我很在乎

集合了两位我喜欢的演员还能把片拍成这样也是不得不佩服导演。

看完以后久久不能入睡，（气的）。

我花了两个半小时吃了一坨💩，半夜越想越觉得这坨💩吞的委屈，然后爬起来吐槽。

点开Netflix，首页看到这部拿了金球奖，有裴淳华，题材好像还是个绑架老人的诈骗题材？

有意思，就点了进去 -- 噩梦的开始。

“There's no such thing as good people. I used to be like you, thinking that working hard and playing fair would lead to success and happiness. It doesn't, Playing fair is a joke invented by rich to keep the rest of us poor.” 美国丽人式的开场，并不能掩盖这是部烂片的事实。

这部电影告诉我们：一个看似很牛X的俄国黑帮大佬，小弟个个都怕他，用尽一切方法，却干不掉两个没有涉黑经验的平民；反过来还轻易的被平民绑架扒光了扔路上；煤气不会轻易爆炸，会等待女主水下逃生、徒步走到便利店、叫车回来拯救她的爱人；诈骗、制药、成立养老公司，是一门有钱就可以做的非常容易的生意。

反转不一定是让观众惊喜意外的方式，还可能是喂进观众嘴里的一大坨💩：前面开挂一样的女主，在将走上人生巅峰的时刻，被开头看着很懦弱的路人一枪解决了...电影以女权为宣传点，但是女主角从头到尾没干一件让我觉得女权支持的事情，演员光环加持都无法掩盖我对这片的厌恶，黑吃黑好像更合适。

用puppet一般愚蠢的男法官，油腻的男律师，没脑子的男杀手，手段不怎么样的男黑帮，来显示女性的看似聪慧强大坚韧，实则让我感觉受到了侮辱...并且开头女主利用女性的zzzq来颠倒黑白也让我觉得无比的恶心。

电影心思太多，现实、喜剧、惊悚、犯罪、女权，通通都想要，但是最后却搞出来哪个都不沾边的四不像。

建议以后奖项向肖邦奖学习，评不出来就空着，不要强行喂观众吃💩。

即使是演技类的奖项，能不能剧情起码也看得过去...不过如果这样的话，有些奖是不是就可以直接取消了？？？

这个电影讲的只是狗咬狗，小恶魔和女主都不是什么好东西。

大毒枭手段非常普通，畏首畏尾。

说他谨慎，手下在养老院大闹一场，把他给暴露了，说他大胆，还不如一个娘死了的普通人直截了当。

你说一起做生意，做大做强，我也能理解，当爽剧看完事，你最后来个女主被杀了，我就不能理解了，强行三观正？

反正别看，无语。

btw，女二有没有都无所谓，没有任何存在的意义，花瓶角色（不针对演员，只针对角色）。

让人很不爽的爽剧，辣鸡。

一开始营造的氛围不错，确实细思极恐，孤巢老人被间接隔离失去自由直至去世也无人问津。

但是那么明目张胆的变卖委托人的资产就没人注意吗？

还有就是女主无来由的勇气就挺突然的，总觉得怪怪的。

可能这就是剧中主打的黑色幽默？

剧情各种漏洞就不说了。

毒枭大佬的小弟们业务能力也太差了吧，下手三个就成功一个路人医生。

最后想说的是毒枭大佬的安保还没有养老院强，说绑就被绑了哈哈。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈，无儿无女的老人，就是待宰的猪，我三十岁就想到了这一点，哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈，我会留给子孙一点够用的自己的存款资本，然后剩下的必须自己挥霍一空！

如果不孝顺，那算我教育失败（任何投资都不是百分百成功的，你得承认这点，但我狼爸虎妈的教育方法我不信能教育出不肖子孙，我跟你们讲生孩子是自己的累赘负担观念不同。

我认为生儿育女本质，就是一种投资！

播种开花结果，最终哺育父母，也就是我自己，哈哈哈这才是终极奥义，你们不婚不育实际上丧失了最大最好的人生退路，我用一辈子跟你赌）我会不留一分钱给他们，全部自己挥霍，人都是怕死的，网上小年轻还老推崇安乐死，实际上自杀都是最懦弱最无能走投无路的人才会去做的，但凡有能活下去的方法，人，一定会想尽办法活下去，这就是人的本性！

