《天知道》观后感10篇
《天知道》是一部由本·萨弗迪 / 约书亚·萨弗迪执导，阿莉尔·霍尔姆斯 / 卡赖伯·兰德里·琼斯 / Buddy Duress主演的一部剧情类型的电影，文章吧小编精心整理的一些观众的观后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
美国“新”电影
对于现实生活的真切感知，有三个国家的电影人是很少有能力办到的。法国电影从未创造出现实影像，因为他们活在一种思想的真实中，这也是缘何意大利新现实主义一定要转化为新浪潮才能在法国接受：巴黎这座虚幻之城，从未能提供贴近于地面的日常现实。法国电影中的现实影像是由一对比利时兄弟（达内兄弟）和一位突尼斯移民（阿布戴·柯西胥）共同拍出的。美国电影（好莱坞）永远都是一种虚假的建构，很少能提供关于现实的真实情状。当然，还有虚假影像最强劲的制造工厂：韩国电影。当伪饰成为国民的日常情态（整容），也不要怪罪电影人在捕捉真实上的无能为力。
缘何美国电影永远是一种虚假的建构，我们可想而知。无论是从文化形态还是好莱坞的霸权地位出发去思考，我们都能获得一些感触，也就遑论奥斯卡评奖机制加在其上的内在要求。我们的思考不在这里，我们发问的是一种新的美国电影是否正在诞生。这种“新”不是法国新浪潮的“新”，而是意大利新现实主义的”新“。因为新浪潮所提供的电影制作观念与电影技法徘徊于电影外部，真正深入到影像感知方式变革的还是新现实主义。现实不再是塑造出来的，而是在真实场景中被捕捉到。理解这类影像的实效，不再是作用于我们的大脑，而是需要我们的感知，甚至感应。
此刻，一种可以称为美国”新“电影的东西，确实正在一批年轻电影人身上产生。观看这些电影不再允许我们仅仅通过惯常的观影逻辑即可完成，这种逻辑预设了一部电影由剧本、导演、表演、配乐、布景等有机组合而成，而能否欣赏一部电影就取决于去欣赏这些独立部分及其如何相互协调（奥斯卡的评奖机制使然）。但对于像《内德的步枪》（2014）、 《天注定》（2014）、《尘世女王》（2015）、《克利夏》（2015）这样的新电影，我们又该如何去谈论呢？在此，传统的电影制作模式进一步瓦解：对影像的理解不再能够经过观影经验累积而成的知识完成。 我想，萨弗迪兄弟的电影为我们打开了在电影制作与观影理念上的思考新方向。
萨弗迪兄弟
兄弟电影似乎已经成为电影制作中的一个有趣话题，它的历史就跟电影一样“古老”。卢米埃尔兄弟、塔维亚尼兄弟、梅索斯兄弟、科恩兄弟、达内兄弟、沃卓斯基兄弟（还是姐妹？）……这些耳熟能详、鼎鼎有名的兄弟都曾拍出让人惊叹的作品，而现在似乎轮到年轻的萨弗迪兄弟了。哥哥约书亚·萨弗迪出生于1984年，弟弟本·萨弗迪晚两年出生。两人从小在纽约长大，对皇后区底层人的生活环境非常熟悉，这座城市底层边缘人的生活遂成为他们电影的重要主题。而父母的离异对他们年轻时代也许产生过重大影响，并反映在作品中（《去采些迷迭香》）。 在父亲的熏陶下，兄弟俩从小便热爱电影，在鼓捣了几部短片后开始导演生涯。
就像那对著名的比利时兄弟一样，约书亚·萨弗迪与弟弟本·萨弗迪也已经共同拍摄了几部长片。2008年，处女作《被抢劫的乐趣》被选入戛纳电影节的导演双周单元作为闭幕片展映，获得好评。此时，萨弗迪兄弟的电影风格已经初步形成。2010年，以离异家庭为题材的新作《去采点迷迭香》再次入围戛纳的导演双周，开始真正在独立电影界崭露头角。但让两兄弟在世界影坛真正收获广大知名度的是2014年的作品《天知道》，先是提名了威尼斯电影节的地平线单元奖，然后在第27届东京电影节上风光无限地拿下主竞赛单元的最佳影片和最佳导演奖。而现在，2017年的新作《好时光》正参展戛纳电影节。直接从导演双周升级至主竞赛单元，可见其实力之强悍。《好时光》也被认为是争夺金棕榈最有力的一匹黑马。
将萨弗迪兄弟的电影风格展现得淋漓尽致的还是《天知道》，这部关于毒瘾者爱情故事的电影，让它从虚假与浮华一片的美国电影中脱颖而出，真正捕捉到了纽约市底层人民的真实生活状态。影片改编自阿莉尔·霍尔姆斯的自传，并由阿莉尔·霍尔姆斯亲自出演，除了饰演男主角的卡赖伯·兰德里·琼斯，电影里其余的演员都是霍尔姆斯现实生活中的朋友，他们曾经一起吸毒与流浪。这种遵循新现实主义和真实电影拍摄理念的手法最好地捕捉到了现实生活的真实。正如萨弗迪兄弟所说，“《天知道》恰恰就是要刻画这样一群人，他们活得痛苦，同时又不得不抱着明天会更好的希望，挣扎地活下去。”
旧风格的新发明
让现实人物进入影像，并在现实环境中展开捕捉真实的进程，在因循这种新现实主义和真实电影的拍摄理念之外，萨弗迪兄弟也极有甄别效果地使用着手持摄影机。手持摄影机如何更真实地捕捉日常生活的真实情境，我们其实并不陌生。对于河濑直美而言，手持摄影机首先源自对私人生活的记录，并发展到后来对于物象微晃的感知形态；在克莱尔·德尼或娄烨的电影中，摄影机紧随人物肢体的移动是为了让观众在影像情绪上有更丰富的体验；当然，还有达内兄弟或布里兰特·曼多萨的电影，手持摄影机既用于叙事，也传递感觉，同时也在无形中形塑着空间。
这些导演对手持摄影机的使用都未能脱离一种跟随物像记录的传统形态：保持一定距离，并在跟随的过程中带出人物所活动的空间。萨弗迪兄弟则使用了一种非常简单的新方法来突破这种因循守旧的老套模式。出现在他们电影中的画面，总是从离人物很远的距离出发，将焦点定准在人物身上，并随着人物的走动相应地移动摄影机。这使得画面时常处于模糊的脱焦状态，镜头不自然地抖动，影像质感显然粗粝、真实。我们可以将这种镜头称为“望远镜式”，区别于曼多萨“放大镜式”的镜头形态：长焦距，近景（特写），背景的模糊化，以及剧烈晃动。因而观众如同举着一架望远镜将目光投向远方，目睹了社会边缘的弱势群体挣扎的身影——会因为刀刃划开血管而不敢直视，因为吸毒场面而坐立不安，因为他们自由地反抗这个荒诞社会而欢欣鼓舞…（《天知道》）
