我很在乎

【首发于公众号 写作疑难杂症诊疗室】

I Care A Lot 一句话影评： The storytelling is so good, acting so good, until you realize the story is so … 三观不正 😤

If you are intrigued by Rosamond Pike’s unfeeling, first-rate psychopathic smart bitch in Gone Girl, then you will watch I Care a Lot as soon as you have the chance. Well, that’s what I did. And it was the first movie I watched in 2023 — by Jove, how it angered me.

Two minutes into the movie, it is living up to the poster’s promise of badass-ness. Pike plays Marla Grayson, who does the voice-over in the opening monologue synopsizing her worldview: this is a world of either winners or losers, predators or prey, lions or lambs. Black or white, no middle ground. An all too familiar worldview to the point of hackneyed, but Pike’s delivery, her cadence, is top-notch. In this strictly dichotomous world, Marla declares:

“I am not a lamb. I am a fucking lioness.”

Suspense is a foundational trick to hold the audience’s attention. The opening scene does this by the discord between what you see on the screen and what you hear. You hear Marla briefing you on her Ayn Randian philosophy (which has a lot of avid supporters in the far right, something to keep in mind when thinking about why the movie is terrible), but you see images of an orderly care facility where the staff seem attentive to the elderly, and then a disheveled, chubby man trying to break into the facility, only to be quickly seized by some brawny guards.

If you are minimally familiar with the science of storytelling, you know that suspense helps to release dopamine, the so-called happiness hormone. When you anticipate a reward, in the case of storytelling, when you expect that everything will be accounted for by the end of the movie, your brain produces dopamine. This opening scene is your first shot of dopamine.

The next scene quickly explains what is going on. We are now in a courtroom. Turns out, the mother of the disheveled man, Feldstrom, is in the care facility, to which he is denied access. The court appoints Marla as his mother’s guardian, giving her license to deny Feldstrom visits to his own mother. Marla is also entitled to sell the mother’s house, car, valuable belongings and then use the money to pay herself for her service as the court-appointed guardian.

If this sounds crooked, it is. Feldstrom adds that Marla is a total stranger both to him and his mother, and his mother has explicitly said that she doesn’t want to be put in a care facility.

Just when you think Marla is the bad guy in the story, here comes the twist.

Marla defends herself, first by portraying the son as irresponsible: “Your mother couldn’t cope on her own. A doctor diagnosed her with dementia, Mr Feldstrom, and wrote an affidavit recommending immediate action be take for her safety. You have amply opportunity to move your mother into a care facility or into your home. You did neither.” When parents abuse or for whatever reason can’t take proper care of their children, we think it reasonable for the government and the judicial system to step in. The same goes to elderly who aren’t properly cared for. So far so good, Marla seems reasonable.

When Feldstrom objects to Marla’s accusation by saying that her mother begged not to be taken to a care facility, Marla makes a clever distinction: “You can’t care for her by doing what she wants. You have to do what she needs. And that is why I can care better than a family member because I have no skin in the game. … yes, I oversaw the sale of some of her assets to finance [her bills in the care facility], and yes, I pay myself, too, because caring, sir, is my job. … All-day, every day, I care.”

You have to admire the concision in her speech, her dazzling use of differentiation, addressing counterargument, and appealing to ethos. And it makes sense. Kids surely want all the sugar they can get and more. But that’s not what they need. The same logic applies to those with dementia. Marla becomes less the greedy predator preying on the vulnerable, and more the strong-willed businesswoman who does what might seem ruthless but necessary.

She continues: “I care for those who are in need of protection. Protection from apathy, protection from their own pride, and quite often, protection from their own children. … offspring, who are willing to let their parents starve in squalor and struggle with pain rather than dip into what they see as their inheritance to pay for the necessary care.” By this point, we begin to suspect that Feldstrom is actually the greedy one.

At the same time, Marla’s argumentation is so tactical, the intonation so calculated, that it just lacks authenticity. You can’t be entirely sure: is Marla a good guy, or a bad guy? There, uncertainty over the main character — you have your second shot of dopamine. With questions like this, we keep watching.

