The Lost City of Z is a very long way from a true story — and I should know
A new Hollywood film hypes Percy Fawcett as a great explorer. In fact, he was a racist incompetent who achieved very little

The new film The Lost City of Z is being advertised as based on the true story of one of Britain’s greatest explorers. It is about Lt-Col Percy Fawcett. Greatest explorer? Fawcett? He was a surveyor who never discovered anything, a nutter, a racist, and so incompetent that the only expedition he organised was a five-week disaster. Calling him one of our greatest explorers is like calling Eddie the Eagle one of our greatest sportsmen. It is an insult to the huge roster of true explorers. Had the advertisement been about a soap powder, it would fall foul of the Trade Descriptions Act.

Percy Fawcett joined the army immediately after school, with a commission in the artillery in 1886. The next 20 years involved garrison duty in Ceylon and postings in Malta and England. The only significant events were getting married and becoming a devotee (like many others) of the charlatan psychic Madame Blavatsky. Fawcett’s game-changer came in 1906, when he was 40. The army let him take the Royal Geographical Society’s course on frontier surveying. Far away in South America, Bolivia had just sold its rubber-rich province of Acre to Brazil, so it needed its new north-western boundary mapped. The Bolivians approached the RGS for a mature surveyor to do this. The society’s secretary asked the newly qualified Fawcett whether he wanted to go; he accepted, reported for duty in La Paz and was at work on the new Amazonian frontier by the end of the year. This survey was the best thing Fawcett did. But he described it as boring, because the new frontier was all along rivers. This was the height of the great Amazon rubber boom, so he and his team cruised from one comfortable rubber barraca to the next, taking their regular measurements.

Fawcett’s only publications were a series of papers in the Geographical Journal about his mapping work. But he kept a journal, and in 1953 his son Brian edited this and other papers into a book called Exploration Fawcett. He emerges from it as a typical Edwardian colonial officer — friendly with South Americans but looking down on them, appalled by the cruelty at some rubber stations, full of gossip about life on this remote but boom-rich backwater, and uninterested in nature apart from banalities about dangerous snakes and irritating insects.

In 1908, the Bolivians asked Fawcett to survey another of their frontiers with Brazil: a small river called Verde, far away at the north-eastern corner of the large landlocked country. The preparations were appalling. Fawcett took minimal supplies, since he was accustomed to being fed by rubber stations. This was the end of the dry season with the river at its lowest. So they soon had to abandon their boat and continue on foot. After only a week, all food was exhausted and they were really starving. Fawcett casually remarked that five out of his six peons died from the effects of this five-week disaster. This was the only expedition he led into unexplored territory.

The Bolivians invited Fawcett back in 1910, this time to map part of their boundary with Peru. It involved paddling up a frontier river called Heath and two meetings with indigenous peoples on the banks. The first group fired arrows and guns over their heads. But Fawcett waded ashore with presents and shouting a few words of ‘Chuncho’ (the Peruvian word for all forest peoples) that he had memorised but did not understand. That was the only time that Fawcett attempted any language other than Spanish. Further up the Heath river, Fawcett met a tribe he called Ecocha (now Ese Eja) whom he really liked. They were ‘embarrassingly hospitable’ with their food, so Fawcett spent a few days with them and recorded something of their ethnography. He returned for a second visit in 1911.

After a final survey for the Bolivian government in 1913, of the upper Beni river in the Andes, Fawcett went sightseeing in central Bolivia. He and two companions were paddled down the big Guaporé river. They stopped at Mequens on its Brazilian bank to visit the Swedish anthropologist Baron Erland Nordenski?ld and his attractive wife, who provided guides to take them on a walk inland to visit a people they called Maxubi (now Makurap). The Maxubi were friendly and hospitable, but continuing on a forest trail Fawcett met another tribe (probably Sakurabiat) to whom he took a violent dislike. When one aimed a drawn bow at him, Fawcett shot the man with a Mauser revolver — absolutely forbidden by Brazil’s Indian Service. He described them as he imagined Neanderthals or Piltdown Man to have looked: ‘large hairy men, with exceptionally long arms, and foreheads sloping back from pronounced eye ridges… villainous savages, hideous ape men with pig-like eyes.’ No Amazonian Indian has body hair or looks remotely like this — I know, because I have spent time with over 40 different peoples. These two groups, and the two on the Heath, were the only tribal people seen by Fawcett. He liked two of them. So it was strange that he wrote racist gibberish that ‘there are three kinds of Indians. The first are docile and miserable people, easily tamed; the second, dangerous, repulsive cannibals very rarely seen; the third, a robust and fair people, who must have a civilised origin.’