自古以来，自杀的人都是少数，安乐死的人更是少之又少，谁也不愿意放弃享受生命的最后一刻，除非痛苦大过活着！

你们这群小屁孩竟然说老了失能了就安乐死，想的太简单了逗比，真到那时候，只要痛苦不大于活下去的精力，没人会想死的嘿嘿。

我都想干女主这行了，真真稳赚不赔

【首发于公众号 写作疑难杂症诊疗室】I Care A Lot 一句话影评： The storytelling is so good, acting so good, until you realize the story is so … 三观不正 😤 If you are intrigued by Rosamond Pike’s unfeeling, first-rate psychopathic smart bitch in Gone Girl, then you will watch I Care a Lot as soon as you have the chance. Well, that’s what I did. And it was the first movie I watched in 2023 — by Jove, how it angered me. Two minutes into the movie, it is living up to the poster’s promise of badass-ness. Pike plays Marla Grayson, who does the voice-over in the opening monologue synopsizing her worldview: this is a world of either winners or losers, predators or prey, lions or lambs. Black or white, no middle ground. An all too familiar worldview to the point of hackneyed, but Pike’s delivery, her cadence, is top-notch. In this strictly dichotomous world, Marla declares: “I am not a lamb. I am a fucking lioness.”Suspense is a foundational trick to hold the audience’s attention. The opening scene does this by the discord between what you see on the screen and what you hear. You hear Marla briefing you on her Ayn Randian philosophy (which has a lot of avid supporters in the far right, something to keep in mind when thinking about why the movie is terrible), but you see images of an orderly care facility where the staff seem attentive to the elderly, and then a disheveled, chubby man trying to break into the facility, only to be quickly seized by some brawny guards. If you are minimally familiar with the science of storytelling, you know that suspense helps to release dopamine, the so-called happiness hormone. When you anticipate a reward, in the case of storytelling, when you expect that everything will be accounted for by the end of the movie, your brain produces dopamine. This opening scene is your first shot of dopamine. The next scene quickly explains what is going on. We are now in a courtroom. Turns out, the mother of the disheveled man, Feldstrom, is in the care facility, to which he is denied access. The court appoints Marla as his mother’s guardian, giving her license to deny Feldstrom visits to his own mother. Marla is also entitled to sell the mother’s house, car, valuable belongings and then use the money to pay herself for her service as the court-appointed guardian. If this sounds crooked, it is. Feldstrom adds that Marla is a total stranger both to him and his mother, and his mother has explicitly said that she doesn’t want to be put in a care facility. Just when you think Marla is the bad guy in the story, here comes the twist. Marla defends herself, first by portraying the son as irresponsible: “Your mother couldn’t cope on her own. A doctor diagnosed her with dementia, Mr Feldstrom, and wrote an affidavit recommending immediate action be take for her safety. You have amply opportunity to move your mother into a care facility or into your home. You did neither.” When parents abuse or for whatever reason can’t take proper care of their children, we think it reasonable for the government and the judicial system to step in. The same goes to elderly who aren’t properly cared for. So far so good, Marla seems reasonable. When Feldstrom objects to Marla’s accusation by saying that her mother begged not to be taken to a care facility, Marla makes a clever distinction: “You can’t care for her by doing what she wants. You have to do what she needs. And that is why I can care better than a family member because I have no skin in the game. … yes, I oversaw the sale of some of her assets to finance [her bills in the care facility], and yes, I pay myself, too, because caring, sir, is my job. … All-day, every day, I care.” You have to admire the concision in her speech, her dazzling use of differentiation, addressing counterargument, and appealing to ethos. And it makes sense. Kids surely want all the sugar they can get and more. But that’s not what they need. The same logic applies to those with dementia. Marla becomes less the greedy predator preying on the vulnerable, and more the strong-willed businesswoman who does what might seem ruthless but necessary. She continues: “I care for those who are in need of protection. Protection from apathy, protection from their own pride, and quite often, protection from their own children. … offspring, who are willing to let their parents starve in squalor and struggle with pain rather than dip into what they see as their inheritance to pay for the necessary care.” By this point, we begin to suspect that Feldstrom is actually the greedy one. At the same time, Marla’s argumentation is so tactical, the intonation so calculated, that it just lacks authenticity. You can’t be entirely sure: is Marla a good guy, or a bad guy? There, uncertainty over the main character — you have your second shot of dopamine. With questions like this, we keep watching. Mind you, this is only less than seven minutes into the movie, and Feldstrom has gone from being the bad guy to the not so bad guy and then again the bad (in the sense of incompetent) guy, and the ruthless Marla with her problematic worldview becomes a respectable professional. 这么紧凑的人物翻转制造了「爽剧」的效果。

