长篇影评
1 ) 过程很揪心,结局很舒适,所揭露的现实很残酷
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。
2 ) The not-so-pinky messages from Pink
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.)
3 ) 一部为女生正名的印度电影!所有女生都去看!
看完电影我觉得实在震撼!女生在文明社会里还要遭受多少的歧视与压迫!看完电影同为女生的我,沉默了!电影当年在印度上映票房一路飘红,引起印度社会的墙裂反响!
☘️
电影背景发生在印度,一个女生地位普遍低下的国家。这些年越来越多的印度电影为女性发声!《女生规则》讲了3个女孩在一次聚会因为被骚扰欺负,失手弄伤男生却反被起诉说故意伤害男子,颠倒是非黑白的故事。
··
电影的节奏不快,在法庭辩护的时候缓慢讲述着案件的真实情况还原。女孩们是幸运的,她们遇到善良的房东不至于流落街头,有隔壁老律师的相助不被坏人得逞。老年律师在法庭上思想碰撞和手术刀式的分析方式让人动容,他总结出四点所谓的女生规则:
规则1⃣️:女孩绝不能单独与男性出行。如果她那样做了,人们就会假定,既然她自愿去那了,他们就有理由可以不恰当地触碰她
规则2⃣️:女孩绝不能主动对男性微笑。因为他会把那当作是暗示,她的微笑会被认为是同意。
规则3⃣️:女孩绝不能夜晚独自外出。因为时钟决定了一个女孩的品质,好女孩晚上不会出门。
规则4⃣️:女孩子绝不能聚会上倒酒饮酒。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。
印度国宝级演员阿米达普·巴强饰演的老律师,他铿锵有力的在电影里说出这些所谓“规则”。他的演技是让人动容的,激昂又有爆发力!
-
女生要抗争的路还很漫长,但未来却是光明的,如同电影蕞后的画面,阳光照耀下的姑娘们重新绽放光彩的笑脸😊!
4 ) 印度男人真的比其他男人更热衷强奸吗?
2012年12月,德里一名女大学生与其男友,在回家路上搭乘了一辆黑公交,随后噩运就降临了。
公交车上的7名男子将男友殴打后,关押在驾驶室,女生则遭到了轮奸,由于激烈反抗,她还被施以暴力,罪犯甚至将异物塞入她的下体。暴行过后,两人被扔出车外。
女孩被发现时,连肠子都露在体外,送医抢救后,不治身亡。
这就是震惊世界的印度黑公交轮奸案!
随后,印度三天两头都会爆出强奸新闻,且情节恶劣,此后,这个文明古国,就被戏称为强奸帝国。
为什么印度的强奸案这么多?
有人说,是因为印度男人比其他男人更热衷强奸。别闹了,好色是男人的天性,哪里都一样。
在此,推荐一部优秀的印度新片《女生规则》,也许它能给你答案。
影片讲述的是一桩性侵事件。
三个印度女孩,在一场摇滚音乐会后,遇到三个印度男孩,经熟人介绍,共进了晚餐,本是一片祥和,但随后男孩们频频调戏女孩,直至动手动脚,一名姑娘情急下,用酒瓶砸伤了带头的男孩,混乱中,她们匆匆逃离。
事情没完。
男孩们心有不甘,不断进行骚扰、辱骂,甚至绑架,最后还将女孩们告上了法庭,理由是:故意伤人。
什么叫恶人先告状,大抵不过如此!
强奸都是女人自找的
说是故意伤人案,但原告律师,纠着姑娘们的品行做文章,用一系列确凿的“证据”,证明了她们是妓女,以下就是他的“证据”:
她们经常晚归、她们喝酒、她们进了男人的房间(其实是去借厕所)、有一个女孩有家不住,却在外面借房子、有两个女孩谈过恋爱、有一个女孩接受过前男友的经济援助......
可以想象,女孩们在法庭上,遭遇了什么。这桩伤人案,更像是一次对她们的道德审判!
