读书笔记

[腊八粥]

BBC评21世纪Top100电影
影迷总爱抱怨经典不再，如今的好电影似乎越来越少，看来看去还是那些经典电影更耐看，更有意思。电影网站imdb上由影迷打分选出的Top 100榜单中，占据首位的是20年前的《肖申克的救赎》；而每隔十年由专业人士评选的英国《影与声》杂志的“影史十大”，不管拔得头筹的是《公民凯恩》还是《迷魂记》，都从另一角度佐证着这一观点：电影总是老的好。

　　去年，BBC文化栏目编辑部向62位影评人征集百佳美国电影，结果仅有6部是2000年之后的作品，这令发起方很困惑：难道2000年之后电影的水准真的大幅下降了吗，还是时间美化了电影的品质？于是，BBC近期又组织了一次“新世纪百佳电影”票选活动，以2000年1月1日作为起点，意在帮助影迷、读者重新认识近十多年来的优秀电影作品，发掘一些容易被人忽视的银幕新经典，希望能证明其中有一些佳作，假以时日，其重要性不会亚于《教父》、《七武士》等作品。

　　BBC这次共向全球36个国家共177名影评人（其中以欧美影评人居多，中国入选的是周黎明，日本为莲实重彦）发出调查问卷，其中既有德高望重的电影学者，也不乏网络时代、自媒体平台上的影评红人、意见领袖。最终得出这份涵盖了102部影片的超长片单（第100名由三部影片并列）。用评选发起方的话来说，这些作品证明了“电影不死，越变越新”。

 

[腊八粥]

100.《托尼·厄德曼》（Toni Erdmann,2016）导演：玛伦·阿德(Maren Ade)

　　100.《梦之安魂曲》（Requiem for a Dream,2000）导演：达伦·阿尔诺夫斯基(Darren Aronofsky)

　　100.《卡洛斯》（Carlos,2010）导演：奥利维耶·阿萨亚斯(Olivier Assayas)

　　99. 《拾穗者与我》（The Gleaners and I,2000）导演：阿涅斯·瓦尔达(Agnès Varda)

　　98.《十》（Ten,2002）导演：阿巴斯·基亚罗斯塔米(Abbas Kiarostami)

　　97.《白色物质》（White Material,2009）导演：克莱尔·丹尼斯（Claire Denis）

　　96.《海底总动员》（Finding Nemo,2003）导演：安德鲁·斯坦顿(Andrew Stanton)

　　95.《月升王国》（Moonrise Kingdom,2012）导演：韦斯·安德森(Wes Anderson)

　　94.《生人勿进》（Let the Right One In,2008）导演：托马斯·阿尔弗雷德森(Tomas Alfredson)

　　93.《料理鼠王》（Ratatouille,2007）导演：布拉德·伯德（Brad Bird）

　　92.《神枪手之死》（The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,2007）导演：安德鲁·多米尼克(Andrew Dominik)

　　91.《谜一样的双眼》（The Secret in Their Eyes,2009）导演：胡安·何塞·卡巴内拉(Juan José Campanella)

　　90.《钢琴师》（The Pianist,2002）导演：罗曼·波兰斯基(Roman Polanski)

　　89.《无头的女人》（The Headless Woman,2008）导演：卢克蕾西娅·马特尔（Lucrecia Martel)

　　88.《聚焦》（Spotlight,2015）导演：汤姆·麦卡锡(Tom McCarthy)

　　87.《天使爱美丽》（Amélie,2001）导演：让-皮埃尔·勒内(Jean-Pierre Jeunet)

　　86.《远离天堂》（Far From Heaven,2002）导演：托德·海因斯(Todd Haynes)

　　85.《先知》（A Prophet,2009）导演：雅克·奥迪雅尔(Jacques Audiard)

　　84.《她》（Her,2013）导演：斯派克·琼斯(Spike Jonze)

　　83.《人工智能》（A.I. Artificial Intelligence,2001）导演：斯皮尔伯格(Steven Spielberg)

　　82.《严肃的男人》（A Serious Man,2009）导演：科恩兄弟(Joel and Ethan Coen)

　　81.《羞耻》（Shame,2011）导演：史蒂夫·麦昆(Steve McQueen)

　　80.《回归》（The Return,2003）导演：安德烈·萨金塞夫(Andrey Zvyagintsev)

　　79.《几近成名》（Almost Famous,2000）导演：卡梅隆·克劳(Cameron Crowe)

　　78.《华尔街之狼》（The Wolf of Wall Street,203）导演：马丁·斯科塞斯(Martin Scorsese)

　　77.《潜水钟与蝴蝶》（The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,2007）导演：朱利安·施纳贝尔(Julian Schnabel)

　　76.《狗镇》（Dogville,2003）导演：拉斯·冯·特里耶(Lars von Trier)

　　75.《性本恶》（Inherent Vice,2014）导演：保罗·托马斯·安德森(Paul Thomas Anderson)

　　74.《春假》（Spring Breakers,2012）导演：哈莫尼·柯林(Harmony Korine)

　　73.《日出之前》（Before Sunset,2004）导演：理查德·林克莱特(Richard Linklater)

　　72.《唯爱永生》（Only Lovers Left Alive,2013）导演：吉姆·贾木许(Jim Jarmusch)

　　71.《禁忌》（Tabu,2012）导演：米盖尔·戈麦斯(Miguel Gomes)

　　70.《我们讲述的故事》（Stories We Tell,2012）导演：莎拉·波利(Sarah Polley)

　　69.《卡罗尔》（Carol,2015）导演：托德·海因斯

　　68.《天才一族》（The Royal Tenenbaums,2001）导演：韦斯·安德森

　　67.《拆弹部队》（The Hurt Locker,2008）导演：凯瑟琳·毕格洛(Kathryn Bigelow)

　　66.《春夏秋冬又一春》（2003）导演：金基德

　　65.《鱼缸》（Fish Tank,2000）导演：安德丽亚·阿诺德(Andrea Arnold)

　　64.《绝美之城》（The Great Beauty,2013）导演：保罗·索伦蒂诺(Paolo Sorrentino)

　　63.《都灵之马》（The Turin Horse,2011）导演：贝拉·塔尔(Béla Tarr)

　　62.《无耻混蛋》（Inglourious Basterds,2009）导演：昆汀·塔伦蒂诺(Quentin Tarantino)

　　61.《皮囊之下》（Under the Skin,2013）导演：乔纳森·格雷泽(Jonathan Glazer)

　　60.《世纪症候群》（Syndromes and a Century,2006）导演：阿彼察邦·韦拉斯哈古(Apichatpong Weerasethakul)

　　59.《暴力史》（A History of Violence,2005）导演：大卫·柯南伯格(David Cronenberg)

　　58.《割礼龙凤斗》（Moolaadé,2004）导演：乌斯曼·桑拜内(Ousmane Sembène)

　　57.《猎杀本·拉登》（Zero Dark Thirty,2012）导演：凯瑟琳·毕格洛

　　56.《鲸鱼马戏团》（Werckmeister Harmonies,2000）导演：贝拉·塔尔

　　55.《修女艾达》（Ida,2013）导演：帕维尔·帕夫里柯夫斯基(Pawe? Pawlikowski)

　　54.《小亚细亚往事》（Once Upon a Time in Anatolia,2000）导演：努里·比格·锡兰(Nuri Bilge Ceylan)

　　53.《红磨坊》（Moulin Rouge,2001）导演：巴兹·鲁曼(Baz Luhrmann)

　　52.《热带疾病》（Tropical Malady,2004）导演：阿彼察邦·韦拉斯哈古

　　51.《盗梦空间》（Inception,2010）导演：克里斯托弗·诺兰(Christopher Nolan)

