救命城主大人狠狠爱住了！！！叶昭南帅到我了！！特别是退位的那段！还有“我可不是什么关三妹，孤乃木兮城城主叶昭南！”女扮男装最帅的一个！甜剧！甜剧，甜剧，重要的事情说三遍！强力推荐！！！入股不亏！！我们的城主大人！！！希望有第二季，必须有第二季好吧，原班人马！！！！我一定看！！！姐妹们快冲！！

视频：https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1nD4y117kq/

第6集女浩克去参加了塑料姐妹露露的婚礼，但露露很不高兴，因为她希望女浩克变回詹妮弗。

【详细】

14669400

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.

要想控制好马，先控制好自己。最陌生的就是自己，最丰富的就是自己。最丰富的情绪中，你误以为情绪后面的就是所谓的你（自我），最终你就被情绪绑架。只有松绑，才得自由！不控制，平和才是人生。最后的松掉缰绳的马儿奔向原野，又返回来探视主角，从而暗示重塑圆满的自我。

主人公的社交恐惧症严重，和家人关系紧张，又常年关押在监牢，不想重回社会。女儿说停止申请假释，感觉父亲不想出狱。最后父亲在驯马过程中，重新学习交流，开始和女儿正向沟通，获得温暖回应，尽管结局隐含未表，但余味悠长。

【详细】

13143448

艾滋病的出现和爆发，某种程度来说，加速了整个世界对“同性恋”群体更科学或理性的认识。

或许没有艾滋病，大部分人也总会意淫和选择性地给这个群体一些“病”。

但当这种疾病成为一种全球性公共卫生话题之时，它就被赋予了普世的正确解读。让人们认识它不是“同性病”，不是“鸡奸病”，而同性的性关系也并非不当和错误的，它放大了大多数人对这个群体的困惑和恐惧，让更多的人重新认识、到接受。

放置在今天这个特殊时期，新冠疫情看似是从中国爆发，全球各国开始用“武汉疫情”大肆渲染中国，有色眼镜与政治色彩抹黑也愈加恐怖。什么时候停止的呢？那就是疫情的蔓延，当新冠成为全球性的议题时，人们才选择理性和科学地面对它，开始共同面对。

所以，人类总是走着老路。那就是偏见在历史上好像大多数都是无知的，嘲笑和傲慢也总是无礼的。望着今天依旧有很多的群体、阶级或观点仍旧被赋予误解或成见之时，似想着，这些人以后得多么羞愧自己今天的行为啊。