以硬汉形象走红的老牌明星阿米特•巴强,以往都是用拳头来伸张正义,此次他换了身行头,改用法律来捍卫正义。
他扮演的退休律师,充满睿智,法庭上,他出人意料地顺着原告律师的思路,去盘问砸伤原告的米纳尔是不是处女,进一步证明她们品行“不良”,而就在得出让原告称心的答案时,他话锋一转,质问原告,是不是觉得这样的女孩就可以调戏,甚至强奸,最终用激将法,迫使原告承认,他就是认为她们是婊子,任何男人都会想在她们身上试试运气。
阿米特•巴强在法庭上的辩词,几乎条条是金句,尤其是所谓的好女孩规则,深刻揭示了在男权思维下,男性对女性的霸道定义,其包括两部分,一,什么样的是好女孩,二,坏女孩被强奸很合理。
这其中,唯独缺乏女性自我的意愿。
现在,知道为什么印度强奸多了吧?传统糟粕是重要原因。
这种糟粕先是给一大批女性莫名贴上坏女孩的标签,随后再将强奸坏女孩合理化,所以,不是印度男人特别喜欢强奸,而是印度男人觉得某些时候强奸是合理的,而且合理强奸的机会还挺他妈多的!
回想印度黑公交轮奸案,一些官员不停强调受害人不是处女,企图以此平息抗议性暴力的群众,而在BBC制作《印度的女儿》中,一名主犯接在采访中也明确表示,女人不该出门,她们走在路上,就像是一道道活动的菜肴,等待男性享用,就强奸来说,女人比男人的责任更大。在他看来,一个未婚就私自和男人谈恋爱,还和他晚上外出的女人被强奸,太正常了,采访结束前,他还感叹了一声,现在的好女孩越来越少了。
这不是如出一辙的逻辑么?强奸,都是女人自找的!
在结案陈词中,阿米特•巴强扮演的律师,掷地有声说了这样一句话,“我的委托人当时说‘不’......‘不’就意味着‘不’,不管那女孩是熟人、朋友、女朋友、妓女、或甚至是你的妻子。”
他无意去证明女孩们是所谓的好女孩,而只想告诉众人,即便是坏女孩,也有保护自己身体的权利!即便是坏女孩,也有拒绝和人发生关系的权利!这,是人权!强奸一个坏女孩,依旧是犯罪,这,是法律!
传统比法律更重要
常有人羡慕印度的传统文化保存的好,但却忽略了,印度为此付出的代价也是相当惨重,各种传统糟粕难以铲除,尤其是歧视女性的思想十分严重,至今在印度,还能看到童婚、寡妇殉葬、荣誉谋杀等歧视女性的习俗。
印度女人美丽、妖娆的纱丽之下,是其地位低下的残酷现状。强奸,只是这种现状的外在表现之一。
有人会问,没有法律吗?像这部电影的女生一样,用法律维护自己权益呀!
印度当然有法律,不但有,印度独立后的第一部宪法,甚至被誉为最先进的法律,但然并卵,在陈旧思想没根除的情况下,法律成了一纸空文。
片中,三个女孩第一次去报警,不但没有得到同情和重视,反被警察数落了一番:你们为毛和男人一起去喝酒呢?
这在印度是一种非常典型的现象,去年的印度影片《国道十号》中,就描写了一位维护荣誉谋杀的警察,而在阿米尔•汗的《真相访谈》节目中,一位因为没有生出男孩被丈夫殴打的女人叙述,她去法院控诉丈夫的暴行时,法官说,一个男人想要个儿子难道不正常吗?
可见,在印度执法者心中,传统远高于法律,他们更倾向于维护传统,而不是执行法律。
因而,阿米尔•汗在《真相访谈》中沉重的说道,“在印度,法律更保护的是强奸犯。”
执法不力,也是印度强奸频发的原因,因为犯罪成本实在太低了。
频发的强奸事实上证明了印度在进步
印度记录在案的强奸案件由1971年的2487起增至2011年的24206起,增长率为873.3%。男权传统在印度几千年了,为什么这几年才爆发如此多强奸案呢?
