日系画风，讲的也是青春时期珍贵的友谊，小凯帮助子枫打开心结，慢慢融入新环境从而寻找友谊。画面干净，两个年轻的脸庞纯真，眼神干净，一颦一笑都十分美好，最萌身高差也是戳到我了。王俊凯的年龄很适合这种青春剧，演技，台词功底也进步很多。合适的年龄，满脸的胶原蛋白，纯纯的画风，这才是青春剧啊

影片立意，选景都很美，很适合在悠闲时光里躺在沙发上看着的一部青春剧。

《年轻的教宗》因为有裘花加持，文青在逻辑思维上的糊涂账还勉强遮掩，在老约翰的《新教宗》里，没有转移视线的花枪，魔术就再也没法让人赞叹了，老约翰本身的表演风格就是嗨到断片前一秒的状态，这种云山雾罩的东西在接地气的对手、配角、故事里很超脱，像诗和远方，哪怕他念的诗连韵脚都荒腔走板，远方连一个街区都远不到，到底有那么点意思在，可是在整个剧都异想迷离的环境里，他就成了老不正经，像Studio54里流连不去的老dancing queen，是的，衰老是最可怕的，正如古铁雷兹拒绝了同是红衣主教的求爱，而年轻貌美的弗雷迪一脱光就颠倒不能自已。这个对比可悲又可笑，前面吧啦吧啦一通拒绝的大道理，还幻想得到了裘花圣灵的嘉许，可在青春肉体面前连犹豫都没有就拜倒了，那是靠精神力量吗？那是告诉我们，老丑没关系，出来勾引人就不对了。《新教宗》的种种前后矛盾让角色们越来越俗套，他们的痛苦越来越可笑，古铁雷兹长得挺像胖的阿凡提，本来挺好，一下人设就坍塌了。

《年轻的教宗》，酒店里的妓女用手机近距离拍了裘花的照片，绝不拍照的裘花竟然扭脸就走了，这个悬念一直干扰我，此后只要一出现手机，就恨不得伸手进屏幕给他打一行字：妓女手里有照片！最后出场的回顾里竟然还有这个妓女的特写！好吧，就当裘花圣灵附体早早预知自己会死在第一次公开布道时，等妓女知道她拍的是谁，这照片也不重要了。这种无节操粉丝向的维护心情提醒我，裘花已经把角色建立起来了，所以才会边看边为他担忧。老约翰呢？这大爷天生一副舅舅不疼姥姥不爱的滚刀肉形象，没法让人为他担忧，让观众为他担忧本身就说明人设坍塌了；可是一部观众没法担忧主角命运的剧，怎么能让人一厢情愿穿凿附会替它的漏洞自圆其说呢？

最难以忍受的是竟然以为梵蒂冈和意大利的外交角力里，梵蒂冈真的可以动用宗教威胁，裘花那么说的时候，对象是一个正宗意大利花瓶，而裘花的确用饥饿营销的手段创造了进球机会，观众也许可以接受这种文青下棋想2着就以为决胜千里了，命令教众“不参与政治”是无差别打击，并不能针对总理个人，等于是外交宣战，实际效果恰好解放了意大利，当且仅当“花瓶会认为一切都只关于自己”这种勉强站住脚的前提下，这个段子可以成立。看文青设想政治，什么时候翻白眼都是恰当且必要的。解读宗教意象都成了搞笑，啥宗教油画、远古雕塑、奇异的袋鼠，最大的意象就是无处不在的苹果，裘花全套执政方针就是四个字的花活，饥饿营销，把乔布斯的灵从地下请上来附体就够了。

如果没有疫情导致剧荒，真的看不下去。我都已经走神到这种程度了：艾斯特第一眼看见情人，一面喊“天使啊额滴爱”，一边要人刮刮胸毛，我忍不住笑了，这您就下不了眼了啊？得亏您没看见裘花\秃，毛都长身上了。

作为一位美漫粉，大半年的时间内没有一部超级英雄电影上映，反而等到了黑豹饰演者查德威克·博斯曼去世的消息，《黑豹2》明年才会开拍，这意味着漫威宇宙新阶段的重要支线因为查德威克的去世而不得不重新规划，新一代复联可能就此无法重现钢铁侠时期的荣光了。

