高剔红女士的一生是光辉的一生，是伟大的一生！

看电影《桂花巷》，我找到了当年看《一一》的那种感觉，就是从台湾文艺片所特有的平和清新之中体会生活的张力，整部片子慢慢悠悠，向观众娓娓道出高剔红的平凡的不停地与命运抗争的一生。也使我忽然之间就爱上了高剔红这样的女人，纯属钦佩与崇敬的热爱！

高剔红从父亲因打渔沉船丧命之日起，就注定要一生与波澜为伴，母亲逝世之后，寄居舅舅篱下，从此之后更是磨练了她隐忍的性格。对弟弟高剔江她是关怀备至，虽只年长两岁，却像母亲一样给他温暖；对亲人恩人舅舅一家她是孝敬有加；对邻里长者她是礼数周全；对心底的他——渔夫秦江海，她却从不表露心声，虽然秦江海的音容举止无时无刻不在撩动她少女的心扉。有人说她是断掌，注定会克夫克子，她开始注意到命运可能在捉弄她，她的生活不会这样一直平静。果然，即使她努力工作，凭纤纤细手绣花养活家人，即使她强忍痛苦裹脚缠足，做传统的女人典范，命运的玩笑还是来了，大户家族辛家来提亲，这本是她脱离穷苦生活躲避命运的苦难雨点最好的机会，她却以弟弟尚年幼需要照料为由婉拒，其实秦江海的影子一直盘旋在她的心房，弟弟步父亲后尘死于海难，她便只有把秦江海深埋心底，渔夫？渔夫会有着怎样的命运呢？正如后来高剔红的舅母所说。假使当初一开始便答应辛家的提亲，说不定高剔江也不会死于非命。于是，她嫁入辛家，过上了锦衣玉食的生活。看到这里，电影刚放了三分之一，眼见剔红过得如此甜蜜，我心中却有隐忧，影片朴实的画面和“清淡”的配乐会给你这种感觉，人生就是一幕朴实清淡的戏码，会让我们来不及回味幸福的甜蜜滋味，就会转入另一个弯道，长久、曲折的路，还要继续走。高剔红后来丧夫，她艰辛的育子惠池、持家、包戏子、吸食鸦片、与男仆偷情，虽早有预料情节会曲折发展，但我还是不忍心在高剔红身上看到污点，我只能说演员陆小芬的表演真的没的说，她的举止、表情真的会抓住观众的心，她的出场是完美的，但是并不代表以后的路仍然完美，犯错误是不可避免的，但是看到这样的一个女人在默默地对抗着命运，你不会因为这些错误而从心里瞧不起她，相反，你会产生一点点怜悯、一点点钦佩、一点点默许。她把儿子惠池教育成才，她把辛家这个大家庭操持的井井有条，她可以不再痴迷戏子，她可以戒大烟，她可以向儿子坦诚她有身孕，走过了弯路，她仍然是一个完美的女子。若干年后当她看到每年都会回桂花巷看望她高剔红的老宅的已成富商的秦江海时，也许心中仅仅会有一丝涟漪而已，其实命运就像天气，阴晴不定，有雨有雪，我们大部分人都会选择躲雨，但是谁没有淋过雨呢？高剔红与命运抗争了八十年，秦江海又何尝不是呢？穷苦的生活不会一辈子，舒服的生活也只是一阵子一阵子。

电影《桂花巷》拍于1986年，那一年，高剔红陆小芬30岁，秦江海任达华31岁，这是演员们刚刚褪去青涩面孔的年纪，所以我们看到了美丽的忍让的幸福与不幸的高剔红，看到了高大的意气风发的没有渔夫气质的秦江海。导演陈坤厚，摄影出身，我看过他摄影的《汪洋中的一条船》和《小城故事》，色彩风格确实比较独特，这部《桂花巷》传承了前两部佳片的风格，温和、婉转，看到电影里的蓝天碧海和深宅大院，你会感觉自己仿佛也走了进去。这是一部好电影，值得珍藏！

