《资本主义：一个爱情故事》好看吗？经典影评10篇

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》是一部由迈克尔·摩尔执导，迈克尔·摩尔 / 索拉·伯奇 / William Black主演的一部纪录片类型的电影，文章吧小编精心整理的一些观众的影评，希望对大家能有帮助。

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》影评(一)：一个单相思的故事

就和改革开放后一直以来推崇的经济建设大潮涛涛，退潮后留下的，更多只有市民文化。华尔街在做的，也是一样的事儿。
导演是个激情的爱国者，在呐喊出“I refuse to live in this country, and I'm not leaving"之后，呼吁"Do Something!"问题是：干什么呢？这年头，拜金主义已经培养了二十多年，你找人进电影院对你这片子感兴趣都不容易了，怎么还敢奢望大家做点儿什么。而且，能想着看这电影的，应该本身就很容易被煽动吧，因为有很大可能，观众和导演的基本观念已经比较一致了。所以要解决：做什么的问题。
和历史上的每场革命一样，想要成功，应该不能只靠一颗雄心，说到底，需要的是根本实力：财权或者兵权。在这里，导演所认为的兵权就是民主，可是在当今的美国，民主已经被劫持，靠几个动笔杆子的雄心壮志，没有执行，仍旧没有改变。
所以可能最终的出路，还是要联合反抗意愿最强的人群们，抵抗那些已经控制太大工业结构的巨头们吧。
历史的相似只有时间的区隔，谁知道这部片子之后会不会像历史教科书里面，每个重大革命（当然这革命一定算是重大的，只是能不能成，且看）的前期铺垫中文化部分留下一笔。
以上是对片子想要表达的中心的看法。
就片子本身制作而言，认为是个有城府的作品：有自己的讲故事顺序，激情的配乐，美国文化的嘲讽以及明确的主旨。是个合格的纪录片。

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》影评(二)：Capitalism: A Story of Profit and Class Struggle

