女生规则

出乎意料的是，这部片从场景、扮妆、节奏、故事及表演，有非常明显的美式倾向，舞蹈没有，歌曲也只有很短的几段，和内容简介里所展现出的深刻议题完全不符，也完全和之前的类似题材差异极大。

虽然印度高种姓阶层完全是白种人，尤其是控标双方律师，三个女主的两个，及法官完全是白种人，而且表情，语言完全是西式风格，但抛弃民族风格的结果，就是有些不伦不类。

女生的困境没那么危险，执绔子弟的行为也没那么恶毒，最大的仇恨和冲突不是反映在生活里，庭审才是本片的重点。

不得不说，控方律师的口才和水准相当之高，反而辩方律师除了反驳女警察笔录一段，其他方面显得碌碌无为，似乎是靠“印度式正确”才赢的官司，胜诉的说服力，极差！

完全由庭审还原案发过程，还是有些含糊，而且从控发质问和辩方女主的答辩来看，这三个女主本身就有很多行为上的不妥之处，这也难免被传统文化严重影响的阿三认为她们“不是正派女人”，学美式就要付出美式的代价，所以影片其实说了两个问题，不仅仅是女性维权！

辩方律师的媳妇在片中的意义是什么，始终莫名其妙。

影片最后部分的字幕环节，还原了整个案件的原过程，这是本片和其他探案故事的不同之处，创意新颖，点赞。

7.5分，别抱太多期望！

影片拍摄的很好，演员演的也很认真。

我这里提出一些思考，关于审核制度的思考。

如果这片子直指并抨击印度的全贵阶层，最后还能够过审，那就说明了很多问题。

不要轻易小看一个国家，借用三体中的一句话，弱小和无知不是生存的障碍，傲慢才是！

如果没有现在的审核制度，我们的很多优秀影片都能过脱颖而出，能够启迪和教育多少青年人，能够净化多少观众的灵魂！

然而洗脑和灌输，从来都是主流，而文化元素的缺失，独立思考的匮乏，会让我们越来越落后，从而越来越孤立，这值得每个人思考。

在《女生规则》里面，一切的起因都因为一起发生在聚会上的事件，没想到施暴方却倒打一耙，说女生使用暴力，反倒回来起诉他们故意伤害，这件事情，简直是把我们这些观众都看傻了眼，没想到他们会这样做，但这不是重点，重点是剧情里面，他们之所以能够取得胜利，完全得益于我们的男主角，但这一切都的结果是好的。

最终的结果是他们战胜了施暴方，并且成功将其解决了，看起来，电影的结局总归还是好的，但是，大家知道吗？

这件事情放在现实中，恐怕，问题的结局就不是那么乐观了，甚至有可能发生的一件事情，他们很有可能会比我们想象中还要失败，剧情里面，大家会觉得他们战胜了反派，为他们感到高兴，可这只是电影，放在现实中的印度，他们可能会取得最后的胜利吗？

答案是NO，我这里就暂且不说什么其他的事情，就拿印度的法律来说，表面看，印度法律跟我国法律差不多，可实际上，印度社会和我国社会不一样的地方，是他们有着一套完全有别于我国法律的社会运行体系，没错，这套体系便是种姓制度，前边几期，我们已经聊过种姓制度了，尽管，印度法律早在几十年前就已经废除了种姓制度了，但这套法律依旧在印度的社会运行着。

大家可能觉得印度现在的总理老莫，好像人家就是低种姓，因为他是吠舍，就因此觉得在印度，低种姓也有翻身的机会，可实际上，完全不是这样的，印度总理只是个少数人物，实际上，代表多数的是那些在底层苦苦挣扎的低种姓人群，在印度，低种姓的人，简直是不能被称之为人，而是跟工具和畜生一样的东西，他们明面上受到法律保护，实际上却完全两码事。