不得不佩服好莱坞故事产业的成熟。

The next scene, we see Marla Grayson walking down the stairs outside the courthouse, with full-on badassery. Feldstrom comes after her. He is wearing a red cap again. Looks like he can be a Trump supporter. And he’s calling her “bitch.” He’s in a rage. Words are flushing out of his mouth: “I hope you get raped, and I hope you get murdered, and I hope you get killed!” And he spits on her face. His vulgarity is complete. But his anger also makes you think that he’s truly the victim. Feldstrom is surely an uncivilized, undereducated person for losing his cool like that, but … it could be you — you may have said something similar on social media, in response to some monster doing something flagrantly dehumanizing… Again, you are not sure whether Marla is the good guy or bad guy, and therefore you are not sure if Feldstrom’s outburst is justified. And here comes the problematic part. Marla takes off her sunglasses and looks ferociously into Feldstrom’s eyes: “Does it sting more because I’m a woman? That you got so soundly beaten in there by someone with a vagina? Having a penis doesn’t automatically make you more scary to me, just the opposite. You may be a man, but if you ever threaten, touch or spit on me again… I will grab your dick and balls and I will rip them clean off, you understand? I’ll tell your mom you send your best.” This is a calculated move to make the female audience feel so good, no? You had been belittled at least once, so indelibly, just because you are a girl/woman, and this is exactly what you wanted to say to the offender had you had the guts (which you didn’t). So hearing Marla say that so collectedly just makes you feel wonderful. If you feel that way, that’s due to something called mirror neurons, “brain cells that fire not only when we perform an action but when we observe someone else perform the same action.” 看节目主持人在享受美食的时候，自己也馋了，即使你的理性告诉你那不是真正的食物，而是像素构成的幻影。

But how are men reacting to the scene? Could be something totally different. It could frighten the male audience. When you feel threatened and stressed out, you also become more focused. Scientists have long discovered that even when we don’t face a direct physical threat, as long as we begin to imagine those threats, we get stressed out, and thus more focused. You can identify with Feldstrom and feel intimidated by Marla. Or you can feel frightened for Marla in anticipation of Feldstrom’s fightback. Or, it can be that the masculine part of you feels threatened, and the feminine part of you feels elated. If you can simultaneously feel these two things, oh boy, you are getting the optimal experience. Cortisol is the attention hormone, and oxytocin the bonding hormone. Cortisol combined with oxytocin can give you the experience of transportation (“transport” in the sense of being overwhelmed “with a strong emotion, especially joy”). The second time watching this scene, though, I just rolled my eyes at Marla, because in the next eighteen minutes, the good-guy-bad-guy suspense is completely resolved. The next eighteen minutes show you how Marla capitalizes on the loopholes in the medical and legal system, how she takes advantage of the human weakness of automatically following orders and trusting authority figures, how she preys on those with insufficient legal resources, and what she claims as “care” is actually just grift. As in Gone Girl, Pike once again plays the female villain character in I Care A Lot. Only this time, her character Marla is a lesbian, which frees her from the obligation of playing along with the modern, enlightened men’s fantasy about modern, enlightened women. Marla can express her contempt for men explicitly, whereas in Gone Girl the Cool Girl Amy has to convey her contempt through elaborate schemes. It is really worth the while to revisit the famed Cool Girl passage in Gone Girl, for those too young to have watched or heard of the film:That night at the Brooklyn party, I was playing the girl who was in style, the girl a man like Nick wants: the Cool Girl. Men always say that as the defining compliment, don’t they? She’s a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl. Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they’re fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl...Oh, and if you’re not a Cool Girl, I beg you not to believe that your man doesn’t want the Cool Girl. It may be a slightly different version—maybe he’s vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics. There are variations to the window dressing, but believe me, he wants Cool Girl, who is basically the girl who likes every f***ing thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain. (How do you know you’re not Cool Girl? Because he says things like “I like strong women.” If he says that to you, he will at some point f*** someone else. Because “I like strong women” is code for “I hate strong women.” Gone Girl is invested in the plight of contemporary women, while I Care A Lot is not — the pseudo-feminist things Marla says only bring cheap gratification. Cool Girl Amy’s transgression consists of framing men for stalking, rape, and murder, of putting men to social death and behind bars. But Marla’s seeming transgression of heteronormative sexuality is only a masquerade for her real transgression: her subscription to a macho capitalist logic. Let me quickly sum up the rest of I Care A Lot. Marla collides with a doctor to induce signs of dementia in a rich old lady. Then Marla becomes the legal guardian of that rich old lady, Jennifer Peterson. But Jennifer turns out to be the mother of a super rich and powerful Russian man, Roman, whose business includes human trafficking. Roman kills the doctor and makes it look like suicide, in an attempt to frighten Marla into forfeiting her guardianship on his mother. Marla remains undaunted. So Roman tries to kill Marla, and fails; he tries to kill Marla’s girlfriend Fran, and also fails. The two failed attempts are irritating, I know, because they just make the story implausible. And it gets more irritating. Set on go big or go home, Marla gets back at Roman, and succeeds: she miraculously becomes Roman’s legal guardian, and puts a $10 million price tag on Roman’s freedom. Here comes another twist. Roman proposes an alternative to the $10 million: “Instead of me giving you $10 million… we become partners, go into business together. … I hate you… but, oh, the money we could make. You’re a rare person, Marla. Your determination is… Frankly, it’s scary. But this guardianship grift, it’s ripe, but right now it’s small potatoes. I propose we create a monster… a countrywide guardianship corporation, with you as CEO and co-owner. Use my money, use your… skills. Destroy the competition. Take control of the entire market.”Yes, the two persons that for the most part of the movie try to kill each other become business partners at the end! Two absolutely depraved capitalists joining forces! 没有永远的敌人，不要跟钱过不去 — 这是整部电影的底层逻辑。