When Fawcett was in the cattle country of central Bolivia in September 1914, news came of the outbreak of war. So he hurried home and by January 1915 was back in the artillery. In his late forties, he was too old for frontline service; but he fought a good war, ending as Lieutenant-Colonel.

In one of his pre-war lectures to the RGS, Fawcett had spoken of possible ancient ruins in the Amazon forests. He was now told about a scrap of paper dated 1743 in which bandeirantes imagined that they had seen a deserted city in the jungles. (The bandeirantes were slavers who scoured the interior of Brazil for Indians to capture. Although most of these thugs were illiterate, others did write reports about their travels — none of which said a word about seeing ruins.) Fawcett gave this imaginary ‘lost city’ the codename Z, and finding it became an obsession.

The easiest forest tribes to visit in Brazil were on the headwaters of one of the Amazon’s southern tributaries, the Xingu. A German anthropologist had contacted a dozen amiable peoples there in 1884; and since then they had been visited by seven groups of anthropologists or Indian Service officials. All had walked in by the same trail. So in 1920 Fawcett tried to follow this route — even though it was nowhere near where the chimera city might have been. His plans went wrong, so he got no further than a ranch halfway along the trail. In 1921 he searched for the mythical city down on the Atlantic coast, by train inland from Salvador da Bahia; but, hardly surprisingly, the miners there knew nothing.

In 1925, by now penniless but desperate, Fawcett tried again to reach the upper Xingu tribes. He now took two inexperienced ex-public schoolboys, his son Jack and Jack’s friend Raleigh Rimmel. The old surveyor made two suicidal pronouncements. One was that the trio should travel light, with nothing more than small packs. Everyone in Amazonia knew that you could not cut trails and keep your team fed with fewer than eight men. (I can confirm this, having done months of such cutting and carrying.) But Fawcett sent their pack animals and porters back, and continued with only his two novices. His other dictum was that Indians would look after them. This was equally dangerous. The Xingu tribes pride themselves on generosity; but they expect visitors to reciprocate. All expeditions in the past four decades had brought plenty of presents such as machetes, knives and beads. Fawcett had none. He committed other blunders that antagonised their hosts. So it was only a matter of days before they were all dead.

Twenty years later, Chief Comatsi of the Kalapalo tribe gave a very detailed account of Fawcett’s visit, reminding his assembled people of exactly how they had killed the unwelcome strangers. But the German anthropologist Max Schmidt, who was there in 1926, thought that they had plunged into the forests, got lost and starved to death; this was also the view of a missionary couple called Young who were on another Xingu headwater. The Brazilian Indian Service regretted that Fawcett, who was obsessively secretive, had not asked for their help in dealing with the Indians. They felt he was killed because of the harshness and lack of tact that all recognised in him.

Such was the sad tale of this incompetent, whose only skill was in surveying. But the disappearance of an English colonel while searching for a mythical ancient city in tropical rain forests was a media sensation. Two expeditions went to try to learn more. There was revived interest in the 1950s with the publication of Exploration Fawcett and the Kalapalo chief’s account of how they killed the Englishmen. Then it was forgotten until 2009 when David Grann, a talented writer, published The Lost City of Z. Unfortunately, Grann hyped the story out of all proportion and wrongly depicted Fawcett as a great explorer.

As he cheerfully admitted, Grann had no experience of rainforests. But he let his imagination run riot, with pages about ferocious piranhas, huge anacondas, electric eels (actually a fish that has never killed a man), frogs ‘with enough toxins to kill 100 people’, ‘predator’ pig-like peccary, ‘sauba ants that could reduce the men’s clothes to threads in a single night, ticks that attached like leeches (another scourge) and the red hairy chiggers that consumed human tissue. The cyanide-squirting millipedes. The parasitic worms that caused blindness…’ and so on. Everyone who know tropical forests, including me, knows that almost every word of this is nonsense.

Fawcett himself gave a simple account of his four surveying journeys for the Bolivian government. But for Grann, ‘in expedition after expedition… he explored thousands of square miles of the Amazon and helped redraw the map of South America’. Fawcett admitted that he was ‘a greenhorn in the jungle’ and knew nothing about nature. But Grann wrote that he moved ‘inch by inch through the jungle, tracing rivers and mountains, cataloguing exotic species… [until] he had explored as much of the region as anyone’.

For Grann, Fawcett was competing against other explorers ‘who were racing into the interior of South America’. The only study that Fawcett made after leaving school in 1886 was his RGS surveying course. He never mentioned any library research. But for Grann he was ‘almost unique’ in viewing 16th- and 17th-century chronicles ignored by other scholars; he re–evaluated El Dorado chronicles and consulted ‘archival records’ and ‘tribesmen’ in ‘piecing together his theory of Z’. Not a word of this was true, either.