因为在印度，一旦低种姓和高种姓之间发生了法律纠纷，法律大多数会偏向于高种姓的人，哪怕对方是一些行为，都是有可能获得赦免的，曾经就发生过一起高种姓殴打低种姓的人，将其活生生打死之后，结果，法律却没有惩罚高种姓的人的情况，这样的事情在印度是比比皆是，因为印度的种姓制度是深深刻在印度人骨子里的东西。

大家还记得印度刘德华吗？

就是那个拍出了《三傻大闹宝莱坞》《我滴个神》还有《神秘巨星》的阿米尔汗，他在印度人心目中那真的可以用大神来形容，可是，阿米尔汗对于印度的这些问题，就曾经在一档节目中，直言不讳说出了一句话“在印度，法律更保护强奸犯”，这番话可并不是阿米尔汗瞎说的啊。

#女生规则# No means no#有些许些许剧透，但不就是这事儿嘛在删了18分钟后2013终于时隔7年把它搬到了国内屏幕上话题其实还是比较老套的话题套路也多少差不多可是架不住它一些台词是真的好，有力量而且这样的事件搬上法庭这个场地之后可以将矛盾激化从而刺激观感强势群体vs 弱势群体强势群体里面不仅仅有男性还有加害的女性甚至还有来自亲人的不理解的伤害可是，有什么错呢？

“No, means no”无论她是谁，都有说‘不’的权利包括，妻子对，律师说到妻子的时候眼神灰败了一下这里就要说到电影不足之处不知道是否删减片段有关于律师的部分我觉得律师部分是有缺失的而且缺的部分非常的重要为什么他会关注这几个女孩为什么他可以在这样的“偏见系统”之外为什么他的妻子卧病在床为什么他的生活一直没有色彩为什么他精神不稳定这些都是非常重要的要素没有讲清楚如果律师部分讲好了应该可以给本片大大加分有些意识不是突然就有的它们是建立在血和泪之上而不应该只有这一次的女孩事件7分左右吧

《女生规则》印度是一个女性社会地位普遍低下的国家，德里也被戏称为强奸之都，然而就是在这样一个性别歧视相当严重的国家，却诞生了大量极为优秀的女权作品，“不管那个女孩是熟人，朋友，女朋友，妓女，甚至是你自己的妻子，不就是不，当别人说不的时候，你就必须停止”这是最简单又最深刻的对于女性，对于人的尊重！

影片通过一个案件深刻剖析印度社会对于女性的传统认知问题，在法庭上的思想碰撞和手术刀式的分析令人动容，并总结出四点所谓的女生规则：规则一：女孩绝不能单独跟男孩去任何地方，如果她那样做了，人们就会假定，既然她自愿去那了，他们就有执照可以不恰当的触碰她。

规则二：女孩在跟男生说话时，不能微笑，不能触碰对方，因为他会把那当作是暗示，她的微笑会被认为是“是”，而且自然的人类行为对他来说会视她为无个性的。

规则三：时钟决定了一个人的性格，当女孩晚上独自走在路上，汽车会慢下来，车窗会降下来，可白天时没人想过这个“好主意”规则四：女孩子永远不能和男生一起喝酒，因为如果她喝酒了，那男生就会认为，她都能和我一起喝酒了，那她不会介意和我睡的。

对女孩来说，喝酒意味着有机可乘。

大B的表现是老而弥辣，演技随着年龄飙升，抽丝剥茧式的剧情推进最终迎来激昂又令人感伤的高潮，剧情张力和爆发力十足，很多细节都有很大的象征意义，一部富于启发教育转变思想又可看性十足颠覆认知的印度佳片，小舞舞五星震撼推荐！

挺好的 男性导演开始尝试触碰女权主义题材，是个挑战，但遗憾的是依旧全是刻板印象，女权思想全靠一个男性律师靠嘴输出，电影里的女性形象是单一的无助的受害者，她们情绪化不理智，只会在法庭上歇斯底里声泪俱下，法庭下只会哭着求助感到害怕痛苦无助，哭泣昏睡。