　　50.《刺客聂隐娘》（2015）导演：侯孝贤

　　49.《再见语言》（Goodbye to Language,2014）导演：让-吕克·戈达尔(Jean-Luc Godard)

　　48.《布鲁克林》（Brooklyn,2015）导演：约翰·克劳利(John Crowley)

　　47.《利维坦》（Leviathan,2014）导演：安德烈·萨金塞夫

　　46.《原样复制》（Certified Copy,2010）导演：阿巴斯·基亚罗斯塔米

　　45.《阿黛尔的生活》（Blue Is the Warmest Color,2000）导演：阿布戴·柯西胥(Abdellatif Kechiche)

　　44.《为奴十二载》（12 Years a Slave,2013）导演：史蒂夫·麦昆

　　43.《忧郁症》（Melancholia,2011）导演：拉斯·冯·特里耶

　　42.《爱》（Amour,2012）导演：迈克尔·哈内克(Michael Haneke)

　　41.《头脑特工队》（Inside Out,2015）导演：彼得·多克特(Pete Docter)

　　40.《断背山》（Brokeback Mountain,2005）导演：李安

　　39.《新世界》（The New World,2005）导演：特伦斯·马里克(Terrence Malick)

　　38.《上帝之城》（City of God,2002）导演：费尔南多·梅勒莱斯(Fernando Meirelles)

　　37.《能召回前世的波米叔叔》（Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives,2010）导演：阿彼察邦·韦拉斯哈古

　　36.《廷巴克图》（Timbuktu,2014）导演：阿伯德拉马纳·希萨柯(Abderrahmane Sissako)

　　35.《卧虎藏龙》（2000）导演：李安

　　34.《索尔之子》（Son of Saul,2000）导演：拉斯洛·内梅斯(László Nemes)

　　33.《蝙蝠侠：黑暗骑士》（The Dark Knight,2008）导演：克里斯托弗·诺兰

　　32.《窃听风暴》（The Lives of Others,2006）导演：弗洛里安·亨克尔·冯·多纳斯马(Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck)

　　31.《玛格丽特》（Margaret,2011）导演：肯尼斯·罗纳根(Kenneth Lonergan)

　　30.《老男孩》（2003）导演：朴赞郁

　　29.《机器人总动员》（WALL-E,2008）导演：安德鲁·斯坦顿(Andrew Stanton)

　　28.《对她说》（Talk to Her,2002）导演：佩德罗·阿莫多瓦(Pedro Almodóvar)

　　27.《社交网络》（The Social Network,2010）导演：大卫·芬奇(David Fincher)

　　26.《第25小时》（25th Hour,2002）导演：斯派克·李(Spike Lee)

　　25.《记忆碎片》（Memento,2000）导演：克里斯托弗·诺兰

　　24.《大师》（The Master,2012）导演：保罗·托马斯·安德森

　　23.《隐藏摄影机》（Caché,2005）导演：迈克尔·哈内克

　　22.《迷失东京》（Lost in Translation,2003）导演：索菲娅·科波拉(Sofia Coppola)

　　21.《布达佩斯旅馆》（The Grand Budapest Hotel,2014）导演：韦斯·安德森

　　20.《纽约(专题)提喻法》（Synecdoche, New York,2008）导演：查理·考夫曼(Charlie Kaufman)

　　19.《疯狂的麦克斯4：狂暴之路》（Mad Max: Fury Road,2015）导演：乔治·米勒(George Miller)

　　18.《白丝带》（The White Ribbon,2009）导演：迈克尔·哈内克

　　17.《潘神的迷宫》（Pan's Labyrinth,2006）导演：吉列莫·德尔·托罗(Guillermo Del Toro)

　　16.《神圣车行》（Holy Motors,2012）导演：莱奥·卡拉克斯(Leos Carax)

　　15.《四月三周两天》（4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,2007）导演：克里斯蒂安·蒙久(Cristian Mungiu)

　　14.《杀戮演绎》（The Act of Killing,2012）导演：约书亚·奥本海默(Joshua Oppenheimer)

　　13.《人类之子》（Children of Men,2006）导演：阿尔方索·卡隆(Alfonso Cuarón)

　　12.《十二宫》（Zodiac,2007）导演：大卫·芬奇

　　11.《醉乡民谣》（Inside Llewyn Davis,2013）导演：科恩兄弟

 

[腊八粥]

10.《老无所依》（No Country for Old Men,2007）导演：科恩兄弟

　　9.《一次别离》（A Separation,2011）导演：阿斯哈·法哈第(Asghar Farhadi)

　　8.《一一》（2000）导演：杨德昌

　　7.《生命之树》（The Tree of Life,2011）导演：特伦斯·马里克

　　6.《美丽心灵的永恒阳光》（Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,2004）导演：米歇尔·龚德利(Michel Gondry)

　　5.《少年时代》（Boyhood,2014）导演：理查德·林克莱特

　　4.《千与千寻》（2001）导演：宫崎骏

　　3.《血色将至》（There Will Be Blood,2007）导演：保罗·托马斯·安德森

　　2.《花样年华》（2000）导演：王家卫

　　1.《穆赫兰道》（Mulholland Drive,2001）导演：大卫·林奇(David Lynch)

 

[让我拥抱你]

100.《托尼·厄德曼》（Toni Erdmann,2016）导演：玛伦·阿德(Maren Ade)

　　100.《梦之安魂曲》（Requiem for a Dream,2000）导演：达伦·阿尔诺夫斯基(Darren Aronofsky)

　　100.《卡洛斯》（Carlos,2010）导演：奥利维耶·阿萨亚斯(Olivier Assayas)

　　99. 《拾穗者与我》（The Gleaners and I,2000）导演：阿涅斯·瓦尔达(Agnès Varda)

　　98.《十》（Ten,2002）导演：阿巴斯·基亚罗斯塔米(Abbas Kiarostami)

　　97.《白色物质》（White Material,2009）导演：克莱尔·丹尼斯（Claire Denis）

　　96.《海底总动员》（Finding Nemo,2003）导演：安德鲁·斯坦顿(Andrew Stanton)

　　95.《月升王国》（Moonrise Kingdom,2012）导演：韦斯·安德森(Wes Anderson)

　　94.《生人勿进》（Let the Right One In,2008）导演：托马斯·阿尔弗雷德森(Tomas Alfredson)

　　93.《料理鼠王》（Ratatouille,2007）导演：布拉德·伯德（Brad Bird）

　　92.《神枪手之死》（The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,2007）导演：安德鲁·多米尼克(Andrew Dominik)

　　91.《谜一样的双眼》（The Secret in Their Eyes,2009）导演：胡安·何塞·卡巴内拉(Juan José Campanella)

　　90.《钢琴师》（The Pianist,2002）导演：罗曼·波兰斯基(Roman Polanski)

　　89.《无头的女人》（The Headless Woman,2008）导演：卢克蕾西娅·马特尔（Lucrecia Martel)

　　88.《聚焦》（Spotlight,2015）导演：汤姆·麦卡锡(Tom McCarthy)

　　87.《天使爱美丽》（Amélie,2001）导演：让-皮埃尔·勒内(Jean-Pierre Jeunet)

　　86.《远离天堂》（Far From Heaven,2002）导演：托德·海因斯(Todd Haynes)

　　85.《先知》（A Prophet,2009）导演：雅克·奥迪雅尔(Jacques Audiard)

　　84.《她》（Her,2013）导演：斯派克·琼斯(Spike Jonze)

　　83.《人工智能》（A.I. Artificial Intelligence,2001）导演：斯皮尔伯格(Steven Spielberg)

　　82.《严肃的男人》（A Serious Man,2009）导演：科恩兄弟(Joel and Ethan Coen)