Grann wrote that, as an author, he would have been lost without my three-volume, 2,100-page history of Brazilian Indians and five centuries of exploration. He quotes quite often from my books. So he had no excuse for describing Fawcett’s brief visits to three indigenous villages as the ‘discovery of so many previously unknown Indians’, from whom ‘he learned to speak myriad indigenous languages’, and adopted ‘herbal medicines and native methods of hunting [so that he] was better able to survive off the land’. Equally absurd was his rubbish about cannibalistic tribes, blow guns with poisoned darts, or Kuikuro menacing him with ‘gleaming spears flickering’ from the undergrowth (they never used spears, or had metal even, before their contact 130 years ago).

When the colonel vanished, Grann writes that ‘scores’ of explorers tried to find him, and that ‘one recent estimate put the death toll from these expeditions as high as 100.’ Actually, only one search expedition reached the Xingu, led by George Dyott in 1928. (It found that the three Englishmen had been killed by Indians.) The only other expedition was in 1932, but it got only as far as the Araguaia river far to the east. The death toll from these two attempts was zero. In 1935 a ridiculous actor called Albert de Winton went by himself to the Xingu and was killed by Indians who wanted his gun. So if we count him, the death toll is one — well short of Grann’s 100.

These and a great many other passages are artistic licence and hype of an absurd order. Hollywood believed everything Grann wrote, and then hyped it up more. People wishing to learn about the maverick colonel should consult his own fairly modest memoir — not the recent fantasy book and film about him. But I could recommend scores of writings by real explorers.

John Hemming is a Canadian explorer; the three volumes of his history of Brazilian Indians are Red Gold (1978), Amazon Frontier (1985) and Die If You Must (2004)

对于多兰的电影，我一直持保留意见。除了他的首部电影《我杀了我妈妈》带有接地气儿的血肉和浓郁的普通生活气息，前段现实的表达真实可信，后段爆发和迷乱的情感倾诉感人至深之外，我认为他其余的作品都缺乏分寸感的把握力，总有跑偏和陷入“自恋”的倾向，不厌其烦地进行自我暴露，反复进行自我脸部的特写和近镜头，反复诉说自己的同性性取向和炽烈而又隐晦的恋母情节以及与他人之间复杂周折的感情关系，这令他的电影显得封闭而自我。

作为一名年轻的导演，多兰除了勇气和才华，也许更需要学习自控与简略。电影不可避免反映导演本身，每一个导演都要在自我作品中暴露和接受审视。如果说导演电影是一个主动、完全受到导演控制的创作过程；那电影完成之后接受观赏与评论却是非常被动甚至残酷的，你可能张口莫辩、无处可逃。很多细节与隐蔽的心路都将曝光于细致的检查和评论中，这些审阅和评论的最终着力点都会指向导演，因为他是一部电影里惟一的君主，也是最后和全部责任的承担者。多兰并不怕自我暴露，他不怕暴露自己的同性恋身份与深层次情结，但他的作品风格化与语境范围如果不加以控制，将极有可能流于个人语言化与极度风格化，仅仅只能表达部分群体和边缘性人群的内部生活体验，与普遍生活撕裂甚至产生对立，无法激起更大范围内的赞赏与共鸣，他的电影将在未来变得更加狭隘、曲折、难解、孤僻；只剩下过分夸张、妖艳的形式化外貌和空洞乏陈的内部语言，这一切都会让人逐渐厌倦。
 
在《我杀了我妈妈》大获成功之后，多兰接连创作了《幻想之爱》、《汤姆在农场》和《双面劳伦斯》，这些作品不可避免带有多兰自我个体化的感受与表达，使它们经受了很大的争议与非议，评价中庸。这些反响让多兰意识到，如果他不对电影中出现的“自我”加以遏制和隐藏，他很快就会被观众抛弃，他必须懂得挑选一种普遍性的生活题材进行创作，而不是不厌其烦地展示自己的脸部特写。
 
于是《妈咪》诞生了。

一个导演的一生只能讲一个故事。这就是我对电影导演的一个基本看法，也对此深信不疑。贾樟柯只能讲他的故乡汾阳，张艺谋最有力的电影立于苍茫的黄土地和被压抑的感情中；蔡明亮的电影总是指向人无可奈何的孤独与被封锁的处境，人物行走自由却始终原地踏步。
 