全是符号化的，电影里的女性真的只是推动情节的工具人—失语的受害者。

但也还是好的，不管怎么样越来越多导演愿意尝试触碰这个主题，就代表有越来越多的机会和可能性出现好的故事好的作品。

规则就是女人不应该喝酒 不应该独居 不应该对男人笑 不应该跟男人去酒店。

三个女孩子的幼稚 冲动 软弱 推动剧情一步一步走向复杂。

律师大叔化妆有点过头（看得出戏🐒）。

好在大叔成熟且正义。

核心观点： 管好男人的思想才能让女生有更多的安全感。

年轻女孩子也不要不顾现实和境遇，一味追求解放和公平。

保护好自己才是硬道理。

变态提示：男孩子们总是幼稚的认为，只要女生有感情就可以白嫖。

只要女生“不守妇道”就是送上门的。

Recently I have unfailingly surprised myself with the fact that I have so far watched 55 movies that has “India” as a tag. I know, though, that it is nothing to be surprised about when dwarfing this figure against either the sheer volume of Bollywood productivity, or the subsequent reminder that has already been seven years since the rabbit hole of this incredible country has cracked open for me.This figure has nonetheless put me into a justifiable position to summarize my stereotypes on Indian movies. And it does not take long to come up with these words:cheesy, “masala”, dramatic (and sometimes naively or even stupidly so), loudly, and- of course- sing and dance, sing and dance, sing and dance…These stereotypes sometimes feel comforting to foreigners like me, because stereotypical movies are easy to follow even if you don’t understand the language. You can also start guessing the plots early on, and the movies would end up with no substantial difference from your guessing. Being easy and predictable, it also saves brainpower so that you don’t have to think much. In other words, it is a cheap and really effortless way of relaxation. An entertainment.Insomuch as it is entertaining, it can be confusing and even frustrating. In all the Bollywood movies I’ve watched so far (perhaps with the sole exception of Slumdog Millionaire which is actually from Hollywood), India is always portrayed as spotlessly clean, without dust and no single trace of pollution. Metros or local trains are never packed. Traffic jam never a grueling pain to be confronted (fair enough: why waste the precious screen time on the seemingly endless jams?!) Suffocating crowdedness and the lack of space? All these can be whitewashed by an idyllic hue with some simple maneuvering of colors and lights made possible by advanced filming technologies…If even the surface of life is fabricated and brushed into such a fancy and romantic fairy-tale never-land, what portion of reality would you expect the movies to touch upon in terms of real contents?That is where Pink, the latest Indian movie I have watched, differs. It is a precious anomaly on the Indian screens after such a long while that was brave enough to pick up and challenge against a grave social reality. It embodies a rare and respectable effort to actually make people think. And think hard, as the message delivered are way less pinky than the title would suggest.The movie did prove itself to be different since the very beginning. No typical elements mentioned above were present. What caught the eyes was instead an intenseness that flows through the swift volatility of scenes around the girls and the boys despite the normality of neighborhood. The high-pitched, playful and sexy female singing common to most Bollywood pieces was also replaced by a low-pitch gloomy voice that preys and haunts and lingers, to create and corroborate a feeling of tragic vulnerability.But I also feel that the mood of the first half (before intermission) was a bit overdone that made it comparatively mediocre and even somewhat bizarre. For example, perhaps to showcase the character of a lawyer, Deepak Sehgal has worn a stern face ever since his first appearance- which, immersed in and intermingled with the creepy and nervous background music, disseminates an uneasy feeling as if Big B[rother] is watching you. This sternness was tendered only by his visits to his hospitalized wife.*Then, when it comes to the second half, the lawyer had and charmingly held the whole stage. Yet what enriches the movie from a one-man show into the current version of depth and audacity is that other characters played their part with equal strength and excellence. Especially the lawyer from the opposite side Prashantji, who cunningly tries to underpin the three girls as sex workers by highlighting the monetary issues. Indicating the girls as such also adds another delicate yet thought-provoking dimension to the story, on which the current Indian society is perhaps yet to grow adapted so as to reflect frankly and open-mindedly. At the very least, concerns on this dimension may well be the reason why they did not resort to the police in the first place. (The