谁是我们的敌人,谁是我们的朋友,这是首要问题。
不得不说,这个事情是有很邪门的地方。
你要考虑到很多的事情。
大不了一死嘛!
他们不会感觉我话里有话吧!
心之力!
神侠万不可与魔盗为伍,若昏然求和必。。?
关键是人?
其实他们也就那样。
??????????
但是我不说,你
谁是我们的敌人,谁是我们的朋友,这是首要问题。
不得不说,这个事情是有很邪门的地方。
你要考虑到很多的事情。
大不了一死嘛!
他们不会感觉我话里有话吧!
心之力!
神侠万不可与魔盗为伍,若昏然求和必。。?
关键是人?
其实他们也就那样。
??????????
但是我不说,你也休想撞死我!
南无普贤菩萨行愿品!
当流浪猫鲍勃在街头受伤后,流浪汉焦急地带着它去请做公益服务的兽医治疗。猫咪安顿下来了,流浪汉在笔记本上认真地写下:照顾好鲍勃使我成为一个更好人。我心中一动,这就是鲍勃的??礼物吧!回想自己当父亲的16年来,变得益发注意安全、关注健康、努力工作和照顾家庭,因为我意识到自己的许多牵挂和责任。生命是最好的礼物,我因此成为了一个更好的人。
当流浪猫鲍勃在街头受伤后,流浪汉焦急地带着它去请做公益服务的兽医治疗。猫咪安顿下来了,流浪汉在笔记本上认真地写下:照顾好鲍勃使我成为一个更好人。我心中一动,这就是鲍勃的??礼物吧!回想自己当父亲的16年来,变得益发注意安全、关注健康、努力工作和照顾家庭,因为我意识到自己的许多牵挂和责任。生命是最好的礼物,我因此成为了一个更好的人。
这是我看过的电影里关于未成年人被性侵最有深度的剖析。
(本文出现的未成年人特指没有性承诺权的未成年人,每个国家法律不同,我国规定是14岁以下)
我们现在谈论的是非暴力形式的性侵。在这种畸形的关系中,经常被“性侵者”和“被性侵者”拿出来当作“借口”的一个说辞是:所谓“未成年人”或者“儿童”难道真的不了解“爱情”吗,这是一个很严肃的问题。
当然在法律层面上,和
这是我看过的电影里关于未成年人被性侵最有深度的剖析。
(本文出现的未成年人特指没有性承诺权的未成年人,每个国家法律不同,我国规定是14岁以下)
我们现在谈论的是非暴力形式的性侵。在这种畸形的关系中,经常被“性侵者”和“被性侵者”拿出来当作“借口”的一个说辞是:所谓“未成年人”或者“儿童”难道真的不了解“爱情”吗,这是一个很严肃的问题。
当然在法律层面上,和未成年人发生性关系那就是强奸。但是就像成年的界定一样,跨过法定成年年龄,你只是成为一个法律上面的成年人,而你在思想or道德上的成年可能在这之前,也可能在这之后。所以我们真的能从道德层面去批判,去定罪吗?
