偶尔刷到片段 才决定搜全集看完。看哭了，虽然故事很俗套，但是几个年轻人的演技过关，懵懂的青涩感情也很迷人。

火贺很阳光，大家都很喜欢他。

公史郎是完美的，聪明的，他在海根（步美）坦白的时候没有相信也正常，毕竟那时候他刚和步美确定情侣关系，发觉海根对他的感情，他避开不想接触所以不能比火贺早发现。然而发现之后也是迅速做出反应计划解决办法。很聪明了

步美和公史郎都是从小互相暗恋的，即使互换身体的时间里，她也没那么容易变心。对火贺更多是感动，虽然我也喜欢火贺，我也没看出来步美对火贺动了爱情的心。日本的善良女主都这样的套路。最后步美也是为了不伤害他们两个说不做公的女朋友也不会和火贺交往。

海根……“平时拒绝别人，却想在需要的时候被爱，这也太自私了吧。”

以下评论含有剧透，及大量个人情绪性输出。

周三工作日的半夜，我看完了新蝙蝠侠的提前点映（虽然也没提前几天）。

影院里到处都是这一部的海报和LED大屏，候场区人超多，有人在和海报合影，有人炫耀自己拿到了伴手礼，大家都热烈地讨论和期待着这版据说影评人、烂番茄口碑都很好的蝙蝠侠新作，一看就知道在场大部分几乎都是粉丝。

电影结束的时候，座无虚席的影厅里只响起了稀稀落落的掌声。我没有鼓掌。

从影厅走出来的时候，我的心情既不是激动，也不是难过，而是深深的困惑。这种困惑一部分来自于“我为什么要牺牲我的睡眠时间大半夜来看这个明天还要早起上班”，另一部分来自“这剧情到底是个什么玩意”。

电影上来就是一段凶杀案，紧接着蝙蝠侠出场，开始用低沉苍白沙哑的嗓音读日记。我一瞬间疯狂幻视《守望者》，而且这场幻视接下来全片都没有消散掉。

五方饰演的蝙蝠侠从头苦到尾，全程至少有4/5的时间都是戴着面具的，摘下面具活像《亚当斯一家》里那个黑眼圈能击败熊猫的费斯特。去参加市长葬礼那段（全篇露脸最长戏份）脸阴沉得能滴出水来，围观群众还说他是哥谭的王子，那只能是哈姆雷特了。反正怎么看都不是我亲爱的布鲁西宝贝，也不像是能让希尔薇一夜高潮11次的样子。其中有一段蝙蝠侠从警察局楼顶逃亡展开滑翔翼，天地良心，那滑翔翼的造型跟蝙蝠可以说是一点关系都没有，怎么看怎么是鼯鼠，福克斯扣钱。

哦对了，剧情进展到3/5的时候，各方都进入了揭秘环节。短短10分钟里，猫女、法尔科内、阿福跟蝙蝠侠讲了三个故事，各种罗生门，他全程没有提出过一个质疑，别人说啥他信啥。猫女说法尔科内是她爹，他立刻就I'm sorry；法尔科内说你爹是个大坏蛋，他就跑去质问阿福；阿福说你爹不是这样的，他就和阿福开始握手谈心。证据什么的，不需要的。啊，阿蝙真是我见过最单纯的男孩子。

有这样的蝙蝠侠，自然也得有那样的猫女。别说，这个猫女至少是真的好看，估计导演也这么觉得，全程她的衣服基本就没把人盖住过。哦不对，胶衣部分还是全裹住了的。本片中的猫女是个在企鹅俱乐部端茶倒水（误）的小妹妹，连核心业务都接触不到，但一下班忽然就变身超杀女，拳脚功夫超强三四个男人轻易不得近身，当然这是在附近没有蝙蝠侠的情况下。当附近出现蝙蝠侠，她一定会被平时根本打不过她的反派强力压制，然后等待蝙蝠侠英雄救美。

