Two contemporary USA historical dramas make an opportune double bill, covering the sweeping scale of Land of Freedom’s entrenched racism, sexism, abortion rights, the Vietnam war, police brutality, white supremacy, Byzantine, institutional corruption and jurisdictional injustice. What both movies depict is only regretfully too close to home for today’s stateside audience, yet they are worthy of essential viewing on account of exactly the same reason.

THE TRAIL OF CHICAGO 7 is Sorkin’s sophomore directorial endeavor (he originally wrote the script in 2007, Steven Spielberg was the intending director, after a dozen years mired in preproduction hell, it is hight time that he chooses to take the rein himself), a sparks-flying courtroom drama about the notorious trial of a group of anti-Vietnam War protesters, indicted with conspiracy and intention of inciting riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

The titular seven defendants are all white male, plus one black marked man Bobby Seale (Abdul-Mateen, a towering specimen of stout-hearted dignity and bottled-up rage), the co-founder of the Black Panther Party, whose lawyer is in absentia due to illness therefore is more vulnerably open to mistreatment at the hands of the uppity judge Julius Hoffman (Langella, back in the Oscar conversation with riveting bravura of bigotry and pretentiousness).

“There is no such thing as political trial, good to know!” Sorkin regales his dramatis personae with his usual, profuse ammunition of verbal lethality and exactitude, and among which he is also well-disposed to intersperse intermittent levity and irony. The whole enchilada is a show trial plain and simple, for those who are conversant with that particular time, the verdict is anything but uplifting, ergo, we are not expected to feel triumphant when the curtain is brought down (flashbacks of key events are tactfully interleaved to propel the legal procedure). Smartly, what Sorkin vigorously draws on is the intensely structured confrontation and disclosure in the courtroom, to knock audience dead in probing into the unsavory lowdown, or to get our blood pump in face of egregious misconduct and sheer venom from the authoritative figures (manipulating the jury pool, gagging and straitjacketing a defendant, swingeing police infiltration operation, the perverse obstruction of its thinly-veiled truth, etc.).

Meantime, the internal strife among the septet is another touch-paper, chiefly between Tom Hayden (Redmayne), who represents the law-abiding, non-violent mainstream democrat, and Abbie Hoffman (Cohen), the racial pinko, subcultural hippie. Their ideological discrepancy is rammed home smack to the felicity of Sorkin’s razor-edged wording, once it is gotten out of their chests, hostility can dissipate into mutual understanding, therefore, offering a chance to find middle ground of co-existence or cooperation, the ultimate solution to our world’s rampant partisanship.

Encompassing a large, almost sausage-party-exclusive ensemble, the film is an embarrassment of riches relative to sterling performers, besides the aforementioned Abdul-Mateen and Langella, a bodacious Cohen might get many Oscar-voters’ ballots for his uncharacteristic straight-acting that is not aimed to tickle our funny bone, though he gets snappy wisecracks once a while, his A. Hoffman (categorically no blood relation to the Judge J. Hoffman) is a stoned buffoon with enough lucidity and firm determination of his noble cause; whereas Redmayne’s personage is more self-righteous (but de facto the whole blood-letting donnybrook can be partially imputed to his spur-of-the-moment outrage) and he is terrific but overall the actor’s disarming and aw-shucks veneer is difficult to expunge; Gordon-Levitt makes a conscientious prosecution attorney, his internal wavering is palpable without obvious outlet, so is Caitlin FitzGerald’s undercover police officer (the deficiency of female presentation is a rub the film has to come in for in its campaign trail); Michael Keaton has a relaxed, even facetious cameo as the “star witness” whose motive is rather murky to decipher (it is quite surprising to see him and Redmayne in the same scene, he must bury the hatchet of losing his golden statuette to the latter in a tight battle); however, as Yours Truly sees it, if only one person among the cast can be fingered for an Oscar nomination, my vote goes to Rylance, as the defense attorney William Kunstler, who moderates a superbly calibrated performance attuning to an estimable law practitioner’s professionalism and disillusion, without losing touch of a dramatically hyped realism.

