写于2019年3月21日：

第一次写剧评，没想到会有这么多人关注，谢谢大家，谢谢这么多瓣友的安慰，评论我都认真地看了，心理很温暖，谢谢。

还有部分瓣友的话我不太认同，但是我尊重大家的言论自由，毕竟不同的生活经历，会带来不同的价值认知。

为什么写这篇文呢？

2018年11月初，我偶然间看了《都挺好》这部小说，相似的生活情境引发了我的共鸣，花了一周的时间看完了小说，情绪很复杂。当知道正午拍了这部电视剧的时候，特别开心，也特别放心。

开播以来，我一直在追剧，每看一集感慨就增加一分，于是提笔写下了这篇文章，不是为了博取同情，更不是为了谴责谁，只是想写下这些年的心路历程而已。写完之后，我的确觉得放下了很多东西。

《都挺好》第36集，明玉一家智斗舅舅的情节看得我好过瘾，舅舅慌忙逃走之后，一家人大笑的场景突然让我泪湿眼底，多么难得的和睦场景啊，多么难得的“一家人”。那些如明玉一般嘴硬说“我不是苏家人”、“苏家的事与我无关”的，只是把自己包裹起来，害怕再受伤而已。她们比谁都渴望家庭温暖，这些是再多钱都买不来的。

之前的文章删除了，之后，愿所有的“苏明玉”都能与自己和解，与生活安然相处。

看了《扫毒2》，我有理由相信这个“2”不是“续集”的意思。

这真的是一部恶趣味满满的电影。

第一，“仇女”。

电影里有三个男主角：刘德华、古天乐、苗侨伟。

年轻时候的刘德华是一个黑社会的小混混，女朋友不想过这种朝不保夕的生活，于是离开了他。十几年后，这个前女友得了癌症，死了。

小混混刘德华因为被女友抛弃，痛下决心离开社团，开始学习金融，之后成为了非常成功的企业家，娶了律师林嘉欣做妻子。可是后来，在黑社会的报复性枪杀中，林嘉欣死了。

苗侨伟是一个警察。有一次，警察临检某一个夜店，一个女孩为了毁灭证据把所有摇头丸都塞进嘴里。一个女警奋力上前阻止，被刀片划破大动脉，死了。这个女警就是苗侨伟的妻子。