这个问题没有标准答案,由于个体的差异以及真正沟通的困难(就像本片里主人公对自己记忆的粉饰,他者很难做出准确的判断),可能只有上帝才能做出评判。但是真的是这样吗?当然不是。
这个“借口”最大的问题就是:该接受道德审判的本就不应该是身为受害者的未成年人,而是那个身为施害者的成年人。
在这种畸形的关系中,身为施害者的成年人往往凭借着各种不对等(信息上的不对等,知识上的不对等,财富上的不对等等等),自知or不自知的去“欺骗”(“压迫”)受害者。这不是身体的暴力,而是另一种层面的暴力。
难道就不存在对等关系下未成年人自愿与成年人发生性关系吗?对不起,存在可能性极低,低到不可能。退一亿步讲,就算有这种可能,成年人仍然面对另一个道德问题:“爱情”等同与性关系吗。
行吧 期待值太高的确不是什么好事[发抖] 姑且三星好了 亚裔小姐姐是好看的 共鸣很少的情况下通常习惯试着去理解关于 是否应该躲在自己的房间里 写永远不会寄出的情书 电影很大胆 将所有情书寄了出去 并且也很大胆的为女主获得了两个双向箭头 在我看来 独自收藏一封封没有邮票的信才是更为浪漫 不是每一份情愫都希望被公开处刑 不是每一封信的主人公都有回应这份情愫的义务 同
行吧 期待值太高的确不是什么好事[发抖] 姑且三星好了 亚裔小姐姐是好看的 共鸣很少的情况下通常习惯试着去理解关于 是否应该躲在自己的房间里 写永远不会寄出的情书 电影很大胆 将所有情书寄了出去 并且也很大胆的为女主获得了两个双向箭头 在我看来 独自收藏一封封没有邮票的信才是更为浪漫 不是每一份情愫都希望被公开处刑 不是每一封信的主人公都有回应这份情愫的义务 同时 也不是每个主人公都会尊重这份小心思 静置的单向箭头里 所有的小幻想都是彩虹色的 一旦箭头被动射出却又反弹回来时 扎向的并非仅仅只是幻想那么简单 受伤 困顿 无所适从等等的情绪堆积 是很难排解的 是对自己的处刑关于 你为什么从来没有过男朋友 是这样的 真的很难觉得会有人那样喜欢自己 与是否自信无关 书里的 电影里的甚至想象中的任何感情 我们都站在上帝视角 自然厘的一清二楚 但现实不是 它往往错综复杂 当局者迷 前段时间听歌 有句歌词翻译的很好 一厢情愿 两情才相悦 一度很是认同 不过 一厢情愿的那一方总会多几分期待吧 那那份患得又患失的情绪也会多几分吧 在一份感情未确认之前 也是无异于为自己上刑吧在乱糟糟的情绪到来之时 趁着周遭一切还尚未变得更糟糕 及时整理自己 把情感嚼碎了咽肚子里自我消化 某种程度上也是自我救赎吧以上
Gomes还在试图突破电影边界,和研究更为开放的实践方法,在探索精神上值得推崇,影片内容呈现了一个电影制作组以开放的方式拍摄电影,他们几乎没有规则,或另谋一种说辞:拒绝了惯常的规则,比如演员之间的必要剧情关系,或者干脆剧情就是拍摄本身这个事件。不过正因为这种理由不充分的开放实践,导致了成片非常松散无力的内容,因此这探索也就变得平平无奇,不痛不痒。
Gomes还在试图突破电影边界,和研究更为开放的实践方法,在探索精神上值得推崇,影片内容呈现了一个电影制作组以开放的方式拍摄电影,他们几乎没有规则,或另谋一种说辞:拒绝了惯常的规则,比如演员之间的必要剧情关系,或者干脆剧情就是拍摄本身这个事件。不过正因为这种理由不充分的开放实践,导致了成片非常松散无力的内容,因此这探索也就变得平平无奇,不痛不痒。
我很喜欢林永健,二十年前看他演的喜剧,举着一本《农民工法律知识大全》,找老板讨说法:“你以为我不懂法?”
《怒放》剧情幼稚。我不太受得了的是,战场上打着枪炸着炮,主角抱着战友的尸体或者心爱的女人停半天——这不耽误事儿吗?有多少伤不能等到仗打完再悲,有多少绵不能等到仗打完再缠?
我很喜欢林永健,二十年前看他演的喜剧,举着一本《农民工法律知识大全》,找老板讨说法:“你以为我不懂法?”
《怒放》剧情幼稚。我不太受得了的是,战场上打着枪炸着炮,主角抱着战友的尸体或者心爱的女人停半天——这不耽误事儿吗?有多少伤不能等到仗打完再悲,有多少绵不能等到仗打完再缠?