Mind you, this is only less than seven minutes into the movie, and Feldstrom has gone from being the bad guy to the not so bad guy and then again the bad (in the sense of incompetent) guy, and the ruthless Marla with her problematic worldview becomes a respectable professional.

这么紧凑的人物翻转制造了「爽剧」的效果。不得不佩服好莱坞故事产业的成熟。

The next scene, we see Marla Grayson walking down the stairs outside the courthouse, with full-on badassery. Feldstrom comes after her. He is wearing a red cap again. Looks like he can be a Trump supporter. And he’s calling her “bitch.” He’s in a rage. Words are flushing out of his mouth: “I hope you get raped, and I hope you get murdered, and I hope you get killed!” And he spits on her face. His vulgarity is complete. But his anger also makes you think that he’s truly the victim. Feldstrom is surely an uncivilized, undereducated person for losing his cool like that, but … it could be you — you may have said something similar on social media, in response to some monster doing something flagrantly dehumanizing… Again, you are not sure whether Marla is the good guy or bad guy, and therefore you are not sure if Feldstrom’s outburst is justified.

And here comes the problematic part. Marla takes off her sunglasses and looks ferociously into Feldstrom’s eyes: “Does it sting more because I’m a woman? That you got so soundly beaten in there by someone with a vagina? Having a penis doesn’t automatically make you more scary to me, just the opposite. You may be a man, but if you ever threaten, touch or spit on me again… I will grab your dick and balls and I will rip them clean off, you understand? I’ll tell your mom you send your best.”

This is a calculated move to make the female audience feel so good, no? You had been belittled at least once, so indelibly, just because you are a girl/woman, and this is exactly what you wanted to say to the offender had you had the guts (which you didn’t). So hearing Marla say that so collectedly just makes you feel wonderful. If you feel that way, that’s due to something called mirror neurons, “brain cells that fire not only when we perform an action but when we observe someone else perform the same action.” 看节目主持人在享受美食的时候，自己也馋了，即使你的理性告诉你那不是真正的食物，而是像素构成的幻影。

But how are men reacting to the scene? Could be something totally different. It could frighten the male audience. When you feel threatened and stressed out, you also become more focused. Scientists have long discovered that even when we don’t face a direct physical threat, as long as we begin to imagine those threats, we get stressed out, and thus more focused. You can identify with Feldstrom and feel intimidated by Marla. Or you can feel frightened for Marla in anticipation of Feldstrom’s fightback.

Or, it can be that the masculine part of you feels threatened, and the feminine part of you feels elated. If you can simultaneously feel these two things, oh boy, you are getting the optimal experience. Cortisol is the attention hormone, and oxytocin the bonding hormone. Cortisol combined with oxytocin can give you the experience of transportation (“transport” in the sense of being overwhelmed “with a strong emotion, especially joy”).

The second time watching this scene, though, I just rolled my eyes at Marla, because in the next eighteen minutes, the good-guy-bad-guy suspense is completely resolved. The next eighteen minutes show you how Marla capitalizes on the loopholes in the medical and legal system, how she takes advantage of the human weakness of automatically following orders and trusting authority figures, how she preys on those with insufficient legal resources, and what she claims as “care” is actually just grift.

As in Gone Girl, Pike once again plays the female villain character in I Care A Lot. Only this time, her character Marla is a lesbian, which frees her from the obligation of playing along with the modern, enlightened men’s fantasy about modern, enlightened women. Marla can express her contempt for men explicitly, whereas in Gone Girl the Cool Girl Amy has to convey her contempt through elaborate schemes.

It is really worth the while to revisit the famed Cool Girl passage in Gone Girl, for those too young to have watched or heard of the film:

That night at the Brooklyn party, I was playing the girl who was in style, the girl a man like Nick wants: the Cool Girl. Men always say that as the defining compliment, don’t they? She’s a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl. Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they’re fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl...Oh, and if you’re not a Cool Girl, I beg you not to believe that your man doesn’t want the Cool Girl. It may be a slightly different version—maybe he’s vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics. There are variations to the window dressing, but believe me, he wants Cool Girl, who is basically the girl who likes every f***ing thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain. (How do you know you’re not Cool Girl? Because he says things like “I like strong women.” If he says that to you, he will at some point f*** someone else. Because “I like strong women” is code for “I hate strong women.”

