SOS动漫社团 -> 三次元影视基地 -> [影评]THANK YOU FOR SMOKING(《感谢你吸烟》)——公众是最幼稚的傻冒 登录 -> 注册 -> 回复主题 -> 发表主题

红茶党党魁 2009-10-29 00:22
想到叫板一些古话的原因是来自于一部电影[感谢你抽烟],如果认同智慧的合力最终导致的是无比盲目的羊群的话,实际上已经加入了我的行列。
  
  哪怕是一丁点的小事,如果没有满足公众的偷窥欲,结果往往就是被抱怨知情权的缺失,而不停地做公关成了声援某种产品最有效的办法。和电影调侃大烟草行业和参议院的夸张方式不同,我们没有给瓜子、辣椒酱、SK-II是否要贴上骷髅标识开一场听证会,但是我们不可否认的是作为公众我们已经相当愚蠢地吃了好多年的矿物油、苏丹红、抹了好多年的化学毒药。每个观众可以在电影里面尽情欣赏各自被房屋贷款和行政权利驱动的两方辩论,但是作为公众的第三方,是应该继续保持一个傻冒的身份,还是一个冷静的判断者?可惜的是,维权的人都不折不扣成了傻冒。
  
  一涉及到消费者的权利,任何东西都变得非黑即白。如果今天告诉你撤销了牙防组,明天为什么还要继续信任中华预防医学会?就像电影里面的一句话,如果掌握了辩论的技巧,你永远站在对的一边,就算是面对巧克力最好还是香草最好这种无稽之谈[却有很多受众],你只需要证明巧克力不是最好就足够了。巧克力的鼓吹者认为你没有能说服他的逻辑——巧克力不是最好并不是香草最好的充分条件——但是公众不关心这个论证逻辑,他们只要认为巧克力不好就是香草最大的胜利。也许这个双头模型不是很切合实际,因为巧克力和香草没有完全的替代关系,还有奶油、水果冰其他的东西,但是如果两种产品或者两个观念各自因为其鼓吹者而处于强势的对立,消费者就一定喜欢做一个二选一。所以公众与其说是讨到了说法做出了选择,倒不如说是被某一方的公关者给攻克。
  
  无论是哪一方的公关者,他们都要想方设法撬动公众的同情心,当你发现这些公关者甚至都没有用自己的产品,可千万别大惊小怪,因为他们仅仅是为房屋贷款所驱动。电影里的说客最终选择跳出,生活中的说客还在上演。提到房屋贷款的驱动大于社会责任的驱动,不得不提电影中出卖自己肉体摆了男一号一刀的女记者,在这种非黑即白的回合制对弈里,输得很惨也很正常。

红茶党党魁 2009-10-29 00:33
没找到好的介绍,中文版的介绍都是TMD只会说啥吸烟不好的犬儒主义者。
他x的看基佬片也比看这种狗屎强。

先放片过得去的简介,有空再把这坑填成中文。
Here is a satire both savage and elegant, a dagger instead of a shotgun. "Thank You for Smoking" targets the pro-smoking lobby with a dark appreciation of human nature. It stars Aaron Eckhart as Nick Naylor, a spokesman for the Academy of Tobacco Studies. We meet him on "The Joan Lunden Show," sitting next to bald-headed little Robin, a 15-year-old boy who is dying of cancer, "but has stopped smoking." Nick rises smoothly to the challenge: "It's in our best interests to keep Robin alive and smoking," he explains. "The anti-smoking people want Robin to die."

Nick Naylor is a pleasant, good-looking career lobbyist who is divorced, loves his son Joey (Cameron Bright) and speaks to the kid's class on career day. "Please don't ruin my childhood," Joey pleads, but his dad cross-examines a little girl whose mother says cigarettes can kill you: "Is your mother a doctor?" Once a week he dines with the MOD Squad, whose other members are alcohol lobbyist Polly Bailey (Maria Bello) and firearms lobbyist Bobby Jay Bliss (David Koechner). They argue over which of their products kills the most people. The initials MOD stand for "Merchants of Death."

The movie was directed by Jason Reitman, now 29, who warmed up by making short subjects. What's remarkable in his first feature is his control of tone; instead of careening from one target to the next, he brings a certain detached logic to his method. Notice how Nick negotiates with a Hollywood super-agent (Rob Lowe) on the challenge of getting movie stars to smoke onscreen once again. Right now, they agree, no one smokes in the movies except for villains, and Europeans. The stars would have to smoke in historical pictures, since in a contemporary film other people would always be asking them why they smoke. Or -- why not in the future, after cigarettes are safe? Smoking in a space station?