This film vividly reveals several fundamental problems of capitalism, among which are its alienating effect on labor, its dehumanizing bureaucracy, its consumerism, and crucially its profit-driven nature and the intensification of class struggles.
As Marx points out, capitalism, as a purely profit-driven system, arranges production and transaction aiming at the “restless never-ending process of profit-making” (Marx 1867, as cited in Edles and Appelrouth 2010). Commodities are produced not for their use-value but for their exchange-value. The basic formula for capital, M-C-M’, demonstrates that the circulation of money as capital is never-ending and is “an end in itself” (ibid). "Capitalism" emphasizes the “profit motive” through one of its old movie clips with an aside saying “here is the basis of the capitalistic system: the profit motive. He is in business to make money” (Moore 2010). Wallace Shawn, as a guest in the film, expresses another feature of the M-C-M’ formula by saying that “if you have things, you can easily get more things”, which means that with enough money, presumably from primitive accumulation, one can easily invest, produce and reap profit from exploiting workers. In contrast, the formula for the propertyless, C-M-C, starts from selling one’s labor as commodity and ends at purchasing commodities to fulfil one’s basic needs at existence level, minimizing the possibility of accumulating wealth. These two modes of transaction mark the gap between the two classes – the bourgeoisie and the proletariat – and generates tension between them.
In order to maximize profit, capitalists usually take what Weber calls “instrumental-rational action”, gearing towards “the efficient pursuit of goals through calculating the advantages and disadvantages associated with the possible means for realizing them” (Edles and Appelrouth 2010). For example, Moore observes that during Reagan administration, there was massive downsizing to gain “short-term profits and to destroy the unions” (Moore 2010). General Motor’s lobbyist Tom Kay claims that GM eliminated a large number of jobs to stay competitive and it would eliminate more jobs if necessary. Budros (1997) argues that downsizing is a fundamental feature of “new capitalism” and that there are two explanations for the adoption of downsizing programs among Fortune 100 firms from 1979 to 1994. The first draws on the classic organization theory and states that corporations downsize in response to deteriorating economic conditions so they are able to operate efficiently. Budros (1997), on the other hand, concludes from some previous studies on downsizing that “downsizings generally have deleterious organizational (financial) and human consequences”; but because downsizing is viewed by stakeholders as necessary and effective, corporations adopt downsizing programs out of “social rationality” to gain organizing resources and thus to increase profit. Both explanations link the practice of downsizing to making profit, one directly and the other one indirectly.
Another profit-seeking rational-instrumental action is the establishment of PA Child Care, a private juvenile detention facility in Pennsylvania as a replacement for the pubic one. The judges and the owners of PA Child Care effectively obtained money by locking teenagers in jail, many of whom were unjustly convicted. Some corporations also make a profit of the death of their employees, by purchasing life insurance for the employees and naming the company as the beneficiary. The film also points out that the pilots’ salaries are cut to a minimal amount, so low that many of them have to use food stamps or even donate plasma. Lowering the cost of labor is a means to increase or maintain profit.
All of the actions and strategies described above are profit-oriented, reflecting the nature of capitalism. At the same time, they are very effective in achieving the goal, with rational calculation and manipulation; but they are not necessarily ethical or legal, often contributing to the wealth accumulation of the bourgeoisie by sacrificing the proletariat. The increasingly unequal distribution of wealth exacerbates the class struggle, as Hankers in the film comments, there is likely to be "some kind of rebellion between the people that have nothing and the people that's got it all". Massive downsizing and in general the shift from long-term stable employment to short-term temporary employment in this new economy (Leicht and Fitzgerald 2013) make it increasingly difficult to secure a stable job with decent payment and benefits for average Americans. In Capitalism, the workers from Republic Windows & Doors were laid off and didn’t get their owed money. Imprisonment is clearly a traumatic experience for the teenagers and their family. The inadequate wage of pilots leads to the miserable living conditions and unpromising career prospects for pilots, and safety risks for passengers. One of the “condom vultures” openly admits that what they do is to go in to the housing market and "take advantage of other's misfortunes" (Moore 2010). “Dead peasants” insurance involves deception of employees, generation of mistrust, and the use of the employee’s life as a means to profit (Nurnberg and Lackey 2008). Furthermore, as Spurgin (2003) argues, it generates “competing interests that call into question corporations' abilities to fulfill their duties to employees”, including providing safe working conditions, hiring qualified employees, and providing meaningful work. If some employees are “more valuable dead to a company than alive”, as the Michael Myers, the local attorney who devotes himself in corporate-owned life insurance, suggests in the film, corporations might prefer their employees to die “in accordance to the policy projections”, rather than fulfilling their duties as employers.
This rational yet unsympathetic, means-to-ends approach is criticized and caricatured by Moore in a fake religious scene, where Jesus becomes a capitalist, refuses to cure "preexisting conditions" of the sick unless payments are made, and advocates the deregulation of the banking system. Here rationality is portrayed at its extremity, leading to disenchantment and indifference, as efficient and manageable as it may be.
Another demonstration of rationality and bureaucracy is when the VIP guy from Countrywide, when asked whether he felt he bribed those VIP people—which is exactly what he did—he said no and explained that “if I didn’t do it, somebody else would have been doing it”. For Weber, this lack of autonomy results from the efficient yet dehumanized bureaucratic system, where each individual is only “a small cog in a ceaselessly moving mechanism which prescribes to him an essentially fixed route of march” (Weber 1925). Thus this person’s feeling of powerlessness and irrelevance is an honest reflection of his situation, where he cannot influence the corporation as a bureaucratic system. For Marx, this would be an example of alienation, where the worker is estranged from the production process – he doesn’t participate in decision making – and from his own products – the services he provided to the VIP people do not belong to him, but to his boss.
Alienation manifests in another, less explicit situation in the film. When the laid-off worker from Republic Windows & Doors says “my life revolves around this job. I live according to my obligation to my job, you know？ And it's not just me, it's all of the workers here", although he means to highlight the stark contrast between his loyalty to the company and the company’s indifference to him, his alienation from the products, from the production process and from himself is obvious. Another worker mentions that the company’s bankruptcy is not their fault, since they do not make decisions and all they have done is producing windows and doors. This is their reason for disclaiming responsibility of the company’s unsuccessful investment, and it is also evidence for their non-participation in decision-making of the production process and estrangement from their products. More importantly, because his life revolves around this job and his very human essence is defined by this job, “it is only as a worker that he continues to maintain himself as a physical subject” (Marx 1844, as cited in Edles and Appelrouth 2010).
Another problem of capitalism that the film reveals is consumerism. Moore employs a clip of President Jimmy Carter warning the American people of consumerism: “Too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns". Material goods, as Weber observes, have gained “an increasing and finally inexorable power over the lives of men” (Weber 1904) and thus the care for external goods becomes part of “an iron cage” (ibid). Marx uses the term “commodity fetishism” to describe the same phenomenon, and argues that the defining power of commodities stems from the opaque social relations among producers and consumers. With the social relationships, human labor and exploitation all hidden behind the exchange of money and objects, the value of commodities appear to be objective and natural. Consequently, consumers are unlikely to become fully aware of the true nature of commodities: products produced for their exchange value, which is an expression of human labor.
In Marx’s view, these problems are inevitable, since capital comes to the world “dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt” (Marx 1867). The very nature and ultimate goal of capitalism, profit seeking, serves as an everlasting source of its problems. For Weber, the trend towards rationalization also seems irresistible. The fact that both traditional domination and charismatic domination tend to end up as rational domination illustrates how powerful and irresistible rational organization is.
REFERENCES
Budros, Art. 1997 "The new capitalism and organizational rationality: The adoption of downsizing programs, 1979–1994." Social Forces 229-250.
Edles, Laura Desfor. and Scott Appelrouth. 2010. Sociological Theory in the Classical Era: Text and Readings. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Leicht, Kevin T. and Scott T. Fitzgerald. 2013. Middle Class Meltdown in America: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies. Routledge.
Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital. Vol.1. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved October 19, 2016 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm).
Moore, Michael. 2010. "Capitalism: A Love Story" [videorecording] Beverly Hills, CA: Anchor Bay Entertainment.
Nurnberg, Hugo and Douglas P. Lackey. 2008. “Ethical Reflections on Company-Owned Life Insurance.” Journal of Business Ethics 845-854. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9472-7
Spurgin, Earl W. 2003. “The Problem with ‘Dead Peasants’ Insurance.” Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 19–36.
Weber, Marx. 1904. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translated by Talcott Parsons. New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons.
Weber, Marx. 1925. “Bureaucracy”. Economy and Society, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University California Press 956-1005

