原文出自《影像之书》官方press kit，此处刊载美版press kit中的译文。

Dear Jean-Luc,

Thank you for your invitation to see The Image Book (...)

You have recreated pictorial matter from various sources and formats. Deformed, re-colorized, enlarged by the grain, and re-framed.

Blocked all seduction of images, text also, stuttering, quavering, interrupted, covered up.

In the constant interruptions, being split between what is represented and the machine of the cinematograph, with its unspooling, its perforations, its decomposition.

Rediscovering discontinuity by digital means.

The beautiful and accurate definition of counterpoint gives a key.

Waves, flames, bombardments, armies, history and the world as a thundering spectacle à la Dovzhenko, or Vidor.

A great symphonic surge. But not to tell as story. Not longer truly ‘cinema’. As per the first reader of Moby Dick (according to Giono):

- This is not a book - No, said Melville.

This is not something to make you popular, in the face of digital, digital that shows all, and nothing behind. (I experienced this on Vigo’s films, and hope to have avoided it in the end).

That’s assuming that what you say is heard. That is what is astonishing in your film. “It is becoming necessary to draw attention,” in fact. But it hasn’t been shown like this; said, occasionally, with Victor Hugo’s “government of wild beasts.”

Marx invented remakes with his Louis-Napoleon. History repeats itself, but here, not as farce. Moral errors get confused with crimes of the States. There are criminals who exist only because of war. Humanity is destroying itself. For years now, war has been everywhere, more and more literally, in the sense of Goya or Joseph de Maistre’s (this is how we explain the presence of the latter). Habituation follows.

To say that The Image Book is an act of courage, that it is unprecedented, is a platitude. But this is the feeling that keeps coming back to me.

It is true, as the young people who write to you in Lundi matin say, that you are the only one who, etc... (They don't know how right they are, I’m curious for them to see this one).

You have always been “in” history, since you consider that that is what cinema should serve.

From Histoire(s) on, this was what it was always about, first and foremost, more than cinephilia telling its little stories (not bad!)

This time the matter itself, is history. In fact you’re not turning away from cinema, it’s simply no longer a dominant love. It is as useful as the printing type case from which Fuller’s illiterate typesetter finds the characters, at top speed.

And you, you keep the character, the hieroglyph of which Eisenstein dreamed. (He too, his three apparitions are magnificent: the owl, the hands on the bible and the Teutonic knight. He wanted to build his cathedral of the Arts, all by himself. His resistance was already that of hope, and his solitude too)

You find all the images in films, and shabby newsreels. It’s only justice. All the better if Ridley Scott serves to fill a printing type case. And to not have turned your back on cinema, the two long shots from Le plaisir suffice, where we see moving bodies, giving a definition of precisely that. Thought evolves through images and sound ("a thought / will come / to be continued"), as in a collage a friend had made using texts from the screen of Histoire(s). It is a bloc, and it is articulated like the five fingers... another one of these things I didn’t understand on paper.

Lastly, even if the re-uses of Histoires are what I am least curious about - one doesn’t change his handwriting - I very much like the idea of immortality through liquid films, from Vertigo to Ruby Gentry by way of The River. And the peaceful moments of a happy Arabia where I see something of Barnet’s joy: sunset, a boat on the glittering sea, the banal corners of the Maghreb playing for the whole of Arabia, the Arabia we have behind our eyes. Again, thank you.

Warm regards,Bernard Eisenschitz (Critic, Historian, Director)

press kit下载：https://4f399d350e4882ff73b9-0f00c87f9e216dcd5acfbe5f7dfb64d7.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/production/documents/Godard%20-%20Image%20Book%20Press%20Kit.pdf

内地剧集何时能摒弃那些画蛇添足、故弄玄虚、恶心之至的各种慢动作慢镜头？天朝观众要求不高，即便内地影视在拍摄发行等方面有各种条框制约，大家都能理解，只想看一段用心拍摄的故事，而不是飞机一入长空就要各种快慢镜头的切换，这算是炫技？呵呵，这是现在内地大多剧集的通病，专心讲好故事不行吗？

