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.

这是一个沉重的故事，种族主义的极端表现，就是不同种族相互间残杀，这是人类最深刻的悲剧，任何一个物种和动物都不会像人类一样对自己的同类进行虐杀，这是一种悲剧，在特定的历史条件下，人类的恶性会极大地暴露出来。人类各民族只有放下世代恩恨，倡导民族融合和共同发展，像石榴籽一样紧紧团结，才能战胜各种困难，民族之间相互恨视是没有出路的。同时，影片也充分歌颂了人类对命运的态度，在极其痛苦，极其残忍的环境下负重忍耐，能够把自己的忍耐力发挥到极限而生存下来。影片没有华丽而丰富的制作技巧，但有着深刻的主题，单线线地反映了那个历史时期的一个悲剧。但是影片的制作水准属于一般，达拉是影片的主角，但是她的很多值得歌颂的性格并没有非常好的呈现出来。

演员假，经超的年龄也也也造假了，女警整容脸不要太明显，张佳宁突然演女老板令人无法代入。假发男装女人只用假发高跟鞋吗？胸呢胸呢！？去了趟厕所，就跟去了趟洗剪吹，男发完全没有戴过假发套的痕迹！真是谜一样！

剧情也假，男主离职了还能调阅卷宗？！男主的叔叔看起来跟男主年纪差不多，身份是省人民医院院长？！

还没等刘敏涛出场，我就坚持不下去了

版权归作者所有，任何形式转载请联系作者。

作者：Libey玛格与海（来自豆瓣）

来源：https://www.douban.com/note/795963462/

这个系列要是它愿意，可以无止境的拍下去，成为世界上最长的剧集。因为实在是太优秀了！每一集除了有意思之外，还有温情，动不动就把我看哭，把《007》和《碟中谍》这种甩100条街。故事里都是平凡人，不是那种特工级别的牛人，但是可以把他们变得很特别，这才牛B。

这里面有许久未见的徐若瑄，妆有点重，淡妆的时候还是女神级别的颜，笑起来还是一如既往的甜。她就算打酱油的话也太不勤劳了吧。

穿《KILL BILL》的黄色连体衣去香港游船饭店饮茶实在是太有创意了。以后一帮人去旅游，一起穿个主题装，多有趣。已经看到国内朋友们去唱K搞主题趴了，竟然还是西游记趴，下次回去我要扮德利奥佩的拉。