一是因为越来越多的女性走出家门,接受教育、参与工作,甚至自由恋爱,所谓的坏女人越来越多,所以合理强奸的机会也就多了。
二是因为更多女性在遭遇强奸后,敢于报案维权了,而以往可能就是打掉牙齿吞进肚子里。
以上两点,说明了为什么印度强奸案在近些年呈爆发性增长,而它们都证明了印度女性的地位在进步。
本片也正是在这种进步思想下诞生的,影片导演在接受采访时说,“我的电影是对我们在印度几乎每天都能看到的所有暴行和道德警察的回应。”
如今,《女生规则》不但被制作出来,还引起了印度社会的强烈反响,票房一路飘红,可见注重女性权益正在逐步成为印度的主流。
剧作家Ritesh Shah则表示,《女生规则》的意义“早已超越了一部电影”。
所以,虽然现实是黑暗的,但未来却是光明的,就像影片最后给出的画面一样。
信息福利:在印度,结婚费用以及房子、车子,都是由女方出钱的,单身的中国汉子,可以考虑前往,当地通行英语,你无需另学印度语言。
首发于 百度电影吧 微信平台
——————————————————————————————————————
想看更多有关印度电影的评论,欢迎订阅公众平台“Indianmovie”
5 ) 主题是好的 但不看演职员表就知道是男导演
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。
6 ) 所有女性都是命运共同体,鸡也是,你也是。
我一直都还记得浆果之前如何被骂,“好女孩”自成一派举着旗帜:“我们普通女孩跟那些自甘堕落的鸡不一样。”
真的吗?不一样在哪?因为想要性快感所以做哎被拍视频了就可以自动归成坏女孩了,因为她是鸡啊,跟我们怎么可能是命运共同体?
可是有些鉴男也是这么想的,所以有了原谅宝,拿着你在社交软件上的照片去搜你曾经的男朋友有没有给你拍过性爱视频,没有也不用怕,他可以p的啊。这算什么呢?穿低胸吊带不穿胸罩的必然是鸡想要博取注意啦,他们一步步掐着脖子逼着女性往后退,可是还有人在说我不去做鸡就没事啦,接下来是我不穿低胸就没事啦,我不乱交就没事啦,我不交男朋友就没事,我不做哎就没事啦,我不出门就没事啦,最后呢?你不是女的就没事啦。
怎么不是命运共同体呢?你又怎么知道你下一秒是不是别人口中的鸡?你又要怎么注意当心呢?
宝莱坞要是能学会节制点该多好,比如《红粉惊魂》前50分钟1星戏份完全砍掉,丝毫不影响后面三星半的90分钟。
几次堂审的控方律师的咄咄逼人让女孩们一次次在奔溃边缘。男权社会公平公义本身从一开始就对这群女孩有偏差,辩方律师最后的结案呈词太赞了,当有人说“No”的时候,就是要对方立即停止,印度这个国家诟病很多,但在他们的影视作品中会正视这些问题,没有回避,这就是好样的。P.s.前半段节奏拖沓了点
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。
女生规则由男律师总结,女受害者们靠“扫地僧”拯救。这本质上还是一部父权社会下的印度爽片,而不是一部优秀的电影。但《女生规则》用这种大众娱乐的方式来触碰社会的痛点,引起印度社会的讨论和或许那么一点点的变革,是我们还远远不及他们的地方。
想说的太多,索性还是用片中正气凛然的白发爷爷律师的台词:“不”不只是个单词,还是个完整的句子。这不需要进一步解释。“不”就是“不”,男孩必须意识到,不管这些女孩是熟人,朋友,女朋友,还是性工作者,甚至是自己的妻子,“不”的意思就是“不”,当别人说出来,你就必须停止!