If Sorkin's democratic-convention-in-a-police-state hubbub and its aftermath is an event film, Julie Taymor’s THE GLORIAS (her first feature in almost a decade), befitting the now much maligned category of Oscar-bait biopic, is a river-long journey of the incredible story of Gloria Steinem (1934-), the trail-blazing feminist movement doyenne whom our world truly doesn’t deserve.

While Sorkin’s picture wins raves up the wazoo, Taymor’s labor of love receives cold response ever since its Sundance debut in earlier, Yours Truly is very intrigued to seek out why? Is it still the humbug of sexism in the works? I can smell of a ghost of that.

THE GLORIAS is almost an antithesis of CHICAGO 7 on the gender disparity, it is a women’s picture front and center, and Taymor’s gambit of convening all four actresses who play Gloria in different ages in the same scenario, a bus perpetually on the road (the thematics stem from Gloria’s autobiographic book the film is based on), is openly criticized by many critics, but it is indeed a nice, surreal conceit in conjuring up the introspective rumination which we often wish we could have, conversing with one’s younger self about feelings and regrets.

If THE GLORIAS adheres to the usual route of a traditional bio-pic narratively, it is mostly chronological, with occasional temporal jumps that could be applied more pertinently, one of its rewarding merits is that through four different performers, Taymor carves out a subtle but totally believable trajectory of Gloria’s maturation as an extraordinary woman: as a young girl (Armstrong), she is spirited, father-worshipping, happy to follow a peripatetic life espoused by her father Leo (Hutton); then as a teenager (Wilson), she becomes more withdrawn, though hipped on tap dance, taciturnly feels the pall of an absent father when she has to take care of her long-suffering, unbalanced mother Ruth (Graham), who has given up her career as a journalist to marriage and child-rearing.

The lion’s share of the film is divided between Gloria in his formative years (Vikander) and middle age (Moore), in Vikander’s chapter, Gloria’s pilgrimage in India opens a new horizon and finds her more universal rapport and scourge that preys on womanhood. Her early career path is riddled with chauvinistic impropriety and sexual harassment, but Vikander brings about an opaque impression that almost keeps her emotion at a remove (her ambiguous relationship with Leo never morphs into anything resounding).

Gloria’s remarkable self-possession is crystallized and consolidated through constant disappointments she receives from the stronger sex, it is a rather un-cinematic trait for a subject in question. Indeed, Taymor firmly keeps hyperbole in check as regards to Gloria’s characterization (it is more or less consistent with Rose Byrne’s undervalued portrayal in Dahvi Waller’s mini-series MRS AMERICA, about conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly), and instead, to foreground her rationality, intellect and penchant for stage-fright.

When it’s Moore’s turn, her Gloria is seasoned with more compassion and resolution in her vocation, coursing through the landmark moments of spearheading ERA movement, authoring and editorializing Ms. magazine, a lifelong friendship with Wilma Mankiller (Guerrero), the first woman to serve as Cherokee principal chief in 1985, together with diverting appearances of renowned activists like Bella Abzug (Midler, a class act), Flo Kennedy (a mordant Toussaint) and Dolores Huerta (Sanchez). Deferentially paying homage to Ms. Steinem and her achievement, it is noticeable that THE GLORIAS tries very hard to sustain a fidelity that is artistically at the expense of Taymor’s usual visual flourish (save for a crimson superimposition as a response to a male chauvinist question and an animated sequence of the cover of Ms. magazine’s first issue) and narrative selection.

The long and the short of it, both films serve as testimonies that a quest to achieve any sort of equality or progress has always been a protracted, treacherous battle. A fighter perchance can not savor the sweet taste of ultimate victory in their lifetime, but every concerted effort means half the battle, for USA citizens, they are also urgent adjurations to vote, as your life depends on it, au fond, the whole world depends on it too.

referential entries: Sorkin’s MOLLY’S GAME (2017, 7.0/10); Tom McCarthy’s SPOTLIGHT (2015, 8.3/10); Taymor’s ACROSS THE UNIVERSE (2007, 7.7/10).