江口洋介变化不大，就是笑起来皱纹夹的死苍蝇了。在这个系列里，他是反派，看起来是挺蠢的。

伤心的是，这片子里既有三浦春马，又有竹内结子。不知道是不是他们最后的作品，看到还是会难过一下的。

套娃式剧情永远都不过时，你以为你看到的和你看到的和实际上给你看到的，都不是一回事。编剧不仅用脑了，还用心了。不得不点赞。

出的点子真是高级。搞个冒充的，揽尽天下英才，留一个最讨人喜欢的。大智慧啊！

本以为李嘉诚老先生已经是遗产分配的最佳典范了。这里提醒一下老干妈，花钱去咨询一下。不然再下去，她还没挂，厂就被两个儿子玩散了。

总之，推荐推荐推荐！

这部电影个人感觉很轻松，很有趣。

真的很爱这种为了一件事情努力实现的故事。可能会有人想，为什么非要那么贵又不实用的高定裙子呢，有那个功夫，改善一下自己生活不好吗？

可是不是每个人都要这样活着的，每个人的追求都不一样。

作为一个失去心爱的丈夫，独自寡居的老女人，她就不能喜欢，想要一件漂亮的裙子吗？在这样的人生中，发生什么事情会让人生显得不那么平淡呢？

一生很短暂，死亡也许随机到来，在这之前，追求一把自己想要的东西，是多么的酷啊。

想到，很久以前的看的一部电影《亲爱的伽利略》两个高中女生从泰国到巴黎、伦敦旅行，他们也经历了很多挫折、争吵。但是这段经历，将是她们这一辈子的财富。

我很羡慕这样想做就全力以赴的去做的人，不考虑得失、不考虑效益、不考虑是否真正的“有用”，只是因为我想，我就去做了。

想了一下，这样的事情，我很少做到，最近的一次，可能是那天想喝杯咖啡，不是点外卖，而是直接出门，独自去一家小众咖啡店，点了杯咖啡坐了一下午吧。

回想起来，还是觉得很开心的一天。

电影的结尾，在酒吧的舞会上，没有什么上层名流，哈里斯夫人穿上了那件高定裙子和朋友们跳起了舞，她实现了自己的梦想~

老乔的独角戏其实很不错，好莱坞几个老戏骨的独角戏都各有千秋，汤姆汉克斯最近①部也是讲末日独存，只不过本片还加了一条太空飞船的群戏。飞船遭遇流星撞击的那段很棒，道具方面要给九十分了，特别是玛雅出血那段，生命是如此脆弱，令人叹息。两位宇航员最后决定回地球，人类对家的眷念和对家人的执着，永远是最终极的意义所在，明知大概率一去无果，仍然鼓足勇气前行。老乔那段惊心动魄的行程，在“女孩”的陪伴下，令人揪心。“我不是合适的（照顾你的）人”，他“发现”女孩后连说了两遍，因为他知道自己命不久于世，自己死去之后，女孩会同样失去生命，与这个末日绝别，但是又那么的无奈。最终我们知道，“女孩”是对很久以前爱人的思念而自己产生的幻觉，难怪“她”几乎都不说话，乖巧得令人心恸，隔着屏幕的观众都为老乔离去后她的安危所担心。从头至尾我都没弄明白造成世界末日的原因，整部影片缓慢而悲凉的基调，让人对生命，对未来，对这个宇宙有了无尽的思考。我们存在，我们也终将消亡，这一切，终究是为何…

一切终将逝去，未来永远是未来。

故事开头，病毒蔓延美国，大家纷纷想着逃亡，女主跟她男友也准备跑路，可惜政府封锁了机场，没办法走了，先战术回撤一个小旅馆。

男友托了关系，准备用私人灰机偷偷溜回乡下，女主表示不想回去，有隐情，但是男友说那里很偏僻很安全巴拉巴拉什么的，最后终于还是把女主哄上了飞机。

下一刻，男友居然不上飞机，反而坐了另外一飞机去了疾控中心。从开头以及后面镜头交代，男友大概是个记者什么的。反正男友把女主骗了，让女主回乡下避难，自己则继续进行采访之类。

另一边，女主回到了乡下，住进了男友的老家，与男友弟弟男友妈妈开始了一段暂时的新生活。男友弟弟说女主不能白吃白喝，于是让农场的反骨仔带着女主开始干农活，插围栏喂动物什么的。

本来日子平平淡淡无无聊聊相安无事，但是某次男友弟弟带着女主去镇子采购东西，男友弟弟让女主呆在车上，这猪脑女主耐不住寂寞，还是下了车，结果碰见了她爸爸，就这样出事情了。

剧情没有太多交代女主跟她父母发生了什么事情，不知道是小时候虐待她还是因为什么，后面女主她妈来问她要钱，两人随便对骂了几句。无非就是说我是你妈，你不能这样对我之类的废话。

病毒蔓延越来越严重，局势越来越紧张，女主她爸跟几个流氓准备搞事情，打算叫上男友弟弟，但是男友弟弟坚决反对。不过反骨仔却准备过档，不想跟男友弟弟混农场干活了。

之后，可能女主工作很卖力，也可能男友弟弟帮女主对抗她爸解围，女主跟男友弟弟关系变好了不少。一起玩打枪练习，一起躺地上看星星，一起打牌，女主还带他去了秘密基地玩。

不过快乐的时光总是短暂的，自从女主给男友留言说他妈妈胰岛素不够用之后，男友突然失踪了也没有音讯，男友妈妈非常担心，加上病情刻不容缓，女主和男友弟弟决定去镇上找胰岛素。

