剛看完的時(shí)候覺(jué)得本片在敘事上有些非類(lèi)型化。但是仔細(xì)思考后感覺(jué)這一觀點(diǎn)有些站不住腳。它的非類(lèi)型化更多是源自類(lèi)型的混亂，起碼在本片中，我們能夠看到三種類(lèi)型間的混搭，首先是神經(jīng)喜劇，這也是女主角主要的角色設(shè)定；其次是愛(ài)情類(lèi)型；最后是職場(chǎng)戲。

一般來(lái)說(shuō)，兩種類(lèi)型的混搭足夠支撐一部完整的影片，最常見(jiàn)的就屬于某類(lèi)型混搭?lèi)?ài)情戲份，從而在一部電影里構(gòu)AB兩條敘事線。當(dāng)然也存在其他類(lèi)型間的混搭，比較成功的有《異形》，科幻和恐怖相結(jié)合。在這些電影里，如果有愛(ài)情線的話，愛(ài)情線必須讓位于主類(lèi)型，從而對(duì)觀眾的觀影期待不構(gòu)成任何威脅。這方面做得非常好的是《星球大戰(zhàn)》，《星球大戰(zhàn)》主類(lèi)型顯然是西部片和科幻片，但電影又存在一定的愛(ài)情因素，可這一因素從來(lái)不是觀眾觀看電影的理由，沒(méi)有人抱以愛(ài)情片的念頭走進(jìn)電影院。

但《收播新聞》在類(lèi)型上存在較多問(wèn)題。說(shuō)實(shí)話，我剛開(kāi)始以為本片類(lèi)似于《電視臺(tái)風(fēng)云》。確實(shí)，在本片開(kāi)頭的很長(zhǎng)一時(shí)間里，創(chuàng)作者老老實(shí)實(shí)的將敘事焦點(diǎn)集中在電視臺(tái)職場(chǎng)展示。但在一個(gè)小時(shí)之后，敘事重心突然轉(zhuǎn)移到人物間的情感關(guān)系，并牢牢占據(jù)了后半段的敘事主體。這就造成電影存在非常明顯的失衡感，無(wú)論是職場(chǎng)和愛(ài)情之間都給人一種意猶未盡（貶義）的感受。

主類(lèi)型是神經(jīng)喜劇，但兼具職場(chǎng)和愛(ài)情的電影也并非沒(méi)有。達(dá)斯汀·霍夫曼的《窈窕淑男》就是這樣一部電影，但它顯然在類(lèi)型上更清晰。沒(méi)有觀眾認(rèn)為《窈窕淑男》是一部關(guān)于表演的電影，但表演又的確在本片中占據(jù)非常大的空間。之所以沒(méi)像《收播新聞》那樣造成誤解，原因在于《窈窕淑男》開(kāi)場(chǎng)沒(méi)多久，觀眾就被明確告知，電視片場(chǎng)只作為愛(ài)情推進(jìn)的敘事空間來(lái)展示，而不承擔(dān)類(lèi)型敘事的目的。正是這種清晰的邊界劃分，讓《窈窕淑男》能將電影的敘事焦點(diǎn)集中于最主要的部分。

同樣，講述職場(chǎng)野心和道德間關(guān)系的電影也很多，而且它們中很大一部分都涉及到愛(ài)情戲份?！度A爾街》是其中翹楚，前兩年的《爆裂鼓手》也屬于該類(lèi)型，更早年的《彗星美人》也是該類(lèi)作品的典范，它們無(wú)一例外都涉及了個(gè)體在職業(yè)成功和道德間的艱難抉擇。不管是《華爾街》里的幡然悔悟，還是《爆裂鼓手》里的徹底背叛，它們都是同一種故事類(lèi)型。但在《收播新聞》里，這種職場(chǎng)類(lèi)型即便曾處于敘事焦點(diǎn)，也很快讓位于其他焦點(diǎn)。

我并非說(shuō)《收播新聞》不是一部好電影。從神經(jīng)喜劇的角度來(lái)說(shuō)，它不弱于《西雅圖夜未眠》、《當(dāng)哈利遇上哈莉》這類(lèi)經(jīng)典影片，甚至我認(rèn)為它在一定上還啟發(fā)了《美國(guó)麗人》的角色塑造。但這些都不能遮掩本片的缺陷。導(dǎo)演擁有野心不是壞事，但也并不總會(huì)是好事。有時(shí)候收斂下自己的表達(dá)欲望，反倒可能是不錯(cuò)的嘗試。

Four years after having homered in the Oscar race with TERMS OF ENDEARMENT (1983), James L. Brooks released BROADCAST NEWS, his much-anticipated sophomore feature film and again it became a big player and reaped 7 Oscar nominations, only to get the goose egg in the end of the game.

Set in the Washington D.C.’s national TV broadcast station, the film is an unabashed workplace relationship comedy revolves around the young producer Jane Craig (Hunter), Tom Grunick (Hurt), a tenderfoot news anchorman promoted from sports department, and Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks), Jane’s best friend and co-worker, a talented writer who also aspires to shine in front of the camera.

The problem between Jane and Aaron is that, although they’re intellectually matched, temperamentally congruent, they stay in the friend zone for far too long to get the motor running, that is in Jane’s case, as for Aaron, overtly cottoning to her, he barely disguises the frustration that his affection is not being reciprocated, A. Brooks makes sure behind every line of Aaron and Jane's stimulating career-wise conversions and repartees, Aaron’s pining for something more intimate from Jane is present with either a tender gaze or a winsome smile, which Hunter brilliantly counters with Jane’s tacit knowingness and somewhat diffident evasiveness, as if she is saying an unuttered sorry.