雖然片子時(shí)間很長(zhǎng)，但Glorias的四個(gè)年齡階段的穿插敘事還是很有趣，一輛長(zhǎng)途車，一直在路上，就像她的人生，追隨他父親的節(jié)奏，一刻也沒(méi)有停息。四段人生的Glorias同框在黑白畫面里，仿佛也是與自我心靈的一段對(duì)話。

父親強(qiáng)調(diào)travel is the best education, and the only one. 確實(shí)有道理，但母親為了孩子上所好大學(xué)也還是要把房子賣了。旅行負(fù)責(zé)眼界和性格養(yǎng)成，好學(xué)校負(fù)責(zé)進(jìn)入圈子和階級(jí)，所以，沒(méi)錢就別提教育了。幸運(yùn)的Glorias通過(guò)獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金可以深度走訪印度各個(gè)偏僻村莊，甚至是在放棄婚禮的前提下，回想爸爸從小帶著她到處靠賣古董和賭場(chǎng)旅行，兩人在大雨中跳舞，最后父親還是在電話里支持女兒先去印度再結(jié)婚，能做出這個(gè)決定其父功不可沒(méi)，印度的深度游也在青年的Glorias心中埋下了equal right的種子。

后半部分描寫Glorias各種維權(quán)和創(chuàng)辦雜志想對(duì)有些重復(fù)枯燥，但好在Julianne Moore看著很舒服，從年輕到老，由美麗變得有味道，另一個(gè)這樣的演員應(yīng)該是Meryl Streep。

了解了Ms.一詞的由來(lái)，如果是英文老師以后可以把這個(gè)知識(shí)點(diǎn)在課堂上稍微延展發(fā)揮一下。

#格洛麗亞在路上# （The Glorias）（A-）這部人物傳記片說(shuō)實(shí)話是比較長(zhǎng)且偶爾會(huì)平淡，但非常值得一看。感謝之前布蘭切特的《#美國(guó)夫人#》（Mrs. America）讓不少人率先了解了那部劇中羅絲·伯恩出演的格洛麗亞·斯泰納姆（Gloria Steinem），這位70年代婦女-解放-運(yùn)動(dòng)的代表人物和知名女-權(quán)-運(yùn)-動(dòng)領(lǐng)袖，正好站在布蘭切特出演的Phyllis Schlafly的對(duì)立面，強(qiáng)調(diào)女性不需要通過(guò)結(jié)婚生子證明自己的價(jià)值，及支持墮-胎。

最有趣的是，看完這部她的傳記片，你就會(huì)注意到為何Mrs. America那部劇標(biāo)題里用了Mrs, 強(qiáng)調(diào)Phyllis Schlafly已婚的身份，而Gloria則創(chuàng)辦了一本女性雜志起名《Ms》，標(biāo)題正為了減弱婚姻對(duì)女性的影響，并通過(guò)她們的努力，最終讓美國(guó)從只接受Miss 和Mrs，到正式接受了Ms這個(gè)稱謂。

Mrs和Ms正是最好代表了這兩個(gè)人的立場(chǎng)和觀點(diǎn)的分歧：女性是否應(yīng)該由婚姻來(lái)決定稱謂。

兩人對(duì)女性價(jià)值的爭(zhēng)論在本片中也有繼續(xù)體現(xiàn)，只是這次Phyllis Schlafly是以真人形象在電視新聞里出現(xiàn)，且并不多，但她所代表的“女性一定要結(jié)婚、生子、顧家”的觀點(diǎn)在整部電影里依然通過(guò)其他方式呈現(xiàn)。比如幾乎每個(gè)第一次見到 Gloria的人，都會(huì)問(wèn)她：“你結(jié)婚了嗎？依然沒(méi)孩子嗎？” 依然是以這兩項(xiàng)在定義一個(gè)女人。而 Gloria則在本片中由四個(gè)不同年齡的女星出演，展示了人生不同階段她的成長(zhǎng)和領(lǐng)悟。其中兩位成人演員是朱麗安·摩爾（Julianne Moore）和坎妹艾麗西亞·維坎德（ #Alicia Vikander# ）。兩人從氣質(zhì)和形象上都與人物原型很符合，缺乏了羅絲·伯恩的有趣與妖嬈，但多了一份穩(wěn)重和嚴(yán)肅感。

