DavidFincher的新作《心灵猎人》（Mindhunters）。那里面有一个把自己母亲的头割下来的罪犯。听说了他的罪行的FBI警察都不敢去见他，但是当真正见面的时候，却发现他温文尔雅，根本没法想象眼前的人会作出这样令人毛骨悚然的事情。和他聊了以后才知道，他的母亲每天都对他恶语相加，根本不尊重他的感受，日复一日，年复一年，搞得他生不如死。如果你有这样的母亲，你会不想杀了她么？至少我们每个人潜意识里都会有这样的想法。当他的正常的意识和他的罪恶的潜意识相冲突的时候，他便成了一个精神不正常的杀人犯。但是为什么现在在我们眼前的人如此正常呢？他说当他杀母亲的时候，是他第一次真诚地对待了自己，实现了他潜意识的愿望。所以对他来说，杀害母亲是他意识和潜意识的第一次和谐，一旦和谐以后，他的精神病自然也就治好了，他在监狱里其实也就已经正常了。不仅正常，而且他对自己的理解，对所有罪犯的犯罪心理比专门研究犯罪心理的警察都要专业。

那么我们怎样才能逃脱魔鬼的手掌呢？我认为我们的人生境界可以分为三个阶段

1. 希望得到爱

2. 无条件地爱别人

3. 爱自己

第一阶段。我们每个人都希望得到爱。于是我们都不择手段地获得金钱，名誉，地位，永生，上帝的爱等等。这些其实都是魔鬼的圈套。当我们忘乎所以地去追求这些东西的时候，我们就背叛了自己的灵魂，抛弃了真正的上帝。

第二阶段。我们发现被爱并不能带来真正的快乐，反而会让我们觉得空虚，无所事事。更让我们觉得充实的是主动地爱别人。但是我们会发现这种爱却束缚了我们的自由。而且其实爱别人和想要得到爱也没有本质上的区别。好比在《挽歌》（Elegy2008）中，一名教授本来是想找年轻的女学生做情人的，但是后来他发现自己在占有欲里不能自拔，就像是一个不愿意放弃自己玩具的孩子。很多人因为空虚，开始爱这个神，那个神，但是却被教义所捆绑，成为了自己潜意识的牺牲品。

第三阶段，就是发现其实被别人爱和爱别人都是不靠谱的。我们发现我们连自己没搞清楚自己是什么样的人，连自己都没有真正爱自己，还一直都爱这爱那的瞎折腾。只有当我们能真正做到爱护自己的灵魂，才能接近上帝和真理，远离邪恶与魔鬼。我们有时候会有拯救别人，拯救世界的雄心。但是其实我们真正需要拯救的，首先是我们自己。其实我们早晚会发现，拯救自己其实就是拯救了全世界。

第一集挺失望，第二集就好很多，而且给出了一个剧集以后发展的方向，就是以后会有很多老妈给她介绍的相亲对象，都是各种各样的职业的人，而凯特去和他们相亲，就是为了学习或者体验他们的skillset,而第二集也说明了凯特的咖啡店经营十分的成功，妈妈还为之骄傲。

英国米兰达演员本人就是贵族，剧集里好多各种她妈妈参加的聚会活动都是贵族太太们参加的，米兰达的搞怪小商店也不被妈妈认可。米兰达在剧里的角色是一个十分孩子气，不想长大，笨手笨脚，家境富裕，妈妈宠爱的幸运女孩。而目前美剧里的凯特是犹太人的商业精英，这一下两者差距挺明显了，一个笨，一个聪明，一个邋里邋遢，一个妆容精致。

前半部分是很经典的台湾小清新青春片，我好喜欢柔柔软软的宛婷，希真也不错看，小兔牙可可爱爱，果然女孩子最好了，棠生也不错，刘海放下来和掀上去都有不同的味道，可奶可man。

只是出现性别这个问题之后的剧情就放弃了智商和逻辑，两人重逢后剖析心肠时，棠生说了一句“那时候，很辛苦吧”我当时没被自己的唾液呛死，大哥，你不说我们还真不知道呢，然后刘廷含情脉脉地望着他，仿佛遇上了第一个懂他的知音，为了感动自己而硬感动。

末尾几段亲吻戏有些莫名其妙，希真当了宛婷那么久的闺蜜突然化为狼人了，刘廷推住棠生我以为他要自爆和希真的事了，没想到半天没憋出一句话，反而是棠生说“我爱你”，哈哈，不知道你在自己内心疯狂拉扯自我纠结的时候，人俩个好闺蜜也在暗渡陈仓呢。

本来结尾定格在棠生吻刘廷伤疤时挺好，最后非要让主角一顿瞎自白，刘廷站起来的时候，我脑海里无限循环一句话，咋滴，你这是要跳呀（还得是姜师嘲讽那屋口气的那种）。我满心想着怎么，是觉得自己脚踏两条船对不住两个人了，还是觉得人生经历已然圆满可以飞升了？结果是宛婷娇滴滴的声音发了一堆类似心灵感悟一样的废话，直接将前半部的好感一消而散。

我只能说我选错电影了。

故事里沈腾我只能说有一个好身法，游离在主线之外，阿耀在广州我以为他要给主角帮助的时候，门里来了句爸爸，给阿耀叫懵逼了，也给我叫懵逼了，合着他爸来电影里就证明一下他有一个爸爸，自己很惨?