The director/scriptwriter must have this twist, which veers the theme of the movie toward the triumph of capitalism, to sustain audience engagement and achieve its own capitalist, commercial success. Obscene!And brace yourself for the most f**ked-up part of the movie. Marla accepts the partnership and achieves CEO of a publicly traded company level of success at the age of 39. She just finishes a TV interview and she’s walking to her car. Feldstrom walks up to her and fires gunshot at her heart. Feldstrom never gets to see his mom and his mom just died alone in the care facility. So he shoots Marla in the heart. This time, Marla completely fails to fire back with words. It is implied that she is killed on the spot. I was screaming (in my head) at this point. A f**king greedy, immoral capitalist, empowered by another wealthy, immoral capitalist, unstopped by the court and the government, or rather, aided by the incompetent people in the legal system and corrupted doctors, only to be killed by an incel kind of guy? The only effective solution to ending injustice and capitalist avarice is pure gun violence in the most American style? As the closing credits music begins, I was yelling in my head: NO! That CAN’T be how the story ends! Movies are supposed to satisfy viewers’ deepest fantasies, and this one does not satisfy my fantasy that justice can be restored through nonviolent, rational means, through legal measures, and through investigative journalism. After all that shit that happened in 2022, after all those people that disappeared, this is the last movie I needed. I wanted movies to represent messy reality, not this kind of bullshit fairytale. I was so angry that I even began to suspect the director/scriptwriter is some sort of closeted Republican incel funded by far-right groups. I realized I needed Spotlight kind of movies. After watching the movie, I spent an hour watching videos about Elizabeth Holmes.

这片子的三观能歪到让人对黑帮恨铁不成钢的程度。

开篇立意是挺新颖的，不过高质量有深度的对决应该是两个系统之间势均力敌的较量，个人意志和运气带来的逆转反而拉低了影片层次，尤其结尾用“正义一枪”草草收场，取代了犯罪系统的整体崩坏，这是对美利坚社会法制信心全无了的意思么。