Yet, Jane is anything but diffident when she is at work, a true dynamo in action, or interfacing with Tom, with whom she starts off quite on the wrong foot, after blatantly inviting him to her bedroom when they just make the acquaintance, a fun-seeking Jane conceitedly belittles Tom for his inexperience and naiveté, and is bemusedly stunned when he refuses to engage in a casual romp. Later, when she realizes Tom is the new anchorman of the station, her foreknowledge is that Tom is fingered for the job more owing to his telegenic handsomeness than occupational qualifications, despite of that, she is still attracted to him; Tom, on the other hand, has to prove that he is not merely a pretty face and actually excels in the cushy position he is designated, meantime, dealing with the fact that his romance conquest is a superiorly more intelligent woman than him, and not every member of the male species can field that situation tactfully, but Tom decides to give it a try.

First thing first, BROADCAST NEWS is remarkably and intransigently candid in exploring a successful career woman’s conundrum of opting for her ideal “the significant other”, it is a walk-on-the-eggshell task, but J.L. Brooks’ script upholds the strong woman-liberation ethos and offers Jane a firm purchase in her undeterred principles and journalistic ethics, even if the big switch near the end looks like a mote in the eyes of today’s audience who has been weaned on the outrageous untruth from umpteen reality shows or/and the epidemic of unscrupulous journalism, it only reminds us a simpler bygone era when high moral yardstick can be erected to be a dealbreaker. Also judiciously, the story allocates some room for the non-virulent interrelation between the two male competitors, both Tom and Aaron appreciate each other’s virtues and there is no grudge between them, how rare to see that happen on the screen in an 80s oldie!

The troika of the cast all receives an Oscar nomination, Hurt, ever-so unpretentious in projecting his understated WASP appeal, is the subtler player here; A. Brooks has a whale of time in juggling the comic relief snippets with a more empathetic turn in that “she is not that into you” fix, and generates much more amusing sparks with Hunter than the latter with Hurt; a petite Hunter, totally effectuates her take-no-prisoners chops with flying colors, even before the opening credits finish, her immense acting range can already take viewers aback, and beholding her rendition of Jane’s bluntness, spontaneity, wits, fierceness and vulnerability, we are so invested in such a fearless, honest woman and it is a plain crime she is robbed off an Oscar for such unparalleled brilliance. As regards the film per se, BROADCAST NEWS is, even too level-headed a rom-com for that often derogative bracket, certainly J.L. Brooks’ best offering in his filmograghy, taking TERMS OF ENDEARMENT down a peg or two in this reviewer’s book.

referential entries: Brooks’ TERMS OF ENDEARMENT (1983, 7.8/10), AS GOOD AS IT GETS (1997, 7.3/10); Sidney Lumet’s NETWORK (1976, 8.0/10).

第7屆#法羅島電影節(jié)#無(wú)人知曉單元第2個(gè)放映日為大家?guī)?lái)《收播新聞》，下面為大家?guī)?lái)前線電臺(tái)記者們糾纏不清的評(píng)價(jià)了！

Leah：

注水的新聞，糾葛的三角。

Harper Yug：

影片最大的弊端莫過(guò)于中間部分的過(guò)于冗長(zhǎng)和無(wú)趣。

湯達(dá)人：

有一個(gè)讓人驚喜的開(kāi)頭和一個(gè)不落俗套的結(jié)尾，可惜中間冗長(zhǎng)乏味。

我們敏熙：

角色的狀態(tài)都挺自由，但同時(shí)影片結(jié)構(gòu)又十分散漫凌亂。最后不過(guò)是道不同不相為謀，沒(méi)有絕對(duì)的對(duì)錯(cuò)。

果樹(shù)：

關(guān)于奮斗、成功學(xué)遇上真正的良心、道德、生命價(jià)值的追問(wèn)的命題，其實(shí)是部好電影，尤其是結(jié)尾，女主翻過(guò)這一篇那種撥云見(jiàn)日的感覺(jué)。但前段和中段拖沓了，看得興味索然。

Charmbracelet：

Tom和Jane分手是必然的，從小時(shí)候那次Obsessive就能看出她的原則，2011加的結(jié)尾我不是很滿意。全片的意圖性有些明顯和單調(diào)，但演員的情感傳遞都在線，不過(guò)有幾次Jane的哭讓我實(shí)在get不到點(diǎn)。

我略知她一二：

霍莉·亨特就像是水做的一樣，從頭哭到尾，她水汪汪的大眼睛無(wú)時(shí)無(wú)刻都在告訴我這個(gè)橫掃影評(píng)人和拿下柏林影后的表演實(shí)至名歸，可是雖然真的演的很好可是難免讓人感到疲累，但我也不得不承認(rèn)她非常具有感染力。 如果說(shuō)艾倫是可愛(ài)的愣頭青，那么湯姆就是性感的萬(wàn)人迷?？梢哉f(shuō)威廉·赫特出神入化的演技讓這個(gè)沒(méi)那么完美的人物變得如此惹人愛(ài)而不舍得去責(zé)備他。有趣的壞男人和固執(zhí)的好男人你會(huì)選擇哪一個(gè)？不知道她會(huì)不會(huì)后悔放棄那個(gè)當(dāng)年媚眼如絲而今事業(yè)有成的大壞蛋，至少我會(huì)后悔。

#FIFF7#DAY2的無(wú)人知曉場(chǎng)刊評(píng)分稍后會(huì)在廣播中為大家釋出，請(qǐng)大家拭目以待了。