就在我们苦等《黑寡妇》和随时关注扎克·施耐德版的《正义联盟》动态时，有一部另类的“超级英雄”电影却走入了大家的视线，由荷兰弟、卷福、珊农、霍尔特主演的《电力之战》。

当然了，这部以直流电交流电发展为背景，讲述爱迪生和威斯特豪斯之间纠葛的传记类电影和超级英雄相去甚远。但是仔细看你会发现，这部片子的四位主演，全部参演过超级英雄电影。荷兰弟现在是漫威新生代一哥，现任蜘蛛侠的扮演者；卷福是新复联的领导人之一，奇异博士的饰演者；珊农加入了另一家漫画阵营，DC中超人的对手佐德将军；霍尔特则在X战警里出演了“猛兽蓝毛”。

【详细】

12861620

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.

室内黑帮争斗悬疑反转片。老裁缝男主的演技和谋划，让人真正体会到什么是“于无声处听惊雷”，寥寥几语就把两个黑帮搅得血雨腥风，让兄弟反目，让行凶者被诛，最后成就了自己接线员的美好生活。所有人都被他玩弄于股掌之上，原因是他早已看透了所有争斗，所有的他都经历过，历经千帆，他可以从容笑看风云。

一开始，是一个老裁缝在讲述他缝制西装要领，从第一步开始，画图、裁剪、密密缝制、再到熨烫，很是专业。然后就是经常出没于他裁缝店的一些人，他们把一些信件放进去，然后专门有人来拿。应该是一些杀人行凶的要求，或是一些交易买卖的消息。一天，经常出没在他店里的两个人突然来敲门，其中一个还受了枪伤。其中一个人逼迫老裁缝为中枪的人缝了伤口，然后出去打探消息。中枪着醒来后，开始和老裁缝攀谈，老裁缝突然说自己就是“老鼠”（叛徒、出卖者），中枪的人笑着，以为他是开玩笑。然后等外面的人回来，老裁缝乘着去开门，向外面的人述说了中枪者很多不是，什么有点糊涂，老师弄外出者留下的箱子等等，让外出者对他生疑。又在此前，说了外出者的很多不对劲。从而让两个人相互猜疑，老裁缝又在里面添油加醋，结果两个人拔枪相向，中枪者被打死。然后外出者和老裁缝藏起了中枪者。中枪者是这个帮派头目的儿子，老头目寻来，两个人说儿子外出了。老头目一开始没说什么，在与老裁缝单独相处以后，说出了自己的怀疑，因为自己儿子不可能不穿外套就外出。正当老裁缝要说出真相时，外出的人又押着老裁缝的接线员，也是被杀公子哥的女友回来了。说发现女子地板上有血迹（应该是瞎说的）。女子百口莫辩，被带进了里屋。正好电话来了（前面帮派头目打过电话，让人寻找儿子），老裁缝被安排去接电话，谎称是公子哥打开的，还把地址写了下来。等帮派头目找去了，外出者托词留了下来。外出者要杀两个人，但是老裁缝又说出了两种选择，一个是老裁缝和接线员被杀死，外出者被追杀，估计也跑不了，一个是告诉对手帮派，让对手帮派按照老裁缝写下的地址去伏击帮派头目，然后外出者上位，老裁缝和接线员也能收益。三个人权衡利弊，选择第二种选择，很快对手帮派头目带着人来交易磁带。外出者说自己在里屋伏击，让老裁缝与接线员在外面交易。老裁缝等对手帮派进屋后，就用手势表示有人伏击。外出者冲出来后，被人用枪指着。老裁缝谎称外出者手枪里子弹被自己拿走，外出者一分神，就被对手黑帮击中倒地。交易完，对手黑帮有了，老裁缝让接线员拿着钱和他录下的所有人的犯罪证据去实现自己的完美生活。自己也准备烧掉这个裁缝店，去外地营生。这时外出者突然醒来，正准备行凶事，老裁缝说出了自己的生世，原来他以前也是一个刀口营生的厉害角色，因为厌恶了黑道的打打杀杀，跑了出来，学了一门手艺想好好生活，但是黑帮找到他，烧了他的铺子，杀了他的家人，他只能跑到这里来营生，但是为了帮像自己女儿一样的接线生实现自己的梦想，自己策划了一切，掀起了血雨腥风，最后依靠自己的精湛运筹，解决了这个街区的黑帮，还帮助自己喜欢的人实现了梦想，一个掌控全局的人。