这样看来，路还很长，中国影视的所谓山高路远，全部是自作自受，通天大道你不走，却偏要绕路前行，还以为是自己另辟蹊径，不知中国影视何时才能峰回路转，步入正轨。

八九十年的香港电影圈人才济济，全能型艺人遍地开花，小黑哥短暂的导演生涯也贡献了几部质量尚可的动作喜剧电影，其中的代表作就属《咖喱辣椒》，当时还是星仔的周星星同学在两年后便成长为统治香港电影票房排行榜的星爷，垄断了票房前五，续集只能另组CP，梁朝伟成功补位，跟张学友更有化学反应，风格更欢脱，只是过于偏闹剧，仅图一乐！歌神与影帝的CP组合承载了一代人的美好回忆，为《喋血街头》的生死兄弟情抹鼻子，为《东成西就》的北丐东邪斗捂肚子，或悲或喜都做到了极致，何谓经典，应当如此！陈可辛绝对是难得的电影奇才，商业文艺两手抓，两手都够硬，自己导演的经典文艺系列，金杯奖杯一揽子买卖做得明明白白！主导制作的商业电影口碑皆可，市场也不辜负，活得通透，玩得明白，这是人才！

【详细】

14256521

据说是改编自伊坂幸太郎的同名小说。没读过原著，但冲着伊坂的名头还是很有兴趣。不过后来又听说电影的故事跟原著已经没什么关系了。这种事并不新鲜，之前宁浩的《疯狂的外星人》改编自刘慈欣的《乡村教师》，其实故事也毫无关系，原著是太空歌剧和乡土小说的结合，电影则完全是土味朋克。要是不提改编的事，评分还能高上一些。

说回本片，主人公名叫阳光——从这个名字就知道跟原著没什么关系了。她开了一家帮人寻找丢失宠物的事务所。一天，晓雪上门请求帮忙寻找宠物娜娜。娜娜是一只雌性老虎，被人抓走要配成药酒。阳光和晓雪携手开始惊险的救虎之旅。

能看出导演有想表达的东西，比如老虎其实是女性力量的隐喻，故事的内核是girls help girls，她们要从男性那里夺回被剥夺的女性的力量和尊严。可是导演没有处理好自我表达与商业叙事之间的关系。商业电影首先要做到叙事流畅，逻辑自洽，表达要往后放一放，最好是融入叙事之中。本片在商业叙事上是不合格的。而且主要人物缺少内在逻辑，不能成立。毕竟，一个人物成立与否，不能光靠旁白解释，得靠人物自身的行为和选择。配角们则完全是NPC，跟着主角瞎跑，适时触发事件而已。

微信公众号：小盆哟「littlebasinyo」

我是在上高三的时候读这本小说的，当时是晚上偷偷看的，早上起来眼睛都是肿的，那时候还没有这部小说要影视化的消息，后来突然发现这部剧要影视化了，说实话当初我心里是不觉得肖砚能被演出来的，至少我认为肖砚身上自带的清冷感但是作为一个医生她又要有悲悯感和绝对的理性，所以知道要拍成剧我是怀疑的，我不赞成但是也没办法，后来谢谢你医生的官方出了预告，我就去看了看，看完之后作为原著党预告片确实甚得我心，它拍摄的角度，场景服化道确实要比我想的好，尤其是演员我实话实说，以前觉得幂姐是霸气，美艳，大女主这类的，但是预告片里她给了我惊喜，尤其是编发真的很肖砚，真的很温柔很清冷，白宇给我的印象就是他很老成，演的剧都是很稳重的形象，这部剧的白术是一个很温暖的形象，他工作时很严肃但是平时又是会开点玩笑的人，他演这个角色我是站中立的，所以我开始期待这部剧，打算看看。我是在央八等着看的，第一集就给我吃了一个定心丸，剧真的是不错，是真的好看，集集有泪点，全程无尿点，时隔四年我脑海里的肖砚终于有脸了，幂姐就是我心里的肖砚，谢谢你医生！是好剧！真的是部好剧！

把女主人设搞得太蠢了，第一第二集，先是买房被骗200w，因为是自己表哥，圣母不报警！后来找律师又被骗，这个人设真的太弱智了。。一点都不讨喜。编剧是跟女主有仇？

女主真的不太好看……嘴巴有点香肠嘴。看到后面觉得女主颜值还可以了，虽然不是绝美，但是至少不是网红脸，美得有自己的特色，很真实，看着还挺舒服。

【详细】

13710371

我会再记起你，那时你一定要成为我的朋友。我曾经在脑子里幻想构思了关于周期性失忆的女主，结果遇上了死缠烂打想要靠近的男主等相似的桥段与设定。想不到，在我写出这部小说之前，就已经有了这类情节的纯爱电影出现…有朋友真好，但祐树不想只是香织眼中珍贵朋友的存在。九条一出现得太突然，他与香织感情描述得太过模糊不清，这点必须给编剧扣五分。