从《被抢劫的乐趣》开始，萨弗迪兄弟便重新发明了这种旧风格，并一直延续到《天知道》。这种风格拉开了观众与影像呈现出的底层生活的距离，这比那种紧随人物运动的手持镜头更不容易产生共情。这也是为何在萨弗迪兄弟所刻画的触目惊心的底层边缘人的生活中，我们感触不到煽情的原因。直接的情绪被戗止了，并通过配乐间接来完成。一种声音的全新实验发生在《去采些迷迭香》中，伴随着这些日常影像的是各种奇奇怪怪的声音：演讲、电视节目、战场炮声、枪击声、街道上驶过的车声……，这些声音与影像没有任何关系，但通过声画分离后的并置，却产生出奇妙的体验效果。我们不知道萨弗迪兄弟在《好时光》中又将为我们奉献怎样的一出好戏，从预告片看来，风格似乎发生了些许转变。但无论如何，让我们拭目以待这部作品。
《天知道》观后感(二)：65
曾经某刻，在谈及美国电影的意识形态之时，我指出了三个国家的电影人未曾拍出真实影像。但此处的“真实”仅就电影还原现实这一新现实主义所标示出的道路而言；因而招致了大家的误解，将我认定为一位口不择言之人。实则是冤枉。
此时此刻，《天知道》给了我一个辩白的机会，同时也提醒读者作者在尝试文学化表达之时，是不该作实证主义理解的。我想尤其指出的是《天知道》这部电影看似反驳了我在前面提出的观点，也即美国电影人未曾拍出过真实影像；实则是提供了观察这一问题的新方式。
《天知道》给予我们的就是一种异乎寻常的真实，已经脱离了新现实主义所开辟的语境。这种真实质感的获得不只在于电影聚集的是社会边缘人物的生活主题，这是通过对这些人物恋爱、吸毒、犯罪等一系列生活常态的刻画；还在于导演为获致这一真实质感所采用的方式。
借用一个比拟，我们可以将这部电影的镜头称为“望远镜式”的。它们是这样的镜头：深焦，近景（特写），背景的模糊化，以及晃动。因而观众如同举着一架望远镜将目光投向远方，看到了这些社会边缘的弱势群体挣扎的身影；会因为刀刃划开血管而不敢直视，会因为吸毒场面而坐立不安，会因为其自由地反抗着这个荒诞社会而欢欣鼓舞……
这是一类直接作用于我们感知的影像，如同那个在片名出来之后的长镜头，其伴随着配乐和镜头的自如移转导致的不可思议的观感，无不在提醒我们：我们需要这样的电影。
《天知道》观后感(三)：addict of drugs
VENICE – The days of The Panic in Needle Park, to name one iconic New York City drug movie, seem long gone, now that most of Manhattan’s one-time junkie hangouts have been gentrified to within an inch of their lives. But in Heaven Knows What, Josh and Benny Safdie rescue that subculture from the invisible margins. They weave a small group of young heroin addicts into the fabric of the city streets with a grubby lyricism that’s visually intoxicating even if its emotional impact remains somewhat muted.
Following their detour into unconventional sports documentary with Lenny Cooke, the sibling filmmaker team returns to the scruffy aesthetic, raw authenticity and unstrung characters of their first feature, Daddy Longlegs.
Their new slice of life on the fringes is often hard to watch due to the pain, self-destructiveness and even the numbing Warholian monotony of the existences it depicts with a verite candor that owes much to John Cassavetes. But the film, which at times also recalls the lo-fi work of Gus Van Sant, is laced with moments of surprising poignancy, goofy low-key farce and even a weird kind of charm. It’s also distinguished by an intense screen-acting debut from Arielle Holmes, playing an unflinching version of herself and her own experience.
While the movie’s theatrical prospects are slim, the triple showcase of Venice, Toronto and New York Film Festival slots should help build a platform for VOD exposure.
