关关的吐槽市场

今天特意和同学跑到万达影城看了《拉贝日记》，真是让人大失所望。
本来被吹捧的一塌糊涂的各种噱头：华谊兄弟、话题、故事、高投资，结果看来都打了水漂了。
故事本身，我说的是原型，还是不错的，符合变成大片的条件。
关键是，这部电影对于历史的态度真是太差劲了。

王中磊同志，您们把南京大屠杀的历史当做“胡椒面儿”了吧？
您借用了南京大屠杀的历史，展现出来的商业大片，真是让人哭笑不得。
和《南京！南京》比起来，《拉贝日记》差的真是不只一点点。

《拉贝日记》中有很多情节，说的好听叫“拍的很假”，说的不好听叫“根本不靠谱”。
从中，我基本上看不到恐惧、看不到深沉、看不到绝望中的希望，也看不到任何的反思和警示。
我看到的，只有莫名其妙非常高调、非常happy的群众演员；
我看到的，只有匪夷所思牵强生硬的暧昧感情戏（当然，我说的是张静初）；
我看到的，只有哭笑不得旁门左道的原创情节，什么花一样的姑娘大半夜去给弟弟送饭险些被日本兵强奸多亏了年仅十岁不到的弟弟把日本兵两枪毙了于是姐弟两人为了埋葬父亲还穿着日本兵的衣服跑到大街上去最后又躲到了女子大学的宿舍逃过了一劫……

我说啊，这发挥的也太离谱了吧。
这真的是商业大片啊？西门子的这无形中漫长而巨大的嵌入式广告也恢弘的要死呢~
还有最后拉贝先生要走的时候，一群南京民众们开心的、欢腾的、无忧无虑的欢送着中国人民的英雄的那些表情……

拜托，就算是跑龙套的、群众演员也要有点专业精神啊。
大家不要在那么深沉的历史题材电影里面那么happy啊。
这个happy的完全不是上个世纪30年代在华东应该有的那种happy，
完全是迎奥运、迎世博的时候宣传片里的那种happy，看着太让人无语了！

我很喜欢《南京！南京》，很喜欢陆川的理念。
鲁豫有约里面邀请过陆川，陆川曾经也被邀请过拍南京题材的电影，那个时候其实是《拉贝日记》。
但是，最后陆川还是退出了单干。
故事本身是有灵魂的，拍着拍着就会发现故事本身的灵魂在拉着你走
这个时候就有必要把那些脱线的、离谱的情节扔掉，回归历史的本源。
这个时候就不能把历史当做胡椒面儿给电影添彩，而是让电影为历史做点事。
于是《南京！南京》里面，刘烨死了，高圆圆也死了。这些本来剧本里面要活着的人后来被改死了。
因为在那种情况下，如此一个高大、威猛、还俊朗的中国军人刘烨怎么可能就活着出城了呢？
做梦吧？

《拉贝日记》完全是国外视角拍摄的一部英雄主义电影，拉贝就是他们的superhero。
电影的前半个小时他或许有犹豫、有挣扎，
但是一旦跑上了英雄的track，他就无敌了、无畏了、无所不能了。
最后所有的人都要向着他的角色撒花，感谢他、崇拜他、敬仰他、捧着他上天。
我靠，那么那个时候的普通民众是要追星呢，还是要保住性命生存呢？
拉贝在《拉贝日记》里从一个很好的普通人被升华成了救世主一样的神；
拉贝在《南京！南京》里是一个救助中国人的普通人，当然，也是配角。

我并不是说历史不应该感谢他、尊重他，特别是作为一个中国人，更要知恩图报。
但是电影也不用这么搞吧？

当然，《拉贝日记》的失败是多方面的。
首先，过于商业化，加入了很多风马牛不相及的设定和剧情，让整部剧一会儿沉重，一会儿惊悚，一会儿搞笑，一会儿脱线；
其次，导演和制片对于整部电影的基调拿捏的太西方了、太偏颇了，根本就忽略了历史本身，在讲他们想讲的英雄故事。
第三，演员方面、演技方面，则跌入了万劫不复的中国式贴标签的深渊：凡日本军人大多都是一张丑陋的表情（注意，不是丑陋的脸，是丑陋的表情。日本军人真的每天都歪着嘴、斜着眼、像流氓一样说话么？），这些京剧式的脸谱看了真是让人不爽。屠杀中国军人的场景，拍出来并不让人感觉到悲愤，而是让人感觉惺惺作态，一副宣誓着“你看啊~你看啊~日本军人杀人了啊啊啊~~”的肤浅。