　　81.《羞耻》（Shame,2011）导演：史蒂夫·麦昆(Steve McQueen)

　　80.《回归》（The Return,2003）导演：安德烈·萨金塞夫(Andrey Zvyagintsev)

　　79.《几近成名》（Almost Famous,2000）导演：卡梅隆·克劳(Cameron Crowe)

　　78.《华尔街之狼》（The Wolf of Wall Street,203）导演：马丁·斯科塞斯(Martin Scorsese)

　　77.《潜水钟与蝴蝶》（The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,2007）导演：朱利安·施纳贝尔(Julian Schnabel)

　　76.《狗镇》（Dogville,2003）导演：拉斯·冯·特里耶(Lars von Trier)

　　75.《性本恶》（Inherent Vice,2014）导演：保罗·托马斯·安德森(Paul Thomas Anderson)

　　74.《春假》（Spring Breakers,2012）导演：哈莫尼·柯林(Harmony Korine)

　　73.《日出之前》（Before Sunset,2004）导演：理查德·林克莱特(Richard Linklater)

　　72.《唯爱永生》（Only Lovers Left Alive,2013）导演：吉姆·贾木许(Jim Jarmusch)

　　71.《禁忌》（Tabu,2012）导演：米盖尔·戈麦斯(Miguel Gomes)

　　70.《我们讲述的故事》（Stories We Tell,2012）导演：莎拉·波利(Sarah Polley)

　　69.《卡罗尔》（Carol,2015）导演：托德·海因斯

　　68.《天才一族》（The Royal Tenenbaums,2001）导演：韦斯·安德森

　　67.《拆弹部队》（The Hurt Locker,2008）导演：凯瑟琳·毕格洛(Kathryn Bigelow)

　　66.《春夏秋冬又一春》（2003）导演：金基德

　　65.《鱼缸》（Fish Tank,2000）导演：安德丽亚·阿诺德(Andrea Arnold)

　　64.《绝美之城》（The Great Beauty,2013）导演：保罗·索伦蒂诺(Paolo Sorrentino)

　　63.《都灵之马》（The Turin Horse,2011）导演：贝拉·塔尔(Béla Tarr)

　　62.《无耻混蛋》（Inglourious Basterds,2009）导演：昆汀·塔伦蒂诺(Quentin Tarantino)

　　61.《皮囊之下》（Under the Skin,2013）导演：乔纳森·格雷泽(Jonathan Glazer)

　　60.《世纪症候群》（Syndromes and a Century,2006）导演：阿彼察邦·韦拉斯哈古(Apichatpong Weerasethakul)

　　59.《暴力史》（A History of Violence,2005）导演：大卫·柯南伯格(David Cronenberg)

　　58.《割礼龙凤斗》（Moolaadé,2004）导演：乌斯曼·桑拜内(Ousmane Sembène)

　　57.《猎杀本·拉登》（Zero Dark Thirty,2012）导演：凯瑟琳·毕格洛

　　56.《鲸鱼马戏团》（Werckmeister Harmonies,2000）导演：贝拉·塔尔

　　55.《修女艾达》（Ida,2013）导演：帕维尔·帕夫里柯夫斯基(Pawe? Pawlikowski)

　　54.《小亚细亚往事》（Once Upon a Time in Anatolia,2000）导演：努里·比格·锡兰(Nuri Bilge Ceylan)

　　53.《红磨坊》（Moulin Rouge,2001）导演：巴兹·鲁曼(Baz Luhrmann)

　　52.《热带疾病》（Tropical Malady,2004）导演：阿彼察邦·韦拉斯哈古

　　51.《盗梦空间》（Inception,2010）导演：克里斯托弗·诺兰(Christopher Nolan)

　　50.《刺客聂隐娘》（2015）导演：侯孝贤

　　49.《再见语言》（Goodbye to Language,2014）导演：让-吕克·戈达尔(Jean-Luc Godard)

　　48.《布鲁克林》（Brooklyn,2015）导演：约翰·克劳利(John Crowley)

　　47.《利维坦》（Leviathan,2014）导演：安德烈·萨金塞夫

　　46.《原样复制》（Certified Copy,2010）导演：阿巴斯·基亚罗斯塔米

　　45.《阿黛尔的生活》（Blue Is the Warmest Color,2000）导演：阿布戴·柯西胥(Abdellatif Kechiche)

　　44.《为奴十二载》（12 Years a Slave,2013）导演：史蒂夫·麦昆

　　43.《忧郁症》（Melancholia,2011）导演：拉斯·冯·特里耶

　　42.《爱》（Amour,2012）导演：迈克尔·哈内克(Michael Haneke)

　　41.《头脑特工队》（Inside Out,2015）导演：彼得·多克特(Pete Docter)

　　40.《断背山》（Brokeback Mountain,2005）导演：李安

　　39.《新世界》（The New World,2005）导演：特伦斯·马里克(Terrence Malick)

　　38.《上帝之城》（City of God,2002）导演：费尔南多·梅勒莱斯(Fernando Meirelles)

　　37.《能召回前世的波米叔叔》（Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives,2010）导演：阿彼察邦·韦拉斯哈古

　　36.《廷巴克图》（Timbuktu,2014）导演：阿伯德拉马纳·希萨柯(Abderrahmane Sissako)

　　35.《卧虎藏龙》（2000）导演：李安

　　34.《索尔之子》（Son of Saul,2000）导演：拉斯洛·内梅斯(László Nemes)

　　33.《蝙蝠侠：黑暗骑士》（The Dark Knight,2008）导演：克里斯托弗·诺兰

　　32.《窃听风暴》（The Lives of Others,2006）导演：弗洛里安·亨克尔·冯·多纳斯马(Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck)

　　31.《玛格丽特》（Margaret,2011）导演：肯尼斯·罗纳根(Kenneth Lonergan)

　　30.《老男孩》（2003）导演：朴赞郁

　　29.《机器人总动员》（WALL-E,2008）导演：安德鲁·斯坦顿(Andrew Stanton)

　　28.《对她说》（Talk to Her,2002）导演：佩德罗·阿莫多瓦(Pedro Almodóvar)

　　27.《社交网络》（The Social Network,2010）导演：大卫·芬奇(David Fincher)

　　26.《第25小时》（25th Hour,2002）导演：斯派克·李(Spike Lee)

　　25.《记忆碎片》（Memento,2000）导演：克里斯托弗·诺兰

　　24.《大师》（The Master,2012）导演：保罗·托马斯·安德森

　　23.《隐藏摄影机》（Caché,2005）导演：迈克尔·哈内克

　　22.《迷失东京》（Lost in Translation,2003）导演：索菲娅·科波拉(Sofia Coppola)

　　21.《布达佩斯旅馆》（The Grand Budapest Hotel,2014）导演：韦斯·安德森

　　20.《纽约(专题)提喻法》（Synecdoche, New York,2008）导演：查理·考夫曼(Charlie Kaufman)

　　19.《疯狂的麦克斯4：狂暴之路》（Mad Max: Fury Road,2015）导演：乔治·米勒(George Miller)

　　18.《白丝带》（The White Ribbon,2009）导演：迈克尔·哈内克

　　17.《潘神的迷宫》（Pan's Labyrinth,2006）导演：吉列莫·德尔·托罗(Guillermo Del Toro)

　　16.《神圣车行》（Holy Motors,2012）导演：莱奥·卡拉克斯(Leos Carax)

　　15.《四月三周两天》（4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,2007）导演：克里斯蒂安·蒙久(Cristian Mungiu)

　　14.《杀戮演绎》（The Act of Killing,2012）导演：约书亚·奥本海默(Joshua Oppenheimer)

　　13.《人类之子》（Children of Men,2006）导演：阿尔方索·卡隆(Alfonso Cuarón)