他们会使用相同的演员来反复演绎同一个故事，故事的表达形式和所处时空可能更改，但核心不会改变，只要你悉心观察，就会发现这一点。这些故事是导演最有力量的故事，是他们的拿手好戏，也是他们的重要情结，同时也是他们的范围、边界。他们很难突破这些故事，这些故事最初成就了他们，后来却很容易成为他们进一步往外发展突破的桎梏。
 
与妈妈的故事，就是多兰最好的故事，也是他的边界和牢笼。不断曝光核心故事，意味着故事能量的不断消耗，每曝光一次，能量就会被削减一次，也许是时候诺兰开始面对创作上的瓶颈和觉察自我视野的局限。
 
《妈咪》跟《我杀了我妈妈》非常类似。多兰曾否认《妈咪》与《我杀了我妈妈》是同一个故事，但通过悉心观看，观众都会发现，《妈咪》与《我杀了我妈妈》虽然在戏剧结构与人物构成的安排上稍有不同，可主要情节与关键高潮近乎一致。《我杀了》中，两位对于于贝尔重要的女性，一位是母亲，一位是老师（多兰现实的母亲就是位教师）；在《妈咪》中两位女主角同是，同一个“有病”的儿子，他试图靠近母亲、爆发矛盾（第一个矛盾的出现）、和解，男孩想充当父亲的角色照顾家庭和出外买菜；但“小父亲”的角色遭到母亲的调侃与嘲笑；家庭里平衡再次遭到破坏与打击（第二次矛盾爆发），外来的力量介入，儿子被变相遗弃“送到寄宿学校或心理纠正中心”（矛盾的大爆发），儿子出逃，回归家庭，谅解（解决矛盾），故事结束。
 
完全是同一个故事。

多兰在采访中毫不避讳自己浓重的恋母情节，生于单亲家庭的他与母亲相依为命，而他在自己的电影里直接与过度的自我暴露使得对他的心理分析有迹可循。有心理学分析认为，过分热爱母亲的男孩会有同性恋的倾向，是因为他除了母亲，无法再爱上其他女人，也不接受自己爱上其他女人——因为这对母亲的一种背叛（这仅仅是一种观点，并非一种论断；感情中很多东西不可解释，请大家不要擅自用心理学上的分析任意套用论定）。


多兰的“三角恋”故事模式

从这个观点上看，多兰性向的形成有着他的深层次家庭原因，有他自己的心理安全感需求模式：因为与母亲早年生活的艰辛，他渴望一个“父亲”，一个更强有力的同性伙伴来增加安全感和整个家庭的稳定感；但必须死死抓住母亲，母亲才是他真实生活里安全感的主要来源。所以这种情感模式是三角恋。情侣关系外，总有一个母亲的存在；而在母子关系外，也会有第三个人的参与，这也许是多兰感到最平衡，最安全的关系模式。

“母亲”的角色非常关键。《我杀了我妈妈》里的妈妈和她的亲密又开朗的同龄女性友人们，她们的确是一群非常富有生活气息又可爱的中年白领女人；《妈咪》里形成一个暂时家庭的两位长辈女性：狂躁的戴安扮演了母亲，而自闭的凯拉成为秩序与纪律的执行人——父亲的角色；来自母亲些微的否定与拒绝都会引发儿子史蒂夫的精神崩溃和歇斯底里。《幻想之爱》里比弗兰西更强势、也更高大的女友玛丽（她一直与多兰双生同行，并列存在），弗兰西在这段三角恋里一直让着骄横的玛丽，当弗兰西与她同时爱上一个金发少年，她吃醋要离开。诡异的镜头出现了，穷追不舍的不是喜欢玛丽的金发少年，而是弗兰西，玛丽的存在对于他更重要，互相打架与拉扯中他们之间默契又亲密的关系不言而喻，而这段镜头也是这部电影里的华彩——最棒且精准的配乐（配乐是Fever Ray的《keep the streets empty for me》）、诗意化的慢速摄影与极具视觉冲击力的构图和浓烈色彩，多兰在其中展现了他复杂的恋爱需求。

《汤姆在农场》里，汤姆和男友乃至男友母亲的三角关系张力十足，互相打击和接近，暧昧不言而喻。在《双面劳伦斯》里，劳伦斯在变性和自己的生活上都非常关注母亲的反应和意见，他的母亲、他和他的女友构成了一个不断动荡的三角关系；而他的父亲，有趣的是，则被塑造成一个麻木不仁，对外界没有任何反应的“不存在者”，一个家庭中的变相消失者。