真正的高人，凭借自己精准的运筹谋划，巧妙地言辞把控，就可以杀人于无形。步步为营，把控到位，精准施策，在方寸之间的三间房间，就把两个帮派算计了。看似精明的帮派老头目，三下两下就被搞掂了。还有那个心狠手辣的外出者，也很是厉害，还是被老裁缝算得死死的，最后一击，老裁缝轻巧一闪，精准一刺，迅速解决战斗，可见他昔日的犀利，虽然青春不再，但是依然风采依旧。女主有颜。影片很有看电影的质感，英伦风的西装很帅，所有人都很有风度。就有一个问题，如果公子哥和外出者对射，外出者被杀了，那下面的戏是不是就没得演了？不过还是一部神剧，很喜欢这种看似平常，实则惊涛骇浪的感受，一如老裁缝的从容不迫。《誓不低头》，题目也有点莫名其妙。

又一部小短剧，第一集4分10秒，感觉去掉片头片尾，剩下的剧情能有三分钟？挺有吸引力的，最起码第一集看下去想看，女捕头招上门女婿，入赘的女婿当天逃跑。女主随手抓了一个帮淘宝的赘婿赶车的车夫。第二集就是上门做苦力，各种找机会逃跑被抓。进度够快，故事也还可以。唯一让人必须说的就是：配音配音配音。什么时候能用演员的原音，配音各个都无法声音贴脸！声音漂浮起来，完全无法和剧情融合到一起，让人想看又有点膈应，难受，

全片时长110分钟，如果你能熬过前80分钟，恭喜你，你将收获一份巨大无比的反转呢。

要是熬不过去，也就熬不过去了。

奔着“海王”去看的我，很失望，故事老套不说，混乱的元素，还有片面的人物，完全给不够代入感。

有很长一段时间，我都在想这个故事到底在讲什么？男主的女儿为什么这么能作？她看起来好成熟啊，这真的不是来黑女儿的吗？……

真不怪人思维跑偏，它真的节奏太慢了，明明是21年的电影，活生生拍出了不知道多少年前的慢味，说严重点就是拖还无聊。

每次想快进，又担心错过关键剧情，如果你也担心，那么我现在可以很负责任的告诉你——快进吧，一点也不影响。

如此慢节奏的叙事，并且叙的都是很……日常？或者说无聊的事。

什么练拳击、找复仇对象、怀念死去的妻子/母亲……不是说这些事无聊，是导演拍得无聊。

只拿怀念举例，开头上来就给你说男主老婆得癌症，马上要死了，然后来段美好回忆，再来因为没有药物治疗死了。

以上加在一起时长还不够10min，请问观众要怎么代入产生理解和同情？

至于别的套路，比如官商勾结之类，真的用烂了，而且这个点被放出来的时候太早了，后续也没有相应及时的跟进。

感觉就是很着急的把全部点都堆到你面前，完了就不管了，这跟吃饭上了一桌子原材料有什么区别？难道要观众自己动手做饭？

最后提一下那个反转，哇，当时真的震惊到我了，怎么能这么强硬？！要知道，我完全没准备好迎接反转，也不存在“嗅到不一样的细节”，所以真的是被砸到。

只能说，你们要看的话，就注意点细节，可能观感会好点。

这部电影的关键到底是春晚，必要否是春晚的修饰语。

整部电影也确实围绕春晚展开：专家从基因的高度解读春晚，春晚筹备人、必要的工作人员、志愿者自我介绍，了解群众对春晚的看法，寻找场地，拉赞助，制作以及投放海报，进行海选，排练，开演，处理突发事故……这确实是一场春晚会面对的几乎全部，但这场春晚，是很有必要，还是没有必要？

说它有必要，那理由可太好找了：筹备人等工作人员、群众等都认可春晚对中国人的重要性，因此，举办筹备一场春晚欢度新春，是有必要的。

说它没有必要，是因为整场春晚都透着一股荒诞、靠谱，这样的春晚办不如不办：解读春晚的专家叫“胡逼说”，原丢了的导演叫“不见了”，寻找场地的叫“找不着”，拉赞助的叫“假惺惺”，制作的海报过于骚，参加海选的是各路牛鬼蛇神，处理突发事故的方式是制造更大的事故……