路途发现周围非常安静，一个人都看不见，然后路中间停着辆车，车上的人都死了，而女主她爸带着反骨仔和胖子在旁边。女主她爸一枪打爆了男友弟弟的车胎，阻止他们去镇上。

无奈，女主他们只好先回家换轮胎，明天再想办法。到了晚上女主她爸来了，说手上有胰岛素，让女主跟他回家，就把胰岛素给男友弟弟。女主为了男友妈妈，想出去，但是男友弟弟阻止了，不能相信。

猪脑女主半夜想偷偷去找她爸，男友弟弟追了出来，结果女主她爸一枪崩了男友弟弟，接下来强行把女主带进屋里，男友妈妈大叫起来，估计女主她爸又一枪崩了。

接下来，镜头一黑，接着的画面居然是女主逃跑了，跑到之前那个秘密基地，女主她爸带人来捉她，没找着。女主一路惊慌狂奔，路上碰到一辆车，拦下来，想不到车上是个感染者，吓得赶紧下车。

感染者身体很虚弱，还是下车来追赶女主，恳求女主开车送她去医院，女主惊恐拒绝，但就是不跑，等着感染者接近。就在这时，女主她爸带着狗出现了，一枪爆了感染者的头。

血飞溅到女主衣服身上，女主又一顿吓死，这会不会被传染？女主她爸把女主的衣服都剥了，只剩下打底衣服，天寒地冻，女主只好乖乖跟着她爸回去。

另一边，男友居然回来了！可能听到女主的留言了吧，但是你是不是傻子啊，一个回复都没有，搞得全世界以为你死了的样子，真是服了。

男友在村口看见关卡的美军全死了，我一声卧槽说了出来，女主她爸那么厉害吗？一队美军都被他给崩了？男友回到自己的老家，看见女主她爸在屋外一枪崩了个人，吓得躲了起来。

至于女主她爸为什么崩了个手下，是因为那家伙吃饭的时候咳了几下，认为是感染了，所以无语……女主她爸把女主关在地下室，跟另外一个人出去了，不知道干什么勾当。

反骨仔负责看守女主，因为之前认识相处过段时间，一时心软进去帮女主擦伤口。女主开始了美人计，诱惑反骨仔带着她离开，反骨仔虽然中计，不过还是拒绝现在离开，想先打上一炮再说。

结果炮没打上，反骨仔被女主用皮带从后面勒到断气，当时我以为死了，想不到还活着，后面拿着枪追了女主一路，这真是命大啊。

女主把反骨仔搞掂之后，出门把枪支弹药和吃的喝的装包，准备带上逃跑。不了出门遇到了之前那个胖子，赶快躲楼上，不过还是被胖子发现了。这猪脑女主手上一堆枪，连埋伏都不会，服了。

胖子捉到女主，顿时精虫上脑，跟反骨仔一样也想着打上一炮再说，不料又一次被女主摸皮带来了个反杀。这胖子就没反骨仔那么好运了，直接被女主一刀捅死。

女主终于逃跑了，回到秘密基地，想着把东西都带走，但是发现自己感染了病毒，身体开始无力，东西太重带不了，只好把一堆长枪藏好轻装走路。

我当时就纳闷，你逃跑带吃带喝我理解，谁逃跑会想着带一堆长枪？后来才知道，就是为了剧情发展，男友被捉，女主她爸要求用枪换男友，真是毫无逻辑的安排。

轻装跑路的女主路上找到一辆车，发现是男友的车，立刻跑回去，果然男友被她爸捉住了，要明天之前拿枪来换，不然就一枪崩了。

之后，女主去找了个捕兽夹，做了个陷阱放在秘密基地藏枪的地方，让她爸去拿枪。女主她爸也真是个没脑子，傻乎乎地去拿，拿之前还嚣张地说已经安排把男友崩了。

结果毫无悬念女主她爸被夹住了，这个时候开始求女主放了他，我说你是不是没脑子啊，智商是负无穷大吗？你说男友在手还好说，之前都说崩了，还好意思求饶？

女主不理她爸，于是开始放火了，一把火把秘密基地跟她爸烧了。之后天亮火灭了，坐在地上的女主看到了男友。男友没死，是因为反骨仔因为内疚害死了男友弟弟再一次反骨，没有杀死男友。