Reitman grew up around movies; his father is Ivan Reitman ("Ghostbusters," "Evolution"). But Jason has his own style, sneaky and subtle. Instead of populating his movie with people smoking and coughing and wheezing, he shows not a single person smoking, although the ancient Captain (Robert Duvall), czar of the tobacco industry, holds a cigar like a threat. Eckhart has a good line in plausible corporate villains (see his debut in "In the Company of Men"), and he is smiling, optimistic, and even trusting (as when he tells girl reporter Katie Holmes things he should know will not be off the record).

Naylor's opponent in the film is Sen. Ortolan Finistirre (William H. Macy), a Vermont environmentalist whose office desk is covered with his collection of maple syrup bottles. The senator has introduced legislation requiring a skull and crossbones to be displayed on every cigarette pack, replacing the government health warning. The symbol is better than the words, he explains, because "They want those who do not speak English to die."

Reitman's screenplay is based on a novel by Christopher Buckley (son of William F.), and retains a literary flavor rare in a time when many movies are aimed at people who move their lips when they think. Consider this exchange between Nick and his young son, who wants help on a school assignment:

Joey: "Dad, why is the American government the best government?"

Nick: "Because of our endless appeals system."

Or this nostalgia by Duvall, as the Captain: "I was in Korea shooting Chinese in 1952. Now they're our best customers. Next time we won't have to shoot so many of them."

What I admired above all in "Thank You for Smoking" was its style. I enjoyed the satire; I laughed a lot because it's a very funny movie, but laughs are common and satire, as we all know, is what closes on "Saturday Night Live." Style is something modern movies can't always find the time for. I am thinking for some reason of "The Thin Man" (1934), a movie that works in large part because of the way William Powell and Myrna Loy hold themselves, move, and speak; their attitude creates a space between the vulgarities of the plot and the elegance of their personalities, and in that space the humor resides. Their lives are their works of art. Nick Naylor is like them, not egotistical or conceited so much as an objective observer of his own excellence. It is the purpose of the movie to humble him, but he never grovels, and even in a particularly nasty situation is still depending on his ability to spin anything to his advantage. If you want to remake "The Thin Man," I say Aaron Eckhart and Catherine Keener.

Should the movie be angrier? I lost both of my parents to cigarettes, but I doubt that more anger would improve it. Everyone knows cigarettes can kill you, but they remain on sale and raise billions of dollars in taxes. The target of the movie is not so much tobacco as lobbying in general, which along with advertising and spin-control makes a great many evils palatable to the population. How can you tell when something is not good for you? Because of the efforts made to convince you it is harmless or beneficial. Consider the incredible, edible egg. "Drink responsibly." Prescription drug prices being doubled "to fund research for better health."

At one point in the movie Nick pays a call on Lorne Lutch (Sam Elliott), a former Marlboro Man, now dying of cancer and speaking out bitterly against cigarettes. Nick brings along a briefcase full of $100 bills. This is not a bribe, he explains. It is a gift. Of course, to accept such a gift and then continue to attack tobacco would be ungrateful. Lorne eyes the money and wonders if he could maybe take half of it and cut back on his attacks. Nick explains with genuine regret that it doesn't work that way. Once you're on board, you're along for the ride.

kennethcc 2009-11-18 04:38
sounds interesting from the dialogue.

such as...

    关于是否在香烟上设置醒目警告标志的听政会
    Mr. Naylor, who provides the financial backing for the Academy ofTobacco Studies?
    Naylor先生,是谁向烟草研究协会提供的资金协助呢?
    
    Uh... Conglomerated Tobacco.
    额...烟草联合企业
    
    Do you think that might affect their priorities?
    你认为这会对烟草研究协会的公正性OR倾向性(直译--优先权)产生影响吗?
    No, just as I'm sure campaign contributions don't affect yours.
    不会,就像我确定竞选活动的政治献金也不会影响你的


lol

kennethcc 2009-11-18 04:48
http://www.douban.com/review/1158103/ ....... = =|||||| why i see something familiar.... can anyone give me an answer-.-


查看完整版本: [-- [影评]THANK YOU FOR SMOKING(《感谢你吸烟》)——公众是最幼稚的傻冒 --] [-- top --]