最后，几位外国演员的演技还是不错的。音效还是不错的。个别情节的惊心动魄程度也是不错的。
但是，不管这部电影最后的票房是多少，可以肯定的是，这不知道是几个亿的投资，是浪费了。投了一部烂片。

虽然最近是堕落的，但是堕落的时间也不多。所以其实春季新番也只是挑挑拣拣的看。
本来看中的几部要跟的作品基本上都没有跟，
比如《新钢炼》《战场上的女武神》《东之伊甸》和《花冠之泪》。
结果对于那些计划外的作品还是比较关注的，
比如《轻音少女》《07Ghost》《潘多拉之心》什么的。

总的来说，果然我还是离不开京都动画的招牌大旗啊。
只要是京都的作品，它出一部我就要跟一部的。
（当然，那个《仰望天空的少女眼中的世界Orz》还是折腾了我很久，实在是不满他们炒冷饭的功夫）
虽然《轻音少女》的人设不是我喜欢的类型（主要是脸部经常因为角度的变化而小抽搐），
但是整个故事和轻快的叙述还是很不错的~
啊~~我果然就是对于有乐器和音乐和少女的动画无法抗拒啊啊啊~
少女啊~夏天啊~百合啊~乐队啊~~~

对于《07Ghost》和《潘多拉之心》，我承认我是被人设吸引过去了啊。
看到人设就喜欢，听到声优就飘起来了~
男声女优里面我最喜欢的三个人到齐了两个啊（坂本真绫、斋贺弥月、皆川纯子啊~），
这样的作品怎么能不看呢~特别是《07Ghost》里面的阵容真是豪华啊~
女角色基本上都是路人，所以可以华丽的无视掉川澄绫子、能登麻美子和名冢佳织，
男声优里面竟然有浪川大辅、千叶进步、速水奖和宫田幸季啊啊啊~
整体故事还不错，大体上看着属于王子复仇记，但是每一集都有没完没了的奇幻伏笔，
交叉在一起乱七八糟跌宕起伏的预测不到将来的走向，一个谜团牵扯着另一个谜团，
果然很对我的胃口啊~
相比之下，虽然《潘多拉之心》的画面色彩不怎么样，人设也还一般般，
但是服装设计还是不错的嘛~
谜团也是一如既往的没完没了~
成长啊~奋斗啊~揭秘啊~前进啊啊啊~~~

真是的，每个星期都会发生很多让我开心的、不开心的、满意的、不满意的、意料之中、意想不到的事情。
以至于每次打开blog都会因为发生的事情太多以至于无从写起，最后干脆什么都不写。
本星期最劲爆的事情是我的亲爱的老婆大人终于再次告别单身，而对象却是一个一向看我不顺眼、我看他也不顺眼的人！
真是气死我了，可是啊，天要下雨、老婆要再嫁，这都是没有办法的事情啊……

其次就是最近完全无计划性可言的堕落生活，以及一塌糊涂的VB期中考试，已经完全搁置了进展的GRE和毕业论文，
这些东西在让我无时无刻不焦虑的同时，我却完全麽有想要开动的欲望。这个是最糟糕的事情了啊。

前面王尧过来上海，除了陪他吃了好多好吃的东西（嘛，大概都是我自己喜欢吃的东西）之外，
还去K了4个小时的歌。我发现我在飙高音上面还是挺有潜力的，用FIR开开嗓，之后就可以飙韩红了。哈哈。
第二天到刘军所在的江湾校区参观访问回来后，三个人一起去看了两场连场的电影，看过之后心情非常之不爽。

《高考1977》
《南京！南京》

第一场电影在放映的时候，黑暗的影院里还有人废话、吐槽什么的。
等到第二场电影开场之后，影院里面就像坐了全部的死人一样，气氛之死寂，让人呼吸困难。
等到电影结束灯光亮起的时候，竟然有大半的人虚脱到坐着不想走，于是我们磨蹭了大概五分多种才从那僵硬的姿势里坐起来。