　　12.《十二宫》（Zodiac,2007）导演：大卫·芬奇

　　11.《醉乡民谣》（Inside Llewyn Davis,2013）导演：科恩兄弟

不错，以后想看电影时就到这里来找一部看

 

[腊八粥]

中国式“辩论”的九种套路
作者：刘云枫

　　西方有辩论，中国有争吵。

　　辩论和争吵有什么本质区别呢？

　　辩论有三要素：
1，辩论的目的是为了求得真知；
2，先定标准，再开辩；
3，辩论有规则。
没有这三个要素，就不是辩论，而是争吵。

　　争吵是没有标准的；比如伟人。在我看来，伟人不是自己过得多好，当了多大官，掌了多大权，驱使了多少民众为他服务，而是，为他人、民族和全人类，贡献了怎样的才智，付出了多大的牺牲。用前一个标准，希特勒最伟大，毛泽东次之；用后一个标准，耶稣最伟大，牛顿、爱因斯坦、比尔·盖茨等一类科学家次之。为什么？因为，耶稣的牺牲最大；牛顿、爱因斯坦、比尔·盖茨等人，贡献非常大，只是牺牲少了一等。

　　如果没有标准，或标准不统一，就不要讨论。讨论就是吵架，毫无意义。中国的左右两派，见面就掐架，无尽无休，究其实，左右两派各有一套标准。

　　要辩论，就要较真；不较真，何必辩论呢？不较真，如何能求得真相和真知呢？所谓较真，所谓把天聊死，不就是让对方无话可说，失了面子嘛！这正说明，中国式争吵的目的，焦点根本不在争论的问题上，而在论辩的双方身上。

　　要是为了弄清问题，何来"较真"之说？问题清楚了，不留死角了，不正应该皆大欢喜、三呼万岁吗？夫子曰：朝闻道，夕死可矣。解决了一个疑惑，明白了一个道理，如闻道，不是该像孔夫子一样满心欢喜吗？

　　"较真"之说，是争吵的最后一剑。但，十分有效，此剑一出，谁与争锋，绝对可以保证争论者立于不败之地。有时，边上还有些善意劝解的。论辩，必然稀里糊涂过去了。中国式争吵，走到最后，必定是这个结局。

　　但，中国之争吵者，手里绝不是只有"较真"一把兵器，据我归类，不到十八般，也有七、八种的。

　　一

　　资格论

　　不在其位，不谋其政。要是没有议员资格，却纵论天下大事，也有妄议朝政的嫌疑。不过，那是老黄历了。

　　皇帝不在了，奴才思想却源远流长。当你对某人"说三道四"时，就有人跳出来质疑你的资格了。

　　比如，我说毛某人如何如何。就有人斥责我说：你有什么资格评说他！

　　我问：为什么？

　　他说：你没有他当时的感受。

　　我说：如此说来，谁有他当时的感受？谁也没有。谁也没有他的感受，那就谁也不能评说他了。但是，市面上关于他的传记，可多了去了。那些传记，不都成了鬼话、毫无价值了吗？

　　对方语塞。

　　但，资格论在中国，依然很流行。

　　二

　　绝对论

　　有一次，在课上讨论"公平和效率"。一个学生很有把握地说，绝对的公平是不存在的。我利用了一下我的权威，制止他说：别说绝对。

　　"世上，没有绝对的公平，但这不妨碍我们追求公平的努力；世上，也没有天堂，可我们依旧为在尘世建设一个更加接近天堂的世界而不懈奋斗；或许，真正的爱情，也是不存在的，可是，我们依然不曾失去对美好爱情的歌唱，以及向往。"

　　绝对是理想，相对是现实。无论现实多么肮脏不堪，理想总在无限远处，如光明一样召唤着我们。人类之所以历经千辛万苦，甚至流血牺牲，都不曾停下追寻的脚步，就是因为地平线处的那一道曙光。

　　说 ，反对者说： 也不是绝对好。说法制，反对者还说：法制也不是绝对好；说权力集中，反对者再说：分权也不绝对好；说市场经济，反对者依旧说：市场，就绝对好吗？甚至说日本干净，他们也振振有词：日本难道就没有垃圾吗？我想说的是，日本也有垃圾，但绝对没有中国那么多垃圾。

　　总之，他们有一把无敌于天下的利剑"绝对论"——"绝对论"成了顽固不化者的最坚实的掩体，所有的改进，都被"绝对论"化于无有。他们用绝对苛责别人，却用相对宽恕自己。

　　三

　　换位论

　　换位论的具体说法是：你行你上。有人搞了一个英文版，叫：you can you up.据说，连科比都知道了这个词儿。但，科比只是付之一笑，因为，很荒谬。

　　你要批评他的菜，他就说，那你来做；批评他的画，他就说，你来画；批评他的文章，他就说，你来写一个；批评他的电影，他就说，你来拍一个。可是，你要批评他执政能力不行，他从来不说，你来试试。而是说，他有能力改正自己所犯下的错误。

　　换位论，是极其滑稽的。就像篮球比赛，你的教练说你打得太烂了。你难道说：你行你上吗？软件项目中，有专门测试人员，负责给所有代码挑错。如果，测试员找出了你的代码错误，你敢说：你来写吗？

　　一个社会的进步，需要职业批评家。且，为了保障批评的质量，批评家必须"袖手旁观"，必须置身事外，必须利益无关。一旦艺术批评家，也开始画画，其批评的价值将荡然无存。为什么？因为，我绝对不能说同行的坏话；要是我说了你，你也会说我。为避免相互拆台而坏了圈内的潜规则，理性的做法是，互相"抬轿子"，互相捧臭脚。即便内心轻视，也不会说出来，最多保持沉默。

　　

　　中国电影，就是这个状态，没有职业影评人。今天，你出了一部新作，我给你说好话；明天，我出了新片子，你也给我贴金。你好我好大家好的结果是，没有批评，自然没有进步。一个外国导演到中国来，问圈内人：中国有职业影评人吗？答：有影评人，但没有职业的，都是兼职的。外国导演笑而不语，言下之意：这么玩儿，中国电影能进步嘛？

　　所有中国圈子，大都如此；都在圈内，没有一个人在圈外，谁也不独立，谁在圈内都有利益。所以，谁也不敢发表批评意见。因为，批评圈子，就是批评自己；毁了圈子，就砸了自己的饭碗。因此，没有独立的批评家，就没有独立的批评；没有独立的批评，就谈不上进步。在这个意义上，批评是有资格的；跳不出圈子，就没有资格批评；圈内人之间的批评，只能算是打情骂俏，一钱不值。

 

[腊八粥]

四

　　圣人论

　　圣人论，是指批评者必须是圣人，否则，你就批评不得。

　　批评者必须是圣人吗？显然不是。

　　如果要求批评者是圣人，事实上意味着完全消灭不同声音。因为，没有一个人是完人、圣人，只要不是神，人总有这样那样的缺点。

　　可，不论朝野，圣人论之应用，极其广泛。上到国家机构外交部，下到家庭内部夫妻失和，随时可见，随处上演。

　　比如，每当我指出我老婆的毛病，她就反驳，说你还不是这样那样。言下之意，我也有毛病；我有毛病，就没资格说她。

　　如果有人说中国不好，中国人还是这个套路，就说：其他国家就是完美的吗？你们不也不完美吗？你们不也有这样那样的问题吗？

　　这是圣人论1.0版。到了2.0版，进化出另一种技巧，就是：不去证明对方言论之正误，而是，抹黑对方的人格。好像抹黑了对方的人格，对方的话，也就一起变黑了一样。即：证明对方在道德上是有污点的，有污点的人说话，就不被采信了。其实，这种逻辑，在法律上，是站不住脚的。例如，在调查团伙犯罪过程中，污点证人及其供词，是经常被采纳的。换言之，因为一点，而否定其余，无论在逻辑和实践上，都是毫无根据的。