个人感觉比较好的范例是《战争之王》和《绅士们》

带有资本主义成分的社会，始终是以强者的利益为终极目标的。

而所谓的公平和法制，看上去为弱者提供了保障，但实际上它并不带来绝对意义上的好处。

它们只是工具而已，效果的好与坏取决于公平的制造集团和法律的操纵集团。

只要是被人创造出来的事物，就有被人利用操控的空间，尤其是在这个事实容易被捏造，而规则的执行者越来越依赖于条文和被捏造的事实的社会上。

大多数人都喜欢做一个追随者，他们只需要根据社会公认的规则做出判断和行动就可以获得应有的报酬，但倘若打破砂锅问到底，焉知祸福？

因为在资本的社会中，没人有会因你的善良、勇敢、正义本身让你衣食无忧。

捕食者和猎物的角色也会动态变化，没有人可以成为注定的、绝对的捕食者，剧中的被监护的老人们，在年轻时大多属于成功人士，但在失去力量后，也难免成为猎物。

终其一生在这个弱肉强食的社会中苦心经营，即使运用不公的手段，但还是难逃被系统吞噬的悲剧命运。

和资本一样可怕的是擅于应用制度者，他甚至可以让资本都束手无策。

最可怕的是资本和制度的联合，后果就是用资本的力量将制度的漏洞指数级放大。

试问，现实生活中多少莽夫可以不顾法律地去杀人呢？

所以电影的结局看似喜剧，其实还是悲剧。

要问哪个外国明星是发自内心，实打实的喜欢中国文化。

那裴淳华女士必须当仁不让。

不仅在脱口秀上传授老外中国民间俗语——

还用全中文录制牛年春节祝福，问候广大中国影迷。

单从名字来说，没有点国学底蕴真起不出这寓意满满的民国名媛风。

写出来更是让人惊叹姐姐的一手好字。

最近裴姐可谓人逢喜事精神爽，刚刚拿下了金球奖影后桂冠。

今天咱就来聊聊这部封后之作——

裴淳华饰演的玛拉是一位职业监护人。

这种职业依托于美国的“法定监护人”制度，被认定为无行为能力的老年人、游民等都会被州政府安排一个法定监护人。

这一初衷本是大爱无言、感动美国的无私工作，却被玛拉看到漏洞。

她智谋布局，心机攻防，步步为营。

打通医生和安养机构，将一个个目标送到宛如监狱的养老院，连家属都无法接见。

这群老人完全沦为她的摇钱树，被肆意压榨蚕食直至掏空。

虽然手段龌龊，但在程序上，她并没有逾越法律，完全合法。

怎么做到的？

首先，医生会为她提供目标。

目标一般会出现记忆和智力下降、行为能力退化的症状。

紧接着，医生便会向法院申请一场听审会，庭上一通颠倒黑白，“她孤苦无依”“她神志不清”“她没有办法好好照顾自己”……

哦，多么可怜的人啊！

于是法官便会下达行政令， 任命玛拉为法定监护人。

当事人从头至尾没有出现，但从此刻起，这个陌生的女人已经对他的生活拥有完全的法律权力。

这招百试不爽，直到遇到珍妮弗。

珍妮弗·彼得森从各方面来说都是一个完美目标。

她除了有一丝丝糊涂外，身体非常硬朗（活的越久意味着被压榨的时间越长，一旦去世遗产就会进入继承阶段，或交由亲属或充公）。

无子无女无丈夫，没有任何在世亲人。

住在高档小区，拥有完整产权的昂贵房产。

金融工作退休，手握高额保险和收益极其可观的基金和证券。

信用极佳，没有债务、没有任何不良记录，在玛拉眼中，她就是一只坐在一窝金蛋上，肥得流油的金鹅。

这么一只肥羊送到嘴边，玛拉怎么会放过。

一顿熟悉的操作，珍妮弗被送进了养老院。

手机没收，自由受限。

这边珍妮弗惨遭囚禁，那边玛拉开始疯狂“抄家”。

她把老太太的房子翻了个底朝天，包括房子在内的所有物品均被一一标价、出售，老太太攒了大半辈子的家当比玛拉预期要多的多，

不仅如此，她还找到了意外的惊喜。

在一个隐蔽角落，玛拉发现了一把银行保险箱的钥匙。

