有骑士精神的安米修,以及和上一季小黑洞有关的煤老板,煤老板需要看他的卡片才能了解他行为的合理性——遗弃者。最后还出现了第一季的大boss,似乎还有什么阴谋。其他人物均没有什么成长,就出来说几句符合他们人物性格的几句话,包括主角金也没什么成长。都过了一季没有成长,只通过依然表面的话语和行为来支撑人物,就显得人物单薄。至于有的批评紫堂幻的自闭情节过多导致自己看的不舒服,但我感觉这些描写不多,都是某几段点到为止,并没有让我看的很忧伤,倒是弹幕的争吵让我有点心烦。至于他离开了小队,怎么说呢,个人有个人的选择吧。
那些观赛团是一群令人讨厌的人,七神使这个跟五老星一样的组织是个什么鬼。
有两个亮点一是迷宫之主的那些话——凹凸比赛就是为了聚集并教训那些讲梦想,不遵循规则的人,不知道这是它自己领悟的,还是创世神的阴谋,如果是阴谋,那就又把主题深挖了。另外就是罗德烈故事。
画风上面我感觉和第一集差不多耶,有评论说模型、渲染,出现了问题,甚至穿模了。额,我看的不仔细,这些概念的具体内容也不是很懂。唯一我看出来比第一集差的地方就是打架上,那种狂拽叼酷炫的特效没什么了,大多数都是一些具象的武器真刀真枪的打斗,但又没什么拳拳到肉的爽感,感觉也就是煤老板的技能比较好看。
最后说一句,这里面我最喜欢安米修了,毕竟是个自带BGM的男人。
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 Ca 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.
马东锡演员真的特别让人安心,正义感爆棚,打戏也很舒服,打起来很解气。
全电影的故事不复杂,过程很平淡,就像是易老师的个人日记。初来时小镇奇怪的氛围,失踪的秀妍,爱逃课的裕贞,不管事的警察,“善意“传授生存之道的老师。这座小镇很奇怪,人情关系很淡漠,每个人好像在默许某些潜规则,人人都在得过且过。
马东锡演员真的特别让人安心,正义感爆棚,打戏也很舒服,打起来很解气。
全电影的故事不复杂,过程很平淡,就像是易老师的个人日记。初来时小镇奇怪的氛围,失踪的秀妍,爱逃课的裕贞,不管事的警察,“善意“传授生存之道的老师。这座小镇很奇怪,人情关系很淡漠,每个人好像在默许某些潜规则,人人都在得过且过。
剧中有一些地方没交代完全,为什么美术老师要勒晕秀妍、为什么绑架裕贞、摄像头那么大(个人闲着没事就会到处看)没人能看见,警察局为何”背叛“理事长等等,估计是剧本的锅。毕竟拍的合适叫留白,拍的不好就是漏洞。
这部电影更让我觉得像电视剧的一集,拥有”靠近犯罪“体质的退役拳击选手到处行侠仗义,感觉这个系列挺有看点。