本片中猫女的主线任务是寻找失踪的好姐妹，中途被法尔科内暧昧摸脸，还顺便去抢了一发企鹅的钱，并表示这是法尔科内欠我的！他是我爹！我看到一半还寻思，你爹摸你脸的方式也太暧昧了不会要《唐人街》吧？结果这条线到了最后告诉我法尔科内根本不知道这是他女儿！人家就是看到漂亮小姑娘随便摸一摸，她也就是知道钱在哪儿随便抢一抢，那前面到底在铺垫什么啊！

还有戈登，戈登心里真是咯噔咯噔。从头到尾都在震惊“什么！我们的市长居然有情妇！”“什么！我们的警长居然和黑帮有交易！”“什么！我们的同事居然在和毒贩子同流合污！”大哥，这不是你来哥谭市第1天就知道的吗？你什么时候变成傻白甜（黑皮限定款）的？

最后当然不能忘记我们的大反派，日常滚出哥谭的谜语人。如果说希斯·莱杰的小丑是一个多智近妖的疯子，那这个谜语人就是一个精神不大正常的障碍儿童。我有充分的理由认为他一生都没有走出口欲期，日常发出那种还没怎么学会说话的婴儿才会发出的呃嗯——声音高亢而充满精神污染，不能好好说完一句话，一句话中必须要给两个词毫无理由地加高音，只要他一开口，我脑内就开始自动播放《浮夸》。而且他对自己的定位跟这首bgm完美契合，他此生最恨布鲁斯·韦恩，明明大家都是孤儿，韦恩却因为有钱抢走了贫民窟孤儿的关注。他这种控诉跟《小丑》中主角对韦恩们的控诉有些异曲同工之处，处理得好了，倒也可以有一些震撼效果。但片中既没有表现谜语人在孤儿时期遭受的苦难（除非他口欲期的表现就是他从小吃不饱饭的证明），也没有表现布鲁斯·韦恩年幼时期受到的关注，而且这段控诉持续的时间也没到两分钟，以蝙蝠侠大吼“我和你不一样！”和谜语人高音“不不不不不！”结束，让人很难有除了心疼自己的耳朵之外的其他感想。

顺便，本篇为了搞一个老韦恩到底是不是坏人的罗生门，把整个起源故事完全破坏掉了。法尔科内说老韦恩请求他解决一个碍事的记者，所以他替他杀了人；阿福说是法尔科内自作主张杀人以此要挟老韦恩，韦恩打算去自首当晚就被法尔科内干掉。 Hello？还有人记得韦恩们是一家三口去看戏然后在犯罪巷被杀的吗？老韦恩要是自首之前还有心情带着妻子儿子去看歌剧，再去犯罪巷遛遛弯，那真是不得不说一句死得不冤。

终于影片到了结尾，蝙蝠侠还在念日记，在无限幻视《守望者》的朗读声中，我的耐心已经在三个小时冗长缓慢的剧情里被慢慢耗尽，只剩下一句“你也配copy罗夏？”

什么是蝙蝠侠？

在看这版新蝙蝠侠的全程里，我都在想这个问题。

我很难觉得这是一部蝙蝠侠电影，尽管主角穿着蝙蝠装戴着蝙蝠面具，但把他换成任何一部硬汉推理小说的主角都毫无违和感。对，蝙蝠侠最初就是一本推理漫画，但蝙蝠侠的本质不是一个侦探。或者说，至少在这么多年之后，蝙蝠侠的本质早已不是一个侦探。这和越来越复杂的多元宇宙或魔法背景无关，蝙蝠侠是恐惧，是黑暗中的守护者，是哥谭市的布鲁西宝贝，是《元年》，是《致命玩笑》，是《黑暗骑士归来》。是这些东西让蝙蝠侠成为了蝙蝠侠。

这也是为什么包括我在内的很多人，将诺兰魔改的《黑暗骑士》称为蝙蝠侠影版中的巅峰（如果不是所有超英电影的巅峰）。因为抛除掉一切魔改，在这个低魔的、没有正义联盟、没有灯戒、没有酒神因子的哥谭市，它讲述了一个绝佳的故事，并且带给了我们一个真正意义上的蝙蝠侠（还有小丑）。