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》影评(三)：A love story between a sheep and a wolf

As is described in the "Second Bill of Rights" by Roosevelt, we people ought be own:
the right of a descent job,
the right of an adequate and deserved wage,
the right of the general health care
the right of a house
the right of the education
the right of the pension
and, maybe of course, like the right of a 4-week paid holiday.
that's what the middle class wants. and these are the people who are the most descent, cultivated, affectionate, philanthropic, willing to do charity ones. According to morality system, to religion and belief, to the wise words of our ancient greatest souls, these people bears the most advanced and civilized merits, thereby, logically should be leading our society.
However, they are now being the sheep, exploited and killed by the greedy and cruel wolves. how this happen？ well, a lot of reasons, and Michael just showed it really clear in the movie. Basically, they are making use of the dark side of human nature, they are manipulating the fools while fooling the wise. the influencing power, the ability to manipulating people, is the most terrible and powerful ability! It's the human world, you can do anything with the support of most people even for the darkest deals. and you will accomplish nothing if you cannot get the support of people even if you know it is right.(Creepy, sounds like we are not far away from the time of Copernicus.)
I love Michael's way of explicitly pointing out the darkness of Capitalism, and i love his passion in taking action to be against it and influencing other people to be joining him. I love him as an artist, a humanist and a middle class.
but for Capitalism, whether it's good or not？ i don't know and i can't tell. for humanist, socialism is perfect. Care about people is the core rule of it. but if that's really good, then why within a hundred years, not even one country has succeed in it. So till now, can i claim it's just a theory. Socialism brings about a even middle class society, but obviously dampen the pace of economy, science evolve, which turns to be the standard of living. Maybe at sometime when human wealth has reached some degree that greedy and endless started to disappear from human nature will Socialism truly become practical. Yet I doubt that ever gonna happen. those dark side will always sit in human nature, so as those merits.
while neither -ism can help us out, i truly believe a great government, or more precisely, a great and descent leader of the country can save us. Li guang yao, the former president of Singapore, sets a very good example. to boost the economy and level up the living standard of people faster, he uses Capitalism well. At the same time, he prioritized education and ware fare. it's Singapore's luck to have this kind of leader. yes, it's lucky. and it's rare.
Roosevelt sets a great goal, but unfortunately he didn't wait to reach it. In fact, hundreds of years past, none of us did. So as a middle class myself, i will not rely on the government to save me. instead, to earn myself the set of the rights, i will equip myself to fit and take advantage of the game rules.
see？ i have become one of the sheep, reluctant to rebel, believe that i can somehow become a smart sheep that can share the fruit from the wolves. See how hard it is for the revolutionist？ by the least use of the manipulating skills of those wolves, the sheep is prone to fall again..