Gone Girl is invested in the plight of contemporary women, while I Care A Lot is not — the pseudo-feminist things Marla says only bring cheap gratification. Cool Girl Amy’s transgression consists of framing men for stalking, rape, and murder, of putting men to social death and behind bars. But Marla’s seeming transgression of heteronormative sexuality is only a masquerade for her real transgression: her subscription to a macho capitalist logic.

Let me quickly sum up the rest of I Care A Lot. Marla collides with a doctor to induce signs of dementia in a rich old lady. Then Marla becomes the legal guardian of that rich old lady, Jennifer Peterson. But Jennifer turns out to be the mother of a super rich and powerful Russian man, Roman, whose business includes human trafficking. Roman kills the doctor and makes it look like suicide, in an attempt to frighten Marla into forfeiting her guardianship on his mother. Marla remains undaunted. So Roman tries to kill Marla, and fails; he tries to kill Marla’s girlfriend Fran, and also fails. The two failed attempts are irritating, I know, because they just make the story implausible. And it gets more irritating. Set on go big or go home, Marla gets back at Roman, and succeeds: she miraculously becomes Roman’s legal guardian, and puts a $10 million price tag on Roman’s freedom.

Here comes another twist. Roman proposes an alternative to the $10 million: “Instead of me giving you $10 million… we become partners, go into business together. … I hate you… but, oh, the money we could make. You’re a rare person, Marla. Your determination is… Frankly, it’s scary. But this guardianship grift, it’s ripe, but right now it’s small potatoes. I propose we create a monster… a countrywide guardianship corporation, with you as CEO and co-owner. Use my money, use your… skills. Destroy the competition. Take control of the entire market.”

Yes, the two persons that for the most part of the movie try to kill each other become business partners at the end! Two absolutely depraved capitalists joining forces! 没有永远的敌人，不要跟钱过不去 — 这是整部电影的底层逻辑。The director/scriptwriter must have this twist, which veers the theme of the movie toward the triumph of capitalism, to sustain audience engagement and achieve its own capitalist, commercial success. Obscene!

And brace yourself for the most f**ked-up part of the movie. Marla accepts the partnership and achieves CEO of a publicly traded company level of success at the age of 39. She just finishes a TV interview and she’s walking to her car. Feldstrom walks up to her and fires gunshot at her heart. Feldstrom never gets to see his mom and his mom just died alone in the care facility. So he shoots Marla in the heart. This time, Marla completely fails to fire back with words. It is implied that she is killed on the spot.

I was screaming (in my head) at this point. A f**king greedy, immoral capitalist, empowered by another wealthy, immoral capitalist, unstopped by the court and the government, or rather, aided by the incompetent people in the legal system and corrupted doctors, only to be killed by an incel kind of guy? The only effective solution to ending injustice and capitalist avarice is pure gun violence in the most American style? As the closing credits music begins, I was yelling in my head: NO! That CAN’T be how the story ends! Movies are supposed to satisfy viewers’ deepest fantasies, and this one does not satisfy my fantasy that justice can be restored through nonviolent, rational means, through legal measures, and through investigative journalism. After all that shit that happened in 2022, after all those people that disappeared, this is the last movie I needed. I wanted movies to represent messy reality, not this kind of bullshit fairytale. I was so angry that I even began to suspect the director/scriptwriter is some sort of closeted Republican incel funded by far-right groups. I realized I needed Spotlight kind of movies.

After watching the movie, I spent an hour watching videos about Elizabeth Holmes.