如标题，不思考其内涵，只关乎其表的，张口就来用一种，很“睿智”的发言，觉得自己看过几部“大片”，自己有资格是“影视大佬”，然后“眼高手低”的对着剧情就是一顿，不知所云的“吹毛求疵”。

好似自己很“睿智”，可以发现看见别人所不知道的

为什么豆瓣生态区物种居然这么多样性，这种属于什么品种？

自我见解，《一人之下》不仅仅没有受到过多的美，日文化影响，反倒是弘扬中国文化，而且内容不是什么爽爽，两极对立，无脑走剧情，等等

反倒是整本漫画有对人生观，价值观，社会观，生老病死，理想与现实碰撞等等一些列的“哲理”，有着深刻的见解和思考，

其所表达的内涵就可以暴打那些“热门作品”

如果那些物种脑壳不行，转不过来，不明白其内在的“艺术价值”，那抛开所表达的内涵而言

剧情难道不是各种高低起伏，抑扬顿挫。并且还有各种明线，暗线，主线，等等交错

这一季的制作组，至少尊重原著漫画剧情，没有乱改，只是感性的增加了一些梗，增加人物性格与剧情的活性，使其人物具有真实感

【详细】

14870854

片子延续了第一部轮回的构思，但是整体剪辑凌乱，不如第一部的剪辑流畅，大部分场景是为了恐怖而恐怖，且过于集中在上半部分，下半部剧情显得相当鸡肋，可能国产惊悚片在短期内很难跳出幻觉，神经病之类的奇怪框架。结局更是一言难尽，应该只是为了彰显它的3D效果，然后效果也不怎么样。整个剧情不值一提，不明白为什么所有的片子都一定要以爱情作为主线，仿佛我们除了爱情没有任何别的情感值得去探寻。值得一提的是耿乐的演技很好，梅婷还蛮适合这类题材。一言以蔽之，什么玩意。

特赦1959第25集开头几分钟，刘安国与康泽的对话和心态转换之间的演绎堪称登峰造极。一个前共产党员、叛徒，一个复兴社创始人之一、国民党特务，在功德林里都属于“落后份子”、相较于国军军官的不受待见之人。

在两人的对话中，开始刘安国掌握聊天的方向和节奏，像猫逗老鼠一样玩弄康泽的惊恐之心，康泽对自己头上的“特务”帽子可能招来的不被特赦，或最终判决死亡的可能而惊惧。刘安国因找到一人比自己的处境还要下等而取得心理优势，并对自己能掌控两人之间的局势而得到“上位者”玩弄于人的快乐。

但是康泽也不是一般人，国民党中常委。在手被热水一烫的瞬间，康泽回过神来，脑中迅速找到用以反击刘国安的利刃：共产党最恨叛徒。几句言语之间，似是把刘安国打进十八层地狱，不得翻身。刘安国悲从心来，一时无法控制住悲伤。这时，轮到康泽露出轻蔑的微笑。

短短几分钟，两人的心理互搏，势能转化，以及人性的无意义之恶生动演绎。但可悲的是，这种互搏，没有任何意义，只是满足自己内心可笑的“高人一等”罢了。

这个情节看完久久不能平息，人生中有许多无意义的事不过是为了证明自己比别人强一点而已，沾沾自喜之间时光老去，又极易患得患失。他人即地狱，在与他人的政治中，必须要保持自己的独立性。

学习英模先进事迹，从中汲取奋进力量。影片由中央政法委组织拍摄，影片以公、检、法、司、国安五大政法机关的真实人物为原型，分别讲述了“牧民牦牛被盗案”“农村凶杀悬案”“重点项目征地房屋腾退案”“未成年司法矫正”与“国安人的一生”五个真实故事。展示了政法机关打击犯罪、保护人民、维护正义的初心使命，弘扬了政法干部忠诚担当、执法为民、无私奉献的英雄本色，太值得一看了。