而这一版呢？几乎是漫画重现的蝙蝠侠探案故事，却让我认不出这是蝙蝠侠。诚然它有审美极佳的画面、宗教感十足的氛围、无数的隐喻，但蝙蝠侠这个人物却苍白地浮在表面。顺便说一句，我觉得在故事都讲不好的情况下，说宗教感和隐喻都是无聊的粉饰。就像一盘味道糟糕的菜，你跟我说摆盘够精美餐具有历史一样好笑。一部电影，至少一部商业电影，最基础的就是讲好一个故事。而这版蝙蝠侠显然没有做到。就算说隐喻说宗教说反英雄，难道它就做得很好吗？《守望者》的反英雄内核甩它8条街，同时故事讲述上能甩80条。

罗伯特·麦基说过，塑造一个人物的方法就是让他做选择，做两难的选择。因为在明显的好和坏之间选择是没有意义的，任何人都知道要选择好的一方。你要让他付出代价，让他陷入两难，让他在恶与更恶之间抉择，只有此时才能看出真正的人性。所以诺兰要让双船博弈，让小丑把瑞秋和哈维关在不同的地址，让蝙蝠侠为了哥谭不失去希望而背负一切罪名。而这版蝙蝠侠做了什么呢？谜语人抛出一个谜题，他就跟着去追寻线索；猫女放话要去杀马尔科内为女友报仇，他就跟着去阻止；谜语人的loser联盟去扫射避难群众，他就跟着去救人——一路被剧情推着走（而且这剧情还无比冗长）。别说蝙蝠侠的抉择和本质，我甚至连他的主观能动性都看不太出来。也别说《黑暗骑士》是三部曲中的第2部，而这是第1部，就算对标《侠影之谜》，该在的问题还是在。

说到这里，大家应该也能看出我是一个可耻的诺吹。但我也确实是一个从漫画到动画到电影又补又追一部部看过来的蝙蝠侠粉丝。我期待了这版新蝙蝠侠有多久，现在就有多失望。当然我还是给了三星，因为至少视听画面还是很有美感的（三星给餐具和摆盘）。但什么时候，我才能再次在影院的屏幕上，看到一个会让全场鼓掌的蝙蝠侠呢？

我会继续期待。

嗷嗷嗷这部小甜剧大家快来看啊，笑死人不偿命嘎嘎嘎嘎嘎一开始只是随便点开看看没想到这个剧还这么搞笑，不得不说，像我这种刁钻的颜狗，如果男女主长的不够好看cp感不强演技也不够自然没有化学反应我是不会坚持看下去的（懒得打标点了…），这剧全员颜值在线，而且官鸿陈瑶真的真的太养眼了，颜狗舔屏

电视剧上演的时候我是抱着批判的态度看的。

起初觉得，杨幂的气质太小气演白浅不合适、赵又廷的颜和夜华不同款不合适、热巴美则美矣但演凤九型的古风美女就不合适了…总之就是一切不合适。

但是看到后来觉得造型、剧情都不错、演员演技在线，也就忍了，忍的时间长了就都顺眼了。

而与之不同的是电影。

电影选的是神仙姐姐演白浅，那种不经意的气质就很像了。杨洋嘛我觉得感觉也很对啊。包括小团子，眼睛大大的都很招人喜欢。

但很可惜，这是部烂片。

我敢说它烂是因为它真的会让人犯尴尬症：电影一开场就充斥着尴尬的台词，折颜尴尬的橘色加深绿色眼影、尴尬出场的连个人设都没有的尴尬玄女（甚至玄女尴尬的造型都在模仿玛连.菲森）还有白浅结婚的那顶令人尴尬的帽子。