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》影评(四)：愤怒的失恋者——大时代下的美国中产阶级

    美国人深深地爱着自己的国家，相信以民主自由为核心的资本主义价值观以及繁荣昌盛的经济现状是进入一个新的伟大时代的精心彩排。
    但是，他们失恋了，深深扎根于心中的American dream原来是如此的不堪一击，电视上、海报上典型的其乐融融一家人，有房有车有pet，在自家的庭院里带孩子遛小狗的美丽场景，随着经济的泡沫一起幻灭。
    于是不难看到美国民众的奋力呐喊，既然无法实现美国梦，你们总该保障我们纳税人的基本利益吧，工作不能丢，社会福利不能少，该发的养老金你要坚持发不能停……无奈金融危机这波大浪来得太凶猛，美国政府是在招架不住，触及了公众利益，美国人民不答应了，于是当然就得去占领华尔街了。
    记得《教父》里面有这样一句话：一个提着公文包的律师要比一百个提着冲锋枪的歹徒抢得钱多。在权力场上玩转得游刃有余的人借助其权势总会有多种渠道得到利益，而且比普通人辛辛苦苦赚来的钱不知多多少倍，同时在面临危险时，总会有一个操控大局的人，向你伸来援助之手。
    这样就不难理解为什么华尔街巨头们号称too big to fall了。在如此之大的经济危机面前，华尔街的金融企业必定首当其冲，甚至面临一蹶不振的颓势。但是这时候美国政府出面了，像耶稣救世一般，启动了7000亿美元经济救助计划，要拯救美国经济，必定要拯救华尔街，作为美国金融企业的头狼，在金融风暴这场大灾难中，华尔街是战争策源地，也必定成为大战主战场。
    但是迈导好像在电影里说这七千亿被华尔街高管们吃掉了。本来用于刺激美国经济的钱进了他们自己的口袋，纳税人交给国家用于服务民众的钱却进了少数人的腰包这搁在哪个国家人民都不会答应的。
    另外影片中关于一些大企业从死亡员工身上攥取人寿保险的真实反映，个人觉得已经触及了关于资本主义丑恶面的本质了。在资本主义世界人们心目中的capitalism本质是好的，倡导的是社会的公平与自由，是可以用来为人们带来人性和幸福的，但是其弊端在于太容易造就一批批集权者和投机者，将公共利益揣入私囊，从而引起不公平，造成了人与社会的扭曲。
    但是一个国家以及人们如此热衷于在金融市场方面发展是有原因的。这种不见实物的交易方式，其利益往往是做实业的无数倍，是一个真真正正钱生钱的地方。于是当今社会，人们关注地经济焦点地区不再是各个工业区，而是在上海陆家嘴、在香港中环，在东京新宿，在纽约曼哈顿这些响当当的中心商务区。
    但是美国人民深深地意识到，他们根本无法摆脱对这种对资本主义社会生活的依赖，因为对于他们来说，资本主义的好，是其他任何一种主义都无法替代的。有生活保障、高福利不过是基本物质需求，资本主义所倡导的自由民主平等的精神才是他们炫耀的重点，他们认为这是他们独有的。还有为中国人所唾弃的资产阶级情调，如果不去感受一下，真的不知道为什么人们如此推崇。美国梦，不过是资本主义时代的必然产物。
    有一部电影，就叫做《华尔街》，描写了一位翻云覆雨的股市大亨戈登·盖柯贪婪成性，不择手段在幕后操纵股票行情，结果却败在一位仍然具有良知的年轻营业员手上的故事。这部电影是商战电影中的经典作，也是在金钱挂帅时代毫不掩饰地为人类的贪婪欲望辩护的一部主流电影。其实在资本主义社会，尤其在美国，金钱是社会的主流，是大时代的主旋律，对金钱的追逐，是人性贪婪的表现，那么也可以说，资本主义的弊端，也是人性的弱点的反映。
    但是毕竟触动的是美国中产阶级的利益，他们是社会的主流，大部分人的利益受损这个国家必定也不得安宁。金融危机带来的各个方面的萧条，是比20世纪30年代的Great Depression 还要严重的。他们失恋了，恋着的是资本主义和美国梦，是扎根于美国人心中的东西。如同深爱着的人离你而去，美国人肯定要陷入低谷，难过好久。
    突然想起之前读过的《了不起的盖茨比》，这部反映美国时代特征的书籍，今天再次见证了美国人的起起伏伏和对于繁荣岁月的美好向往。于是拿书中最后一句，亦是点睛一笔作为结尾，再好不过了。
   “我们继续奋力航行，逆水行舟，被不断地推回，直到回到，往昔岁月。”