我们最有力量的故事会成为我们的终身故事；早年所形成的关系与情感模式会在后来的生活中不断加固和重复演绎。这就是我们熟悉的生活方式，情感模式，也就是家庭心理学的心理遗传机制。一个家庭内部的死循环，无限循环，不断演绎。也是佛教所指的“我执”，“我执”会在家庭内部多代中重复循环，它就像一股无形的内部“地心引力”，很少有人能觉察，能成功逃逸。

 
妈咪，我们是一伙儿的
 
多兰《妈咪》结构和设置比《我杀了我妈妈》要复杂，但故事和人物却相对独特。这不再是《我杀了我妈妈》里面那个我们都熟悉的普遍的家庭关系；而是一个“特别”的家庭，母亲桀骜不驯、狂躁又粗鲁；儿子却罹患心理与行为疾病，他们母子之间的感情在旁人眼力略显畸形。史蒂夫跟母亲非常亲密，他试图跟母亲一起制造一个共同的家庭，他会出外购物，想扮演“给全家带回食物”的父亲的角色，但这个角色很快被母亲否定，于是一个新的“父亲”被引入了这个家庭，就是邻居凯拉，凯拉在自己的家庭里遭受孤立，因此她来到了黛安和史蒂夫的家里，充当起了“父亲”的看守与教育责任。史蒂夫强烈的恋母情节使他拒绝接受另一个父亲、母亲的男友、他抵制任何男性进入他的家庭，夺走他的母亲；这也是为什么他欢迎凯拉的加入，凯拉的到来对这个家庭有益；而且她不会篡夺史蒂夫与母亲的爱，只会与黛安共同抚育史蒂夫，她安全又有用处。

多兰在这部电影里，进一步展示了自己非凡的配乐品位和MTV式的叙事和抒情节奏，慢速镜头配以世界顶级的歌曲和音乐，音乐的进入恰到好处，成为点睛之笔，与人物的表演完美结合，辅助更深层次的叙事完成。大部分镜头是在黄昏落日时分完成的，多兰称这个时候光线“血红金黄”，人物的身上洒落着一层金黄又刺目的光辉。史蒂夫推着手推车狂奔时，头顶是炫目的阳光，少年漂移的衣襟和金发在阳光里闪烁忽现，是非常美妙的迷幻时刻。

在凯拉来到这个家庭，与黛安和史蒂夫共同起舞的夜晚。音乐的表达是强大的（这里插入的席琳迪翁的《On ne change pas（我们不会放弃）》），它代言了那些无法明说的情绪流动和默契感情。凯拉注意到黛安与史蒂夫母子间过于亲密的肢体语言，也注意到史蒂夫为了取悦她们而化的舞男妆容，她起初惊讶但很快释然，她的肢体逐渐放松，开始慢舞，三人共同起舞非常和谐，处于同一节奏，塑造了明确摆动的平衡构图，象征他们逐渐建立的信任与友谊，自然而然的依赖和互补互救，他们将互相呼应，共同携手进入一段共同生活。

不得不说，多兰对音乐的挑选、对电影形式上的专注与精益求精的确充满灵感和天才创造力，对节奏与风格的把握首屈一指。多兰曾提到专门将这部电影的画面调至唱片封面式的1：1构图，无疑，他也注意并认可自己电影里那些音乐所处的关键作用和强大叙事能量，有时对白甚至都要为抒情的配乐让路。由音乐完整和提升故事，这也许吸引嘎纳评审团委员们的主要地方，电影界目前都急切希望看到电影叙事方式的进一步改变和新颖，这个渴望在2015年的奥斯卡提名电影名单中也得到了展现：《鸟人》意外领跑多项提名，评委会对此的评语是：“也许它会带来新的电影语言”。
 
母子之间的爱与“背叛”上演。母亲黛安为了修正史蒂夫的行为，将他强制送进了青少年心理矫正中心，在《我杀了我妈妈》中，于贝尔认为这是母亲的一次背叛，他吸毒后歇斯底里回到家里，摇醒母亲诉说对她的爱与失望。但几年之后，多兰显然对母亲的行为有了更多的理解和释怀，在《妈咪》中，史蒂夫原谅了妈妈，并在电影最后试图挣脱，逃回到母亲身边，因为此时的母亲已经失去了凯拉，正需要他的支持。在《妈咪》里，洋溢着对母亲的崇拜和一种女权主义倾向，母亲求职失败后，史蒂夫耐心拭去她眼角的泪水，对她细语：“瞧，我们是一个团队的，我们共同面对，好吗？”