所以，或许可以做这样一种解读：一场春晚是很有必要的，但这一场春晚是没必要的。

但如果这样，那有必要的那一场春晚应该是什么样子呢？

首先，一场有必要的春晚应该是内部自洽的。这场春晚内部自洽吗？那可太自洽了。这场春晚里的每个人、每个人的每个物都派上了用场：有人的才艺是“关了灯之后，别人看不见”，当时觉得搞笑，但实际上，最后那个小仙女的节目确实需要这种才艺；烟雾骑行者，must love用来搞笑的，但主持效果不错，表演的歌曲也很好听；小提琴丢了，志愿者的otmaphone救了场。每个人的每样东西，不管单看多滑稽，都派上了用场。这样的春晚，怎能不自洽？

其次，一场有必要的春晚应该是和外部世界是和谐的。这场春晚和外部世界和谐吗？可能没理由说不和谐：专家的解读，排开胡说八道的内容，那体态、坐姿、灯光、采访环境、问答的流畅和高度，可不就是采访专家的情景吗？工作人员开的讨论会、寻找场地、海选、拜访名家等一系列事务，不可谓不正常、不专业……

如此看，直说这场春晚没有必要，又似乎过于武断。可要说这春晚很有必要吧，好像也有点儿昧良心。这样一来，必要和不必要的界限，似乎没有那么分明？就像白和黑中间有灰色，就像世界上很多事没有标准答案？这两个问题，我也问得很认真，大眼一看也像个正经问题，但真正经吗、真不荒诞吗？嘿嘿，忘了胡毕硕博士吗？但如果把所有的事情都往不正经了想，会不会消解一切，导致一切都不真实、没意义？那倒也不至于，人在看事情的时候，只要同时审查内容和形式、而非纯以形式为要，有自己的思想、思考、判断，那怎么会被外在牵着走？

《杰伊·比姆》让我想到了美国的《刺杀肯尼迪》和韩国的《辩护人》。这三部电影都和法律相关，感染力极强，影响力极大。我多么希望我们也能拍出、并且能上映这样的电影。

这部电影还让我想到两部国产电影，一个是《让子弹飞》，张麻子上任之后伸出三个指头：我上任只办三件事，公平！公平！还是他妈的公平！另一个是《我不是药神》——这部电影火爆网络引发热议，我们真的太缺这个了！

很长一段时间里，尤其是因为种姓制度，印度一直是压迫最为严重的国家之一。在看《杰伊·比姆》的大多数时间里，我和妻子都捏着拳头揪着心含着泪……

杰伊比姆是光，杰伊比姆是爱，杰伊比姆是黑暗通向光明的道路，杰伊比姆是数百万人眼角的泪水。

正所谓“地也，你不分好歹何为地？天也，你错勘贤愚枉做天！”惟愿公平正义满人间，窦娥冤屈永世休！

尽管我才看到19集，但是还是认为这部剧还是很好看的，从剧情到布景到道路到台词到搞笑，都看得出经过雕琢的，但是为什么口碑不好，百分之九十的责任在男主角，选的不好，到底哪里不好也不好说，而且有些逻辑有瑕疵，但是一部喜剧片不能太计较。总体来说，值得一看。

谈谈里面的几个配角，多是相声小品演员出身，还有一些港片经典配角参加，可以说阵容齐整，其中文松把阴险狡诈不男不女心狠手辣显示出来，魏翔前期看来杀人不眨眼搞笑担当，后期走歪了，智商下线。龙定海林雪在扬州比较威猛，怎么到了京师蜕变成守财奴，为了钱也不能不怀疑牛大宝啊，京师还有太监皇帝盯着呢。

本剧有潜伏，有鹿鼎记的情节，但绝大多数照抄潜伏，导致大家吐槽，如果大家要求不是那么高的要求，快进看也能看完。

看一部片子适合什么样的年龄段观看，不是单单看情节是不是吓人，而是要看主线逻辑是几岁的逻辑。例如熊出没和海贼王，都是动画片，显然主线逻辑的年龄并不相同。

舅舅住在一个有邪恶念头的已故巫师的家里，家里几乎所有的东西都会动，然后他把刚变成孤儿的外甥接了过来。外甥顺理成章的发现了异样，很快接受并吵着闹着要学魔法。最禁忌的东西放在客厅显眼位置的一个柜子里，并且钥匙就在锁旁边。外甥复活了恶巫师并勇于承认错误。由于咒语，再厉害的巫师也解决不了问题，必须是麻瓜。最后，外甥拯救了全世界。