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》影评(五)：看到最后才发现自己评价错了。。

依然很一般，拍摄的是美国底层（或者说中产）的实景不错，但是忽略了硬币的另一面，比如说人们自己选择了根本付不起的房贷才导致了他们被驱逐，以及公司为员工的生命投保也是为了规避风险。。社会有问题没错，拍出来也没错，但是太片面就让人觉得逻辑弱智，只能忽悠和煽情不明真相的吃瓜群众，而这是典型的民粹。
Michael Moore is a moron, period. 一开始打了三星，最后发现只能打一星，给导演的厚脸皮。
整部电影都在说特么资本家掠夺了我们，华尔街夺走我们的房子，夺走我们的工作，造成金融危机，拿了政府的钱然而厚着脸皮给自己发奖金。没错，华尔街是有问题，但是如果没有7000亿（其实最后4000多亿）的救市资金，全世界绝对会是1929年的重演，吃瓜群众难道更希望第三次世界大战？！何况这4000多亿后来都被美联储收回了，还小赚了一笔，这块钱绝对没有掠夺美国人民。至于后来的QE的确买了很多有毒资产，美联储资产负债表猛增那就是另说了。不管Hank Paulson在他当CEO的时候有多讨厌，但是在解决危机上面绝对要点赞。让这些民粹主义的家伙去解决金融危机，只能让我们陷入更深的危机。热血解决不了问题。无知且简单粗暴地骂华尔街掠夺了我们，却根本不懂背后到底发生了什么，跟骂街的泼妇有什么区别。

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》影评(六)：反对Michael Moore的观点！

感觉这个人太偏激了。这个电影一开始说一堆families losing their homes，MM就说银行怎么能这样呢还是不是人呀！但他只看到了事情的结果，从来没有想过这些人为什么会还不起钱，还不是因为这些市民本来就没有能力去负款但是还是去贷款买房，结果傻眼了吧！然后说的是privatized jail，一个company跟court合作赚钱，但又没有想过在资本制度下，这是可以改变一个企业的积极性的？后来他又谈到companies通过给employees insurances，等他们死了赚钱，MM就说这简直没人性！拜托！！！从公司的角度想想好么！你身为我公司里的一名employee你就是我的asset啊，你要是哪天挂了那当然也对我造成损失呀，我可不得上个保险么！

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》影评(七)：向愤青致敬

摩尔的几部纪录片都让我热泪盈眶，这部也是一样，再次示范了真正有责任感的知识份子不是为权贵歌功颂德，而是关心社会疾苦，为底层老百姓说话，身体力行地探索真相，寻求答案。