No,不是一个字、一个词,而是一个完整的句子。当有人说no,所代表的意思就是对方要立刻停止。
现在印度看到这种瞎编乱造的女权电影拍一个成功一个,于是争相模仿,刻意卖惨。真正去过印度的都能看到印度女人的地位已远远高于电影中的了。
2016.9.25. Select Citywalk.前半部分有些摸不着头脑,但后半部分的庭审戏燃爆了。BigB爷爷宝刀未老,但对方律师以及所有的证人的演技都非常出彩。比起挑逗性地消费大胸大腿的宝莱坞MV,真的这种敢于揭示并挑战现实的印度电影太清流太让人尊敬了: no means NO. 另外那个东北女孩儿有时看起来好像周迅
为女性污名化发声,法庭辩论振聋发聩,输出价值观铿锵有力。
看完《女生规则》,我的观点是部分中国男人和电影里印度男人还是有些共通之处的。比如一个女生答应和你一起吃晚餐并同意在晚餐后喝酒就以为着这个女生是个easy girl,或者她对你微笑、和你有不经意的肢体触碰就是在给你性暗示等等。所以,女孩子不可以单独和男生出去,不可以穿着暴露,不可以对男生微笑,这些在电影里被称为“女生规则”,是所谓的“传统以来对女生的道德标准”,面对这样的道德标准,女生是无所谓是否处在“现代”的,她们将永远被之规训。那就想问问,从来如此,便对么?
印度在中国“有名”的原因之一就是骇人听闻的强奸案以及背后可怕的固化的歧视思维。一个电影短短两小时内牵出印度社会撕裂的社会阶层,伪善的上流审美与思维,对于女性无处不在的束缚与社会充耳不闻的麻木,正义最终由退休又患病的律师维护,相比较一些国家来说,这样的情况可能还不是最坏。ost赞!
该片巧妙之处在于没有一开始就把真相公之于众,而是让观众处于陪审团的位置,通过法庭辩论自由心证。最后将事实通过片尾彩蛋放出。
后半段的庭审看得太憋屈,法庭辩论有点像剑宗打气宗,控方律师使用各种逻辑谬误来给女方泼脏水,而辩方律师很多时候并没有直接拆穿或反驳,只是站桩输出自己的价值观,拐弯抹角地讽刺,为最终的观点作很长的铺垫。作为观众,我更想看到主角方把对手拆解得一干二净,而呈现出来的效果却并非如此,最终律师还是靠正确的价值观和“反派心急说漏嘴了”才赢得的胜利。很不喜欢律师的角色塑造,导演想要塑造一个神人的形象,但显然没太成功。影片没有呈现他如何思考策略或从糊涂变清醒的过程,更多时候他就是在“原地发呆”和“站桩输出价值”之间来回切换。总之我看到最后感觉也真是只有在电影里才能赢,放现实中可能早输了。Anyway这是部很不错的电影,类似的主题完全能在国内找到素材。
单纯从影像看几乎就是好莱坞复制品,本土化做得实在太糟糕,三个女主的设定就非常脱离印度现实,过程和结局更是一厢情愿,女性权益的实现不能只靠嘴炮和说教。印度很多揭露社会弊端的电影一概如此,充斥着政治正确和话题消费,除了假大空外毫无实际操作价值。
结尾好仓促,辩方并未直接反驳控方的证据,而是通过打感情牌、拐弯抹角的讽刺来取得胜利,缺乏说服力,也没有兵来将挡的爽感。可有可无的细枝末节不如删去,两小时的体量承载不了那么多,但no means no 的立意上乘,剧情很抓人,观影情绪容易随着庭审的形势而变化。“幸福不是终点,而是一种生活方式”无声的台词让我印象深刻。
7分吧,节奏不好,看的时候确实有点看不下去。不过在B站的,弹幕倒真是让我大跌眼镜了,真是人性大观。。。明明还处在一个略高的姿态的自己,一下子意识到,身边原来还有千千万万一样的直男癌,真TM讽刺
没有了解过,不知道印度的法庭是否真的那么乱。不过法庭上说出了一个大现实,女人做什么都会被误认为对男人有好感。
问题不少,金句挺多,感受到了阿米达普巴强的魅力。
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
两趟飞机上接力看完的 白发长者演得很棒 搜索才知道是国宝级演员 讲的维护女权反抗性骚扰的故事 记忆最深的是最后的结案诉词 大意是这样 "不 不仅仅是一个动词 也是一个完整的句子 当她说不 不管是你的情人 女朋友 甚至妻子 你也必须停止"