还有欢哥也就是尹正，老是说朋友朋友，自己却是个人渣。拿妹妹和朋友借贷，妹妹还有裸贷。阿耀和欢颂没什么好说的，建议不用找刘昊然和刘浩存，找两皮套人，一个脸上写着倔强，一个写着独立。

演员其实问题不大，但故事情节突兀，就像你去看个喜剧电影结果是青春伤痛电影一样突兀。一窝大聪明喝酒跳海游泳也就罢了，来个轮船是触发击杀条件吗？他哥一死，后半段应该找某时代导演拍的，旷世和解啊，不过我寻思阿耀脸上再写一个词义气，欢颂脸上写个傻，人渣哥哥平时说话逗逗你，做事可真狠啊，欠60多万，逼得妹妹和准妹夫骑着摩托远走他乡。远走他乡就远走他乡吧，住店连门都进不去，虽然他两是木了点，也不至于傻吧，出钱搁走廊睡一宿，但凡你两其中一个熬下夜，我敢保证睡到出钱的房间里不成问题，到这，脸上一人再写一个惨字，人物渐渐开始丰满了各位。欠那么钱，裸贷，二十天收一次，两个人20岁在广州，我一度以为他们要突破自己的底线，可是我提醒自己这是一部电影，总还有合法的办法的，体验一下钢铁丛林的险恶，还是有机会幸福的生活在一起的。赎车是意料到的，飞珠江也是我希望的。但能不能不要来车祸?你要让她死，就是被裸贷“社死”我也觉得靠谱，怎么那么突兀，来个车祸还不见人躺在哪里?大过年的，四海，一边四一个我觉得挺好，建议打回修改，还剩两海，再来两个躺好凑齐，摆个法阵施法，变出一个幸福生活，反正是电影对吧。最后确实是赤条条真干净，你要说主角有什么成长，我没看出来，你要说欢歌欢颂兄妹有什么作用，我没看出来，电影人物都没啥作用，他奶奶去看雪了，阿耀仍旧骑他的摩托,留给我难受和一头雾水。我就喜欢showta哥，不要看表面，大家吹吹牛高兴高兴，你要当真就是你的事了。实际上你把这电影当做阿耀广州打工回来跟你吹的牛，very nice!

看完了这部印度版的《人生遥控器》:《看了又看》，还不错，和美国版的剧情很相似！如何平衡工作和生活这是每个人都无法回避的问题，赚钱重要，工作重要，但是陪伴家人，情感和关爱更重要！树欲静而风不止，子欲养而亲不待，别让工作和金钱疏远了你和家人的感情，珍惜当下拥有的幸福，把握眼前的人和事，别让人生留下太多遗憾！电影围绕都说天天啃书的理工男找不到女朋友？杰就是个把数学当作生命的屌丝男，却有迪亚这样美丽性感的青梅竹马女朋友。当迪亚为他们的一生做了完美计划的时候，杰收到了剑桥大学的任职邀请书。两天后就要结婚的杰在最爱的数学和心爱的迪亚中间不知道如何选择，快被亲戚和婚礼气氛逼疯的杰终于跟迪亚坦白，表示自己想追求未来。到底是爱人重要还是职业重要？杰会如何选择？

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.

这是一部带有超现实夸张色彩的流行喜剧。开始并没有觉得它的独特之处，只是很多地方都透露着属于这个年代的喜剧色彩。但是随着周迅、张雨绮、桂纶镁所饰演的三个不同女人的交叉，电影愈发精彩。电影虽然浅显，却隐藏着不同层次的对于女性关于爱情和价值观的探讨。能把商业喜剧拍得如此艺术，也就只有徐导了。电影结束之后，徐导和周迅、张雨绮、冯德伦、彭于晏来到舞台和参加首映的观众朋友们见面，在短暂的冷场之后现场开始活跃起来。观众有幸和五位主创人员互动、提问。我也举手想问周迅姐一个关于女性的独立道路和所谓世俗之路的冲突和抉择的问题，但可惜未能如愿。