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？？？

美国电影《我很在乎》。可能是一个人对未来老去存有忧虑吧，这部电影从一开始就抓住了我的心，令人恐惧并感觉无解。标榜慈善、法制的社会里，通过关联的产业链：医院出具老人可能失去自理能力或其他健康风险的诊断书，监护机构提交法院决议获得老人监护权、将老人送去关联养老院，变卖老人家产存入监管账户，从此剥夺了老人的余生自由和毕生财富，这样的产业链做的无懈可击，老人没有机会去申诉改变，因为这些机构有足够的证据证明你需要他们的监管，而不至于令你“老无所养”。影片巧妙的设计了黑吃黑的情节，反派主角很有力量感，可也更令人毛骨悚然。我总感觉，未来会变成这样，资本的趋利性，必将榨干所有。

当我们老了，该如何去面对呢？

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。

就挺无语的，竟然和黑帮共情了，人家生活的挺好被主角搞得乱七八糟，然后黑帮老大都杀不死主角最后被一个普通人开枪杀死了……

还有那包钻石，一颗20万美金，看着也就十几颗的样子，女主拿这个要挟1000万美金？？？会觉得很离谱。

前面还挺好看，看到后面只希望黑帮尽快杀掉女主救出老太太了……

8.6分

我tm，就是要给高分。槽多无口，这绝不是个完美的电影，但是有时候我们也需要这种不可思议，极富戏剧张力，并不完全符合逻辑甚至不现实的情节，它们精彩，无比精彩。而沉浸在文艺的世界，沉浸在韦斯安德森绚丽的布景，斯皮尔伯格精妙的镜头调度和诺兰炫技般的结构设计中的我们，好像已经忽视了精彩才是电影的必修课。而《我很在乎》，这样一部小众的，荒诞的的电影，却忽然点醒了过去追求逼格的我。这2个小时给了我前所未有的观影体验。

女主的形象非常非常丰满，你可以说她不讨喜，但是你不能说她没立住。裴淳华实力圈粉，当初看《消失的爱人》，她的熠熠光彩被更牛逼的剧本遮掩了，只能说是锦上添花；而这一次是她力挽狂澜了这个逻辑混乱，“三观崩坏”的剧情。无数的特写镜头，怼脸炫演技，不管多扯多炸裂的剧情都能完美hold住，从眼神到举止，都无可挑剔的精准演绎。目前的20年最佳女主角没有之一。看了一些差评的评论说“不够爽”，说“恶人受得惩戒太少了”，说“导演抓错了爽点，应该多给女主一些教训”，我重新审视了一下自己的三观，发现我确实挺变态的。首先我严重同情弱势群体，严重到甚至有些滥情。所以片头看到这样一个一辈子独立，坚强，成功的老太太无缘无故被marla盯上，又被迫送到“监护院”，断绝和外界的一切交流，被掠夺财产，余生一片荒芜时，我对marla产生了强烈的反感，和大多数观众同样等待着她报复的到来。然而当剧情一步步推进，marla变成了浮萍一般的弱势群体，老太太背后有强大的黑帮靠山，他们可以随时闯入监护院，随时对marla和她的同僚进行攻击，这个时候我的阵营便开始动摇了，即使她做了无数伤天害理的事情，即使她是个自私的人渣，还是不可避免地希望她无恙。就怀着这样矛盾的情绪，电影来到高潮，医生被杀，marla和她的漂亮女朋友人心惶惶，准备逃离时，却被黑帮抓住。该怎么说呢，此前的剧情中规中矩，难说有多精彩，但是仍在掌控之下。此后的剧情是彻底的放飞自我，各种雷点纷涌而至。marla被小矮子绑在椅子上，用塑料袋勒住脑袋时，我好像也感到一阵窒息，代入感强到可怕。此刻裴淳华的演技爆表，瞬间让我对女主的感情产生了巨大变化。我个人非常崇拜目标明确，用尽一切手段达成自己目的的人，为此我可以接受一定道德感的丧失。女主和小矮子表达自己对死亡的态度，毫不避讳自己对金钱的渴望，毫不遮掩自己巨大的野心。就连小矮子也为之震颤了一瞬。而我则彻底被她征服了。也许换一个人，但凡换成裴淳华之外任意一个演员，也许都做不到她这样澎湃的魅力表达。她可恨，虚伪，但是她无比坚定，冷酷而强大的灵魂成为了她最犀利的武器。什么叫无脑爽？marla死里偷生，从水中逃命，随后一系列并不理智但成功完成的复仇计划叫无脑爽，这一段不评价，其实编剧的处理很低级，但是怎么办，我喜欢。一颗永远不迷失的内心，即使是丑恶的，在我的眼里也是动人的。

还没看就被剧透了结尾有巨大转折，我大致猜到了是女主阴沟翻船，在片子最后十分钟还有些抗拒这一刻的到来，也许结束在她成功的一刻变圆满了。但是我万万没有想到居然会是片头的那个“怂货”终结了marla传奇的一生，那一刻，我感觉她受到了应得的报应，死得其所。换言之，也许只有这个人杀了她我才会觉得她是死得其所。不得不让人惊叹于设计之巧妙。尽管如此，这并不代表我不敬畏marla的一部分品质。带着一点震撼，一点释然，一点感慨和无数惊喜，影片结束了。

这个题材选的太牛逼了，牛逼到即使它其实立不住，还是能让我投入其中。我突然想到，如果要是找中国一些导演来拍这个题材，拍的不这么极端，添加更多的喜剧元素，也许它会大受欢迎，但是不复这样的震撼。我喜欢这部电影就像现在所存在的样子。I love《i care a lot》a lot.

【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.