摩尔可以说是愤青楷模，勇敢执着兼一股热情单纯。从科伦拜恩的保龄探访枪支事件受害者和相关人物，深入探讨其背后的原因，到华氏911对小布什政府毫不留情的鞭挞和讽刺，都贯穿了摩尔针对社会问题毫不妥协孜孜求索的精神。

我们从小就听闻万恶的资本主义社会，改革开放以来不知不觉也在走资本主义道路发财致富，毕竟领导人都说了黑猫白猫能抓到老鼠的就是好猫。摩尔刺裸裸揭示了资本主义所带来的对普通老百姓的负债、强拆和剥削。反之是既得利益和始作俑者--利益至上的大企业CEO和腰缠万贯的银行家们。灾难来临时，无产阶级被逐出家门，面临失业，而作为资产阶级代表的银行们却得到天价纳税人的救助。上帝似乎也对资本主义无能为力，卡特里娜飓风来袭，受灾的都是茫茫水央坐在屋顶上无助的贫苦老百姓，资产阶级分掉财富饼子的一大块自得其乐。飞行员薪水低到不得不另外兼职维持生计，企业利用员工死亡保险谋利。各种不公平社会乱象，最后摩尔热血沸腾到银行大厦拉上犯罪封条，想逮捕银行家们去联邦监狱。

牧师说资本主义罪大恶极，与慈悲、社会共同利益、宗教教义背道而驰。经济好的时候资本主义确实让很多人富起来，享受更好的物质生活，而当今在第一超级富裕大国里我们看到美国政治先贤们的伟大理想，满意的工作和生活，属于自己的家，全民免费医疗，生病、灾难、年老或失业时受经济保护，全民享受好的教育在美国都没有实现。而二战后一败涂地、贫弱萧条的日本、德国、意大利以及很多其他欧洲国家却都实现了这些美好愿景。

现实总是无奈，似乎经济高度发达的社会难以避免产生贫富分化，小部分人掌握了绝大部分财富，操纵政治。摩尔提出民主是解决办法，毕竟一人一票。但美国民主社会这么多年，并没有解决这个问题。摩尔最后叹息道：“我不能再这么做下去了，除非你也加入我。”“我不愿生活在这样的国家，但我不会离开。”社会的福祉需要的是集体良知的力量和行动，以及坚持不懈的探索和努力，并非某个个体的力量就可以轻易铸就。特别欣赏拍雾霾纪录片的柴静和转基因的崔永元，我们的社会很难像摩尔一样可以任意施展，但他们针对严峻的与我们每个人的生活都息息相关的环境污染和食品安全问题，付出了像摩尔般积极的探索和追问。

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》影评(八)：Capitalism – A Love Story

麦克摩尔对资本主义的攻击的灵感来自天主教信仰、民主和社会主义思想。
看一个美国人如何抱怨和攻击资本主义的现状，一定会让国内不少人十分激动。不过片中被描述的穷人也曾经拥有房产、农庄。他们对穷人的定义显然与我们政府的不同。巨大的贫富差距是摩尔的主要诟病，这一点中国这个社会主义国家肯定会让摩尔失望。从商业电影以外的角度观察美国社会是个难得的机会，让我看到低收入者的生活。他们抱怨、集会、示威，占领失去赎回权的房子。他们的处境令人同情，但是他们仍然有法律赋予的基本权利，也没有像暴民一样骚乱、破坏。情况不理想，不过秩序依然存在。
摩尔讲述的一个个故事很好地连缀在一起，采访增加说服力，评论和幽默提升感染力。有些画面让我感动，但是摩尔的观点无法完全让我信服。他将资本主义作为一种迷惑人的邪恶抨击，单面的攻击和缺乏理智的分析让人警惕这又是另一种意识形态的宣传，来自天主教的批评声音也使它看上去有一点像布道。美国的金融界精英、公司高管和政府掌权者沆瀣一气，骗取人民的财富，这样的阴谋论无论如何都显得言过其实。这样的纪录片中无疑会包含很多真实的材料，但是这种缺乏对方意见的选择性收集不会让它比宣传资本主义完美无缺的论调有太多的可信度。事实上，美国有人针对这部电影中所说的事实和数据给予了检查和评论——有些是不准确的。最令我佩服的还是摩尔独立行动，坚持信念，对抗庞然大物的勇气和批判精神。