　　但，这种戏法，在中国频频上演。

　　柴静拍了个片子《苍穹之下》。攻击柴静的人，不问片子之真实性，却说柴静抽烟、开大排量汽车，等等。对付薛蛮子，照旧。不问其言论之真伪，却说薛蛮子是一个嫖客。

　　天下无圣人，世间是不是该禁绝批评声？人间无理想国，国与国之间，是不是彼此保持沉默，谁也别说谁呢？

　　五

　　双轨制

　　"双轨制"在中国，不仅在实践上大行其道，在争吵中，更是频繁登场。

　　具体表现为，"伟人"一个标准，老百姓一个标准；个体一个标准，集体一个标准；国内一个标准，国外一个标准；昨天一个标准，今天又是一个标准。

　　杀人十恶不赦。但要是皇帝，还有一个冠冕堂皇的理由，杀人就不仅不是罪孽，反倒成了功劳，且，杀人越多功劳越大。基督教没有这种"双轨制"--基督教教人：要宽恕，要爱你的敌人。正是在这个意义上，西方多数国家取消了死刑。他们的逻辑是，既然杀人是罪恶，为什么必须以消灭敌人的肉体来彰显正义呢？倘如此，不也是一种罪恶吗？这就是单轨制，是逻辑一致性。

　　在中国，为了给杀人这样一件最大的恶洗白，有一个简单有效的做法，贴标签：是敌人？还是朋友。要是敌人，就杀无赦，不仅义正词严，而且，功劳大大地。但，悲剧在于，人不是全善的神，被贴上"敌人"标签的，根本不是什么敌人，而是与你有不同意见的人。

　　当我们不能善待我们的敌人，我们也就不能保护我们自己了。为什么？因为，有权势的人，会随时赏你一个"敌人"的标签。换言之，我们最大限度地保护我们的敌人，并非出于我们的善心，其实，是出于保护我们自己的私心。

　　这个道理，在中国，有几人能懂？

　　"双轨制"是中国特色，古已有之。当今，只不过是发扬光大了。

　　美国的情况，就比中国好。克林顿是大总统，但，一样不能偷情。偷情了，照样被抓，照样上公堂，照样被弄得面红耳赤、狼狈不堪。在中国，那就是"浪漫的革命主义"爱情了。但你要是小民，非抓你个卖淫嫖娼，不可。

　　六

　　成败论

　　成败与是非无关。换言之，一个人的成功，绝对不意味着其有理。相反，在中国这样一个数千年来、只问结果不择手段的古国，成功几乎是流氓的代名词。你没有成功，只能说明你不够流氓，说明你手段不够黑，脸皮不够厚。

　　但，可笑在于，中国人倒果为因，以成功证明其有理。

　　比如，我的一个大学同学，女生。和我争论时说，你说人家南开大学艾跃进教授不好，水平不高，但是，你要知道，人家艾跃进的书，不愁卖！你说你的书好，怎么销量没几本呢！

　　说别的，也就罢了。

　　这么说，我真是怒了。只是看在她是女生的面上，我忍了。否则，我只想明确无误地告诉她，她就是一个白痴。

　　成功和有理，是两回事。成功，不一定有理；就像成吉思汗建立了史无前例的大帝国，但，并不代表他是先进生产力的代表一样。恰恰相反，他代表的，是破坏先进生产力的代表。

　　七

　　片面论

　　片面论，不是辩论，而是逃避。你说的是A面，对方偏说B面，说的本来就不是一面，谈何辩论！"片面论"者是一个游击战士，从来不和你面对面、针尖对麦芒地交锋，而是绕弯子。你说阳面，他说阴面；你说光照过强，他说阴面好像还行。

　　

　　在中国式争吵中，片面论几乎是最有效的"反击"武器。试想，无论你多么周详，你能做到360度全覆盖吗？难啊。既然，你不能全覆盖，那就是不全面；不全面，自然就是片面。足见，"片面论"给自己一个树立了一个百发百中的靶子，将永远立于不败之地。

　　你说国有企业是没有效率的，历史上中国的官山海、盐铁专营，都是不成功的；近代洋务运动的官办、官督商办，也是彻底失败的；世界上，也少有国企经营良好的案例，即便在集体主义精神最强的日本，国营的邮政企业，也是一天不如一天。

　　对如此铁证，中国人依然有话讲。他们说，要全面地看待国有企业，国有企业承担了重要的社会职能。

　　看，你说的是效率；他们说的是社会职能。

　　这是一个问题吗？不是。但他们以此反对你的观点，他们说你不全面，他们才是全面的。你看问题是片面的，他们是全面的。全面的，自然要"完胜"片面了！

　　所以，当有人说你片面时，讨论即可终止。多一句，都是浪费。

　　八

　　立场论

　　立场论，也不是什么新发明。都是老祖宗用过的、用烂的，慈禧老佛爷说，非我族类其心必异。这就是立场--凡是外族、外国的，都是坏的；东西不好，人也不怀好意；凡是中国的、汉族的，都是好的；东西好，思想好，制度好，人物好，万古不易。当下的人，啥也不必作，只要把老祖宗的东西，原封不动地照抄下来，就是本分了。

　　上个世纪，有一个口号：宁要社会主义的草，不要资本主义的苗。也是立场论的变种。因为，我们搞得是社会主义，既然如此，社会主义的一切，都是好的；资本主义的一切，都是坏的。社会主义一天天好起来，资本主义一天天烂下去。

　　立场论的最高形式，是和"爱国主义"结合起来；一旦和"爱国主义"结合，就拥有了核武器和无限开火权，无敌于天下了。凡是，说中国不好的，都是"汉奸"；凡是，帮助外国的，也是"汉奸"。2008年奥运会，郎平执导的美国女排，曾经和中国女排交锋。这可如何了得，帮助"境外敌对势力"和中国作对，一夜之间，郎平就从原来的民族英雄，变成"汉奸"了。

　　不要以为"汉奸"只是郎平那样的大人物，才有幸荣任。小老百姓，一不小心，也就成"汉奸"了。你买了新西兰奶粉，汉奸；你买了日本车，汉奸；你去国外旅游，汉奸；你去国外旅游且消费，更是汉奸。为什么？因为，你支持了外国人的产业，而没有支持"民族工业"。这就是你的罪！你就算喝三氯氰胺，也不能买外国奶粉。因为，三氯氰胺是国货！国货，就是好的，就要支持。

　　国人做的事儿，就是对的，就要支持。

　　这就是立场论--对方有这种思维，你还和他辩吗？

　　九

　　较真论

　　愿赌服输。要辩论，就要较真，就要把对方逼到墙角，无路可逃。你有本事把我逼到死角，我服你，我为你鼓掌。

　　但，中国人的特色，就是哪儿都没有规矩。辩论也没有，所以，我才将此命名为争吵，而不是辩论。

　　当对方理屈词穷了，他又变脸了，和你说：何必较真呢？

　　早知如此，何必当初！你不想较真，就早说，就别辩。科学求真，辩论较真。较真，乃辩论的基本要求。

　　好比皇帝光着屁股上台，一个小孩看见了，对他说：皇帝陛下，你光着腚呢？皇帝回答：何必较真呢？

　　指出对方的错谬，就是较真吗？不较真，皇帝的新衣就一直穿下去了。千秋万代，循环不已。在这个意义上，"不较真"才是中国社会的一大弊端。

　　不妨回顾一下--汉景帝时期，黄生与辕固生关于皇权来源的辩论。若较真，或许，中国人就能走出"治乱交替"的死循环，可是，汉景帝说，别较真了。于是，这个问题，就搁置下来了。而且，一搁就是两千多年，迄今，中国人也不明白，革命是要不得的。因为，革命者的最终结局，都是反革命。