Ronald Bronstein, memorable as the less-than-model parent in Daddy Longlegs, wrote the screenplay with Josh Safdie, based on Holmes’ unpublished memoir, Mad Love in New York City. She plays Harley, a homeless drug addict in an obsessive on-off relationship with Ilya (Caleb Landry Jones), whose nihilistic indifference extends to encouraging her suicidal impulses. That results in Harley slashing her wrist and landing in Bellevue in a mesmerizing sequence, played without dialogue and flooded with unsettling synth scoring.
Among the film’s most impressive qualities is the Safdie brothers’ boldly textural use of music — predominantly Isao Tomita‘s electronica versions of Debussy, but also a little Tangerine Dream and James Dashow, as well as some hardstyle and black metal.
The other standout element is Sean Price Williams‘ woozy cinematography, which hugs in close to the characters or sits back from a detached p.o.v., often shooting them in a bleached haze of light. They bleed into the visual field of sidewalks, storefronts, cars and pedestrians. This is not a portrait of New York’s junkie street subculture conveniently tucked into some skeevy pocket of the city. Instead they move freely, sometimes chafing against their surroundings, through libraries, Internet cafes, bookstores and fast-food joints.
The loose narrative tracks Harley’s half-hearted attempts to get by without Ilya. She brushes off the advances of abrasive Skully (rapper Necro) and slips into a friendship with Mike (Buddy Duress), an amusingly verbose dealer and fellow addict; he keeps her in smack but bristles when she can’t pay, his tenderness shifting to hostility.
While there’s a suggestion of a romantic triangle in Harley’s oscillations between Ilya and Mike, the Safdies are less interested in story or character than in immersing us in a milieu that most people would prefer to ignore. The film observes Harley and her cohorts “spanging,” street vernacular for begging, be it for spare change or subway entry; or stealing from a mailman’s bag, sifting through the contents for gift cards or cash.
A joyride on the motorcycle of Mike’s drug supplier Antoine (Benjamin Antoine Hampton) hints at momentary escape. But when the possibility of real deliverance surfaces via a hastily planned bus journey to Florida with the unpredictable Ilya, that notion is revealed to be an empty hope.