不仅尴尬，而且毫无逻辑。谁能告诉我没看懂小说的人怎么理解素素跳了诛仙台不仅没死还成功的活下来还长出了眼睛这种事。

更可怕的是，这个剧组请了我最喜欢的演员却没办人事儿。按照倒叙的手法，他们明明可以把电影顺顺利利拍下来，却偏偏要加入无数的慢动作和回忆杀，导致整个电影…唉不说了。

你们知道，我有多想让电影版的演员去演同版电视剧吗？想想那是种怎样的体验？会有多棒？

看在神仙姐姐的面子上，我真的很想给高分，可是良心告诉我，真的不能。而且，我很失望。

～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～8.5

昨天陪老妈去看电影。

由于电影院里四部电影两部老妈都看过，一部时间太晚，合适的只有一部《三生》。

所以我就半推半就舔着脸跟老妈进行了二刷。

老妈没看过小说也没看电视剧，于是我就打算看看老妈看完电影的反应。但是！

老妈居然说她看懂了！

此处引用老妈原话：“看懂了！这有什么看不懂？！??不就是他做了两世神仙，她做了两世神仙一世凡人吗？”

老妈还说，她觉得这部电影很美。（还问我杨洋是谁他好帅，原谅我妈的少女心。??）我问她五颗星的话她给这部电影打几颗星，她说五颗星，还叮嘱我要写进评论里。

可能对喜欢原著的我来说，遗漏的东西太多，这部电影确确实实很令我失望。

但或许对许多像老妈一样没看过的观众来说，这部电影给他们讲述了一个与原著不太一样的故事，还算是部不错的片子。

底下评论里也有没看过小说和剧的网友说自己看懂了并且觉得不错，所以我在这里再补充一下。

～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～

另外我想不客气地讲一件事。

有位叫bala之balabala的网友，请不要再在我的贴子低下评论明星们的长与短，引起各种争执。话我已经说得很明白了，如果你是个有素质的人我想你会懂。

每个人都有自己的喜好，所以也请尊重各自的爱豆，尤其不要做一边说自己不是粉丝一边给自己的爱豆招黑的事儿。

刘亦菲和杨幂不是二选一的关系，你可以喜欢一个，也可以两个都喜欢，还可以两个都不喜欢。甚至！请你不要把观点发表到其他明星身上。

我在这里说这些不是要大家噤声，也不是要侵犯谁的言论自由。只是希望更多人能以包容又客观态度看待事物，也希望我们能拥有更清明的网络环境。

最后贴出这句话给这位仁兄，我昨天已经把话说得很明白，但我想她可能得罪了素锦天妃所以看不到也不回复还继续在我的贴子下面骂吧。

【详细】

87181633

浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下，浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下浪费我1小时时间，太垃圾的片了，特意找来评论一下

坦白讲，由于对电脑和信息技术的专业知识基本为零，我感觉自己无法对这部影片提出什么看法。虽然无知但我大抵猜测到这部影片在技术上一定有划时代的领先创造。我还猜测这部影片，经过时间的积淀，一定有一定数量的超级粉丝。文科生退回到文科生的小天地，不谈数字技术，谈谈思想。但是思想似乎也不太好说，唯一能说的也只能是降维到：好人和坏人打架，最后好人赢了这个最肤浅的层面了。因为看的是无字幕版，故事似乎大体上是讲一个好人（在虚拟世界里化身为好程序）战胜坏人（坏程序）的故事，坏人很强大，好人历经艰辛终于打败了坏人。此外影片似乎还讲述在现实与虚拟的两个时空里，现实的人与虚拟的人是共生共存的。文化知识界的鄙视链里通常会鄙视那些形式大于内容的东西，这部影片形式出挑不知道是福是祸。一部影片对于文化知识分子来说最重要的是展现作者对一个时代的思考，对这个时代生活方式的描绘。对比于普通人所熟悉的80年代初期，数字世界的入侵还远未到来，这部片子无疑诞生的有点早。影片里的世界超出了普通人所能想象的未来世界。“前卫”这个词我已经很久没有想起过了，最后一次听人用它好像是在上个世纪末。今天还有什么东西我们会认为它是超前于时代呢，前卫这个词似乎已经彻底消失在今天这个科技日新月异，任何新奇玩意在一天之后就会被大众厌弃的时代了。一切都旧的那么快，新技术不断破浪而来。但对于这部影片的评价却无法回避“前卫”这个古董词汇。这个词语的重新使用也让我再次温故了新鲜事物带来的刺激感。很奇怪，似乎，我的感官并没有随着不断的科技创新而进化的更加丰富，反而是迟钝了许多。我不知道这种迟钝是人类机体的自我保护，还是为未来世界的优胜略汰埋下伏笔。电子世界侵入了人类的日常生活，虚拟的，触摸不到，光电四射，看似严谨强大却很容易被更新的技术突破，数字技术以越来越复杂的方式将人类逐渐围困，那是一个越来越危险而且缺乏质感的世界。人类作为生命体的短板不断暴露，在我们不断将数字技术作为自己肢体的外延之后，也许终有一天会被彻底取代。