　　以上九款，是中国式争吵中常出现的技巧，但不是全部，也不是最恶劣的。

最恶劣的是什么呢？是不针对问题，而针对人。

　　什么是对人，而不是针对问题呢？举个例子。比如，对方的问题可能很初级。针对问题的话，应该说：这是一个愚蠢的问题。针对人的话，就会说：你真愚蠢，竟然提出这样的问题。措辞都很激烈，但，一个是对问题的，一个是对人的。智者千虑也有一失；一般人能接受前一种说法，当然，这不是一种好的表达，但，可以接受。

　　可要是第二种表达，就难以接受，即使是心胸开阔的人。因为，这是对一个人的全盘否定，是人身攻击。任何一个人，都会犯错，但，任何一个人都有所长、都有可取之处。全盘否定一个人，不仅在逻辑上是站不住脚的，更是对个人权利的极大蔑视。

　　可悲的是，中国式争吵的大结局，大多是以人身攻击结束的。如，鲁迅说梁实秋是"丧家的资本家的乏走狗"。这种话，关起门来骂，消消气，发泄发泄是允许的。人非圣贤孰能无错！可要是白纸黑字地印刷在报纸上，公之于众，就是泼妇所为了。

　　概而言之，辩论双方的目的，在于把问题搞明白；问题搞清楚了，达成共识了，辩论随之结束。与此相对，争吵从来不是为了问题，而是为了证明一方比一方厉害。事实是，任何一个人、任何一方并不比另一方更高明，并不存在一个人拥有超出他人的智力优势，但，偏偏就有人去寻求这个根本不存在的解。

　　中国式争吵，无尽无休，盖由此出。

共识网

 

[腊八粥]

CS interviews McKee (Part 1)

http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/showthread.php?t=45063

This was sent out as an e mail. Interesting reading.

Q: What are the critical questions that a writer should be asking prior to crafting a story?

Robert McKee: Beyond imagination and insight, the most important component of talent is perseverance-the will to write and rewrite in pursuit of perfection. Therefore, when inspiration sparks the desire to write, the artist immediately asks: Is this idea so fascinating, so rich in possibility, that I want to spend months, perhaps years, of my life in pursuit of its fulfillment? Is this concept so exciting that I will get up each morning with the hunger to write? Will this inspiration compel me to sacrifice all of life's other pleasures in my quest to perfect its telling? If the answer is no, find another idea. Talent and time are a writer's only assets. Why give your life to an idea that's not worth your life?


Q: Does a story always need to be believable? What makes it believable?

Robert McKee: Yes. The audience/reader must believe in the world of your story. Or, more precisely, in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's famous phrase, the audience/reader must willingly suspend its disbelief. This act allows the audience/reader to temporarily believe in your story world as if it were real. The magic of as if transports the reader/audience from their private world to your fictional world. Indeed, all the beautiful and satisfying effects of story - suspense and empathy, tears and laughter, meaning and emotion - are rooted in the great as if. But when audiences or readers cannot believe as if, when they argue with the authenticity of your tale, they break out of the telling. In one case people sit in a theatre, sullen with anger, soaked in boredom; in the other, they simply toss your novel in the trash. In both cases, audiences and readers bad mouth you and your writing, inflicting the obvious damage on your career.

Bear in mind, however, that believability does not mean actuality. The genres of non-realism, such as Fantasy, Sci-fi, Animation and the Musical, invent story worlds that could never actually exist. Instead, works such as THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE MATRIX, FINDING NEMO and SOUTH PACIFIC create their own special versions of reality. No matter how bizarre some of these story worlds may be, they are internally true to themselves. Each story establishes its own one-of-a-kind rules for how things happen, its principles of time and space, of physical action and personal behavior. This is true even for works of avant-garde, postmodern ambition that deliberately call attention to the artificiality of their art. No matter what your story's unique fictional laws may be, once you establish them, the audience/reader will freely follow your telling as if it were real - so long as your laws of action and behavior are never broken.

Therefore, the key to believability is unified internal consistency. Whatever the genre, no matter your story's specific brand of realism or non-realism, your setting must be self-validating. You must give your story's setting in time, place and society enough detail to satisfy the audience/reader's natural curiosity about how things work in your world, and then your telling of the tale must stay true to its own rules of cause and effect. Once you have seduced the audience/reader into believing in the credibility of your story's setting as if it were actuality, you must not violate your own rules. Never give the audience/reader a reason to question the truth of your events, nor to doubt the motivations of your characters.

Q: How do you design an ending that keeps people talking?

Robert McKee: By "an ending that keeps people talking" do you mean the hook at the end of a series episode that keeps people wondering so that they'll tune in the following week? Or do you mean a Story Climax that sends the reader/audience into the world praising your brilliant story to their friends and family?

If the former, I know two methods to hook and hold the audience's curiosity over a span of time.

A. Create a Cliffhanger. Start a scene of high action, cut in the middle, put the audience into high suspense, then finish the action in the head of the next episode. 24 does this brilliantly week after week.

B. Create a turning point with the power and impact of an Act Climax. A major reversal naturally raises the question "What's going to happen next?" in the audience's mind and will hold interest over the commercials of a single episode (for example, Law and Order), or over the week between episodes (for example, The Sopranos).

If the latter, the most satisfying, and therefore talked about, Story Climaxes tend to be those in which the writer has saved one last rush of insight that sends the audience's mind back through the entire story. In a sudden flash of insight the audience realizes a profound truth that was buried under the surface of character, world and event. The whole reality of the story is instantly reconfigured. This insight not only brings a flood of new understanding, but with that, a deeply satisfying emotion. As a recent example: the superb Climax of GRAN TORINO.

Q: What are the typical weaknesses you find in scripts?

Robert McKee: Three that jump to mind:

Dull scenes. For reasons of weak conflict or perhaps the poor shaping of beats of behavior, the scene falls flat. The value-charged condition of the characters' lives at the tale of the scene is exactly what it was at the head of the scene. Activity never becomes story action. In short, nothing actually happens, nothing changes.

Awkward exposition. To convenience the writer, characters tell each other what they all already know so the eavesdropping reader/audience can gather in the information. This false behavior causes the reader/audience to lose empathy.

Clichés. The writer recycle the same events and characters we have seen countless times before, thinking that if he or she writes like other writers have, they too will find success.

Q: How important is the process of rewriting?

Robert McKee: Rewriting is to writing what improvisation is to acting. Actors improvise scenes countless ways in search of the perfect choice of behavior and expression. The same is true for writers. All writers, no matter their talent, are capable of their best work only ten percent of the time. Ninety percent of any writer's creative efforts are not his or her best work. To eliminate mediocrity, therefore, fine writers constantly experiment, play with, toss and turn ideas for scenes tens of different ways, rewriting in search of the perfect choice. The perfect choice, of course, is dependent of the writer's innate sense of taste. The unfortunate truth is that most struggling writers are blind to their banality.


Q: I thoroughly enjoyed your keen analysis of Casablanca, a movie made in 1942. Damn the crass modern movies (and I'm really not that old). My question: Whatever happened to subtlety and innuendo?

Robert McKee: They pulled up stakes and moved to television. Given hundreds of 24/7 channels, crap is unavoidable. God did not give out enough talent to fill those thousands of hours with quality. But setting the inevitable drek aside, we now live in a golden age of television drama and comedy. The finest writing in America is on TV. From HBO and FX to FOX and NBC, cable and commercial networks have become treasure chests of writing excellence. From Law and Order to In Treatment to The Wire to Damages to 30 Rock (to name a few of my favorites) television dramas are complex and subtle; comedies are rich in wit, irony, innuendo and outrageous schtick.