没想到里面居然是金表、金砖，

和钻石。

关键这些钻石的品质极佳，每一颗都至少价值20万美元。

事情发展愈发出乎玛拉的预料，一个退休社畜，即便是金融领域，再有钱也不可能会到如此地步。

而最让玛拉不解的是——

为什么？

因为这很可能是不法所得！

这老太太到底是何方神圣？

原来，她的儿子是俄罗斯黑手党的头目。

她可不是什么待宰的羊羔，她是黑帮帝国的太后。

就连珍妮弗·彼得森这个身份都是伪造的。

当知道母亲被送到养老院后，黑帮老大出离愤怒。

但为了能安静迅速的解决问题，他先派出了律师上门谈判，律师直接带了15万美元现金，但玛拉狮子大开口，一张嘴就是五百万。

谈判破裂。

既然文的不行，那就来武的。

黑帮老大派出三个手下，谎借参观养老院来营救珍妮弗，不想玛拉带着警察及时赶到，营救计划也以失败告终。

玛拉逼问珍妮弗到底是方神圣，但老太太对其不屑一顾，据不透露。

但是，虎落平阳被犬欺，玛拉动用手段将老太太直接送进了精神病院。

这让孝顺的黑帮首领勃然大怒，他决定开战。

第一件事就是处决了渎职的医生。

她们这才意识到事态的严重，是硬刚到底还是保命跑路？

眼看到手的银子，玛拉会不会甘愿放弃？

想知道的小伙伴快去影片里寻找答案吧！

玛拉认为世界上只有两种人，掠食者和猎物。

在食人社会的体制下，她作为掠食的母狮子，以最泯灭良心的方式过着精致美好的生活。

她熟悉体制规则、依靠公义法槌“合法”剥削老人。

而这种利用体制漏洞掏空弱者的做法，正是本片最具冲突性的安排。

法律并非保护好人，而是保障懂法律的人。

本片真实社会事件为灵感，就是在这样的基调下左批医疗制度缺口，右批法院昏庸无能。

法官只会依据纸面做出判断，无在无当事人和第三方机构的双重认证下，让女主等一众收尸大队有了可趁之机。

要成功就必须运用特殊手段，但利益与道德之间又该怎么去取舍衡量？

本片百因必有果、天道好轮回的结尾在传达主创的价值导向的同时，告诉我们“成功”所必须做出的牺牲和可能要承担的风险。

从片中也能一窥原本出于善意的体制是如何变得邪恶，而个体又是如何在体制下被无情碾压，在无路可走的情况下，最终选择法外私刑“解决问题”。

不论是为了报复、还是安慰自我，这些决定都凸显了亟需改善的体制问题。

两个小时，高潮迭起反转不断，导演试图触及议题的目的已完整达成，但全员恶人的设定无疑决定了观众很难带入或认同片中的任何一方。

玛拉是贪婪的秃鹫，也是被侮辱的女性，她关心（监护care）一切，却又只在乎自己。

这样一个复杂的角色生生被裴姐演活了。

即便是单挑黑帮大佬这种匪夷所思的桥段，但放在她身上就是会变得合情合理、令人信服，单单为了她影后级别的演出，本片也绝对值得一看。

戳【有用】，为裴淳华打call

观众对《我很在乎》的失望，大多来自对影片阵容的判断失误。

大众是冲着裴淳华去的，因为《消失的爱人》实在太深入人心。

裴淳华塑造的Amy，那一双勾魂摄魄又惊悚恐怖的眼睛，就问你敢不敢多看一眼。

《消失的爱人》剧照《我很在乎》的剧情基本等同于Amy重出江湖。

对热爱腹黑大女主剧情的观众来说，这是多么振奋人心的消息！

我们忘记了《消失的爱人》和《我很在乎》最大的区别是：《消失的爱人》是大卫芬奇作品，《我很在乎》不是。

《我很在乎》的编剧和导演来自一个名不见经传的英国作者J Blakeson。

J Blakeson他自2005年出道，自编自导的第一部作品叫Pitch Perfect，翻译过来可以叫《完美推销》，是个短片；2009年时，他又自编自导了一部短片作品叫The Appointment（翻译过来可以叫《预约》）。