博尔赫斯曾将《福音书》解读为一个自称上帝的人被他的上帝所遗弃。同样，我认为这部电影电影可以解读为一个关于性嫉妒的寓言。

被嫉妒的对象是一位刚刚步入青春的年轻女子。正所谓女大十八变，她从一个其貌不扬的女孩，蜕变为社交界一颗异常闪亮的巨星。她急切地想要享受青春的果实，追随爱欲与情欲的节拍。一个又一个男子拜倒在她的石榴裙下，却终究落得伤心惨怛。她过去的情人纷纷宣称自己心已死。谁能责备她呢？她是青春之国的女王，脚踩追求者的奉承与赞美。

而另一边，一群已过盛年的社交小团体对此冷眼旁观。他们或是面临严峻的事业危机、或是步入中年身体发福魅力不再、或是痴迷书本远离人群从未享受过爱情。他们嫉妒，他们诋毁，他们恶意揣测这美丽的女子面具之下有着何等丑恶的嘴脸。他们耗费精力去调查她的情史，并散播谣言，诋毁她的名声。不久之后，这位妙龄女子不得不隐退社交界。

小团体诸人额手称庆。不想这位妙龄女子竟然打入他们内部，与其中一位书呆子在了一起，并不久之后甩了他。这书呆子此前从来没享受过爱情，更没经历如此挫折，因此伤心欲绝。于是，小团体又开始了一轮反击。

《阿拉丁》真人版，在高度还原动画版以到达怀旧目的的基础上，也制造了一点新鲜感。

盖.里奇赋予的炫酷动作和作者风格；动画版作曲艾伦·曼肯和《爱乐之城》曲作者带来的听觉享受；唱功出彩，形象符合的新人男女主??

而威尔·史密斯饰演的蓝色灯神，他完美发挥了威尔·史密斯多方面的艺术才华。本身是个唱跳俱佳的歌手功底，热情洋溢的表演活力，笑点担当的喜剧天赋??

文/满囤儿

近几年，藏文化电影成为了中国电影最具文艺气息的分支。不仅有万玛才旦这样每部新作都能被影迷捧进年度十佳的大神，还有很多新成长起来的电影人。比如8月21日全国上映的《格萨尔藏戏》，就是新人导演嘉熙·东强用心打造的藏文化佳作。这部电影有着温暖的逐梦故事，有着浓厚的生活气息，有着瑰丽的自然景色，有着陶冶情操的欣赏价值。

【详细】

12815415

看了前三集 这部剧核心内核真的是苦。不管是小妹，三爽，还是养老院的老人们，各有各的悲剧。养老院这种地方，如果没有一个好的精神引领者的话，挺令人绝望的，毕竟谁也不能保证明天会不会来。

但是这部戏的态度很乐，不管是充满责任感的林院长还是努力赚钱的过三爽。

人物刻画上，老一辈的演技还是比小一辈精准细腻的多，奶奶在表演肝疼时候的颤抖，过爷在问小妹要照片时候的眼神，一下子就让我陷进去了

但是这音画不同步。。音量突然变大。。是在干嘛。。这是芒果台上星剧吗，网剧都比你用心吧??