I never worry about the future of story art. Fine writers will always find a medium to express their visions of life. Today and into the foreseeable future, that medium is television.

 

[腊八粥]

Part TWO:

Q: In the Story Seminar you say the best way to succeed in Hollywood is by writing a script of surpassing quality. If you have a great script, how do you get past the Hollywood system so that your script ends up in the right hands?

Robert McKee: If you write a lousy script, you haven't a prayer. But if you create a work of surpassing quality, Hollywood is still a mother******. Because unless you can network a back pathway to an A-list actor or top-shelf director, you must sign with an agent. And the first thing to understand about literary agents is that although they may or may not have taste, they all have careers. Selling scripts is how they put gas in their BMWs. What's more, like everybody else, they want their gas money today. So they have little or no patience for spending months or even years submitting your work, one submission at a time, to dozens of production companies, and then waiting forever to hear back. They want to read work they can sell and sell fast. So the quality of the writing absolutely matters, but what any particular agent feels is fresh vs. clichéd, arty vs. commercial, hot or cold, who can say? Luck is a big part of a writer's life.

[But] to get started, first rent every recent film and television show that is somehow like your script. Write down the names on the writing credits. Call the WGA, ask for the representation office and find out who agents these writers. This creates a list of agents who have actually made money selling scripts very much like the one you've written. Next, go to Amazon.com and buy The Hollywood Creative Directory and find the addresses of these agents. Do not call them. Instead, write an intriguing letter about you and your story and send it to every agent on your list. Wait, God knows how long, to hear back. If your letter captivates curiosity, and if you send out enough of them, the odds are that a few agents will actually want to read what you've written. When that happens, pray that your work is of surpassing quality.

Q: As a beginning fiction writer, the greatest challenge always seems to be the start. What advice would you give?

Robert McKee: By "start" do you mean writing the opening chapter or just getting into your pit and hitting keys? If the latter, you're blocked by fear. I suggest you read Steven Pressfield's The War of Art. He'll help you find the courage to face the blank page. If the former is your problem, first scenes or opening chapters are usually discovered after you have conceived of your Inciting Incident.

If you feel that your Inciting Incident, without any prior knowledge of your characters' biographies or sociologies, will immediately grip the reader, then use the Inciting Incident to launch the story. For example, the Inciting Incidents SHARK EATS SWIMMER/SHERIFF DISCOVERS CORPSE in Peter Benchley's JAWS, or MRS. KRAMER WALKS OUT ON MR. KRAMER AND HER LITTLE BOY in Avery Corman's KRAMER VS. KRAMER, dramatize Chapter One of each of these novels respectively.

If, conversely, you feel that you need to provide your readers with exposition about history, characters and setting in order for them to grasp the importance of your Inciting Incident, then this exposition - well-dramatized, of course, perhaps even building into a set-up subplot - must start the telling.

The principle is: Bring the Inciting Incident into your story as soon as possible, but not until it will hook reader empathy and arouse curiosity. Finding the perfect placement of the Inciting Incident is the key to starting any story.

Q: Do you think the state of the economy will force studios to take more risks with lower budget films, or will they become more cautious and stick with what they know works?

Robert McKee: In fact, Hollywood has never sold more tickets than this past year. 2009 looks even more promising. The worse the economy, the more people go to the movies and watch television. Hollywood is recession proof.

Q: Do you think Slumdog Millionaire would be as commercially and critically successful if we weren't in a recession? Are people looking for happy endings now?

Robert McKee: Life is hard, no matter the economy. Happy endings always make more money than tragic endings because life turns many people into emotional cowards who cannot face tragedy in life or fiction. Besides, why worry about it? By the time what you are now writing is finished, sold, packaged, produced and distributed years will have passed. Who knows? In the next decade down endings may go through the roof. To contrive an audience-pleasing, happy ending before you've created your characters, told their story and discovered a truthful climax is to think like a hack.

Q: How did you end up as a character in Adaptation? Do you think it was a fair portrayal of you?

Robert McKee: Ask Charlie Kaufman. It was his idea. I just said, "What the hell," and had the great pleasure of casting my dear friend, Brian Cox.

Q: Do you see the art of story via screenwriting evolving over the decades, and if so, how?

Robert McKee: No. Tastes and trends come and go, but the essential art of story has not changed since Cro-Magnon storytellers sat their tribes around the fire and held them slack-jawed with tales of the hunt. Personally, I wish filmmaking would devolve from the nervous cut-cut-cut move-move-move herky-jerky camera of today back to the expressively lit, framed, fluid images of the past. Too many contemporary directors seem inflicted with HADD.

Q: What are one or two pointers you would offer a documentary filmmaker to help guide his crafting of a story as he films his subjects?

Robert McKee: Study the classic cinema verite documentaries of Frederick Wiseman-- Racetrack (1985), The Store (1983), Model (1980), Meat (1976), Welfare (1975), Juvenile Court (1973), Basic Training (1971), Hospital (1970), High School (1968), Titicut Follies (1967). He will show you how life shapes into story.

Q: What's the best advice you can give for emerging screenwriters today? Is there one thing that you could say is most important when trying to break in?

Robert McKee: Go the gym and work out. Writing burns you out, but then you have to get up off your tired ass, put your script under your arm and knock on every door 'til your knuckles bleed. That takes the energy of a five-year old, the concentration of a chess master, the faith of an evangelist and the guts of a mountain climber. Get in shape.

罗伯特·麦基（Robert McKee，1941年-）是一名美国创意写作指导者，因其在南加州大学发展举办起来流行的“故事研讨会”而闻名。他是有“编剧圣经”之称的书籍 Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting 的作者，该书在美国翻印32次，英国翻印19次，已成为哈佛大学、耶鲁大学、加州大学洛杉矶分校、南加州大学以及其它全球顶尖影视学府的必读书目。[1]他被誉为“好莱坞编剧教父”，是许多好莱坞经典电影编剧的师父。据统计，他门下的学生曾荣获得53次奥斯卡奖、170次艾美奖、30次美国剧作家协会奖、26次美国导演协会奖，还有英国年度图书奖和普利策专题写作奖。

 

[腊八粥]

What Teens Need Most From Their Parents
As adolescents navigate the stormiest years in their development, they need coaching, support, good examples and most of all understanding
By SUE SHELLENBARGER


The teenage years can be mystifying for parents. Sensible children turn scatter-brained or start having wild mood swings. Formerly level-headed adolescents ride in cars with dangerous drivers or take other foolish risks.

A flood of new research offers explanations for some of these mysteries. Brain imaging adds another kind of data that can help test hypotheses and corroborate teens’ own accounts of their behavior and emotions. Dozens of recent multiyear studies have traced adolescent development through time, rather than comparing sets of adolescents at a single point.

The new longitudinal research is changing scientists’ views on the role parents play in helping children navigate a volatile decade. Once seen as a time for parents to step back, adolescence is increasingly viewed as an opportunity to stay tuned in and emotionally connected. The research makes it possible to identify four important phases in the development of intellectual, social and emotional skills that most teens will experience at certain ages. Here is a guide to the latest findings:


Ages 11 to 12
As puberty takes center stage, tweens can actually slip backward in some basic skills. Spatial learning and certain kinds of reasoning may decline at this stage, studies show. Parts of the brain responsible for prospective memory, or remembering what you are supposed to do in the future, are still maturing. This may be why a teen may seem clueless if asked to give the teacher a note before school.

Coaching tweens in organizational skills can help. Parents can help build memory cues into daily routines, such as placing a gym bag by the front door, or helping set reminders on a cellphone. They can share helpful tools, such as task-manager apps.