好一个一个说，首先接来住在这样的房子里，真的确定比再给他找个寄宿家庭好么？拿亲情说事，就和一做错了事就哭着说想死去的爸妈一样让人翻白眼。然后，人偶会动啊，这是多少恐怖片的设定，这孩子接受的也太快了，而且马上跃跃欲试的要学习，这是刚死了爸妈，又颠覆了认知后会有的反应么？柜子位置就差在上面贴一个，来开我吧了。最后还是少不了大象无形，大音希声，破玲珑棋局的必定是一个不懂武功的少年。

不是说这样不行，但主线逻辑幼稚，就需要一些丰满的情节进行装饰。好莱坞拍了不少童话电影，很多也是一望即知的主线逻辑，但只要能在细节渲染和表达方式上引起观众的情感共鸣，那也会有很出彩的效果。很显然本片并没有做到，导致观影体验像喝白开水，没有波澜，完全是走流程。

不过想赞一下中文译名， The House with a Clock in Its Walls，译成 滴答屋，真的很棒。

这一季很多案子更偏向社会派推理，甚至有点像社会学思考为主的电视剧了。

e01：【把自己说成高又帅躲锅案】和失踪人直接接触，却说出了和其他人完全不同的描述。这个人是dexter的警官！！！！

e02:【声波固定人类后开枪案】解刨小白鼠证明开过声波仪，胶带证明是此人。

☆e03：【撞脸借DNA案】故事不错：A在大学时候杀了人，B为帮凶，并拒绝了警察需求DNA的要求，A在当时根本没被要DNA。若干年后埋尸败露，A从C的撞脸公司找到了和自己撞脸的人，让其帮自己提供DNA，B的第一个人不成功只能找第二个，还没去成就被死者弟弟找到，把B和B伪装者杀死了。反过来看就很高级。

e04：【医生骗人得癌症案】为此杀了老婆。从一个病人没有的癌症发现的。

e05：【挖游戏挖出毒药桶案子】用gas掩盖汽油的焚烧气味，incongruous。

e06:【富商买凶狙情妇新情人案】发现的逻辑在于，此人有追求下属妻子的习惯，此妻子与狙击被害者中一人有染。

☆e07：【杀第二个为炸第一个尸体案】为保护儿子不要去杀人，父亲杀死了儿子obsess对象，又杀了一个流浪汉并在他肚子里缝入自己工地上能弄到的塑胶炸弹。关键是发现儿子日记上父亲的指纹，定罪是利用父爱。

e08:【割了真人头发伪造自己DNA案】耳朵形状可以判断人是否相同。

e09：【赚俄乌克兰战争财】战争过程中交易，战争结束才能变现。

e10：【赚钱大学杀人案】关键是通过照片发现了犯人和一个特征家族的关系，然后发现新的动机。

e12：【女警察杀卧底男警察为钱案】从录影的晃动判断摄影者走路特征；重塑一间房间来做录影。用了制造一个相同房间来虚构录影的诡计。

e13：【纹身破案此集全是化学家】poisoner的发现重要是要找到motive和relationship

e14：【中国ganster被利用案】威胁谁都不要威胁易容师

e15:【杀老太太为锁死自己pride案】楼降低的方案巨快出现

e16：【杀前面三个人就轮到自己继承案】动机过于明显，how是机器人chase

e17:【现实超级英雄被杀案】死于穿甲弹！weapon由来

e18:【Preper被杀案】MurderWeapon的来源给出死者是自己去了被害地点，从而定位murderer身份

e19:【假抢钱真偷钥匙案】所有地方都可能有surveillance device，这集当中是藏在灯泡里面，从灯光的颜色和其他的灯泡不一样而被发现。关键发现了dealer也是坏蛋

e20：【DNA专家造假案】盲目相信“physical evidence”的危险性：信源可信度被盲目设置到很高。

e21:【杀老公模仿robbery gone wrong 案】左右利手梗（观察皮带扣的方向能够知道人是右撇子还是左撇子），Lying about alibi, Motive, Evidence是完全不一样的三件事情。

e22:【问卷调查出你是个杀人犯案】Deprivaty and Atrocity Numeration Test，利用问卷答案反推IP地址