在母亲最脆弱的时候，史蒂夫犹如有心电感应般可以感知母亲的困境，他从癫狂和失控突然变得非常正常和温柔，充满耐心地守着母亲。在母亲需要陪伴的第一时刻，他挣脱牢笼，试图奔向母亲（这里响起的配乐是Lana Del Rey的《Born to Die》这里的Die（死亡）也与史蒂夫母亲的名字Die（黛安）不谋而合，首尾呼应）。Born to Die——从出生到死（黛安），“母亲是赋予我们生命的人，也是我们这些孩子终将成为的人”，多兰在采访里说。

多兰对母亲的关注和深沉的爱在影像里令人动容。他的表达非常自然，母亲的爱深沉而温厚，但它并不是解决一切问题的法宝，就像黛安焦头烂额于儿子闯祸所导致的巨额赔偿，她不得不把儿子送进矫正中心，好腾出空来认真工作，有时我们不得不面临现实的深渊与考验，伤害与抚慰并存，爱与恨在其中此消彼长。多兰理解了母亲的脆弱和爱的有限，因为理解，有限的爱开始变得无限与广阔起来，他与母亲共同承担后果。爱有多种形式，爱可以跨越我们能解读的范畴和定义。因为有了母亲，爱开始有了更多的包容和不变的真挚。
 
看《妈咪》激起了观众类似的生活经历和与母亲深厚的感情链接。母亲是那个一直对我们不离不弃的人，我们麻烦的承担者和解决者。不论我们是同性恋、异性恋、还是情感障碍或者疯狂；她都竭尽全力去拯救、去理解、去宽容和爱，毫无怨言。母爱无可比拟。多年之后多兰才意识到这种爱的宽厚与神性，这种神性超越了世俗的认识和解读，它超越了人性的自私与利己，处于一切感情的最上层；他才意识到母亲有多珍贵，母亲是永远的归宿，她是跟他一伙儿的。当多兰在五年间的电影里，在自我其他感情关系上最终找不到答案和归宿后，他在《妈咪》里奔向母亲，也与很多往事拥抱和解。在这部电影里，我们可以看到多兰更加成熟的对感情的理解和可贵的宽容。感情生活去伪存真，妈妈才是那个最爱我们的人，妈咪我们是一伙儿的。（署名党阿飞，转载请注明作者名及出处“豆瓣电影”并与作者取得联系，违者必究！）

刚在央视六套看了这部电影，记忆里就是一部“好看”的片子。第一次看这部片子的时候还是初中吧，对当时观看过程中的激动劲到现在还记忆犹新：小刀，削苹果的杜先生，四大高手…… 今天又把这些人这些事记起来，现在有独立意识了，不再是那个看完武侠剧功夫片就瞎YY的少年，现在我们有互联网，有web2.0，所以我即刻想到了豆瓣，好片烂片在这里都能找到寄托，呵呵。
即使过了这么多年，以今日的眼光看这部片子，仍当得起“好看”二字，倘若像我一样再加上儿时记忆中的情愫，称为经典亦不过份！
演杜月笙的演员形神兼备，是的，我没说错，我没看过老杜真人，但我一直认为老杜真人就是片中这样，瘦削，清峻，正邪难辨，江湖传说和逸闻野史赋予我的想象力和片中人物正吻合！
儿时印象最深刻的是男竹搏杀四大高手的场景，针眼对芒尖，伺其七寸，凌厉酣畅！如今重温，已觉得不过尔尔，大概是记忆中的美丽吧。不过小刀的出场还是引起我久违的任侠情绪，此人从台词到表演活脱脱一个古龙笔下的人物！恣意、桀骜、至情至性。
在写这篇小文之前，我没看其他网友的评述，只注意到导演一栏写的是“张彻”，哦～原来这就是“张彻”，他的名字本身就代表着一种风格，闻名不如见面，看来我很好他这一口，以后会留心，呵呵。
片尾的那场洪门刑堂仪式也很有意思，没走过场，还颇仔细，在我看来若放在如今有被和谐的疑虑，彼时的国产片尚没有剪刀手？我估计是古惑仔反黑抗日杀汉奸的戏码契合了主旋律，对青少年有正面意义，不过片尾放字幕那会儿的地道战和铁道游击队还是小小的雷了我一把～

我不是为了到处灭火而奋斗，我是为了灭掉火本身。 当这句话被Chadwick Boseman道出时，尽管是平平地说出，但其力量穿透我的眼球把字母印在我的脑仁上！ 这种更伟大的句子会让人心中发亮。因为这是面对社会困境的指路灯，不是一个简单的ism而已，而是一个人对这个主义的比生命更...  (展开)