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》影评(九)：America

从哪里开始呢，看的时候是从前到后，写评只好从尾到头。
    先说结尾的国际歌，好吧，正如很多评论所讲的，我们该说些什么呢，哈哈一笑？
    我想，美国对于中国人，不知什么时候开始变得很重要。也许是我们身为炎黄子孙或者华夏儿女（小学里就学到的很民族主义或爱国主义的词汇），始终心心念念着曾经的老大哥地位，中国嘛，就应该站在世界的中央，站在世界之巅（虽然调侃语气，绝无贬义，事实上我个人也有这种情怀，而且不轻），所以就总是盯着现在的老大哥。也或许是因为历史恩怨，在特定历史情境下的事实和宣传总是被记忆保留着。当然，也因为美国确实在国际上在各个方面举足轻重，影响力巨大。不管怎么样，事实是，作为一个中国的年轻人，我从小就被美国包围着。我的每天都看CCTV-4海峡两岸的外公，一心认为国际上的纷争都是美国挑起来的，美国人最坏。我的自以为很开明也确实比较开明的爸爸，经常讲起美国的家庭教育。美国的电影是大家都看的，美国的跨国公司也是大家都亲身经历的。我自小能从报刊杂志图书新闻上得到大大小小关于美国的讯息，而到了我的高中，我的历史老师再次影响了我对美国的认识。
    很有意思的一点是，对中国的老百姓来说，最常被提起的外国也许就是美国和日本了，美国甚至在日本之前？我猜。超级大国，国际政治，经济，军事，科技，教育，各方面的佼佼者，综合实力的NO.1，这是公认的。而对普通老百姓来说，一提起美国人最先想到的就是有钱，其次是开放，而且局限于性方面的开放。反正我小时候就能接触到这样的观点。有在美国的亲戚，到美国旅游，去美国留学都是值得炫耀的。就如同近年来的在美国有一套房。（我忘了讲述官方对美国的矛盾评价，一个腐朽的谋求霸权的超级大国）
    而我个人对美国的认识，可能就是所有这些的叠加，加上一些我个人的认识。顺便提一下，深刻影响我对美国认识的，是这样三位作者：林达，刘瑜，资中筠。再顺便推荐一下。当然，这三位作者似乎都是自由主义倾向，不过我个人还是很同情这样的倾向。就好像对台湾和香港，也许我的观点和官方，和“主流”，还是有一定距离的。
    但是，看多了自由派知识分子的冷静叙述（虽然他们的叙述还是理客中的），如果不满于现实加上浪漫幻想就容易不切实际。所以，这部电影的价值就在于能提供美国的另一面。事实上，这样的作品不少，我想，这恰恰是美国的包容性的体现，这样的作品能公映正是民主的反映，就如同古代中国的一些光辉范例。而且，据说美国知识分子向来有这样的批判传统。而我们，似乎容不下。
    就先到这里，剩下来的内容，我自己还没有成熟的想法，就不写下去了。

　　《资本主义：一个爱情故事》影评(十)：又看了一次摩尔

社保老师放了摩尔的sicko马原老师跟着又放摩尔的这部。虽说已经知道这个导演很左很没有求证的客观精神，但结尾居然放起了国际歌也是吓死，和马原神应景。
和学科知识联系:
1.新闻理论:看摩尔的片子是检验我运用学到的方法求证新闻真实性的能力的好机会
2.西方经济学:如果工人不应该为talent的错误决策分担结果，那他们是不是也不应该分享talent的正确决策带来的繁荣呢？
3.人生哲学:公正的国家应该推动平等到什么地步？
始终对平等二字不感冒。justice是公正，很重要，这是一个度的问题，规则的制定问题。然而equality平等于我而言只是justice实现之后，一定范围内的一个结果，只是社会差距的一个度的问题，把equality放得太高总是无法赞同。
以及，个人感情上，有点嫌弃这些有点极端的白左。摩尔你到社会主义的国家看看就知道你那些美妙的平等幻想在社会主义国家也是不可能实现的，这就是一个乌托邦。