毕业论文迫在眉睫，我还完全没有开动。
LSE的申请最近把我的魂魄都勾走了，但是我却除了焦虑之外，在实际行动上没有任何的努力……

果然，保送研究生不是一件好事情。
另外，研究生也要开始收学费了。叹气……

奇怪，我又回到了大女人的状态了。前面通过堕落和悠闲培养出来的细腻和柔软全部都没了。我又开始疲于奔命的忙碌耕耘我的将来了。于是乎，我觉得所有的压力和强迫症都回到我身上来了。忽然觉得有点透不过气来。但是现实却又很残酷，于是我在几乎看不清楚希望的情况下还艰难的喘息着，试图努力着。

不过，我已经是四年级生了噢~于是现在还在这里装苦情真是无聊。经历过一些事情之后，非常世故的觉得，其实没有什么是熬不过去的，只是这么一点小事而已嘛。但是，身在这些苦闷中的人，其实不是那么容易超脱呢。就像被人安慰--没关系啊一切都会好起来的啊你不要那么有压力嘛其实没有你想象的那么糟糕啊-这样的话的时候，还是会生出一种厌烦和狂躁一样。

“就不能让我沉浸在自己的压力中，稍稍停滞不前一下么？你不知道要继续努力加油起来是需要力气的么？我就不能够暂时在这个低落中休息一下么？”像这样的感觉，经常会有。

        ——请2009年夏天快点过去吧！

其实说这样的话很幼稚唉，因为这么说貌似就像“只要2009年的夏天过去了就不会有任何烦恼和困难了”一样，根本就是把希望寄托在遥不可及的未来么。过了今年夏天还是会有很多郁闷的事情要发生，甚至更郁闷。因此，我应该学会去享受这样一个suffering的夏天呢！

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse, which views language as a form of social practice and focuses on the ways social and political domination is reproduced by text and talk.^[1] Critical discourse analysis is founded on the idea that there is unequal access to linguistic and social resources, resources that are controlled institutionally. The patterns of access to discourse and communicative events is one essential element for CDA.

Background

CDA developed within several disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, such as critical linguistics.^[2] There is a three-dimensional framework for studying discourse, where the aim is to map three separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written) language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice.^[1][3]

In addition to linguistic theory, the approach draws from social theory — and contributions from Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu — in order to examine ideologies and power relations involved in discourse. Language connects with the social through being the primary domain of ideology, and through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power.^[1] Ideology has been called the basis of the social representations of groups, and there is a sociocognitive interface between social structures and discourse structures.^[4] The historical dimension in critical discourse studies also plays an important role.^[5]

^Methodology

Although CDA is sometimes mistaken to represent a 'method' of discourse analysis, it is generally agreed upon that any explicit method in discourse studies, the humanities and social sciences may be used in CDA research, as long as it is able to adequately and relevantly produce insights into the way discourse reproduces (or resists) social and political inequality, power abuse or domination. That is, CDA does not limit its analysis to specific structures of text or talk, but systematically relates these to structures of the sociopolitical context.

Notable academics

Notable writers include Norman Fairclough, Paul Chilton, Teun A. van Dijk, Ernesto Laclau, Theo Van Leeuwen, Siegfried Jäger, Christina Schäffner, James Paul Gee, Ruth Wodak, Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, Mary Talbot, Lilie Chouliaraki, Thomas Huckin, and Robert Hodge

Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number of approaches to analyzing written, spoken or signed language use.

The objects of discourse analysis—discourse, writing, talk, conversation, communicative event, etc.—are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences, propositions, speech acts or turns-at-talk. Contrary to much of traditional linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language use 'beyond the sentence boundary', but also prefer to analyze 'naturally occurring' language use, and not invented examples. This is known as corpus linguistics; text linguistics is related.

Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, social work, cognitive psychology, social psychology, international relations communication studies and translation studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.

History

The term discourse analysis (DA) first came into general use following the publication of a series of papers by Zellig Harris beginning in 1952 and reporting on work from which he developed transformational grammar in the late 1930s. Formal equivalence relations among the sentences of a coherent discourse are made explicit by using sentence transformations to put the text in a canonical form. Words and sentences with equivalent information then appear in the same column of an array. This work progressed over the next four decades (see references) into a science of sublanguage analysis (Kittredge & Lehrberger 1982), culminating in a demonstration of the informational structures in texts of a sublanguage of science, that of immunology, (Harris et al. 1989) and a fully articulated theory of linguistic informational content (Harris 1991). During this time, however, most linguists pursued a succession of elaborate theories of sentence-level syntax and semantics.