所以，不希望“shame of you”，包容、爱、正视、尊重与理解，这是老议题了，可我们总做不到。

【Spoiler Alert！ 以下内容涉及剧情故事泄露，可能影响观看】对上海国际电影节的日本新片有不少期待，结果，周防正行等人作品实在大失所望。唯有一部中村义洋的《白雪公主杀人事件》（以下简称为《白雪》），多少有些惊喜意外。片尾处，小提琴主题音乐久久不散，甚至有些感动。很长一段时间里头，导演中村义洋跟作家伊坂幸太郎是固定搭配。热爱电影的伊坂，看着自己的作品一部部被中村改成电影。至于《白雪》，面对主人公突然成为犯罪分子的情节设定，它总不免让人想起伊坂的《金色梦乡》，回忆往事，重提信任，见证了飘渺的人性之光。然而，《白雪》偏偏是凑佳苗的原著。在读者的印象当中，同为了不起的畅销推理作家，凑佳苗似乎要更加黑暗，而伊坂总会有阳光。再有一个区别，凑佳苗更加关注女性。如果知道这些琐碎八卦，看《白雪》便会多出一些乐趣。譬如，你可以看到中村义洋是怎么在两位作家的夹缝当中，努力寻找着一名电影导演的存在感。一百多年前，人们对于几十里外的杀人事件往往一无所知，要么靠口口相传，要么等待官方口径。如今，人们对地球另一端的杀人事件似乎了如指掌，比案发地的人群甚至受害人的亲朋好友知道得还多。从报纸到网络，爆炸的资讯令人轻而易举获取到很多真实信息，可惜，大众对资讯的关注和评论往往停留在表面初层，就像不得不在社交平台上打个卡、拍个照，人们总是需要通过滔滔不绝的发言，依此向周围人证明：我在关注这个杀人事件，我比别人知道得更多，我更接近真相。《白雪》的悲剧即是来源于此，便捷无障碍的网络，轻而易举地打破了人与人之间的信任，人们不啻于用最大的恶意去揣测犯罪嫌疑人，一个眼神，一点嘴角流露的笑意，它们都会解读为犯罪者的冷血，而电视媒体更是推波助澜，杀人不见血。《白雪》很早便告诉观众，凶手另有其人。至于找凶手，那也不是电影的重心。实际上，无论是最后的落网还是杀人者的动机，它们都显得有些荒诞。可是，现实中有太多不可理喻的杀人动机，尤其是在中国。小贩受侮辱，病人没治好，员工害怕被解雇……无论对错，这些事情在某种情境下都会引发杀人事件。《白雪》巧妙地避开了常见的警方切入，转而用碎片化的twitter来制造笑点。某种程度上，更为直观的电影画面也稀释了原著的情怀，而当电影回到大学、中学和小学，很多人可以看到怀旧的影子。要知道，每个人都是这样长大，杀人凶手何尝不是一个更普通、更弱势的美姬（主人公）。对一个在社会中摸爬滚打的人来说，熟悉职场规则、揣摩人情世故是很重要的一件事。如果你疏于这方面的日常经验，那么，那便会很要命。片子里头，三六分女被九分女狂虐，看下来真有那么一回事。在一家单位和企业，总有人八面玲珑，而有人就是受气包。对于这些形色反差，《白雪》设置了多组人物形象和关系倒错的对照，例如，美姬有一个美丽的名字，对照着她的长相普通和性格弱势。犯罪嫌疑人惨遭人肉，结果临时工也步入后尘。嫌疑人和真实的凶手，她们都有着相似的身份境况。就连学生时代的坏同学，到了公司当中，这种人好像也还是霸占着应得的位置……童年和成长经验影响了一个人的人格，看起来，凑佳苗和中村义洋都深信不疑。置身城市的孤立无援，纷繁复杂的人际关系，疯狂无耻的电视节目，《白雪》选择了追溯起源。一个无心但又恶劣的绰号，意中人的恶作剧和嘲笑，无脑老师的冷言冷语，它们对一个人成长的杀伤力，其实往往比想象的还要严重。或许你要说，冷暖自知。或许，你已经淡忘了那些千篇一律但又不尽相同的校园暗黑故事，可是，它们已经融化在记忆里，变成性格的因子，总会在生命当中发作。正因如此，当电影点亮了烛火，冲破窗户、穿透黑暗，它实际上是点亮了人性中最简单又最不容易得到的爱与信任。《白雪》没有把这点烛火给浪漫化，两个女生的情谊，也只是淡淡一笔，那是跨越了身份、性别和时间的信任。《白雪》以不同的人物章节，通过大量零碎的网络发言，编织了一起杀人事件的始末和全貌。死人不会说话，嫌弃人还没机会说话，围观者却制造了足够的闲言闲语。片中关于恶念的汇集成形，多少像一句古话：勿以恶小而为之。也不难想象，如果《白雪》有麦斯·米科尔森（丹麦影片《狩猎》男主角）那样的金牌演员，无论结尾的遥相呼应还是美姬的内心挖掘，那该是会有多煽情。只可惜，像《白雪》这样的青春流行面目，反倒是日本电影制作的大主流。换句话说，导演和演员的表现，多少有些制约了影片更上一层楼。这些带有怀旧色调，描述步入险恶社会的故事，常见于伊坂，如今凑佳苗也来回味。成人社会真会放大人性的恶念？恐怕也并不是。我更愿意相信，无论作者还是导演，他们只想描述过去的金色回忆和美丽时光。我最感慨的一个细节是，当少女遭遇周围同学的恶意，她们依靠着想象来对抗现实（来自《绿山墙的安妮》 http://book.douban.com/subject/1064841/）。你可以认为那是一个游戏，只不过，当它呈现在银幕上，我会觉得，它有着异样的真实。只有在那样美好的世界里，人性的烛光才会被点亮。【《城市画报》 七月下】『白ゆき姫殺人事件』 电影原声带 http://www.xiami.com/album/1197704907

内容太多漏洞，不明白这部剧怎么这么火？刑侦连现场都勘探不明白？枪击现场消失的子弹基层查不到我理解，路边油桶你都勘探不到，拿观众当傻子呢？啥事非得文队亲自去？强行把观众对内鬼的怀疑往刑侦队长身上引，犯罪嫌疑人多次逃跑，证人多次被坏人拐走，犯罪嫌疑人为了见受伤的警察就去袭警？？？？？？每次只要和医院沾边的剧情就得强行加剧情？不吹不黑相比《扫黑风暴》《巡回检察官》简直就是一个天一个地，按10分制的话，7分最多了