大侠霍元甲，竟然也吃人不吐骨头。还能说什么呢？

就两个字，牛逼！！！

看来电影大师都有一个放荡不羁的心。彼得杰克逊的群尸玩过界，山姆雷米的人玩鬼，我们徐克大师的混乱三部曲。真是看的人过瘾啊。

当然，最牛逼的还是最后的一幕。很难想象阿莲离开大家村以后的生活是什么样的。我觉得大概率会是悲剧收场。

还有阿娇，真是让人看一眼就汗毛直立。太牛逼了，不知道是哪个演员。应该有些巨人症的，那手也太大了。。

其实往深里剖析，还是能看出很多隐喻的。屈服只是表面的，一旦队长死了，就散了。三个好人也剖了尸，为了生存都一样的。

随便写写，为了自己喜欢的电影！

影片借美国作家詹姆斯回忆给瑞士雕塑大师、画家贾科梅蒂做肖像模特的一次经历，呈现了贾科梅蒂对待作品的态度和作为画家的自我要求，以及艺术这柄双刃剑给贾科梅蒂物质生活和精神生活带来的巨大影响。同时，毫不喧宾夺主地介绍了给予贾科梅蒂斯不同层面支撑与安全感的三个人：兄弟迭戈、情人安妮特、妓女卡洛琳分别。此外，还通过主人公之间闲谈夹带了贾科梅蒂斯对毕加索与布拉克引领的立体主义的微词、对后期印象派的主将塞尚重视物象体量感的推崇。

影片最吸引人的地方在于，是透过詹姆斯作家品格滤镜，来呈现贾科梅蒂画家品格。即，以一个沉浸于“观察-自我理解”无法自拔的人的视角，去认识一个沉浸于“观察-表达自我”的人，这本身就是一个太值得期待的事情。于是当詹姆斯的包容、同理，碰上贾科梅蒂的苛刻、自我，让一次本该三四个小时、最多半天就该结束的肖像画绘制，延长到了18天，这其中有贾科梅蒂斯一遍遍的休止、推翻、重来，也有詹姆斯不愿拒绝的试探、深入、张望。这样漫长的无果看似磨人，但旁观者清，他们实则都认同甚至乐此不疲于对无限完美的追逐。

影片大部分场景设置在色调清冷肃穆、布满如贾科梅蒂斯本人一样愁容满面的石膏雕塑作品的画室中。借环境氛围体现画家贾科梅蒂斯在琢磨艺术极限过程中被艺术无限性反噬的压抑与郁郁。通过贾科梅蒂斯高价回收自己早期作品、因不被认可撕毁画作、对手中处于创作困境的作品欲罢还休、突然对着画作自我否定骂骂咧咧等种种内心矛盾、情绪失控情节让这个固执、不服输、勇于破立的倔老头形象生动鲜活起来，让人既心疼又好笑，既可气又可爱。难怪詹姆斯压抑到需要通过游泳、参观夏加尔作品放松心情，还是要一次次改签机票、一次次迈进贾科梅蒂斯的画室。

终于，在任性、无厘的妓女卡洛琳身上，詹姆斯懂得了陷入艺术无止境追求漩涡的贾科梅蒂斯的救赎是什么，完美地强制性地打断。这大概就是贾科梅蒂斯对卡洛琳的依赖。“他会用一支沾上灰色颜料的大画笔毁掉他已经完成的一切，通常之后，他拿起一把细尖黑画笔重新开始绘制头部，然后他用黄褐色加亮，然后他用白色做最后的修改。然后，他又拿起那个大画笔涂掉所有已经完成的画。这样重复不下一百遍。”而就在第18天，端坐的詹姆斯紧张地盯着贾科梅蒂斯手中不停变换的画笔，算好时机，起身。果然，完美的刚刚好的肖像画。然后他完美地说出他要回纽约。然后一幅完美的肖像画保住了。

最后，表白配乐。焦虑的画家、疲惫的作家甚至是想要倍速的观众，在戏谑绝望的歌曲中一笑释然，顿觉心情都俏皮起来。总之非常值得欣赏的一部作品。

【详细】

123321240

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.