Although Harris had mentioned the analysis of whole discourses, he had not worked out a comprehensive model, as of January, 1952. A linguist working for the American Bible Society, James A. Lauriault/Loriot, needed to find answers to some fundamental errors in translating Quechua, in the Cuzco area of Peru. He took Harris's idea, recorded all of the legends and, after going over the meaning and placement of each word with a native speaker of Quechua, was able to form logical, mathematical rules that transcended the simple sentence structure. He then applied the process to another language of Eastern Peru, Shipibo. He taught the theory in Norman, Oklahoma, in the summers of 1956 and 1957 and entered the University of Pennsylvania in the interim year. He tried to publish a paper Shipibo Paragraph Structure, but it was delayed until 1970 (Loriot & Hollenbach 1970). In the meantime, Dr. Kenneth L. Pike, a professor at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, taught the theory, and one of his students, Robert E. Longacre, was able to disseminate it in a dissertation.

Harris's methodology was developed into a system for the computer-aided analysis of natural language by a team led by Naomi Sager at NYU, which has been applied to a number of sublanguage domains, most notably to medical informatics. The software for the Medical Language Processor is publicly available on SourceForge.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, and without reference to this prior work, a variety of other approaches to a new cross-discipline of DA began to develop in most of the humanities and social sciences concurrently with, and related to, other disciplines, such as semiotics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics. Many of these approaches, especially those influenced by the social sciences, favor a more dynamic study of oral talk-in-interaction.

In Europe, Michel Foucault became one of the key theorists of the subject, especially of discourse, and wrote The Archaeology of Knowledge.

Topics of interest

Topics of discourse analysis include:

• The various levels or dimensions of discourse, such as sounds (intonation, etc.), gestures, syntax, the lexicon, style, rhetoric, meanings, speech acts, moves, strategies, turns and other aspects of interaction
• Genres of discourse (various types of discourse in politics, the media, education, science, business, etc.)
• The relations between discourse and the emergence of syntactic structure
• The relations between text (discourse) and context
• The relations between discourse and power
• The relations between discourse and interaction
• The relations between discourse and cognition and memory

Perspectives

The following are some of the specific theoretical perspectives and analytical approaches used in linguistic discourse analysis:

• Emergent grammar
• Text grammar (or 'discourse grammar')
• Cohesion and relevance theory
• Functional grammar
• Rhetoric
• Stylistics (linguistics)
• Interactional sociolinguistics
• Ethnography of communication
• Pragmatics, particularly speech act theory
• Conversation analysis
• Variation analysis
• Applied linguistics
• Cognitive psychology, often under the label discourse processing, studying the production and comprehension of discourse.
• Discursive psychology
• Critical discourse analysis
• Sublanguage analysis

Although these approaches emphasize different aspects of language use, they all view language as social interaction, and are concerned with the social contexts in which discourse is embedded.

Often a distinction is made between 'local' structures of discourse (such as relations among sentences, propositions, and turns) and 'global' structures, such as overall topics and the schematic organization of discourses and conversations. For instance, many types of discourse begin with some kind of global 'summary', in titles, headlines, leads, abstracts, and so on.

Prominent discourse analysts

Robert de Beaugrande, Jan Blommaert, Adriana Bolivar, Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard, Wallace Chafe, Paul Chilton, Guy Cook, Malcolm Coulthard, Paul Drew, Alessandro Duranti, Brenton D. Faber, Norman Fairclough, James Paul Gee, Talmy Givón, Charles Goodwin, Art Graesser, Michael Halliday, Zellig Harris, John Heritage, Janet Holmes, Paul Hopper, Gail Jefferson, Barbara Johnstone, Walter Kintsch, Richard Kittredge, Adam Jaworski, William Labov, George Lakoff, Stephen H. Levinsohn, James A. Lauriault/Loriot, Robert E. Longacre, Jim Martin, Elinor Ochs, Jonathan Potter, Harvey Sacks, Naomi Sager, Emanuel Schegloff, Deborah Schiffrin, Michael Schober, Stef Slembrouck, John Swales, Deborah Tannen, Sandra Thompson, Teun A. van Dijk, Theo van Leeuwen, Jef Verschueren, Henry Widdowson, Carla Willig, Ruth Wodak, Michel Foucault, Margaret Wetherell, Ernesto Laclau,Chantal Mouffe