police do not seem to be a trustworthy venue of justice whatsoever.)I particularly like the last two rounds of questioning which, in my opinion, have been the climax of the entire movie. Till then, my initial boredom and cluelessness has evaporated entirely. And although I still wasn’t able to capture every detail because of the language barrier, the broader message got me completely (also thanks to the timely interpretation of my friend). Through the intense flurry of gestures, tears and expressions of the girl Falak under the increasingly overwhelming pressure from Prashantji, I had no problem sympathizing with her deep frustration and depression. Similarly, when the boy Rajveer was cornered by Deepakji’s turn, I cannot agree more with the final message: No means NO. Whether it comes from a girl, a girlfriend, a random person or a sex worker.Such a simple message it is. Such a helpless situation that the country has been so ignorant about it, that a simple message like this needs to be delivered in as a serious and sophisticated manner as possible in order to be heard. And such a brilliant initiative the movie is taking, in conveying it in this well-elaborated and well-played story.For those who question why the movie did not fix the character of Deepak Sehgal as a female lawyer, I was nevertheless unable to get the point. Pardon my limited knowledge about the Indian movie industry, but I failed to nominate in my mind a single actress who is as influential as the Bachchan and can thus deliver the message in an equally eloquent, cogent and powerful manner. More importantly, the charge is missing the point. It is too rigid an interpretation of feminism, women empowerment or whatever you call it. Compared with the gender of the messenger, the message itself matters much more. If anything, Big B’s playing such a decisive role in the movie is the best demonstration of “He for She” that I can think of. In the end, it is less about reversing the dominance of men with that of women. It is about creating a widespread and much-needed consensus, among men and women alike, that women are to be respected rather than abused, whose free wills are to be honored rather than violated.If one is really picky about the movie, you can say that it is still somewhat ideal. Poor King’s College whose name was borrowed as a negative illustration that higher or more degrees does not necessarily prove one’s being educated at an expected level. However, at least in this movie, schooling abroad at prestigious universities does seem to indicate a minimum of civility, which is why the case was lucky enough to be rested in the court. India’s harsh reality is by no means endowed with this luxurious luck. In the more common patterns frequency exposed in the media, sexual harassment, intimidation, molesting or other abusive cases were more likely to be succumbed to macabre male violence, sometimes with deadly consequences, before the court ever got the chance to be involved. Nor did the movie inquired deeper into the family background of the boys, or how their rich yet illiterate or poorly-educated mothers and “successful” yet similarly minded fathers have doted them into the irresponsive and misbehaving persons they have now become. Accordingly, it might be the case that the breadth and depth of the “mental bomb” detonated by this movie may be restricted by its very set-up.Having said so, those minor limitations would not prevent the radiance of the movie from shining at all. Indeed, instead of routinely embracing the more revealing and tantalizingly sexual Bollywood music videos featured by excessive showoffs and consumptions of breasts and hips, it is movies like Pink, with brain and compassionate heart, which should be encouraged, warmly received and solemnly contemplated.Finally, an outcry to Chinese filmmakers (or rather the regulators for that matter): In Korea, movies like So-won or Memories of Murder have been the brave bullets that bite directly the brutal scars of the society. Japanese movies and TV series also have the reputation of being closely connected to reality (接地气). Now even Indian screens are catching up with Pink- how or indeed when can we anticipate a change from your side?(I later on learned from IMDB plot that Deepak Seghal suffers from bipolar disorder. If that is the case, then the big-brother-watching-you type of face does make sense. Still, background information in the first half could have been unfolded in a more succinct and elegant way.)