8.6分

我tm，就是要给高分。槽多无口，这绝不是个完美的电影，但是有时候我们也需要这种不可思议，极富戏剧张力，并不完全符合逻辑甚至不现实的情节，它们精彩，无比精彩。而沉浸在文艺的世界，沉浸在韦斯安德森绚丽的布景，斯皮尔伯格精妙的镜头调度和诺兰炫技般的结构设计中的我们，好像已经忽视了精彩才是电影的必修课。而《我很在乎》，这样一部小众的，荒诞的的电影，却忽然点醒了过去追求逼格的我。这2个小时给了我前所未有的观影体验。

女主的形象非常非常丰满，你可以说她不讨喜，但是你不能说她没立住。裴淳华实力圈粉，当初看《消失的爱人》，她的熠熠光彩被更牛逼的剧本遮掩了，只能说是锦上添花；而这一次是她力挽狂澜了这个逻辑混乱，“三观崩坏”的剧情。无数的特写镜头，怼脸炫演技，不管多扯多炸裂的剧情都能完美hold住，从眼神到举止，都无可挑剔的精准演绎。目前的20年最佳女主角没有之一。看了一些差评的评论说“不够爽”，说“恶人受得惩戒太少了”，说“导演抓错了爽点，应该多给女主一些教训”，我重新审视了一下自己的三观，发现我确实挺变态的。首先我严重同情弱势群体，严重到甚至有些滥情。所以片头看到这样一个一辈子独立，坚强，成功的老太太无缘无故被marla盯上，又被迫送到“监护院”，断绝和外界的一切交流，被掠夺财产，余生一片荒芜时，我对marla产生了强烈的反感，和大多数观众同样等待着她报复的到来。然而当剧情一步步推进，marla变成了浮萍一般的弱势群体，老太太背后有强大的黑帮靠山，他们可以随时闯入监护院，随时对marla和她的同僚进行攻击，这个时候我的阵营便开始动摇了，即使她做了无数伤天害理的事情，即使她是个自私的人渣，还是不可避免地希望她无恙。就怀着这样矛盾的情绪，电影来到高潮，医生被杀，marla和她的漂亮女朋友人心惶惶，准备逃离时，却被黑帮抓住。该怎么说呢，此前的剧情中规中矩，难说有多精彩，但是仍在掌控之下。此后的剧情是彻底的放飞自我，各种雷点纷涌而至。marla被小矮子绑在椅子上，用塑料袋勒住脑袋时，我好像也感到一阵窒息，代入感强到可怕。此刻裴淳华的演技爆表，瞬间让我对女主的感情产生了巨大变化。我个人非常崇拜目标明确，用尽一切手段达成自己目的的人，为此我可以接受一定道德感的丧失。女主和小矮子表达自己对死亡的态度，毫不避讳自己对金钱的渴望，毫不遮掩自己巨大的野心。就连小矮子也为之震颤了一瞬。而我则彻底被她征服了。也许换一个人，但凡换成裴淳华之外任意一个演员，也许都做不到她这样澎湃的魅力表达。她可恨，虚伪，但是她无比坚定，冷酷而强大的灵魂成为了她最犀利的武器。什么叫无脑爽？marla死里偷生，从水中逃命，随后一系列并不理智但成功完成的复仇计划叫无脑爽，这一段不评价，其实编剧的处理很低级，但是怎么办，我喜欢。一颗永远不迷失的内心，即使是丑恶的，在我的眼里也是动人的。

还没看就被剧透了结尾有巨大转折，我大致猜到了是女主阴沟翻船，在片子最后十分钟还有些抗拒这一刻的到来，也许结束在她成功的一刻变圆满了。但是我万万没有想到居然会是片头的那个“怂货”终结了marla传奇的一生，那一刻，我感觉她受到了应得的报应，死得其所。换言之，也许只有这个人杀了她我才会觉得她是死得其所。不得不让人惊叹于设计之巧妙。尽管如此，这并不代表我不敬畏marla的一部分品质。带着一点震撼，一点释然，一点感慨和无数惊喜，影片结束了。

这个题材选的太牛逼了，牛逼到即使它其实立不住，还是能让我投入其中。我突然想到，如果要是找中国一些导演来拍这个题材，拍的不这么极端，添加更多的喜剧元素，也许它会大受欢迎，但是不复这样的震撼。我喜欢这部电影就像现在所存在的样子。I love《i care a lot》a lot.