一份被众多介质隔断的爱情。

这份爱情是蓝色运动衫，也是艳丽洋牡丹，注定只能用心感受，“回到被
爱的每一天”，从人间到天上，从天上再到人间，注定是一片净土。

顺叙来看，是姑娘艾伶的成长，从稍带叛逆的北漂女孩直到与父亲真情相
拥的女儿，经历了孤独、创业的失败、对父亲的理解，过程中参杂了与男
孩姜和的情感记忆。

原来这份隔断是记忆中的情感，世界永远一分为二，一冷一暖，生死两隔，回不去的世界，蓝色运动衫总是从身边跑过，喊出口的姓名却得不到回应，卧倒在沙发寻找残留的温暖，她开始理解父亲的爱与她一样，选择生活不等于选择背叛，她更珍惜情感，走在过往的街道，不自觉的舞蹈，仿佛想要留住空气中关于他的气息，直到对这份情感的释然，放下了挂在胸口的残骸，将艳丽洋牡丹寄养在回不去的“世外桃源”。

欢迎关注weibo“电影就该电影”

庞克死亡金属演唱会场面劲爆呀，又是火焰表演又是闪电线圈的，听众们举着一具尸体抛高高真高兴太嗨了。从社会底层最聪明最强的份子中选拔出特工，这个想法真棒不走寻常路呀，纪本用坐牢来威胁别人令人不爽。迪克议员主张禁止滑板／庞克／电玩，这些可都是光头哥的最爱呀，活该被抢车。“彪悍的人生不需要解释”，男主刚从高桥上耍玩极限跳伞就被打了一枪麻醉，醒来后是咖啡馆，戳穿谎言后又无辜地挨了一枪麻醉，再醒来时竟然是在运输机上。一同选拔的同伴真搞笑，危急关头还拔几株药草，逃命的时候拿了一包白粉～透视望远镜能看见人骨骼真牛掰。捷克密探擦个玻璃而已，窗户竟然就倒了，笑死。尤里让约娜滚床单，她竟然不依。光头哥拿餐盘当滑板，玩得溜！花脸老头包场剧院，有钱！“反派死于话多”，叛变的捷克密探啰嗦了几句就被门外的子弹打成了筛子；尤里说完自己的牛逼梦想老巢就被端了，刚嘲讽完凯吉不会开枪就中弹了。。俄罗斯女特工笑起来真漂亮。男主最后说的“布拉布拉”是什么意思哦？？？

（以下可能含剧透） 1. 导演+编剧Alexander Payne 曾经两次获得奥斯卡最佳改编剧本，The Descendants（后裔，2011）和Sideways（杯酒人生，2004）。另外还有四次提名，包括最佳导演、最佳影片。他之前的电影剧本以改编为主，但本片是他和奥斯卡老搭档编剧Jim Taylor原创的。 最...  (展开)

来来来，先做个心理测试。

有一个人，从8楼上往下跳，你直觉他的下场是什么？
A：压在卖肉粽的小贩身上。
B：跌在遮雨棚上。
C：直接摔倒地上。

答案：
A：你完全不介意另一半是否是穷光蛋。
个性单纯又理想化的你只要爱上了就会包容对方的一切，就算另一半是穷光蛋但你也愿意跟着他（她）一起共创未来。这种类型的人虽然处于现代世界，可是内心世界还是属于阿信型的古人，会认为自己既然已经认定对方，对方只要一条心，什么事情都难不倒自己，不管另一半是怎样的对象，都觉得爱情最伟大，只要相爱就好了。

B：你有一点介意。
个性比较实际的你坚信贫贱夫妻百事哀，你的另一半不必家财万贯，但是也要能满足基本开销。这种类型的人认为自己要为自己负责，而且本身也有才华有专业，不喜欢一个什么都不会的痞子，至于对方必须是潜力股，对工作积极认真，至少基本的开销能够维持，这样才是一个负责人的人。这种类型的人虽然感性，但还是会用理性来评估事情。

C：你很介意另一半是穷鬼。
个性积极又主动的你相信世界上只有懒人没有穷人，对于穷哈哈的另一半会有恨铁不成钢的感觉。这种类型的人很主动积极，因此跟另一半在一起时不相信对方会穷一辈子，认为只要有自己的规划以及鼓励，对方总有一天会出人头地，也会因此而努力地工作。