苗侨伟的属下，诗雅扮演的美丽女警察。她和同是警察的男友正准备结婚，可是在一次与毒贩的枪战中，诗雅被对方开枪击中，死了。

古天乐饰演的是一个大毒枭，他的人设是暴力、花心，他没有固定感情线，所以没有可以被导演弄死的对象。

这是一部男人戏，本来女性角色就少，且都是花瓶担当，但是，导演和编剧太狠了，只要这个女演员在里面有一丝丝感情线，她的下场就是“死了”，是不是相当恶趣味？

我在想，导演邱礼涛是不是“仇女”，还是太看不惯“有情人终成眷属”？也许这反映了电影情节设置上的单一和套路，但从另一个角度看，真是恶意十足，太好笑了。

第二，私欲满满。

你本来以为这是一部缉毒的电影，一定是有“奉献”和“牺牲”的崇高主题的。

但是，我们来分析一下：

古天乐是超级大毒枭，他怎么坐上这个“了不起”的宝座的？

为了一口气。

想当年，他在社团里严格遵守老大所说的“不碰毒”这条规定，可是却受到冤枉以致被砍下了三根手指。他气到不行，干脆将错就错，干起了毒品并越做越大。

刘德华呢，又是怎么成为一代企业家的呢？

为了争口气。

看着女友坐着计程车决绝离开的背影，他愤而改行。

那么他又是如何和“毒品”扯上关系的呢？

因为收到了前女友的一封信，这封信告诉他，当年她离开的时候已经怀有身孕，现在他们的孩子染上了毒瘾。之后，刘德华眼睁睁看着这个少年吸了毒从楼顶掉落下去。

他气极了，觉得所有毒贩都该死，于是开始暗地里雇佣杀手杀毒贩，手段还相当残忍。

至于苗侨伟，他从反黑组调到了缉毒组，说和当年的妻子之死没有一点关系是绝对不可能的，他每天兢兢业业，也是为了争口气。

包括他的女儿，也是在看到了自己的好闺蜜因为吸了毒从屋顶掉落而死的场景之后，气极冲去找刘德华帮忙。（话说，吸毒的死法是不是只有跳楼？）

刘德华气地悬赏一亿元狙击最大毒枭，

古天乐气地大力反击导致刘德华妻子死亡，

刘德华气地端起枪亲自出马，

古天乐气地亲自还击，上演一场终极对决。

仔细一想，这个故事其实和毒品没有多大关系，和“生气”比较有关系。我们倒回到最初：

如果当年黑帮头目郑则仕能消消气，听古天乐分辨几句，好好查一查，古天乐就不会被砍手指。

如果古天乐当年能消消气，将断掉的拇指拿到医院好好接起来，多听听长辈的良苦用心，那么他就不会变成一个暴戾的毒枭。

如果刘德华的前女友当年能消消气，付出多一点爱，等刘德华渐渐地成长，那么她的孩子就不会在没有父亲的情况下出生，也许就不会染上毒品。

如果刘德华在孩子死后能消消气，不要干涉警察的办案，不要做出悬赏一亿这种轻视毒贩的行为，那么也许林嘉欣依然活着。

……

这部电影悲剧的根源哪里是“毒品”，而是人内心的满满恶欲。

“暴食”、“贪婪”、“懒惰”、“嫉妒”、“骄傲”、“淫欲”、“愤怒”，是天主教教义所指的人性七宗罪。

“愤怒”解决不了任何问题，只会把所有“恶”扩大化。

有人说，刘德华在这部电影里的角色相当于“蝙蝠侠”，我觉得完全不是，他就是一个钱太多，用金钱来满足自己私欲的易怒之人。

第三，黑白颠倒。

这部电影简直全方位360°地吐槽了警察的无能！

警察局的电脑让黑客轻而易举地入侵，所有在查毒贩的档案遭到泄露。电影里有一个镜头超级搞笑，苗侨伟在家接到电话，对着电话吼：“你跟我说有什么用！我又不是电脑专家！”

警察执行任务，要么被刘德华派去的第三方打乱，要么就是晚了别人一步。几乎没有亲手抓过一个毒贩，甚至于，自己派出去的卧底自己保护不了，自己抓回来的证人也监管不了。

有一个镜头也是超级搞笑，警方认为毒贩自己黑吃黑，怀疑这第三方势力是古天乐派的，于是抓他回来问话。哪知道就在问的时候，收到了被送还的一大车毒品，甚至还问古天乐：“你为什么要把毒品送回？”我想，古天乐当时的白眼就是观众们想翻的。