一开始营造的氛围不错，确实细思极恐，孤巢老人被间接隔离失去自由直至去世也无人问津。但是那么明目张胆的变卖委托人的资产就没人注意吗？

还有就是女主无来由的勇气就挺突然的，总觉得怪怪的。可能这就是剧中主打的黑色幽默？

剧情各种漏洞就不说了。毒枭大佬的小弟们业务能力也太差了吧，下手三个就成功一个路人医生。最后想说的是毒枭大佬的安保还没有养老院强，说绑就被绑了哈哈。

被imp吸引进去看这部戏，开头10分钟还不错，完全踩到我仅有的几个道德底线雷达，立即开始厌恶女主的poke face和她的勾当。但因随即看到shit哥，就自我暗示说，可能之后会黑色幽默的很开心哦。

结果，结果，结果怎么是这种烂戏！情节硬伤什么的都不说了，对话白目无聊，情节节奏拖沓，就连摄影都那么直白，真心想不出来有啥可取之处.....然后居然被营销成什么大女主反英雄爽剧，爽毛啊，都谁在爽，你说的都谁在爽！三观怎么可以那么歪！还给我营销成女权related，太邪恶了！

白白浪费imp的全裸镜头、shit哥30年打造的专业贪污人设，和阿嬷迷离的眼神以及矫健的步伐。

另吐槽这莫名其妙的lesbian setting，莫名其妙一堆情爱场景，特别讨厌这种自作聪明的迎合，太烂了啦。

连看到那些觉得这部戏都还好，这部戏女主太帅气的评论都觉得生气！

太生气了！！！！

首先，很可怕的世界，居然在受害人未到场的情况下，法庭可以宣判剥夺一个人的自由，以及它拥有的一切都随着被抢占。

类似于“被神经病”。

如果我们经历这样的世界，该如何？但是想想好可怕。

我在想，如果世界到最后，可能真的会如同所有的电影一样，器官买卖，器官被强制切割，财产被强制剥夺，人身自由被限制被神经病 。。。。 妈呀。。。。 不敢想象。

观众对《我很在乎》的失望，大多来自对影片阵容的判断失误。

大众是冲着裴淳华去的，因为《消失的爱人》实在太深入人心。

裴淳华塑造的Amy，那一双勾魂摄魄又惊悚恐怖的眼睛，就问你敢不敢多看一眼。

《消失的爱人》剧照

《我很在乎》的剧情基本等同于Amy重出江湖。对热爱腹黑大女主剧情的观众来说，这是多么振奋人心的消息！ 我们忘记了《消失的爱人》和《我很在乎》最大的区别是：

《消失的爱人》是大卫芬奇作品，《我很在乎》不是。

《我很在乎》的编剧和导演来自一个名不见经传的英国作者J Blakeson。

J Blakeson

他自2005年出道，自编自导的第一部作品叫Pitch Perfect，翻译过来可以叫《完美推销》，是个短片；2009年时，他又自编自导了一部短片作品叫The Appointment（翻译过来可以叫《预约》）。 他的第一部自编自导的长片作品叫《爱丽丝的失踪》，是个黑色电影。豆瓣评分7.0，烂番茄的专家评分81，Metacritic评分65。从这些权威平台的评分来看，应该不是雷片，但什么水花都没有，这才是最愁人的。

至少在中国，雷都可以有出路，但平庸就真的没救了。

《我很在乎》是J Blakeson第一部自编自导且自己当制片人的作品。裴淳华是他手里唯一的一张王牌。 打过牌的都知道，一开始就出王牌的，要么是手肥到没小牌可打，要么就是虚张声势，其实家里一堆烂牌打出不去。