在印度，大家都知道，种姓问题是一个绝对绕不开的事情，在电影《女生规则》里面，尽管，编剧让我们看到了一个故事圆满而且还丰富的电影，再加上编剧强大的逻辑自圆其说，使得这部电影的观影体验比我们想象中要好很多，但是，尽管电影内容很圆满，而之所以能拍出这样的作品，也是因为电影的发生地印度有这么多的案例可供参考。

印度的女性问题有多大，甚至作为印度国宝级演员的阿米尔汗，在参加节目的时候，都直言不讳说出了一句经典台词，他说身为印度女性真的是不幸，85％被夫家家暴过，是附属品。

能让一个一线明星在采访中说出这番话，可想而知印度的女性到底受到了什么压迫了，这还不是阿米尔汗乱说，因为此前就有过消息报道，印度女孩五岁前的夭折率是男性的五倍以上。

甚至，一位印度的大法官曾经在一场听证会上直言不讳表示：如果你想娶她，我们能帮你，否则，你就会丢掉政府的工作，还会被送进监狱。

我们不会强迫你结婚，如果你愿意结婚，请告诉我。

这番话的用意可想而知了，明摆着就是让大家获得了合法的强奸许可，足以证明印度的女性压迫得有多严重了，但这一切到底是为什么呢？

可能很多人会说是种姓问题，在印度，种姓是很多人一辈子都逃脱不了的事情，印度政府层面虽然早在建国后就已经从法律层面消灭了种姓问题了，但是，法律废除了种姓问题，事实上，人民心中的种姓问题却从来没有根除过，种姓问题已经是深入人心的那种了，很难从表面破开，可种姓问题固然占到了一定的程度，但并不是绝对的，事实上，印度女性被压迫，还有其他方面的问题。

首当其冲的，印度可不是什么全世界最大的民主国家，他们更像是一个宗教国家，跟中东那些伊斯兰教的教徒差不多的，在一个宗教国家里面，男女之间的地位是完全不平等的，这也是早已在我国消失的陪葬制度，在如今的印度仍然存在的一个因素，当丈夫死去之后，他的老婆要为自己陪葬，因为印度教是推崇女性是男性的财产。

更可怕的是印度政府禁止了这种陪葬制度之后，可在各地仍然保留了诸多的潜规则，更怕的是印度能改变女人不平等的局面吗？

答案是不能，此前，媒体报道过一件事，喀拉拉邦议会领袖说一个女人被强奸一次，可以理解。

但是她却一直哭诉说自己一次又一次被强奸了。

如果一名女性被强奸，有自尊的话都会去死，或会尽量避免再次被强奸。

连上层精英分子都这么说了，印度的女权问题可想而知了。

老律师发呆，在公园一个人独坐，看着树上的鸟还是风声，诸如此类的镜头，是要表达对社会的无力感，还是表示他在庭审的同时，健康在恶化亦或是老婆的病越来越重，老婆中间说想出院回家又是什么道理。

其中一个女生说收了钱，难道不是做伪证，如果真的收了，案子搞复杂一点，当事人更复杂一些，但是最后还是无罪，这样的结果应该更有力，就像老律师说的，哪怕妓女说了不以后，也意味着那是不。

真相揭露基本没有，全凭庭审辩论撑起后半部 最后判决结果也谈不上出人意料但又情理之中，如果换一个结局，估计震撼力度更佳。

结局过于理想化，不过考虑到印度的社会现实，这个美化也是一种良好的祝愿吧。

前半部，周围的邻居和路人的议论，拍出来的意义是什么，不清楚，开始老律师天天监视人家三个少女也不懂什么态度，我差点以为强奸范就是他。

最后法庭上的女法警同老律师握手，表达敬意，其实对方律师团队中也有女性嘛，那个也应该握手。