文/牛三牛

如果说2018年的必看片单里只能保留一部恐怖片的话，那么这个位置早早地就被这部片子预定了。

今年1月，影片在以先锋怪异著称的圣丹斯电影节试映以来，就获得了超高的评价和期待。烂番茄100%新鲜度，豆瓣开分9.1，海外媒体更是把它夸破了天：“注定名留青史的恐怖电影。”

对于国内影迷来说，还有一份期待来自影片的发行方——A24公司。这家业界后期之秀近年来发行制作的影片有口皆碑，《房间》、《月光男孩》、《机械姬》、《龙虾》、《女巫》、《皮囊之下》……大有“A24出品，必属精品”的趋势。

迫不及待看完全片，只觉得，窗外暑气逼人，脊背阵阵发凉。默默赞叹一句：讲究！

【详细】

9635667

有的剧看几集就弃了，因为根本就不想知道结局，倒也无毒无害。无意中点开巜下一站婚姻》，让人欲罢不能，精神大振，从未写过剧评的我决定用它练练手。

在北京城的房地产集团，有心思去拓展美国市场，并在香港拿地开发的，资产低于500亿敢都不敢想。北翱规模怎么看都不如一个西部地级市房产开发公司，亏个把亿就歇菜了？

首都的火车站小孩走丢、被拐是有可能，但大白天驾车当着数十人和一名特种兵高手抢走孩子，还跑脱？这是北京啊！还是战火纷飞的伊拉克？北京公安局、共和国公安部脸往哪搁？

那个律师事务所只有两个执业律师，外加一杂工一文员，大公司要法务团，你能成团吗？吃10元标准盒饭，随时都为生存提心掉胆的小所却能把辉煌历史岀厚厚一本书？

龚总裁干过一件总裁该干的事吗？不务正业不说，就只差把愚蠢写在脸上了。屡屡被些弱智阴谋击穿，酒吧被人下药，大庭广众就强奸未遂了？最后差点用女友卖身才摆平，这能力哪是把小公司做大做強，就算万科加恒大也不够他豁豁五年的。

整部剧每个人都很尴尬、空洞、单薄，每当相逢拥抱或无奈分手放的主题音乐加起来时长不下三四集吧。律师不象律师，老总不象老总，刘涛要的是产量，老于呢？

从高二开始看《侣行》现在大一，从小都想远行，通过这个节目认识梁红和270就更加坚定了自己走出去的想法。五一刚用自己兼职赚的钱去蹦极，蹦完后感受就是活着真好。有许多的人都想要远行，但只有少数人做到真正意义上的在路上。我认为不论是旅行还是探险，不只是嘴上说说，希望是身体和心都在路上。好看的皮囊千千万万，有趣的灵魂万里挑一。希望将来我独自行走在路上遇见的都是有趣的灵魂??