《我很在乎》的牌面就是后者。

它最大的问题出在故事趣味上——暴力的形式花样繁多，但动机和价值导向都有点跑偏，最终主流价值观挨不上，黑色喜剧又不到位，两头不讨好。

女主角Marla人设的低共鸣

戏剧中的性别顾虑是存在的。一个人物，选择让TA呈现为男性，还是女性，都有潜规则可循。在Me Too浪潮、大女主设定的流行趋势之下，女性被认为是比男性更适合重整家庭秩序和伦理秩序的性别。

但是Marla既没有家庭，也没有伦理。

她在搞事业。

她要赚钱，要养小女朋友，要跟男人正面刚。

这就……有点不务正业了。

她搞的这项事业是什么？文雅一点叫社会清道夫，通俗一点就是啃老狂魔。

她在养老的行业道路上走出了歪门邪道，将素不相识的老人的财产据为己有，美其名曰法定监护人。她最常去的几个社会场所分别是医院、法院和养老院，豢养出犯罪一条龙，只手遮天。

Marla从事这个事业，在伦理层面上，几乎没有任何可追溯的动机。 她为什么要这么做？从文本里我们看不到她背叛传统家庭伦理秩序的理由。 这就让她的共情性又薄了一层。

女性观众的普遍认同的女性角色有两种：

要么是刀子嘴豆腐心，虽然辣手摧花，但往往心有柔软，愿意为老弱病小让步和牺牲； 要么就是傻白甜加小幸运，主角光环一路照耀着她走向人生巅峰，最后打败邪恶，达成恋爱，修成正果。

Marla两者都不是。

她太悍，悍到与所有女性默认的伦理价值为敌。这个叛逆所换来的洒脱，在性别上却是孤立无援的。

黑色喜剧跟女性诉求混搭失败

这个片子的喜剧点大概都被黑帮小老大Roman承包了。他的一举一动都在强烈表达“我知道不可能但只能硬演”的无奈情绪。看完全片我也没有明白为什么这个人物要设定为一个侏儒。

这根本不是一部黑色喜剧片，这只是一部既有点黑色又有点喜剧的片子。

其中Marla负责黑色的部分：一个道貌岸然的女慈善家最后死在羔羊的枪下，功败垂成； Roman负责喜剧的部分：一个谜之自信的黑社会前成员被一个业余的反社会女性玩得差点命都没了。

同样我也不明白Marla这个人物被设定为女性的理由。

Marla所做的事情跟女性诉求毫不相关。

女性呼唤的平等待遇，无论是社会分工还是情感意识的被认同，在Marla这里统统不重要。

Marla像是一个披着女人皮的男人。

她的身上没有丝毫女性质地的东西，从内到外，全是阳性的。

Marla要的始终是钱，但钱的伦理符号是权力和责任。它是非常典型的男性目标。有了钱才能养得起家，才能爱得起人，才能做想做的事。这是男人每天在YY的事情。

女性的价值排序中长年名列第一的是一个叫做安全感的东西。安全感对女人来说有多重要，不言自明。Marla需要安全感吗？她根本没有脆弱的时候。 另外，女性做不了世界的霸主，最大软肋是情绪。古往今来的叙事作品都在告诉我们：女性不是没有武力值，她们往往都是被自己的情绪打败的。

不能说观众期待，但观众默认的叙事原则中，包含着对女性情绪的体验诉求。 我们想看到女性在现象面前的精神纠结，感受细腻而丰富的意识形态流动。我们希望知道女性在想什么，哪怕是自相矛盾的意识，也是有趣的。我们想探知女性这种生物从皮囊到心灵之间密密缝缝的思绪的层次，那是比烟花还要绚烂的美景。

而Marla没有这些女性思维的层次。她凌厉无比，直截了当。从女性的角度来说，她其实是单薄的。

归根到底还是人设的问题。大女主的黑色喜剧，不好做。不是简单的元素的拼接就可以完成的。

情节漏洞多到可以下海捕鱼

Marla跟Roman的过招跟儿戏没有两样。观众用脚趾头都能想出一万种方法把Marla处理得渣都不剩，但Marla硬是凭主角光环一路顺风顺水，还获得了黑社会前正式成员的青睐。