这个配音，可不可以不要太一本正经

还有贾乃亮头发的颜色and 中分.....

还有第一集他去机场接女主说的，不认识我了吗，尼玛带着那个墨镜谁还看得到你的脸啊……

好好的一部小说啊……

140个字，凑字数，140个字，凑字数，140个字，凑字数，140个字，凑字数，140个字，凑字数，

《天罗地网》1988年的电影，导演是黄志强（不耳熟），监制徐克，主演郑少秋、梁家辉、李子雄、郑浩南、徐锦江、李美凤。这演员阵容也是没谁了，可是尽管如此，这部电影仍然乏善可陈。不过大家可以欣赏下影帝梁家辉鲜肉时期的颜，那时候他大概三十岁，也算是鲜肉了。徐锦江也不是反派哎。秋官因为这部戏马惊伤了膝盖，不过他还是贡献了他的反派、他的军装造型、中山装造型以及大背头造型。这里面的形象还真跟他以往的造型很不相同，眼神里带着狠劲，跟以往角色眼神都很不相同，演技实力不是吹的。只是他的这个反派实在是太帅，而且反派得有点牵强，最后死得还很惨，这么帅的人被一个小女孩打死。我觉得导演可能认为这样虐秋官演的这个角色就会让观众有爽点（然而并没有）。然后其他真的是没啥亮点了。

我先来：求求了，别再低走了

极狐第一集是近几年最炸的第一集开局了吧，三言两句就能把一个人物立住了，要不是男主掏出腰带，我还以为另一个才是男主，这种反套路在build也用过，哪怕拍的跟build一样我也满足了，要求不高，求稳。

开篇还是龙骑+杀戮都市的即视感，但架不住叙事节奏、人物刻画做的好，特效是真的烂，这一波属于致敬20年前的特效了。

预言一波，第一单元卖玩具的单元，问题应该不大，毕竟01和revice第一单元也都很正常，搞完小boss后，第二单元的精英怪应该问题也不大，最重要的环节还是得看第三单元怎么编排了，第二单元应该属于把游戏“停服”了，幕后真正的boss要出来了，游戏真正的目的也出来了，这时候作品就得出现核心价值了，01出现歪屁股，圣刃结尾才出现内核，revice直接群魔乱舞，希望极狐能正常发挥吧。至少前两个单元会很稳。这个评分我想也应该会保持到春节后！

有一说一，这杂兵压迫感满满，确实有一种末世的即视感。

最近无意间看到了这部剧的预告片，一向对悬疑片有点忌惮，因为比较胆儿小…但这部剧的演员阵容和预告片内容还是深深吸引住了我。

就目前所知的剧情，主演分别是警察队长冷小兵、新人警察夏木和心理医生沈雨。2000年时候的冷小兵也是刚去警队一年的新人警察，在报案出警中，自己身负重伤并且经历了熟悉的同事从幽默开朗到死去，深深自责自己未能开枪杀死凶手。而同样深受重创的还有小夏木，和亲如母子的老师赌气的小孩在瞬间失去胜似亲人的人，不敢想象他的心理负担，一个成人怕是也短期难以消化吧，所以他得了重度心理病！

17年后，小夏木长大成长为警察，冷小兵也成为刑警队长，但海舟案还是未能揭开神秘面纱，凶手仍逍遥法外！而当初线索无几扑朔迷离的连环案，还能击破吗？

有时候感叹人的生命如此脆弱，经不起精神或巨大力量的碾压，而有的人为什么非要致别人于死地呢！大概有坏人，就有拯救心灵的医生吧，还很期待心理医生在这部剧中发挥的作用。无论是治病还是对犯罪嫌疑人动机的破解，都尤为重要吧！

