女生规则

印度电影，大致讲的就是三个年轻的女生，接受了几个刚认识的男生的邀请，去酒店吃饭、喝酒。

这些男生觉得有机可乘，想做龌龊的事，结果遭到反抗，一个男生被打伤眼睛。

被打伤的男人家里有钱有势，就开始报复，甚至聘请无良律师颠倒黑白，将打伤他的女生告上法庭，想让她坐牢很多年。

女生们扛住了种种压力，在一个老律师的帮助下，最后反败为胜。

这是一部反映印度女性低下的社会地位的电影，当女生受到有钱有势的男人的侵犯时，警察选择和坏人同流合污（哪怕那个警察自己也是女性），家人也劝她们息事宁人，社会舆论也认为“谁叫她们接受了男人的邀请，被侵犯也是活该”。

影片很不错，揭露了印度社会的黑暗面，不过好在是good end，结局令人舒适！

美中不足的就是，影片长达2小时，前一半基本都在铺垫，可能会比较乏味。

不过后半部分，是法庭的辩论环节，正义的老律师vs无良油腻的坏律师，情节超级痛快，节奏感满满！

侵犯女性的男人必须受到应有的惩罚，但是，女性也要注意好保护自己。

保持警惕，预防受到伤害，更胜过被侵犯后再去制裁对方。

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。

应该是一部2016年的电影，我却在2023年1月6号大陆上映的时候才看。

这部电影缺点很明显，节奏比较莫名其妙。

男主的故事我从头到尾都没怎么明白，可能是我迟到了几分钟，不知道他为什么一直带着那个口罩。

还有他后来说不清女主被车子劫持去的方向，在第一次庭审中发呆，不提问。

好多地方看得都觉得很奇怪。

对了，男方的辩护律师长得好像小黄人里的格鲁哦。

很多时候看到那三个女生不知道怎么为自己辩驳、赌气式地承认自己收钱，也会觉得生气。

她们的想法是“就算我是妓女，我也有权利说不”。

会生气的觉得怎么可以被他们牵着鼻子走，你大可以对他们的指控进行辩驳啊。

但是想想，影片里丢失的手机都还是3G网，距离现在我的生活怎么也要十年了。

这十年不仅是技术的进步，更是女性自我意识觉醒的进步。

前些阵子热依扎在飞天奖获奖感言说：“我觉得女性在一代一代地变得越来越好。

但是我们变得越来越好的话，都是前一代女性作出的努力，她们在不断地突破，突破出来，新的成绩，让我们下一代女性变得更好。

”我想这部电影就是说的前一代女性所作出的突破。

她们或许表现得没那么从容、没那么智慧。

但就是一代代女性的努力，才让我们这一代的女性能够更加勇敢。

如果要给女权下一个简单的定义的话，那应该就是“女性有说不的权利”吧，原来女权诉求这么简单。

电影最后一幕法庭里的女警和女生们的律师握手时，顿时眼泪就留下来了。

这一切，是这么简单，却又那么困难。

Tu Khud ki Khoj mein Nikaltu khud ki khoj mein nikaltu kis liye hataash haitu chal tere vajood kisamay ko bhi talaash hai(go, find yourself,why are you despondent?go, even time islooking for your existence.)jo tujh se lipTi bediyaansamajh na inko vastra tuye beRiyaan pighaal kebana le in ko shastra tu(the chains that cuff you,don't think of them as your clothes.melt these chains,and make them your weapon.)tu khud ki khoj mein nikaltu kis liye hataash haitu chal tere vajood kisamay ko bhi talaash haicharitra jab pavitra haito kyun hai ye dasha teriye paapiyon ko haq nahike lein pareeksha teri(when your character is pure,why are you in such a state?sinners don't have a rightto examine or check you.)tu khud ki khoj mein nikaltu kis liye hataash haitu chal tere vajood kisamay ko bhi talaash haijalaa ke bhasm kar usejo kroorta ka jaal haitu aarti ki lau nahitu krodh ki mashaal hai(burn and incineratethe web of atrocity around you.you aren't the holy flame of worship,but a fire of anger.)[mashaal = torch]tu khud ki khoj mein nikaltu kis liye hataash haitu chal tere wajood kisamay ko bhi talaash haichunar uRa ke dhwaj banagagan bhi kampkampaayegaagar teri chunar girito ek bhukamp aayega(fly your scarf like a flag,even the sky will shake.and if your scarf falls,an earthquake will come.)tu khud ki khoj mein nikaltu kis liye hataash haitu chal tere wajood kisamay ko bhi talaash hai

印度，真的很适合拍女性主义电影因为在印度，女性实在太没地位😞但还好在这个地球村里思想的传递，并无国界.《女生规则》在众多印度电影里只能算是中规中矩的一部故事不新鲜，剧情太寻常甚至有些刻意传递的思想在女性主义里也只能算得上是“基础教育”.故事围绕“（好）女生规则”展开底层逻辑就是在探讨社会性别属性下对于女性的刻板印象其实全世界都不缺刻板印象只是程度各有不同放在了印度哈哈尤其显得男权视角得…不可理喻🙄.像电影里所说的我们要教育的其实不是（不仅仅是）女性而应该是男性只有当男性意识到了问题所在时女性才能安全这就要从底层意识形态开始改变改掉自古以来的“男子气概”：强壮的狩猎性姿态男性绝对不能像女性一样表现出感性、柔弱，而必须勇猛，坚强！

WHY？？

这种要求，往深了想，不过是为了维护男性的特权（既得利益）一种控制女性、压制女性权利的欲望而今天的女性主义就是要去质疑这种社会性别属性下的“天然”的不公正争取弱者也能以弱者的姿态被尊重的权利.另外，这部电影给我的最大感触是：这个世界上有些职业真的不能没有道德自律比如律师否则，真的会世界大乱人性的恶将毫无底线吧～故事中女孩们遇见了律师的幸运就如同《不完美受害人》里米芒和赵寻遇见了林阚希望这个世界上能有更多的律师在选择案件时不仅仅只是为了金钱还可以是为了社会的公平与正义！

以及人性里善的光芒～.推荐～

有的时候真的搞不懂这个世界，女生做什么事情都会觉得女生就是在勾引男生 ，明明我化妆穿漂亮的衣服只是为了取悦我自己，是我自己的心情更愉悦，就会被别人说成为了取悦男生真的没有必要，女性是独立的个体，并不是谁的附属物。

女性有自己独立的思想，并不是整天缠着男人的废物没有男人，女生照样可以活的很好，某些普信男不要觉得女生离开你就活不了

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。

我们一直都在朝错误的方向努力。

我们应该拯救的是男孩，而不是女孩，因为如果我们拯救了我们的男孩，那么我们的女孩也就安全了。

把你的围巾变成旗帜，挥舞它，开始革命吧，天空也会战栗。

如果你的围巾掉落了，它会引起地震。

开启自我探寻的旅途吧，你为什么抑郁？

开始跑起来吧，时间也在搜寻你的存在。

印度这个国家真的让女性很绝望，片中各种求助无门，全社会的人都在劝受害者算了，有的甚至还认为是受害者的错，不是每个受害的女性都能那么幸运，拯救女性首先从破除直男癌开始，女性说不就是真的拒绝，所谓的女生安全守则只是变相的看低女性，人生而平等，希望能将这部影片在印度国内以及其他女性地位低的国家带去一些好的影响，警醒他们！

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。

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.)