一个被打得满地找牙的男人，最后跟暴揍他的女人说：我看好你，咱们联手吧。

这个逻辑，古今中外，没见过。性别游戏从来就不是这么玩的。

况且，Marla的战斗值始终是个谜。

从Marla的结局来看，她死得不是一般的草率。一颗子弹就能让她展现血染的风采，可见也不是什么金刚不坏之身。

所以杀她有何难？Roman怎么就做不到呢？

说到Roman这个小老大，真的是无愧于全片的笑点担当。

他全程龟缩在SUV里不敢露面，演绎黑社会是如何维持神秘感的。人手也少得可怜，接老妈的司机跟救老妈的打手，居然用同一个人。至于他自己，目测也是手无缚鸡之力，所以在家练瑜伽是要表达什么？（用力收住刻薄话~）

作为一个混过黑社会的人，在那么等级森严的环境里待过，竟然允许下面的人居高临下地跟他对话，他还得抬着眼睛训斥比他高好几个身子的下属，这个秩序感，简直乱成一锅粥。

当然，最大的雷还是在于一票人一事无成，还干不过一个死了老妈的无名氏。 瞧人家结尾那一枪，多准多干脆。

Roman的妈Jennifer，跟她儿一样，

全程除了被Marla玩得像陀螺一样转之外，只会摆出一副胸有成竹的表情，

然后该送养老院送养老院，该送精神病院送精神病院。该吃的亏一样没少吃。

就是这么个谜之自信的老太太，前史被吹得天花乱坠，什么金融高手、身份成谜，但似乎并没有给Marla的狩猎造成任何麻烦。

都是虚张声势而已。

除此之外，长得一表人才，但是专业技能一般般的律师；

人高马大但是一秒就被电晕的保镖；

还有怒闯养老院救人结果全军覆没的小混混们，

一个个出场都气场两米八，过了两招发现不过都是花拳绣腿的角色。

法庭上力量悬殊的对决蔓延到生活中，就是Marla一派全都开了挂一样的强，小女友被煤气毒死大半天了，还能复活。

就问你服不服。

讲故事，都涉及到欲望的表达。

以《我很在乎》为例：到底是要钻石，还是救老妈，本来是个可发展的欲望挑战。

钱财还是人情，二选一，天然的博弈局。

鱼与熊掌不可兼得，把霸道总裁Roman丢进这个局，看他百爪挠心，求而不得，很有滋味。

但故事偏偏把这个层次撤销了，把两个价值融为一个价值，变成“我都想要，我都不给”的简单局。

钻石和老妈作为重要的叙事符号，本应该分开呈现，结果被揉成了一团，变成了一个模糊的欲望对象，就是幼稚的“属于我的”。这就跟幼儿园小朋友抢东西的思维逻辑差不多了，何谈人性困境？

其实蛮可惜。

最后是复仇叙事的问题。

一般来说，人物复仇有一个非常重要隐因，就是道德偏差。因为道德偏差而自然夸大自己受的冤屈和对方造成的伤害，因此才能理直气壮地付诸暴力，一定要以牙还牙，以眼还眼。

这个道德偏差，一定是跟人情世故挂钩的。

偏偏《我很在乎》是一个没有烟火气的故事：Marla把老无所依的老人们的照片挂了满满一墙，像野蛮的猎人炫耀他射杀的动物头颅一样，原始而冷酷，反社会到变态；Roman抱着莫名其妙的孝心，笨拙地追杀一个旁门左道人士，一路上洋相出尽不说，一抹脸，是个更甚的贪婪小人。自负而麻木，屈辱而不自知。