ENLARGE
Young teens’ reasoning and decision-making skills often aren’t fully developed; parents can coach them in being organized and considering other points of view. ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER
Parents can help foster sound decision-making, thinking through pros and cons and considering other viewpoints. Children who know by age 10 or 11 how to make sound decisions tend to exhibit less anxiety and sadness, get in fewer fights and have fewer problems with friends at ages 12 and 13, according to a 2014 study of 76 participants published in the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

By remaining warm and supportive, parents may be able to influence the way their teen’s brain develops at this stage. A 2014 study of 188 children compared the effect of mothers who were warm, affectionate and approving during disagreements, versus mothers who became angry and argumentative. Teens at age 16, who had affectionate moms when they were 12, showed brain changes linked to lower rates of sadness and anxiety and greater self-control, according to the study led by researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Ages 13 to 14
Parents should brace themselves for what is often a wildly emotional passage. Young teens become sensitive to peers’ opinions and react strongly to them. Yet the social skills they need to figure out what their peers really think won’t be fully mature for years, making this a confusing and potentially miserable time.


At about this time, teens’ response to stress goes haywire, sparking more door-slamming and tears. The impact of social stress is peaking around this time: Of adults with mental disorders often triggered by stress, 50% received a diagnosis before age 15. Other research shows teens from ages 11 to 15 become sad and anxious when subjected to social stresses such exclusion from social groups, while adults don’t show a similar effect.

Parts of the brain most vulnerable to stress are still maturing, so coping strategies teens use at this stage can become ingrained in the brain’s circuitry as lifelong patterns, according to a 2016 research review in Developmental Science Review. Psychologists advise teaching and modeling self-soothing skills, such as meditation, exercise or listening to music.

ENLARGE
Teens are susceptible to social stress at ages 13-14. Parents can help decode peers’ social cues and model healthy coping behavior, like exercise or meditation. ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER
Coach teens on friendship skills, including how to read their peers’ expressions and body language. Encourage them to choose friends based on shared interests, not popularity, and to dump friends who are unkind. Teach them how to repair friendships after a fight by apologizing, making amends or compromising.

Family support is a stress buffer. Teens whose families provide companionship, problem-solving and emotional support are less likely to become depressed after exposure to severe stress, according to a 2016 study of 362 Israeli adolescents in the Journal of Family Psychology.

Ages 15 to 16
Teens’ appetite for risk-taking peaks at this age, according to a 2015 study of more than 200 participants ages 8 to 27 led by researchers at Leiden University in the Netherlands. The brain’s reward receptors are blossoming, amplifying adolescents’ response to dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. This makes thrill-seeking more desirable than it will ever be again.

Normal fears of danger are temporarily suppressed during adolescence, a shift scientists believe is rooted in an evolutionary need to leave home and explore new habitats. Studies have found adolescents fail to change their appraisal of risky situations even after being warned that the hazards are greater than they expect.

The ability to make and keep good friends is especially useful at this stage. Teens with friends they trust and count on for support are less likely to engage in risky behavior such as shoplifting, riding with a dangerous driver or having unprotected sex, according to a 2015 study of 46 teens led by Dr. Eva Telzer, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. Teens who argue often with close friends are more likely to take such gambles.

ENLARGE
Thrill-seeking will never be more irresistible than it is for a 15- to 16-year-old, whose reward receptors in the brain are blossoming. Parents can still make a difference: Encourage healthy friendships; show warmth and support. ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER
It is not too late for warm, supportive parents to make a difference. In a laboratory risk-taking test, teens who grew closer to their parents starting at age 15 showed less activation of a brain region linked to risk-taking and took fewer chances 18 months later, according to a 2015 study of 23 adolescents published in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. The closeness to parents included having parents’ respect and help talking through problems, and an absence of arguing or yelling, according to the study, in which Dr. Telzer was a co-author.

Ages 17 to 18
Benefits of the teenage brain’s ability to change and develop are evident at this stage. Some teens show increases in IQ. Intellectually gifted teens are most likely to achieve gains in IQ scores, so teens who are already smart are likely to grow even smarter, according to a 2013 study of 11,000 pairs of twins led by researchers at Penn State University, in University Park, and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

ENLARGE
Older teens can put the brakes on emotions and risk-taking; their problem-solving and strategy-planning skills are developing. They might need help deciphering ambiguous people and situations. ILLUSTRATION:ROBERT NEUBECKER
In older teens, the parts of the prefrontal cortex responsible for judgment and decision-making typically are developed enough to serve as a brake on runaway emotions and risk-taking. Executive-function skills, such as solving problems and planning strategies, continue to develop at least through age 20, according to a 2015 study by researchers at Sheffield Hallam University, England.

Social skills and related brain regions are still maturing, according to researchers including Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at University College London. At this stage, teens are better at noticing how others feel and showing empathy. They still lack the ability to decipher people’s motives and attitudes in complex social situations, though, such as figuring out why a friend might suddenly change the subject during a conversation at a party.

 

[叶虻]

星有灵兮的阅读面很丰富 很广泛 怪不得你写起小说来 生活中的素材得心应手 一定是得益于你广泛的阅读 问好星有灵兮

 

[麦燕萍]

写东西的时间多了，看书的时间就少了，今年太厚太沉重的书看不动，就看些轻松愉快的，张小娴的书都是这个类型，也偶尔有些令人惊讶有趣的句子.....

就先从这篇《忠于自己》开始吧

从前，爱情最伟大之处就是能够终于对方，为对方付出，牺牲或是等待，今天的爱情，强调的也是忠心，不过，不是忠于对方，而是忠于自己。

忠于自己的第一个动作就是随时可以离开，无论跟对方在一起多久，只要不喜欢，立即离开，今天的爱情，忠于自己，自己不喜欢，一走了之，无需付责任。

第二个动作是完全不介意做第三者，只要自己喜欢他便做第三者，不需要承偌，不需要将来，享受着做第三者的快乐与凄苦。

第三个动作就是爱情多元化，一个人可以同时爱超过一个人，同时也允许对方爱多过一个人，他们叫这个做分体式爱情，不能忍受这种关系的，便是不够潇洒。

第四个动作是斤斤计较，害怕对对方占便宜，希望对方付出更多，包括感情和物质。

第五个动作是迟婚，不相信婚姻，享受独身，不愿意为家庭牺牲自己，男人不想被婚姻束缚，女人害怕一旦结了婚就失去了竞争力。

第六个动作是不要孩子，为自己而活，不把青春美好的岁月用来培育下一代。

然而，最悲凉的，是每一个忠于自己的人最终还是渴望有一个人忠于TA。


评论：最后一句话可谓点睛之笔，现代人自私自利，什么都要先考虑自己的感受，自己的得失，好处要占全了，却又往往奢侈地希望对方不那么自私.....

最后一句真经典!

 

[麦燕萍]

这个楼好，张小娴的文字不错，但一直没读多少，跟着老八读读，保证积极写读后感，只要老八不嫌弃

向精灵问好

 

[麦燕萍]

提个不同的观点:
人生不外三件事: 善己, 亲人, 爱世界!

海燕姐这个观点我赞同

 

[麦燕萍]

写得真好啊！ 和精灵的美图美句各有千秋。 同样的事情， 不同的人就有不同的表达方式。和性格文风都有关系。
感觉在作品里，还是思想上的东西更吸引人；腊八的厚重还真是有些让我不敢开口呢。 我青涩得很， 别怪我在你的花园里一晌流连贪欢。

老八的厚重也是让我自叹不如

 

[腊八粥]

老八的厚重也是让我自叹不如

我，我，我，不胖哎....
谢谢小麦