剧情设定是,主角是反派的杀父仇人,反派是主角的夺妻大敌,到全剧高潮时,反派带着军队绑了男主女主,准备把他俩枪毙,突然主角的朋友闯到军队中间放了个炮仗(虽然是炸弹,效果跟炮仗差不多),烟雾一起一散,男女主角就毫发无损地消失了。然后男主单枪去闯反派的部队,要和反派单挑,反派下令让士兵都退到房间外,主角把手里的枪撂了,提出肉搏的建议,反派就也把枪撂了,被主角肉搏死了。主角捂着心口上汩汩流血的刀伤,做了一番中气十足的演讲,反派手下的士兵被说动,跟主角上山了。
故事从一个压抑的悲剧讲起,黑白胶片独有的对灰色色彩的表现力让这种电影需要营造的悲情感得到了充分释放。而这部影片中最值得称道的带着越剧风味的插曲音乐,又让这些释放出来的悲伤混合着优质的电影布光让压抑从形式上完成了对主题的辅助。逃荒中(后面有所解释是因为老家血吸虫病的肆虐)东哥一家的遭遇——抓壮丁,既从逻辑上解释了十年分别的合理性,又在时间点上对故事的前半段叙事的时空做了清楚的介
故事从一个压抑的悲剧讲起,黑白胶片独有的对灰色色彩的表现力让这种电影需要营造的悲情感得到了充分释放。而这部影片中最值得称道的带着越剧风味的插曲音乐,又让这些释放出来的悲伤混合着优质的电影布光让压抑从形式上完成了对主题的辅助。逃荒中(后面有所解释是因为老家血吸虫病的肆虐)东哥一家的遭遇——抓壮丁,既从逻辑上解释了十年分别的合理性,又在时间点上对故事的前半段叙事的时空做了清楚的介绍。直至解放后苦妹子和东哥的重逢为止,无论从哪个角度来看,这都是一部有质感的优秀电影。
但之后的情节却让整部影片分裂成了艺术表现水准完全无法比拟的两个部分。一切劣质的意识形态电影的毛病都开始在后半段的情节中得到了传染。
但这些通病已经毋须多言。故事的人物性格足够鲜明,罗站长的热情十年前就早有铺垫,而知识分子对科学的过分执着和对病人的忽视和冷漠倒也不能说夸大其词。场景和那个时代的激情都被影片真实的记录和渲染,在那么一瞬间甚至得到了我这个半个世纪后的观影者跨时空的共鸣和感动。其实如果仅仅只有这些,后半段就不能算糟糕,但生硬的如“不是我救了你,是党救了你”这样的在当下观众听起来笑场的口号,又那么的轻易把它打回了属于它那个时代的原形。
作为一个职场单亲妈妈,这部剧给我最大的共鸣就是,阿龙的父亲和女主月荣的妈妈真是倒霉,这么多年,都是帮子女带娃,不仅没有人帮助,也没有经济支持。
最后房道龙和陈月荣在香港重逢,我想的却是,四个孩子从此真的是孤儿了。尽管在整个电影里,男女主人公大多数时间也都在上海流落,并不怎么管孩子。
百度了一下,成龙的两个哥哥,后来在家乡作了普普通通的百姓,至今,成龙都不愿意开口叫他们
作为一个职场单亲妈妈,这部剧给我最大的共鸣就是,阿龙的父亲和女主月荣的妈妈真是倒霉,这么多年,都是帮子女带娃,不仅没有人帮助,也没有经济支持。
最后房道龙和陈月荣在香港重逢,我想的却是,四个孩子从此真的是孤儿了。尽管在整个电影里,男女主人公大多数时间也都在上海流落,并不怎么管孩子。
百度了一下,成龙的两个哥哥,后来在家乡作了普普通通的百姓,至今,成龙都不愿意开口叫他们哥哥。而成龙的祖父,这位独自抚养两个孩子,经历了饥荒、灾祸的老人,连什么时候去世,都已不可考,便如在电影中莫名其妙消失一样。
父母最大的悲剧,不是孩子不争气,是好不容易孩子大了,孩子又生了孩子,再丢给你抚养。就像是打游戏通了十几关突然断电,又从头开始一样,实在是让人沮丧。
男主女主深情相拥,三口之家甜甜蜜蜜,背后,却是父母的无端辛劳,以及四个孤儿的凄苦并不为人知的一生。
所以,林凤娇默默隐忍也好,房祖名不成器也好,吴绮莉也好,吴卓林也好,成龙的渣,似乎是上一代的遗传。
所以,很抱歉,我一点都不感动。
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.
谁曾想,已经淡出观众视线几十年的监狱题材电影,会在2020年再度引起观众们的注意。
这要得益于导演麦浩邦和编剧黄子恒。
70后的麦浩邦有多年从事幕后工作的经验,而黄子恒正是大名鼎鼎的黄百鸣的儿子。
谁曾想,已经淡出观众视线几十年的监狱题材电影,会在2020年再度引起观众们的注意。
这要得益于导演麦浩邦和编剧黄子恒。
70后的麦浩邦有多年从事幕后工作的经验,而黄子恒正是大名鼎鼎的黄百鸣的儿子。