真的，蠢毙了！

电影后半段，最大的讽刺来了。刘德华悬赏一亿缉拿毒贩，并将四大毒贩的信息发给媒体。

于是警察就开启了保护毒贩的模式。

对，你没有看错，就是这么悲。

在此，导演将他的恶趣味玩到一个极致。

此处不想深究，有时候社会上的很多法则就是这么有毒，比毒品还要毒。

这部电影乍一看，觉得挺普通的，就是那么一群香港老面孔的演员嘛。

古天乐又演了一个反角，但我还是喜欢他在《黑社会》《门徒》和《毒战》里的表演；

刘德华真的除了身高之外没有什么硬伤，很想知道他到底怎么保养的，还是天生丽质？毕竟，在他的映衬下，林嘉欣的颈纹上了热搜。

苗侨伟呢，请答应我不要再演警察了，要看吐了。

我呢，还是很喜欢这部电影的，最后一场地铁追车的场景很有想象力（尽管这个场景的动机不明），而且，所有恶趣味的电影我都很喜欢。

因为，世界上有这么多恶，你无法改变，甚至无法避免，那么就将错就错，将这些“恶”恶俗化，弄得搞笑一点，这样你才可以，轻松一点点。

图文并茂请戳公众号

【详细】

102943865

很少写评论的我必须要写了，简直国产良心综艺！！！

不知道是不是和大家不一样，我不太关注每次的嘉宾，谁谁谁的，感觉都是素人。

所以自然不会在乎什么所谓节目“人设”，因为每期都在变啊（除了唐）。

这样的话，我觉得每位嘉宾都没有刻意去演，都是比较自然真实的反应。

很多人说女生在那里乱叫啊，很吵啊，很胆小啊，

拜托，你们去玩玩密室逃脱的游戏就知道了啊，这是很正常女生的反应把，也不要把艺人想的很特殊了，节目组道具场景都很用心，而且都是晚上拍的。

我再说说几个我喜欢的看点吧：

1、我第一次看的时候的反应如下：卧槽，居然有狗，还去追嘉宾？？卧槽，居然有面包虫！！什么？还有蛇。。反正我是第一次看到国内的综艺玩这么大的。

2、还是节目组玩的花样多，尺度大，各种情节都是尽量往大了玩儿，反正只要不受伤，一直吓人，制造紧张和刺激的竞争氛围。

3、还有就是流量问题，这个节目没有明星是事实，也是属于好看不火的类型，但是这才是正常综艺该有的态度的质量吧，现在节目火太简单了，请几个流量站场就行了啊。但是这个节目一旦这么做了我觉得就完了，流量明星不会在乎你好不好玩，只会在节目里塑造好的的“人设”，就很多剧情上安排经纪公司会限制，尤其是当下粉丝会把角色代入演员的心态，扮内奸骗人很容易遭骂的。即使你赢了也不会夸你玩的好什么的。

4、场景剧本全古风，看得出来这点是实打实的原创了，也算是突出国创特色。

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.

胡编乱造。都不说演员了，杨紫接这部戏以后我都不看她的剧了，没脑子。莫剧编剧导演都太差劲了。就说一开始，那个莫格利自己在房间那么多叫他好奇的物品和家私，怎么可能直接就奔保险柜去了，而且下来的动作完全是一个歇斯底里的强盗？盗窃犯的做法。可笑可悲~

小七剧虽然很幼稚，但是喜剧嘛。小科幻剧情也是合情合理。只不过不知为什么现在的剧都会有这种整人不择手段还不怕法律的情节。其实现实里几乎很难遇到的江雪和方冷继母之类的人。自私的有，绿茶婊有，但是感乱搞乱整的人只有编剧和导演最多。

最深刻的地方是在詹永飞的女儿住在狗窝，小妹惨死。谁也想自己女儿被人家像狗一样对待。还有在最后那场赌博最然我看不懂他们赌的是什么，但是，赢了我还是非常激动，因为詹永飞答应别人一定会输，但是他可以让鸡翼赢就是一场赌博下来鸡翼赢了成为了这个世界第一快手！最后以詹飞的那一句“爸爸累了，我想一会儿”结尾

电视剧电影在拍摄的过程中人员较杂，不仅包括演员还有许多工作人员，不能保证现场的绝对安静，很难做到声音的干净采集。

配音是为了得到更好的效果，减少噪声，《为了你》这部电视剧里现场收音的情况很少，大量的都是演员自己配音，加上演员在演戏的时候会有导演、动作等的指导老师在现场进行指导，有时候可能会说话进行指导，也会干扰现场收音。

所以，这部戏是有六个配音指导，只有很小一部分戏份使用现场收音，配音可以是演员自己配，也可以用专业配音演员，既然是配音，那郑爽可以对着电容麦克，在干净录音棚里一遍一遍做，为什么最终导演肯定的，还是这样的小奶音，因为配的好啊，符合角色啊，从配音助理到总监都认为这个声音的音量和音色很满意啊。