Gloria本人其實(shí)依然健在，今年86歲，且在60多歲時(shí)還結(jié)婚了，因?yàn)樗_實(shí)遇到了真愛，但一輩子沒(méi)有孩子。她原本是一名女記者，但工作中常常受到男上司的打-壓和限制，讓她的才華無(wú)法得到展示，也沒(méi)辦法為女性發(fā)聲，于是最終她決定辭掉工作，成為一名女-權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)者，并最終出書。其實(shí)在此之前她也因被上司性-騷然而辭職過(guò)。通過(guò)這部電影，你可以清楚看到，幾乎所有女性在職場(chǎng)上和生活上受到的壓力在她身上都有體現(xiàn)，特別是她生活的年代女性地位還不如今天，但她從未因此妥協(xié)或被占便宜，而是每次都昂首挺胸地回?fù)簟?

但Gloria與很多女-權(quán)主義者最大的不同就是，她是一個(gè)美女，而且有著不錯(cuò)的時(shí)尚品味。即使她穿一身黑，是長(zhǎng)袖、長(zhǎng)褲，根本沒(méi)做任何不當(dāng)舉動(dòng)，依然有男性被她吸引，并說(shuō)她是“性--感女神”。在這種情況下，很多媒體報(bào)道她，其實(shí)是為了她的顏值，而不是真的聽她說(shuō)話。本片也展示了這點(diǎn)，曾讓她非常惱火。她盡力減少自己曝光機(jī)會(huì)，越穿越低調(diào)，但就算是同性，有時(shí)也會(huì)嫉妒她的外貌和成就。

不過(guò)Gloria依然做著很多鮮為人知的公益事業(yè)，比如在大學(xué)里采訪女學(xué)生，了解她們的處境，四處演講，或幫助少數(shù)-族-裔-女性團(tuán)體，這些事真正讓她超越了外貌的限制，贏得了別人的尊重。

她所倡-導(dǎo)的除了同工同酬外，主要是協(xié)助女性獲得墮-胎合法權(quán)，強(qiáng)調(diào)女性有決定自己身體的權(quán)利。有一句臺(tái)詞她說(shuō)：“并不是每個(gè)女生每天一醒來(lái)就想去墮--胎，這是最后沒(méi)辦法才做的，但我們應(yīng)該有自主決定的權(quán)利?！?

影片中標(biāo)題是復(fù)數(shù)，意思就是說(shuō)Gloria代表的這類女性，在片中有很多，不止她一個(gè)，是這一群人推動(dòng)了這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)。而且正如Gloria說(shuō)的，這是一場(chǎng)接力賽，必須繼續(xù)跑下去，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)沒(méi)有到終點(diǎn)。RBG的名字在片中也有被提到?；乜茨莻€(gè)時(shí)代，人們會(huì)更加珍惜今天，女性-平-權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)已經(jīng)獲得了初步成績(jī)，但確實(shí)還有很多路要走。而且在各地都并不同步，甚至隨時(shí)可能倒退。