就这样完了，特无聊的一个片子，但我还是很无聊地看完了，不推荐大家去看……

在阿芙乐尔电影院的老影厅里赶上了临回国前的最后一场《дылда》的放映，真是极为幸福了。算不上座无虚席，影厅里凑齐了俄罗斯的老中青三代加上我一个“门外汉”；很是折磨感官且不老少皆宜的片子；两个半小时下来直到银幕再次跳出影片的标题，有种很彻底的如释重负。

“дылда”在维基辞典里的解释为高而笨拙的人。影片里身材高瘦性格腼腆的iya被医院的同事和邻居们这样称呼，对战争的记忆让她留下不可逆的精神创伤，独自抚养着奔赴前线的masha留下的独生子，1945年卫国战争胜利，masha在苏军攻陷柏林后返回列宁格勒，在得知儿子因为意外去世后，失去生育能力的她决定用iya的身体去填补丧子之痛在心中留下的空缺。影片始于iya发病时那种笼罩全身的窒息感，朦胧的音效和景深让观众直观体验到了精神创伤所带来的失焦。导演镜头下描摹出的战争背后的病痛真实而抽象，医院里残肢的士兵，破败的街道，陈旧，行驶缓慢的电车，和一群群不安的民众；角色们都压抑着情绪，在难得的战后的片刻安宁里，任由它在崩溃的间隙消失殆尽。 实在不太想去深究剧情，感觉巴拉科夫意在观众的潜意识里重塑那些生命在那样的环境里是如何去挣扎，怎样和生活斗争的；那种记忆必定不像是《罗马》或是《永恒一日》一样概括又全面。这种独特的表达方式必然超脱于情节本身，让电影披上些许实验性的外衣。

影片的意象着墨浓重。瘦高病态的iya和坚毅却不育的masha像极如今的俄国，带着惨痛的战争疤痕蹒跚前进，在废墟和彷徨失措中孕育新的生命；笨重的电车如同苟延残喘的战后世界，拖沓陈旧，噪声轰响，象征如今这社会没法满足人们基本的需要和期望。片中借背景不止一次提到孩子是国家的希望，而这种希望也因为被动变得牵强和渺茫。电影里色彩的意象也更细腻更明显。代表生命的绿色在iya和masha间不停流窜；对立，乖张又带有一丝戾气的血红色不时武装着iya，让她反抗着这个时刻想要扭曲她的病态畸形的社会。影片中的对话多半是耳语，模糊， 带着一种无法超脱的不自然。俄罗斯“豆瓣”上这样一条短评很是让人感触：虚弱无意识状态下的生活不足以称作电影，无论是否努力，都只组成一副静物画。（ Жизнь в предобморочном состоянии недостаточно кинематографична, как ни старайся, и фильм остается лишь натюрмортом. ）这多半是导演在拍摄和镜头调度上裸露的一大弱项。其中几个片段反复不停的正反打让我怀疑是重播了两遍的同一画面，在演员努力塑造的同时镜头却起到了完全相反的作用。

不太会从女性角色的转变上分析，比如全片最后在饭桌上才提及的masha战争时期的经历；坐在回程电车途中的笑容；两个女主突然抱在一起拼命亲；还有穿上绿色连衣裙后高兴到失智的masha。结局固然承载了足够多的希望，像是角色对自身的认同下了一盘神情迷散的棋，输赢都好判定，可是没人再有心情估量损失。

给了抖音这帮人多少钱 天天推烦人 特意来给差评给了抖音这帮人多少钱 天天推烦人 特意来给差评给了抖音这帮人多少钱 天天推烦人 特意来给差评给了抖音这帮人多少钱 天天推烦人 特意来给差评给了抖音这帮人多少钱 天天推烦人 特意来给差评给了抖音这帮人多少钱 天天推烦人 特意来给差评给了抖音这帮人多少钱 天天推烦人 特意来给差评