【详细】

14046617

1.剪辑稀碎。战斗戏频繁切镜头，让我的部分大龄同事们晕的想吐。时代背景一字未提，上来就是一顿战斗，打了半天分不清谁是谁，为了什么。开局一场武戏吸引观众眼球，接着一场文戏交代背景，展开故事，再是一场武戏打破沉闷顺便推动剧情发展，引出矛盾问题，再是一场文戏升级矛盾走向剧情低谷... ...这是很多电影的老套路了。但就是这么模板套路的应试作文，《三湾改编》都没能写好。稀碎的剪辑把故事的完整性打断了筋脉，转场生硬像是为了要拍下个镜头而故意切走，完全不考虑前后片段的连贯性和逻辑性，不懂历史背景的观众自然云里雾里。

2.台词生硬。依然是为了说教而说教，把一些书面语直接搬到对话里来，像是舞台剧又像是戏剧，内在的精神和真情实感缺乏延续性和变现力，总之电影味儿很淡。寓教于乐也要有章法，掰开观众的嘴倒饭的操作大可不必。喜欢那段历史的人自然会津津乐道侃侃而谈，觉得是洗脑的人只会徒增他们的认可。

3.群像不立。电影虽然是以毛主席为绝对主角，但其中也展现了卢德铭、罗荣桓、张子清、何挺颖等众多老一辈革命家的历史观。原本近两小时的电影通篇竟没有更多细节描写，只是为了露个脸走个过场，即使拿掉戏份也完全不影响电影的剧情，变成了可有可无的路人角色，实在可惜。

4.逻辑硬伤。电影的逻辑还停留在“抗日神剧”的水平上。比如为了拍总指挥卢德铭的壮烈牺牲段落，电影先是安排了前一晚他和毛主席的对话和赠枪给主席的戏份，接着第二日行军遇到埋伏，他为了掩护部队撤退，骑着战马在空旷的平原上直冲敌人的机枪阵地，最后中弹倒地，仰望天空面带微笑。帅吗，帅！壮烈吗，壮烈！颇有《亮剑》里骑兵连冲锋的架势，但真的模仿得很拙劣。先不说作为部队的总指挥是否应该身先士卒去担任殿后的任务，就说他卢德铭作为黄埔军校的毕业生难道不知道在空旷的平原上骑马硬冲已经架好的机枪阵地是多么低级的军事错误吗？还搁这冷兵器对砍呢？大人，时代变了！而前一晚和毛主席的对话戏份，更是影视剧中的老套路了。比如某角色A的戏份突然增加，然后A和主角B谈心谈话并赠予物品，再加上说一些：“打完这场仗我想回家种田，这把多年的随身之物就赠送与你”之类的话，那么过一会儿，A角色的死亡率会增加200%。屡试不爽。

5.节奏紊乱。电影明明叫做三湾改编，但电影的大部分时间都在讲其他的事情，太多不必要的段落显得冗余，而重点的三湾改编只是浅尝辄止。导演在电影的叙事节奏上显然没有把握好，如何把一个简单的故事均衡分配在两个小时的电影内容里，导演还需要再努力。毕竟是历史向的电影，要让不知道历史背景的观众能搞清事情的来龙去脉和为什么要三湾改编的前因后果是非常重要的，这也是这部电影想要传达的内容，而不是挥挥手喊口号。

此类电影往往都是由各个政府机构包场组织职工去观看去买单，经不起市场经济的考验，也已然脱离了群众。艺术的创作本该是丰富多彩、贴近现实又高于现实，但思想的僵硬，学术的匮乏，圈地自萌的心态让国产主旋律作品离艺术的标准渐行渐远。针对国产主旋律电影，我们可以改进的地方还有很多很多，一味的盲目自信、固步自封和一百年前的清王朝又有何区别？一味的提文化自信而做不到文化输出，不能用人民群众喜闻乐见的形式进行艺术创作又谈何自信？欧美帝国主义纵然为非作歹无恶不作，但它们的一些主旋律电影还是有不少值得我们学习参考的地方，坏就要批，好就要学，所谓师夷长技以制夷，学着他们的技术再打败他们难道不是一件很快乐的事情吗？