他的第一部自编自导的长片作品叫《爱丽丝的失踪》，是个黑色电影。

豆瓣评分7.0，烂番茄的专家评分81，Metacritic评分65。

从这些权威平台的评分来看，应该不是雷片，但什么水花都没有，这才是最愁人的。

至少在中国，雷都可以有出路，但平庸就真的没救了。

《我很在乎》是J Blakeson第一部自编自导且自己当制片人的作品。

裴淳华是他手里唯一的一张王牌。

打过牌的都知道，一开始就出王牌的，要么是手肥到没小牌可打，要么就是虚张声势，其实家里一堆烂牌打出不去。

《我很在乎》的牌面就是后者。

它最大的问题出在故事趣味上——暴力的形式花样繁多，但动机和价值导向都有点跑偏，最终主流价值观挨不上，黑色喜剧又不到位，两头不讨好。

女主角Marla人设的低共鸣戏剧中的性别顾虑是存在的。

一个人物，选择让TA呈现为男性，还是女性，都有潜规则可循。

在Me Too浪潮、大女主设定的流行趋势之下，女性被认为是比男性更适合重整家庭秩序和伦理秩序的性别。

但是Marla既没有家庭，也没有伦理。

她在搞事业。

她要赚钱，要养小女朋友，要跟男人正面刚。

这就……有点不务正业了。

她搞的这项事业是什么？

文雅一点叫社会清道夫，通俗一点就是啃老狂魔。

她在养老的行业道路上走出了歪门邪道，将素不相识的老人的财产据为己有，美其名曰法定监护人。

她最常去的几个社会场所分别是医院、法院和养老院，豢养出犯罪一条龙，只手遮天。

Marla从事这个事业，在伦理层面上，几乎没有任何可追溯的动机。

她为什么要这么做？

从文本里我们看不到她背叛传统家庭伦理秩序的理由。

这就让她的共情性又薄了一层。

女性观众的普遍认同的女性角色有两种：要么是刀子嘴豆腐心，虽然辣手摧花，但往往心有柔软，愿意为老弱病小让步和牺牲；要么就是傻白甜加小幸运，主角光环一路照耀着她走向人生巅峰，最后打败邪恶，达成恋爱，修成正果。

Marla两者都不是。

她太悍，悍到与所有女性默认的伦理价值为敌。

这个叛逆所换来的洒脱，在性别上却是孤立无援的。

黑色喜剧跟女性诉求混搭失败这个片子的喜剧点大概都被黑帮小老大Roman承包了。

他的一举一动都在强烈表达“我知道不可能但只能硬演”的无奈情绪。

看完全片我也没有明白为什么这个人物要设定为一个侏儒。

这根本不是一部黑色喜剧片，这只是一部既有点黑色又有点喜剧的片子。

其中Marla负责黑色的部分：一个道貌岸然的女慈善家最后死在羔羊的枪下，功败垂成；Roman负责喜剧的部分：一个谜之自信的黑社会前成员被一个业余的反社会女性玩得差点命都没了。