【详细】

8517356

在看《Beautiful Boy》的过程中，我始终疑惑，Nic为什么会选择use drugs，直到全片看完也没有给出解释。但是在细细碎碎的日常和不断闪回的片段里，似乎能够一窥端倪。全片营造了一种父爱如山的意境，以至于我在看到某些镜头的时候十分不解。比如说自幼父母离异的Nic每年大部分时间和父亲住在一起，但是暑假需要回到母亲家待两个月。父亲送他登机，在把他交给空姐之前，问他“我能抱你一下吗”，小Nic摇了摇头。父亲很困惑“为什么不，因为我让你离开，所以你在生我的气吗”，小Nic这时候很轻很轻地点了点头。结果父亲接下来说“但是你见到妈妈就会很开心了对吧”，小Nic又点了点头。接下来父亲试图向Nic表真心，还说了这样的话“你知道我有多爱你吗，世界上所有的言语加起来也不足以表达我对你的爱，我爱你胜过世间全部”。随后小Nic主动拥抱了父亲，拉着空姐的手上了飞机。正是有这么一段前情提要，后面父子两每一次分离都会说“everything”，意指“世间全部”，但非常诡异的是，每一次在他们互相说完“everything”之后，都会发生一些不太好的事情。所以回过头来看父亲这里对Nic说的话，其实是有为自己开脱的成分在。父亲送小Nic登机其实有意识到小Nic的沮丧情绪，但是他没有正确面对这个情绪，而是用了自己做不到的誓言试图粉饰太平。前后连接起来应该是：我很爱你，但是我仍然要送你去你妈妈那里。所谓的“爱你胜过世间全部”真的太有保留，反而像渣男骗小姑娘的把戏。因此在表真心之后父亲顺利收获了Nic的原谅和拥抱。小孩子的世界是非常单纯的，小孩子对人的信任也是绝对的。你告诉他世界上有怪兽他就会夜里做噩梦，你告诉他你爱他胜过世间全部他就会相信你绝对能够做到。但是根据父亲的表现来看，虽然他确实为了Nic的康复做了很多努力，但明显大部分出于责任，甚至到后来几乎是不管不问的放弃状态。就比如说Nic在康复中心疗养400多天没有复发，结果一回到父亲家，只是简单度过了个周末，再想返回康复中心的时候，他就复发了。虽然这次复发非常猛烈，但是Nic是有向父亲求救的。他给父亲打电话说他想回家，他愿意自此放弃use drugs，但是他不想再留在康复中心，他想要回家，想要父亲的陪伴。这时候接到电话的父亲是怎么回复的？“对不起，我不能答应你。”为什么不能答应Nic？你不是爱他胜过世间所有吗？为什么做不到接纳他陪伴他？因为你再婚了，然后你再婚的夫人希望Nic远离她的两个孩子。因为你想起来你有了新的家庭，有了新的孩子。Nic只是你曾经的一个失败的儿子，他不能如你所愿成为“beautiful boy”所以活该被你遗弃。这里并没有指责父亲的意思，只是想说大人在给小孩子许下承诺的时候最好掂量一下自己的水平，看看自己能不能够实践诺言，如果不能，就不要随便给承诺，小孩子是真的会当真，而且会因为大人的说话不算话产生巨大的心理阴影。其实我一直觉得西方的亲情都是非常淡漠的，孩子成人之后就需要为自己的一切行为承担全部责任，父母不再掺和孩子的人生，不像东方的父母，即使是面对成人成家的孩子也还会不自觉地过度干预。这样的淡漠和疏离有好处也有坏处。好处就是独立性非常强，各自为各自的人生负责，谁也别成为谁的负担。坏处就是如果孩子幼年时没有得到应有的陪伴和良好的亲子关系，就会在成人之后表现出对情感的高浓度渴望，这些孩子可能会试图通过一些掠夺弥补幼年的缺失。如果不能向外掠夺就会向内攻击，不断地摧毁自己的内心，使得全部的精神世界夷为平地。Nic显然是没有得到过所谓的正确的陪伴。自幼父母离异，然后父母各自再婚。他在两个家庭间来回奔波，但是无论是父亲的一家四口还是母亲的二人世界，他都觉得自己是个外人。他融入不进去任何一个家庭，他享受不到给予他的独属于他的那一份爱。他的父亲他的母亲他都要和别人分享，他始终有一种寄人篱下的心态。他的天分让他拿到了6所大学的offer，只换来了父亲轻飘飘的赞叹。他和父亲继母以及两个弟妹一起去海边，弟弟想和他一起去冲浪，继母不同意，继母不对他提任何要求，只是不同意弟弟和他一起去冲浪。他想得到的不过是一种无差别的爱和对待，竟然也成为了一种奢求。这期间他成功远离use drugs的那400多天，是有母亲的全程陪伴，所以他想要的不过是童年不曾有过的来自亲人的关心和爱护。结果回到父亲家面对继母和弟妹的时候，他又感受到内心的撕扯，终于又再次复发。这时候父亲拒绝再为他提供依靠，他才会彻底崩溃。就像他在康复中心的发言：有一天我在医院里醒来，有人问我为什么住院，我说我嗜酒还是个瘾君子，那个人说，那只是你处理自身问题的一种方式罢了。Nic为什么会选择use drugs，是因为他总能敏感察觉到自己内心深处藏着的巨大的黑洞，他做了很多努力都没办法填补，终于有一天他通过use drugs这样的方式找到了一些满足，只有在use drugs的时候他才能感受到自己的人生是圆满的，自己的内心是充实的。想让Nic康复的手段不是把他丢弃在康复中心，而是给予完整的心理陪伴。但是显然，所有和他有关系的亲人并没有意识到这个问题，他们只是伤心失望于Nic反反复复的use drugs，在反复把他丢弃在康复中心的过程里自我感动。还是那句俗话，幸福的家庭都有一样的幸福，不幸的家庭各有各的不幸。虽然我们已经很努力想要摆脱原生家庭的束缚独自翱翔，但大多数时候，我们依然是飘荡在空中的风筝，总会想要被线的另一端妥帖收回。不是成长得不够，而是从未得到过的东西无法成长。那些敏感的被我们忽略掉的小情绪在我们心里侵蚀出的黑洞，残忍逼迫我们必须去面对。有些人把自己的棱角磨钝，有些人把自己的情感磨钝，有些人无论如何也改变不了敏感，就只能眼睁睁地看着内耗不断蚕食内心。Nic说的最多的一句话就是“I'm really sorry”，每次看到这句话都想说，没关系，那不是你的错，即使没有人爱你，你也要好好爱自己，成不成为beautiful boy都不重要，重要的是妥帖对待自己的小情绪，除了use drugs还会有别的更好的对待自己的方式，别放弃自己。p.s.没看原著，只是因为甜茶看了电影，甜茶这挑角色的口味真独特，从elio到nic没有一个是标准尺度里的人物。看完之后是有很多疑惑的，所以去看了一些评论，从评论里获得了许多真实事件的信息，发现电影果然是高度美化了父亲的形象，但是即使美化成这样，依然看得出父亲的爱是这么有条件：他从未在nic幼年时关心照顾过nic的小情绪，凭什么要求成年后的nic就能成为自己引以为傲的beautiful boy？还有nic真的从头到尾都在道歉“对不起，我让你们失望了”，他们是对nic提出了多么苛刻的条件才会让nic这么有负罪感？就是因为他们从来没有给予却要求nic自力更生，而nic努力了却做不到，所以才觉得愧疚。从旁观者角度来看，说不好听点是父母对子女的PUA，明明是父母能量匮乏却把所有过错推给孩子，并且通过言语和行动让孩子默认这种逻辑。孩子为什么要承担这种莫须有的罪名？孩子凭什么就要为父母的过错买单？亲子关系真的是一生的功课，作业太难写不出来。