影片有趣的一點(diǎn)是四個(gè)不同時(shí)期的Gloria會(huì)同時(shí)出現(xiàn)在一輛象征著生命的大巴上，偶爾彼此交談，看過(guò)去的理想和目標(biāo)是否實(shí)現(xiàn)，想法有何改變。Gloria小時(shí)候理想也是找到真愛結(jié)婚，住大房子，生三個(gè)孩子和養(yǎng)一只狗；但后來(lái)她受過(guò)教育后，為了事業(yè)曾一度不想結(jié)婚，也不想要孩子，到了晚年卻因又遇到真愛結(jié)婚了。可見，人是會(huì)變得，隨著自己的境遇和年紀(jì)增長(zhǎng)，沒(méi)有什么是一成不變的。

這部拍的絕對(duì)比《美國(guó)夫人》大快人心，畢竟始終她就是一個(gè)正面的人物，有很多激動(dòng)人心、深受鼓舞的場(chǎng)面，即使她被男性看低或調(diào)侃，她的堅(jiān)韌和犀利也始終讓人敬佩。但《美國(guó)夫人》則是相對(duì)壓抑，人們只能一直無(wú)法決定如何看待Phyllis Schlafly，對(duì)她的言論可能不同意，甚至厭惡，最終又會(huì)可憐她，結(jié)局讓人覺(jué)得傷感絕望。但兩個(gè)女人的故事真的都值得一看，才能更好地了解當(dāng)時(shí)不同女性的處境。

正如RBG，Gloria的事跡可以鼓舞和啟發(fā)到很多女性，片中也有很多描述女性處境的內(nèi)容容易獲得共鳴。本片圣丹斯電影節(jié)首映，目前在Amazon Prime可以看到

在朱莉·泰莫這部富有創(chuàng)意的電影中，這位女權(quán)主義活動(dòng)家由多位演員扮演。

營(yíng)銷活動(dòng)有時(shí)指的是一部讓你興奮的電影?！陡衤妍悂喸诼飞稀方o你配上腳輪，然后以輕快而明智的速度向前推進(jìn)，流暢地引導(dǎo)你穿越女權(quán)主義活動(dòng)家格洛麗亞·斯泰納姆的生活場(chǎng)景。

正如標(biāo)題所暗示的那樣，“她”包含了許多人。戴著飛行員墨鏡的斯泰納姆由朱麗安·摩爾扮演，而艾麗西亞·維坎德則扮演20世紀(jì)60年代冉冉升起的新聞?dòng)浾摺?/p>

這部電影將兩人分開，但除此之外還有斯坦尼斯:瑞安·基拉·阿姆斯特朗飾演童年的格洛麗亞，露露·威爾遜飾演少女時(shí)期的自己。不同的角色設(shè)定有時(shí)會(huì)共享屏幕，交換見解并尋求建議。

這個(gè)結(jié)構(gòu)像是擲骰子，但它或多或少是有效的。對(duì)于真正的斯泰納姆來(lái)說(shuō)，這只會(huì)增加她的怪異感，對(duì)她來(lái)說(shuō)，這部電影一定已經(jīng)感覺(jué)像是《天國(guó)之門》的幻燈片了。

朱莉·泰莫(Julie Taymor)這部充滿激情、雄心勃勃的電影見證了一個(gè)巨大的生命被整齊地劃分為章節(jié)。

孩子是女人的母親。在印度，作為法律助理的時(shí)間是形成性的。在20世紀(jì)60年代的曼哈頓，維坎德飾演的格洛麗亞(Gloria)比男同事寫得更好，即使他們嘮叨著讓她煮咖啡。她對(duì)花花公子兔女郎生活的著名揭露就是這場(chǎng)行動(dòng)的開端。

很快，斯泰納姆制造了最大的麻煩：生殖權(quán)利和哈佛法學(xué)院的性別歧視只是一個(gè)開始。

如果這一切聽起來(lái)像是敷衍了事，那么它確實(shí)是，無(wú)論多么富有創(chuàng)造性和深思熟慮。無(wú)論是由摩爾還是維坎德扮演，斯泰納姆都只是在一次一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)地對(duì)抗父權(quán)制。這就是問(wèn)題所在。向上的弧線永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)有危險(xiǎn)。我們知道，進(jìn)步會(huì)發(fā)揮它的作用。