同样我也不明白Marla这个人物被设定为女性的理由。

Marla所做的事情跟女性诉求毫不相关。

女性呼唤的平等待遇，无论是社会分工还是情感意识的被认同，在Marla这里统统不重要。

Marla像是一个披着女人皮的男人。

她的身上没有丝毫女性质地的东西，从内到外，全是阳性的。

Marla要的始终是钱，但钱的伦理符号是权力和责任。

它是非常典型的男性目标。

有了钱才能养得起家，才能爱得起人，才能做想做的事。

这是男人每天在YY的事情。

女性的价值排序中长年名列第一的是一个叫做安全感的东西。

安全感对女人来说有多重要，不言自明。

Marla需要安全感吗？

她根本没有脆弱的时候。

另外，女性做不了世界的霸主，最大软肋是情绪。

古往今来的叙事作品都在告诉我们：女性不是没有武力值，她们往往都是被自己的情绪打败的。

不能说观众期待，但观众默认的叙事原则中，包含着对女性情绪的体验诉求。

我们想看到女性在现象面前的精神纠结，感受细腻而丰富的意识形态流动。

我们希望知道女性在想什么，哪怕是自相矛盾的意识，也是有趣的。

我们想探知女性这种生物从皮囊到心灵之间密密缝缝的思绪的层次，那是比烟花还要绚烂的美景。

而Marla没有这些女性思维的层次。

她凌厉无比，直截了当。

从女性的角度来说，她其实是单薄的。

归根到底还是人设的问题。

大女主的黑色喜剧，不好做。

不是简单的元素的拼接就可以完成的。

情节漏洞多到可以下海捕鱼Marla跟Roman的过招跟儿戏没有两样。

观众用脚趾头都能想出一万种方法把Marla处理得渣都不剩，但Marla硬是凭主角光环一路顺风顺水，还获得了黑社会前正式成员的青睐。

一个被打得满地找牙的男人，最后跟暴揍他的女人说：我看好你，咱们联手吧。

这个逻辑，古今中外，没见过。

性别游戏从来就不是这么玩的。

况且，Marla的战斗值始终是个谜。

从Marla的结局来看，她死得不是一般的草率。

一颗子弹就能让她展现血染的风采，可见也不是什么金刚不坏之身。

所以杀她有何难？

Roman怎么就做不到呢？

说到Roman这个小老大，真的是无愧于全片的笑点担当。

他全程龟缩在SUV里不敢露面，演绎黑社会是如何维持神秘感的。

人手也少得可怜，接老妈的司机跟救老妈的打手，居然用同一个人。

至于他自己，目测也是手无缚鸡之力，所以在家练瑜伽是要表达什么？

（用力收住刻薄话）

作为一个混过黑社会的人，在那么等级森严的环境里待过，竟然允许下面的人居高临下地跟他对话，他还得抬着眼睛训斥比他高好几个身子的下属，这个秩序感，简直乱成一锅粥。

当然，最大的雷还是在于一票人一事无成，还干不过一个死了老妈的无名氏。

瞧人家结尾那一枪，多准多干脆。

Roman的妈Jennifer，跟她儿一样，全程除了被Marla玩得像陀螺一样转之外，只会摆出一副胸有成竹的表情，然后该送养老院送养老院，该送精神病院送精神病院。

该吃的亏一样没少吃。

就是这么个谜之自信的老太太，前史被吹得天花乱坠，什么金融高手、身份成谜，但似乎并没有给Marla的狩猎造成任何麻烦。

都是虚张声势而已。

除此之外，长得一表人才，但是专业技能一般般的律师；人高马大但是一秒就被电晕的保镖；还有怒闯养老院救人结果全军覆没的小混混们，一个个出场都气场两米八，过了两招发现不过都是花拳绣腿的角色。

法庭上力量悬殊的对决蔓延到生活中，就是Marla一派全都开了挂一样的强，小女友被煤气毒死大半天了，还能复活。

就问你服不服。

讲故事，都涉及到欲望的表达。

以《我很在乎》为例：到底是要钻石，还是救老妈，本来是个可发展的欲望挑战。

钱财还是人情，二选一，天然的博弈局。

鱼与熊掌不可兼得，把霸道总裁Roman丢进这个局，看他百爪挠心，求而不得，很有滋味。

但故事偏偏把这个层次撤销了，把两个价值融为一个价值，变成“我都想要，我都不给”的简单局。

钻石和老妈作为重要的叙事符号，本应该分开呈现，结果被揉成了一团，变成了一个模糊的欲望对象，就是幼稚的“属于我的”。

这就跟幼儿园小朋友抢东西的思维逻辑差不多了，何谈人性困境？

其实蛮可惜。

最后是复仇叙事的问题。

一般来说，人物复仇有一个非常重要隐因，就是道德偏差。

因为道德偏差而自然夸大自己受的冤屈和对方造成的伤害，因此才能理直气壮地付诸暴力，一定要以牙还牙，以眼还眼。

这个道德偏差，一定是跟人情世故挂钩的。

偏偏《我很在乎》是一个没有烟火气的故事：Marla把老无所依的老人们的照片挂了满满一墙，像野蛮的猎人炫耀他射杀的动物头颅一样，原始而冷酷，反社会到变态；Roman抱着莫名其妙的孝心，笨拙地追杀一个旁门左道人士，一路上洋相出尽不说，一抹脸，是个更甚的贪婪小人。

自负而麻木，屈辱而不自知。

这两个人，谁都不会发生道德偏差，因为他们双双越过道德的边界太远了。

观众不是不喜欢看狗咬狗的戏码，但看戏的乐趣除了感官刺激，还有一个归属感需求。

演员在台前卖力表演，观众在台下是要论断是非的。

两个人的冲突如果不涉及道德判断，观众就无从站队。

《我很在乎》的冷清就在于道德意识的淡泊和迟钝。

剧中人物既没有道德，也不谈道德。

剧情发展也毫无禁忌，充分放飞道德底线。

这让复仇如何名正言顺，这让复仇如何大快人心。

当观众的志趣和同理心无处寄放，回馈的也自然只有不近人情的差评了。

The End