尽管剧情偏向好莱坞模式并且具有一定的硬伤，但这不影响《蓝色海湾》给我带来的那种视觉的享受与情感的共鸣。色彩是表达情绪的强有力的武器，导演对于大面积色光的运用毫不吝啬，这也是我以后拍电影想要达到的效果。那照耀着朦胧的蓝色、雾气散漫的湖泊，妈妈与安东尼奥在水中拥抱，画面倒转有如身处梦境之中，配合着相当勾魂的小提琴乐，这构成了今年我看到最美的意识流镜头。我爱意识流，不仅是因为它美丽，更是因为它能去展现人心中那一幕幕现实中或许永远都不会发生场景。我可以说是与导演在这部电影上有很大程度的共鸣，由于相仿的经历或许在我未来拍电影的时候还会回头反复欣赏这部电影。纵观整部电影的色彩。大抵以红蓝和蓝黄为对色，高饱和的色调和胶片拍摄的颗粒感带给人的是视觉上的享受。男主脸上总是光的阴暗面，因为他遭遇了太多的不幸。总是身着黄色的衣服以及开黄色的摩托也预示着他总是不属于这片异土要归属家乡。影片最凸显这点的是最后机场的高潮处，整个场景包括除男主外的所有人物几乎都身着蓝色服装，唯独男主穿着黄色衣服被带离。在美国有安东尼奥的孩子，有安东尼奥的妻子，有他的兄弟有那片他热衷的小池塘，这儿也早已成为他的另一片蓝色海湾，但他的人生注定是悲剧的，游离的。有如往返的航船般最终还是要回到曾经将他抛弃的那片蓝色海湾。Parker在诉说他的人生经历时说她和她爸不是一起来的，“你爸爸为什么要让你们分开？”“因为这样至少有一半的人能活。”这般事情也发生在了安东尼奥身上，他也被遣返时选择让家人留下。出于什么？因为迫不得已。或许在他女儿长大问起安东尼奥后不后悔时，安东尼奥也会回答像Parker她爸爸那样的答复。人生不如意事十之八九，如果有机会，我愿永远活在自己心中的那片蓝色海湾当中。

【详细】

14019925