Heaven Knows What is a strange film, at once distancing and transfixing. If it’s not as impactful as it might have been considering the experiences portrayed, it has potent atmosphere and an admirable refusal to put any kind of gloss on the bleak reality of its limbo world. It also helps that Holmes, Jones and Duress, as well as the mainly non-actors in secondary roles, all inhabit their characters with real conviction.
roduction companies: Iconoclast, Elara Pictures
Cast: Arielle Holmes, Caleb Landry Jones, Buddy Duress, Necro, Eleonore Hendricks, Yuri Pleskun, Benjamin Antoine Hampton, Diana Singh
Directors: Josh and Benny Safdie
creenwriters: Ronald Bronstein, Josh Safdie, based on the novel, “Mad Love in New York City,” by Arielle Holmes
roducers: Oscar Boyson, Sebastian Bear-McClard
Executive producers: Charles-Marie Anthonioz, Mourad Belkeddar, Jean Duhamel, Nicolas Lhermitte
Director of photography: Sean Price Williams
roduction designer: Audrey Tanner
Editors: Benny Safdie, Ronald Bronstein
ales: ICM
o rating, 94 minutes.
http://tieba.baidu.com/p/3264279263
《天知道》观后感(四)：drug story
Another film about junkies？ That question almost inevitably follows one’s learning the subject of Josh and Benny Safdie’s New York-set drama “Heaven Knows What,” and its main implication is clear: heroin addiction is at once so limited and so overdone as a narrative premise that filmmakers approaching it need to have something new to say, or to show.
Watch Now
Unfortunately, the Safdies don’t. Their film is the latest in a long line of movies that seem to assume the milieu of addiction is justification enough for its existence. The result is a work that—like a whole sub-species of French films of the recent decades—fetishizes its own hyper-naturalistic visual style and performances (all but one by non-actors) while offering no original or striking insights into the world it portrays.
o doubt the film’s surface attractions and its core weaknesses both owe to its origins. Reportedly, the Safdies were researching a project in New York’s diamond district when they spotted a pretty young blonde who they assumed might be a Russian diamond worker. Turns out she was a heroin addict from New Jersey named Arielle Holmes who had a troubled romantic relationship with another addict named Ilya.
Fascinated by Holmes’ stories of her street life, the Safdies persuaded her to write an account of it, a manuｓｃｒｉｐｔ that became the basis for their screenplay (co-written by Ronald Bronstein). With Holmes playing Harley, a character who apparently differs from herself in name only, the filmmakers shot in the neighborhoods she frequented using people she knew as secondary characters and hidden cameras to disguise their presence (a technique also employed in Oren Moverman’s forthcoming “Time Out of Mind,” about a New York homeless man).
The look, of course, is very close to that of a documentary, which raises the question: Why isn’t “Heaven Knows What” a documentary？ If conveying the reality of junkie life was the main objective, that course might have been more productive. As in many other cases, turning real-life material into drama can produce an awkward hybrid: a film in which the reality is diluted by fictionalization, while the fiction is rendered thin and sometimes clichéd due to being shackled to its real-life origins.
o it is here. When we first see Harley, she’s in full hyperactive mode, threatening suicide to the long-haired, plainly doped-up Ilya (Caleb Landry Jones), who’s far more interested in the public computer he’s staring at. She’s so desperately in love that she wants to sacrifice her life for him. His groggy response: If you want to prove your love, go ahead and off yourself.
One gets the feeling this pathetic little melodrama among the drug-addled has been having a long run. Soon enough, though, Harley makes good on her morbid proposal, buying a razor at a bodega and cutting her wrist in a park with Ilya looking on. Whisked to a hospital, she’s left with only some nasty-looking stitches as proof of her love.
For a while thereafter, thankfully, Ilya disappears from her life and two other guys take his place. Skully (rapper Necro) is a burly dude in a baseball cap who offers to treat her well and help her out, though it seems like he might have other agendas as well. She, in any case, isn’t interested in being courted with kind behavior and rebuffs him.
Far more important is the relationship with Mike (Buddy Duress), who also seems to want to help her but is constantly exasperated by her neediness, unreliability and demands for both dope and credit. Unlike Skully, he evidences no romantic feelings for Harley—though he plainly despises Ilya, a point that becomes more important later in the story—but is nevertheless bound to her by their never-ending rounds of scoring, shooting up and finding places to crash.