郑爽以前的很多剧都是用配音，因为剧中人物角色的设定，需要小爽的外貌形象和演技，但人物的声音也是形象的一种表现方式，这个角色不适合郑爽的小奶音。（参考贝微微）

余翠华是严格的导演，在拍摄前发现郑爽原本的声音，就是生活中木子原型的样子，可以诠释人物，所以才使用郑爽原音，配音演配电视剧报酬一集在1500-2000元之间,普通的40集电视剧大概需要配两周，大制作花了上千万做场景，既然不选配音演员，就是制作方认定，木子就是这样的声音。

说到郑爽，唐家三少说：“探班的时候，她很认真地准备了一系列有关我和我爱人的问题，我一一给她做了解答，她本人性格很活泼开朗，我感觉和我老婆有很多相似之处。”

选角，不是任意选一个名气大的演员，让她去背离自己，而是要在所有合适的演员里，选择形象语气演技可以诠释角色的人。

演技和台词，不是单纯的只有样板戏或者话剧，因为生活本身就有万千种模样，木子说话的方式，张长弓喜欢，就是最好的结局。

好久没有追过这样一部国产剧了，原本冲着张云龙去看，看到最后，剧情和演员都给??！看剧时候随手记录的一些文字：樊书丞每次在面对别人对自己优渥的家庭冷嘲热讽时，从不争辩，换之莞尔一笑，这样的胸怀和坦荡才是真正的君子作风！嘻嘻哈哈没心没肺的史唯聪也会遇到爱情难题，选择自由还是面包？这真是难以两全其美的世纪难题。人啊，果然不能太贪心，当得到一件东西，一段感情甚是一个人的时候，就该想想，我要拿什么来换。泱泱和绚丽的友情现实生活中也是存在的，看似绚丽在欺负泱泱，但只要两个人的为人处世态度不同，完全可以和谐共处。子??从一开始就像个天真的小女孩一样，被大家保护着，她又不像花朵般娇弱，不管是自己想要什么，都是想尽一切办法去争取，不犹豫，不后悔。总之，是一部值得推荐的剧！

【高中文字搬运工】鲁迅说：“悲剧就是把美好撕碎给人看”，而戏剧与生活的本质区别又是戏剧将生活中细微的矛盾集中在一起爆发出来（不过我最近觉得人生也挺像一场戏的）。我们在雷雨中看到无数的美好被揉烂撕碎，从而发自内心感受到了悲剧的力量。周萍与四凤相爱，可他们却是兄妹；周冲渴望一个“真正美的世界”，可周家大院给他带来的只有失望；侍萍被“始乱终弃”后对爱情的绝望，对上层人的偏见；以及繁漪受到这“郁热”气氛的压抑，从一个忧郁美人变成了一个疯子。是命运将这个故事推向了顺其自然的结局。我们看见伦理道德与社会矛盾在这里集中地以发人深省的方式体现出来；从中，我们也应看到这部作品反映出的现实意义。如周朴园在喝药一幕中表现出对于维护家庭秩序的执着，如此强硬的态度其实在现实生活中也很常见——父辈的专横即是家庭暴力（包括冷暴力）的一种体现。在戏中，这专横导致了无数悲剧的发生，甚至周朴园本身也是因为父辈的压力才做了始乱终弃的陈世美。这一代代的死循环是否也能在现实生活中窥见一斑呢？周冲上的是教会学校，被培养成一个理想主义者，向往纯洁与善良，我们甚至可以从他的性格中窥见“神性”（所以我以为他对四凤的爱是对下层阶级人民的博爱，之所以最后他说“不爱四凤”却又以命相救正是因为他被教育了“神性”，他崇尚并勇于实践“伟大”和“博爱”，这是神性）但最终却在雷雨交加中死去。这不又代表着真善美的消亡吗？看似是雷雨让他死去，事实上是这个社会的恶让他的善良无处安放，最终这个善的化身走向了灭亡。故，从《雷雨》中我们可以窥见一整个社会的善与恶——以上帝的视角。在享受悲剧给我们带来的审美快感的同时，其深刻的内涵更发人深省。