针对上面测试，我说两句话：
1、很遗憾。评论太含蓄，不够犀利。
2、更遗憾的是，我选的是B。（其实我希望我可以是个有情饮水饱的人，但很可惜理智替我断了念想。）

好啦，开始正文。
虽然是很多年前看的电影，但我至今都记得郑秀文站在一块空地面前，大声喊：我要嫁个有钱人！我当时激动的想哭。怎么可以这个样子。多么单纯的小姑娘，把嫁个有钱人都想的那么简单。她甚至都没有想到嫁过以后会要承担什么。当然，对这样的女孩子肯定要出个爱情和金钱到底要什么的问题难为一下，这样才会显得爱情的重要。当然，最终这样的女孩子都会选择爱情，这样才能显得爱情可爱。
有情饮水饱。和爱的人在一起，即使吃糠咽菜都是幸福。这样的爱情才完美。可是，那毕竟是电影。更多的是贫贱百事哀。柴米油盐酱醋茶，如果连温饱都没有，何来力气谈情说爱。更何况连电影的结局都安排这一对有情人收获了一大笔钱来支持他们的爱情。
有情亦有钱。多么难得。

这个月最火爆的娱乐新闻无外乎梁洛施生子，这个二十出头的小姑娘华丽转身，一跃成为富太榜首。嫉煞众人。褒贬不一的评论下，人人都藏着一颗羡慕的心。
各种各样的讨论和攻略秘籍来了。
梁洛施嫁入豪门秘籍。（不管人家嫁没嫁，生了孩子就算功）
分析梁洛施如何套住李泽楷。（这种人真是吃饱撑的，这种事你怎么知道的？）
嫁个有钱人攻略。（如果真有用，写这个攻略的人早就嫁了，哪还会写这个不知所云的攻略）
梁洛施和李泽楷不得不说的故事。（不得不说这个标题最狗血，这个人最BT，人家两口子的事情你管的着么？）
甚至有人无耻的讨论，梁洛施到底爱不爱李泽楷？我真想骂这个人。你以为所有女人都是李嘉欣啊。
我愿意相信他们是相爱的。虽然差了那么多的岁月年纪，虽然隔了那么大的门第之差。因为他们眼睛里有爱意，因为他们看孩子时有快乐。这份情意和快乐是不能作假的。

看多了亦舒的女子都会说：要么有很多很多钱，要么有很多很多爱。
但更多的现代都市女子都心底明白：要嫁就嫁有钱人，没爱可以活，没钱可就会死。
连我妈这个标准的两耳不闻窗外事，一心相夫教子做家务的家庭主妇都明白大势所趋，苦口婆心的教导：“一定要找个有房有车的。”完全忽略她是在我爸一穷二白还租着房子的时候嫁给他的。

大学有一学姐，毕生目标是要嫁个有钱人。不折手段不惜代价，在她哪里我真实的见证了这八个字。她终于嫁了。毕业第二年。有房有车有公司。她到底快乐么？我只知道结婚后她越发沉默直到消失，也许是不屑和我们这种市井小民再多联系吧。一切冷暖自知。
端午回家，看到爸妈早起各自蹬着小自行车一起去绕二环路，晚饭后一起牵手散步。幸福的都让我有些嫉妒。我觉得妈妈当初的选择是那么的明智，放弃了一个有钱人，得到了一份终生的爱。当然，我爸是个值得托付的人。

以前有人问，有钱人和没钱的到底嫁哪一个？嫁舍得为你花钱的。
现在有人问，有钱人和有情人到底嫁哪一个？嫁值得嫁的有情人。
三有男人可以嫁。（是有责任心有上进心有善心这三有）
三无男人不可嫁。（无孝心无担当无包容）这种男人即使家财万贯也不可要。

我还有个朋友，女生。人虽不美但心地纯善。所以身边也有不同种类的男人，但没一心动。她有一天忽然告诉我，说知道自己想要的是什么样的。是可以与自己心灵相契合的男人。
呵，其实通俗点，就是懂她。能够明白她的所有隐忍的难过和伪装的坚强。如她这样独立的女子，不是钱可以打动的。
但这样的人比有钱人更可遇不可求。

有一次在饭局，一个女士说了一句话：“努力挣钱，将来养小白脸和狗。”话一出口，现场众多男士就有点脸上挂不住了。
哈，宝贝，努力挣钱很好，养狗很不错，但养小白脸就不对了。有这钱还不如送爸妈出国旅行一圈。不是更合适么?辛苦和努力换来的钱要用在刀刃上。

不依赖任何人也要到达任何想去的地方。只要努力，我们可以为自己的所有需要买单，包括爱情。
这是我的信仰。
亲爱的，送给你。

转载：ffkkk2007 今天和要好的妹子一起去影院观看了《海贼王：gold》剧场版，看见坛子里有这个活动，好久也没有写什么东西了，姑且写写自己一些感受，和大家一起分享，写的有些松散，大家姑且看之吧。 我开始看海贼的时间挺晚的，还是2010年时候的事了，那时候恰逢自己考研刚...  (展开)