Though the protagonists here end up in hospitals repeatedly, there are no doctors, therapists or social workers as characters. Nor are there parents, family members, non-junkie friends, police officers or similar. The film keeps its characters in a tightly circumscribed bubble of junkie-dom, and that’s one thing that makes it feel a bit phony, less a probing, realistic view of a complex milieu than one that partakes of the junkies’ own gauzy self-involvement as well as previous fictions’ oblique romanticizing of them.
Given the film’s relative weakness on the narrative level, its performances become all the more important, and here the news is largely good. For a first-timer, Holmes is amazingly assured and precise. Landry Jones’ mopey, narcissistic Ilya, meanwhile, is solid and convincing, though not as extraordinary as his turn in John Boorman’s “Queen and Country” earlier this year. The stand-out, though, is Buddy Duress’ Mike. Though it’s clear the reputed “street legend” is not an experienced actor, his work has a force and rough authenticity that make it edgily compelling, his mannerisms and vocal intonations sometimes recalling the young Elliott Gould.
A stand-out of another sort is the camerawork of Sean Price Williams. Using understated lighting, long lenses both outdoors and in close-quartered interiors, and near-constant re-framings, this gifted cinematographer turns in a bravura performance that fully realizes the naturalistic intent of the Safdies’ stylistic approach. That such verité-like verisimilitude can’t substitute for dramatic truth is an obvious truism, but Willliams’ sharp work offers its own elegant justifications.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/heaven-knows-what-2015
《天知道》观后感(五)：轻松打破观众对瘾君子的刻板单调印象
萨弗迪兄弟似乎摆脱了最初两部影片里的新浪潮影响：粗砺画面与晃动的摄影几乎消失，取而代之却是流畅的剪辑与声音技术，越来越有商业电影的味道。开头和结尾两场的耸动配乐最为明显，无对白的影像/画面具有先声夺人的力量，一种不安而可怖的气氛笼罩在这个边缘人故事的开端，而这种声音处理方式跟沙尔茨在《克利夏》的开篇有着相同的效果，不能不说是一种惊人的巧合。
这对兄弟导演依然钟情拍摄纽约边缘人题材，继之前的女贼和电影放映员，这部奠定影坛地位的作者电影将目光聚焦在瘾君子身上。要用“触目惊心”来形容拍摄对象才足以概括我的直观感受。尽管此前看过不少因吸毒而自甘堕落的题材，但这部现实主义色彩浓烈的作品更让人沮丧和慨叹。影片的阴暗基调跟阿伦诺夫斯基的《迷上瘾》不相伯仲，而跟《迷上瘾》里依靠眼花缭乱的（剪辑、摄影与配乐）技巧营造悲怆的手法不同，这部完全是依赖演员不加修饰的演绎。换个准确的说法，纯属角色自然流露的性格与气质所致。
