女生规则

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。

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！

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？

《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！

上一次，我们聊到了印度神片《女生规则》，这部剧让我们真正看到了法律是如何维护女生们的权益，电影的结局也给了我们一个非常好的结局，女生们战胜了那些男生，也让很多观众觉得女权的重要性，法律维护了女生的权利，但是，最可悲的事实不在这里，女生规则的最大悲哀，是他们在电影里面赢了，可在现实中却输得很惨。

电影的结局的确很美好，但现实却完全不一样，大家可能不知道，印度国家犯罪记录局NCRB，大家都知道了，这个部门曾经在2021年公布过一份数据报告，明确提到了一件事情，那便是，印度平均每天报告，请注意，这里只是说，报告的强奸案是87起，而全年是31677起，可想而知这个案件发生率有多高了，而且这还只是报告的，那些没有被报告的案件有多少起，那就真的不好说了。

现实中的印度，社会对于女性是极其不尊重的，大家别以为现在的印度跟我国一样，男女比例严重失调，然后，印度女性就和我们国内的一样，彩礼钱要到一个天文数字，其实不然，因为印度的法制建设并不是很到位，尤其是在印度广大的农村地区，由于法律在这里几乎形同于虚设，这就造成了印度农村如同是丛林社会，在丛林社会里面，弱肉强食才是王道。

这是很残酷的现实，没有法律保护的印度女性，注定了只会是一件商品或者财产，电影里面发生的桥段，尽管，电影结局是好的，可在现实中的印度，这样的事情却在经常发生，哪怕是再出几个像剧中那样为女生伸张正义的老好人了，恐怕也是很难再解决印度如今所面临的问题，没办法，这就是我们看到的印度现状。

有人可能会觉得印度可以学习中国，开展法制教育，普及法律知识，再搞几次像我们国内这样的严打，通过严打可以让整个社会都更加安全，但是，我觉得这样的事情，在印度根本不可能搞得起来，很简单，印度的社会跟我国社会完全不一样，我国社会那是因为中国有着超强的动员能力，再加上我国整体经济发展也充分带动了整个社会治安的改善。

可是，我们再来看看印度这些年的情况，我们很明显能看得出来的一件事情，印度根本没有表面看到的那样好，甚至情况比我们想象中还要严重都是有可能的事情，没办法，这就是现在印度所面临的问题，的确，电影里面的她们赢了官司，也维护了正义，可在广大的印度，又有多少这样的事情还在发生，她们的正义该如何维护呢？

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.)

《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！

剧情3.5（支线完整度待补充，老律师过于厉害有点降维打击的意思，虽然有爽感但总觉得还缺点什么），服化道3（可能是偏生活化的拍摄），镜头感2.5（太晃了！

也许是刻意的？

还有就是远景/空镜头没有给我留下记忆点）。

观点/立意5，社会（无关性别，就是社会的所有人）应该要尊重并接受女性说不的权利！

之所以说“社会”而不是“男性”，是因为剧中也提到了“该拯救的是男性”，男性需要被教育，被告知“女性说No就是拒绝！

不是欲拒还迎”。

为了个人安全，女性被告知“好女孩不要做……”，但犯罪仍在发生，也许可以让“好男孩应该……”这个发生。

这些是需要女性先开始！

（一位辩手曾说过，男女平权一定是从女性觉醒开始的，既得利益者会在什么时候损害自己的利益呢？

）女性朋友告知异性，女朋友告诉男朋友，妻子告诉丈夫，母亲告诉子女，社会告知众人“你需要尊重每一个人说不的权利”。

（不是打拳！！

如果觉得有所冒犯，请先放下你的防御，想想你在为什么不舒服？

谢谢，如觉得实在冒犯，抱歉。

）丢开了常见电影的转折，感觉更像是生活化的叙事，法庭辩护与律师妻子两条线，一些细节的地方没有交代。

但瑕不掩瑜，在已经知道结局的前提下还是被老律师帅到了。

跟法学专业的朋友一起看的，后面交流两位律师都是站在双方当事人的立场展开辩护，年轻的律师善用“规则”（无论是证人证词，还是证据，亦或是隐形的性别规则），老律师用“规则”回应“规则”。

两个人都非常优秀！

最后庭审结束后年轻律师主动握手老律师。

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

其实看简介大概能猜到大致走向，不过老生常谈的故事为什么还在拍，蒽……我最共情的几个地方：1、米纳尔两次让父亲回避。

可能是亚洲特有的风味，大众的指指点点固然是一种公开处刑的羞辱，来自家庭（或者说家庭中父权？

）的不认同更加煎熬。

想象那种使家人蒙羞的害怕，可能来自于家人的“不检点”指控，简直让人头皮发麻。

如果说原本百分之百地坚定，自己一切的所作所为都是正确合理的，在那一刻大概也会有点怀疑。

2、“她原本很勇敢的。

”在保释后，经历了拘捕的米纳尔不复以往外放的性格。

我真的觉得很可怕，比任何的肉体上的损失都可怕（夸张），凭什么能轻易摧残人的人格和尊严…3、“你为了结束公开的羞辱，承认自己没有做过的事情。

”（大致）彻底的精神暴力。

4、而在做了3之后，米纳尔先是打了法拉克一巴掌，然后再拥抱彼此。

法拉克说谎确实背刺了一下大家，但是她站在证人席所受到的精神伤害和羞辱，让她在那一刻的冲动可以被共情。

不理解的地方：律师的那条故事线有什么内涵…不重要的关注点：画面不错，大家长得好漂亮…性同意课程建议推广