【详细】

9186866

这部剧是难得的国产青春悬疑剧，当初看到预告片之后就起了兴趣，正片的前十五集也确实没让人失望，主演们演技OK，剧情逻辑还算自洽，也时不时有些反转，还是挺抓人的。但最后一集emmm还是挺失望的，被伤害过的人什么事都没发生，居然就这么轻易原谅了施暴者？施暴者的认识到自己错误的情绪转变也有点生硬了。很可惜，没有一个好的结局，但总体来说这剧还是不错的。

此外，看到有人说抄袭，我看了一下他们说抄袭的那个emmm这不算抄袭吧？感觉就是撞梗而已。

时光斗转星移，随着二战战事的不断恶化，德国从开始的进攻转为防守，最后转为全面防御。1944年12月份苏军的装甲集群突破施劳弗高地后势如破竹般的包围了柏林。1945年3月底，苏军的包围圈将柏林分割成若干个区域。德军残存的装甲部队在万般无奈之下扒出来已经放在博物馆里几十年的一战坦克谢尔曼M1型，没想到这辆老掉牙的谢尔曼M1型坦克却创造了历史。1945年4月21日开始，包括国会大厦蒂尔花园周围很大一部分区域都笼罩在了苏军的重炮下。在这个包围圈内唯一能为德军提供炮火援助的就是那辆已经残破不全的谢尔曼M1坦克。这天清晨，在指挥官鲍曼上校的指挥下，这辆孤零零的谢尔曼M1型坦克像一名高举着利剑的条顿骑士一样沿着大路勇敢的向苏军阵地驶去。到达指定位置以后，在两分钟内向位五公里外的苏军阵地射出了七百余发高爆弹，穿甲、爆破、燃烧瞬间完成，一时间苏军阵地被打成一片火海，据事后统计，此次开火共造成苏军伤亡7000余人，各型坦克300余辆，各类火炮200多门，各种车辆600余辆。创造了整个二战期间坦克单车最辉煌的战果纪录。据在当时炮火中幸存苏军老兵库什金回忆当时的情况时说道：“当时我们被吓呆了，我们的人被炸得血肉横飞手忙脚乱。我们甚至都不知道是德国人的什么在轰炸我们。炮弹太密集，以至于我们后来知道是一辆坦克在开火时，简直不肯相信——什么玩意有如此威力——88毫米的MG43吗？”就是4月21日谢尔曼M1的反击使苏军的进攻整整停滞了一周。在随后为期一个周的抵抗中，附近至少留下了800辆斯大林-2和T-34的残骸。这些都是德军这辆谢尔曼M1的战果。在1945年5月1日的时候，德国守军在这辆谢尔曼M1的掩护下进行了最后一次突围，但没有成功,因为没有了后勤补给的德军打光了所有的炮弹。为了避免这辆谢尔曼M1落入敌手，德军士兵用了500公斤TNT引爆了它。战后，回忆这次战斗，朱可夫元帅依然心有余悸:“在柏林的中心地带，我军曾遭受剧烈的袭击而被迫停下了脚步。敌人一辆一战时的古董坦克对我们的装甲部队进行攻击并造成严重损失。...........它是柏林市的主要防线。”

【有剧透】抛开整体的剧情合理性和部分蜜汁尴尬桥段（仗着主角光环在别人的婚礼上理直气壮心安理得地喧宾夺主等），作为喜剧片和爱情片的2种属性我觉得基本合格——印象里，这是从去年底的跨年到现在，多个档期里看过的多部国产爱情片里，第一次让我在观看过程中没有坐立不安和煎熬（想快点儿结束）的感觉。