女主角Arielle Holmes有过吸毒史，她后来写的《纽约疯狂爱情》讲的就是亲身经历，同时也是本片的改编来源。另外剧中不少演员或多或少有过不光彩的经历，如小偷小摸，进过监狱等。导演选用非职业演员给这个悲剧故事增添了难以置信的真实感，很多细节是职业演员难以演出来的，比如吸毒时的手部颤抖，脸部的抽搐表情等。而这种传统似乎可以追溯拉里·克拉克（Larry Clark），甚至是格斯·范·桑特早前部分作品。
除此之外，萨弗迪继续此前惯用的偷拍手段，演员的即兴台词也为影片增色不少，尤其是在大街上争吵，及女主角跟毒贩争执的场景。然而，相比前两部作品，这部缺少了一些奇思妙想的段落，也许导演认为类似的“幼稚”手法（巨型蚊子与漂浮在河面上的白熊）跟本片的论调格格不入。另一方面，剧本似乎要着力刻画的是这个依赖嗑药的边缘群体的日常现实，而非他们进入飘飘欲仙的幻觉世界。
为了细致刻画这个特殊群体的日常生活，导演不惜采用大量特写镜头来展示人物的脸部与身体，捕捉他们空洞呆滞的眼神，口齿不清的对白，进而增强故事的真实感。最令我意外的是，剧本里安排了女主角的一条爱情线，尽管最后以悲剧告终，但是这种处理手法一方面带来些许商业类型片的味道，另一方面，却也轻松打破观众心目中对瘾君子一直以来的刻板单调印象，有助于凸现这个边缘群体的实在感与悲剧本质。
很多时候，我们正常人感觉离这个边缘群体挺遥远的，即使在路上见到也会敬而远之。但看过影片后，又渐渐觉得他们其实跟正常人没太多分别。他们也是有七情六欲的真实个体，也会有正常的喜怒哀乐，只不过是个人选择生活方式不同而已。我认为，萨弗迪兄弟透过这个悲伤的爱情故事并非要揭示或批判什么社会现象，他们只是想展示纽约这个特殊人群的真实面貌，让更多观众了解到纽约最深刻的一面，远非是游客观光时见到的靓丽风景。
《天知道》观后感(六)：《天知道》，重新定义之后的真实感与代入感
Ruben Östlund携《自由广场》(The Square)摘得刚结束的第70届戛纳电影节主竞赛单元金棕榈奖。荧幕场刊给出了2.7的分数，低于排行第一的《无爱可诉》(Нелюбовь)，最后突出重围的《你从未在此》(You Were Never Really Here)，与Todd Haynes的《寂静中的惊奇》(Wonderstruck)持平，并列第三。
《无爱可诉》试图将镜头对焦于俄罗斯中产阶级现状，通过一出亲子关系的悲情戏投射于莫斯科阴郁且冷漠的普通家庭。《自由广场》则是对中产知识分子的讽刺：主人公Christian在影片中发生的桥段来自于身边朋友的生活，身份为当代艺术博物馆策展人的他在其中自嘲又自解，化解着内心的存在主义危机。《你从未在此》是我在将来的半年内最期待看到的影片，不仅仅是因为久未登场的Joaquin Phoenix（三年前连续轰炸的《她》(Her),《性本恶》(Inherent Vice)让我看腻最近又有些想念他），还有曾带着《凯文怎么了》(We Need To Talk About Kevin)强势回归大众视野的英国女导演Lynne Ramsay，此去一别，又是六年……
当然，最令人觉得兴趣盎然是Safdie兄弟的《好时光》(Good Time)，荧幕场刊2.6分，风格延续前作《天知道》(Heaven Knows What)，代入感强烈的碰撞在街头，心碎又满怀希望。
《天知道》将镜头对准纽约城市街头海洛因上瘾的年轻女孩Harley(Arielle Holmes饰演，她也是剧本的原创作者……一个有故事的girl？)，她深爱着自己的前男友Ilya并在注射海洛因的情绪诱导之后不惜为其当街割腕。出院后彻彻底底成为了一个接头流浪汉，在街边乞讨，用偷骗来的钱消费毒品与酒精……影片在结尾并没有对剧中出现的所有或好或坏的问题给出解决方案，没有正确错误的主观判断。兜兜转转回到了片子开头时候的原点，就像其中瘾君子的生活一样，找不到出路。
《天知道》的重要意义在于它如此真实的还原了一场令人心碎的不愉快经历，并无关于故事背景与未来发展，这一切都是当下的。也是因为Ben Safdie如此注重故事的真实感与社会性，在观赏电影的96分钟里，你会感觉Ilya与Harley都在触手可及的生活中，不断的与他们擦肩而过。我们一同成为了镜头背后的“观察者”，这一身份本身的意义就是不带有价值观处理的功能的。深焦、近景、手持的特写、快速移动的模糊背景……就这样进入了社会边缘人的生活，会有些许不适，会因为打斗而坐立不安，闭上眼睛不去看针管进入皮肤的尽头，同时又在怀疑着自由与社会制度共存的可能性——它们能够达到某种平衡吗？
值得一提的是，独立音乐人Ariel Pink用自己敏锐的观察力协助影像，为电影音乐的处理提供了一种全新的方法：全景式、电子化，本身就像极了一款听觉LSD。Arielle Holmes作为影片文本的原本创作者，自己演出自己的故事，本身也是Ben Safdie及整个创作团队对于作者性的尊重。《天知道》的出现重新定义了在荧幕前的我们与影像可以保持的距离，让我们沉浸在寻常生活体会不到的热烈中，如此直接和真实。
另：推荐Ariel Pink的专辑Pom Pom，惹人喜爱。
找到我。