剧情上，大家都需要成长嘛，又不是看爽剧。生活就是一地的鸡零狗碎，这部剧确实体现出来这点了。

追剧日记：

第五集

最后小妹阻止骗子被打突然就把我感动到了，那不是骗子，那是小妹最后的希望啊??

第六集

感觉这部剧的含苦值已经达到了一个顶峰了，这一集看得我很难受，??可能很快要离开了

第七集

节奏变缓了，感觉慢慢的接受了??要离开这个事实了，再次感慨下老戏骨对戏节奏的把控

第八集

??真是太浪漫了，莫斯科郊外的晚上～

小妹虽然暴躁了一点，但是还是很有心的??可以看出来，小妹在管理养老院的道路上还有很长的路要走

长生爷爷和一家子的相处也太真实了点，这种相处还是得靠耐心和爱心啊??

第九第十集

鸡飞狗跳的一家人，自导自演的一出戏，并不是年纪大就成熟，希望每个人都能学会珍惜别人的付出，珍惜身边人??

第十集第十一集

想改变成见还是很难的??

被科普到了保健品常识，过三爽真是好样的

第十二第十三集

养老院还是有经营问题呀。。菜市场的菜涨价了住院费适当增加也没毛病吧。靠自己补贴能补贴到几时呢??

第十五集

??这迷惑的演技???♂?母女要债那段就俩字。尴尬

弹幕还一堆尬夸的，改三星。

第十六集到第二十八集

看到胡梦老师这一段，很有感触，希望我们都怀揣善意，不要用恶意揣测别人

黄奕真心不适合拍这么年轻和硬朗的角色。演绎事业走下坡路没问题，问题是选择作品的问题，这样选作品其实就是自暴自弃。黄奕真心不适合拍这么年轻和硬朗的角色。演绎事业走下坡路没问题，问题是选择作品的问题，这样选作品其实就是自暴自弃。黄奕真心不适合拍这么年轻和硬朗的角色。演绎事业走下坡路没问题，问题是选择作品的问题，这样选作品其实就是自暴自弃。

　　我的一些想法都在下面了，有好有坏，但总体我很喜欢。

　　1.名字起得好，看了电影才明白，此“数”非彼“数”。

　　2.创意非常好，随着时代发展，创新的难度也在增加，所以每当看到新的创意，总会令人眼前一亮。

　　3.伏笔埋得好，关于父亲的消失的伏笔，还有作为配角的黑道大哥的后两次出现非常完美。

　　4.剧情反转很棒，其中一个就是见父亲那一面把之前对父亲的误会反转了，第二个是阿伟的死，第三个就是跳河后被扇耳光数字逆向变化。

　　5.对大话西游剧情和台词的掌控到位，包括阿伟和清洁大妈的台词，体育场那段真的是笑中带泪，不禁让我回忆起看《大话西游》时的感觉了。

　　6.关于数字的前后变化，有些牵强，数字突然减少，因为女主生日许愿，而逆向变化是因为男主不再怂了，总体上感觉缺少关联性。

　　7.大能在片中太过打酱油了，好歹也是主配之一，尤其最后主动退出，感觉太老套，要是能更突出一点就好了。

　　8.对于一些梗，一些段子的运用，个人不是太喜欢，毕竟很多都是老梗了，上网多的人对这种东西会有一种莫名的无聊感。但是那句“我又不是郭敬 / 明知道抄东西不对”简直太给力了，看来当时联名抵制郭敬明的导演和编剧中，应该也有本片编剧存在。我个人很喜欢郭敬明的文字，他的文字华丽，美艳，但也着实讨厌这个人，反正对比韩寒，真的差了很多，思想上就不在一个境界。扯远了，忍不住吐槽一下。

【详细】

13829951

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.