这两个人，谁都不会发生道德偏差，因为他们双双越过道德的边界太远了。

观众不是不喜欢看狗咬狗的戏码，但看戏的乐趣除了感官刺激，还有一个归属感需求。演员在台前卖力表演，观众在台下是要论断是非的。 两个人的冲突如果不涉及道德判断，观众就无从站队。 《我很在乎》的冷清就在于道德意识的淡泊和迟钝。 剧中人物既没有道德，也不谈道德。剧情发展也毫无禁忌，充分放飞道德底线。这让复仇如何名正言顺，这让复仇如何大快人心。 当观众的志趣和同理心无处寄放，回馈的也自然只有不近人情的差评了。

The End

带有资本主义成分的社会，始终是以强者的利益为终极目标的。而所谓的公平和法制，看上去为弱者提供了保障，但实际上它并不带来绝对意义上的好处。它们只是工具而已，效果的好与坏取决于公平的制造集团和法律的操纵集团。只要是被人创造出来的事物，就有被人利用操控的空间，尤其是在这个事实容易被捏造，而规则的执行者越来越依赖于条文和被捏造的事实的社会上。大多数人都喜欢做一个追随者，他们只需要根据社会公认的规则做出判断和行动就可以获得应有的报酬，但倘若打破砂锅问到底，焉知祸福？因为在资本的社会中，没人有会因你的善良、勇敢、正义本身让你衣食无忧。

捕食者和猎物的角色也会动态变化，没有人可以成为注定的、绝对的捕食者，剧中的被监护的老人们，在年轻时大多属于成功人士，但在失去力量后，也难免成为猎物。终其一生在这个弱肉强食的社会中苦心经营，即使运用不公的手段，但还是难逃被系统吞噬的悲剧命运。

和资本一样可怕的是擅于应用制度者，他甚至可以让资本都束手无策。最可怕的是资本和制度的联合，后果就是用资本的力量将制度的漏洞指数级放大。试问，现实生活中多少莽夫可以不顾法律地去杀人呢？所以电影的结局看似喜剧，其实还是悲剧。

观影体验有惊悚、痛恨女主、三观不正、不舒服不痛快，但是仔细想想，就是赤裸裸的现实。

中国已快速进入老年社会，大量的独生子女让我们没办法把养老寄托在孩子身上。以房养老、资产托管养老，已经是现实。养老产业将是中国未来最大的朝阳产业，无数资本大鳄和机构已经开始全面布局。

即使在法治环境下，让那些大鳄和狮子有点善心，基本不可能。例如股市，无数大佬闪耀上市，两茬韭菜一割，然后暴雷开始。当然，这丝毫不影响盆满钵满的狮子们继续到处宣传：只要努力，你一定能和我一样！

坚信公平竞争的我们当了一辈子绵羊，幸运的话，也许可以体面退休，有两套房，有一份退休金。退休前十年，幸运的话，可能还有诗和远方，然后，逐渐痴呆和不能自理一定会拥抱我们。为了和谐社会和我们的平安幸福，如果不能麻烦子女，我们的晚年也只能托付给养老机构，资产和退休金只能托付给养老机构打理。绵羊老了，还是绵羊，我们也不可能有一个黑帮大佬儿子。

很多年轻人对这个片子可能无感，甚至觉得这个故事太可笑。但是中老年观众一定会被惊悚到，而且即使你知道养老院门口站着腹黑女主，你也无法逃避，因为这就是无奈现实。

在影片中，痛恨女主虐待母亲的小恶魔选择了与女主和解，共创伟业。现实中难道不是这样？金钱的诱惑谁能拒绝？

有些观众纠结腹黑女主最后是不是必须死，为了过审才安排意外被枪击死亡。现实生活中，女主这样的人一定是光彩动人的成功人士，站在人生巅峰，他们多数都活得特别好。

在中国，养老问题才开始出现。本片导演对现实的关注和思考让人赞赏，其实更需要ZF机构关注养老问题。

每个观众可以脑补自己进了一个风景如画的养老机构中的情景，被喂饭被喂药被翻身被放风，你清楚一切但是没办法跟偶尔来一趟的子女讲清楚，何况你的子女也不是小恶魔。非亲非故，别人愿意照顾你的唯一理由不就是你的退休金和房子嘛！

所以，本片是黑色惊悚现实主义的好作品！