斯坦納姆家族似乎也是如此。盡管這部電影是在致敬，但無(wú)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的過(guò)去式剝奪了他們寶貴的東西:他們的無(wú)畏。

從當(dāng)時(shí)社會(huì)的主流視角即“男性的凝視”(male gaze)看，美國(guó)1960、70年代女權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)的風(fēng)云人物中，格洛麗亞·斯泰納姆（Gloria Steinem）容貌最出眾，因此最受關(guān)注。她定居曼哈頓以后周末經(jīng)常舉辦派對(duì)，照理說(shuō)應(yīng)該一票難求，但事實(shí)上紳士們都會(huì)猶豫，遠(yuǎn)非趨之若鶩。大家都知道這么個(gè)傳說(shuō)，每到午夜，她家的派對(duì)上都會(huì)挑出一位男性予以閹割。如果說(shuō)生理閹割不太可能，智力上的閹割或許并不特別出人意料。各種重要議題的討論中，如果一群思考和辯論能力跟斯泰納姆相當(dāng)?shù)呐约谢鹆?duì)準(zhǔn)一位男性，他幾乎可以肯定將深陷于挫敗感而無(wú)法自拔。

由斯泰納姆回憶錄改編的電影《格洛麗亞在路上》(The Glorias)中，她自己的父親也會(huì)在女兒的才華與容貌之間猶疑。Gloria希望投身寫作，做記者、作家。父親回應(yīng)說(shuō)，如果你打字的十個(gè)手指不靈，你還有兩只長(zhǎng)腿。在男性主導(dǎo)的新聞編輯室里，她得到的好評(píng)首先是漂亮，然后是“寫得像男記者”?？傮w來(lái)說(shuō)，這部電影很難說(shuō)是一部好作品，而更像是斯泰納姆80多年人生的精彩集錦，她的掙扎、低潮不多，即使有也是一眨眼就撐了過(guò)去，緊接著迎來(lái)下一個(gè)高光時(shí)刻。

電影中有包括Juliane Moore在內(nèi)的四位演員分別扮演不同年代的斯泰納姆， 但在我看來(lái)最有趣的還是片尾活動(dòng)家兼作家本人出場(chǎng)的時(shí)候。那是2017年1月21日即特朗普就職一天后，50萬(wàn)人參加了華盛頓的“女性大游行”抗議活動(dòng)。斯泰納姆發(fā)表了演講，場(chǎng)地離國(guó)會(huì)山很近，大致就在美洲印第安人博物館和我們辦公樓之間。她和我們辦公樓大致同齡，都出自羅斯福新政時(shí)期。

分三天看完了，很讓人動(dòng)容的片子。本片所采取的讓幼年、少年、青年和中年四個(gè)時(shí)期的Gloria Steinem對(duì)話的形式非常不錯(cuò)。印象很深的是Gloria的父親病危，但是她知道一周之后才前去父親所在的醫(yī)院看望父親（可是父親早已經(jīng)去世）。后來(lái)Gloria自省的時(shí)候，對(duì)更年輕的自己說(shuō)，擔(dān)心自己去了就像自己的母親一樣，就要放棄自己的生活和事業(yè)，一直照顧下去了……非常有感觸，也許在照護(hù)公共服務(wù)和模式尚未達(dá)到理想狀態(tài)（也就是說(shuō)仍然大量仰賴女性的免費(fèi)勞動(dòng)）時(shí)，人（女性）為了自由只能做出勇敢的舍棄…… 看到最后，雖然多少有些覺(jué)得這部片子采取的形式稍微有些刻板，稍微有些說(shuō)教，可是我太喜歡這種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的講述民權(quán)人士/維--權(quán)律師大衛(wèi)迎戰(zhàn)歌莉婭英雄之路的電影了……同類的片子比如《黑水》（2019）、《成癮劑量》（2021）、《輟學(xué)生》（2022）和《黑錢》紀(jì)錄片（2018-2020）。 91/100