分三天看完了，很让人动容的片子。本片所采取的让幼年、少年、青年和中年四个时期的Gloria Steinem对话的形式非常不错。印象很深的是Gloria的父亲病危，但是她知道一周之后才前去父亲所在的医院看望父亲（可是父亲早已经去世）。后来Gloria自省的时候，对更年轻的自己说，担心自己去了就像自己的母亲一样，就要放弃自己的生活和事业，一直照顾下去了……非常有感触，也许在照护公共服务和模式尚未达到理想状态（也就是说仍然大量仰赖女性的免费劳动）时，人（女性）为了自由只能做出勇敢的舍弃…… 看到最后，虽然多少有些觉得这部片子采取的形式稍微有些刻板，稍微有些说教，可是我太喜欢这种标准的讲述民权人士/维--权律师大卫迎战歌莉娅英雄之路的电影了……同类的片子比如《黑水》（2019）、《成瘾剂量》（2021）、《辍学生》（2022）和《黑钱》纪录片（2018-2020）。 91/100

《THE GLORIAS》，振奋人心，经典，也有点落了俗套。但抛开这些宏大高昂的叙事基调，抛开惯常的名台词，有一段不起眼的、很轻很轻的对话，夹杂在那些溢出屏幕的宣言中，触动了我。

Wilma竞选酋长时，Gloria与她丈夫的对话。

因为女性竞选，他们一起经历了许多生命的威胁，他赞美Wilma的勇敢。Gloria说，遇见你真是她的幸运。Wilma的丈夫立刻否认，说她才是他的幸运，然后讲起了第一次date Wilma的场景。

现在看来，不过是拒绝讨厌的电影与食物罢了，而在那个充斥着男性凝视的时代，在这种凝视更加严重的少数族裔中，足以是惊人的回答，足够被划为异类，乃至受到侮辱与中伤。

更何况，那时的Wilma，是喜欢这男人的。

她没有任何理由说不，这百害而无一利。只是看个无关痛痒的电影，吃口热狗这样的小事，但即便如此，Wilma依然没有选择顺从与讨好。

女性的觉醒是从哪一刻开始的？

生育，劳动保障，教育问题，家庭暴力，就业……对令人窒息的现实，发出了振奋人心的口号，《THE GLORIAS》展现了女性在困境中自救、争取权利、彻底觉醒的时刻。

和这些宏大的觉醒时刻放在一起看，Wilma丈夫这段对白的设计，并不薄弱，反而有别致之处。

大是大非前拥有能做决定的勇气，拥有触底反弹的力量，很了不起。

庸常生活中也能意识到自我的存在，尊重自己的声音，也挺了不起的。

女性的觉醒到底是从哪一刻开始的呢？

可能只是从说出“讨厌吃热狗”的那一刻开始。

在竞选演讲的现场，一名男子质问Wilma，“How’d you get the name Mankiller？”

Wilma回答，“I earned it”

那位说出自己“讨厌吃热狗”的女士，不断为更多的女性发声。她赢得了这次竞选，成为了有史以来第一位女酋长。

那位曾经因为自以为是，而被“讨厌吃热狗”而吓到的胆小男人，成为了敢于拨开权利迷雾的，清醒、勇敢的人。

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).

在朱莉·泰莫这部富有创意的电影中，这位女权主义活动家由多位演员扮演。

营销活动有时指的是一部让你兴奋的电影。《格洛丽亚在路上》给你配上脚轮，然后以轻快而明智的速度向前推进，流畅地引导你穿越女权主义活动家格洛丽亚·斯泰纳姆的生活场景。

正如标题所暗示的那样，“她”包含了许多人。戴着飞行员墨镜的斯泰纳姆由朱丽安·摩尔扮演，而艾丽西亚·维坎德则扮演20世纪60年代冉冉升起的新闻记者。

这部电影将两人分开，但除此之外还有斯坦尼斯:瑞安·基拉·阿姆斯特朗饰演童年的格洛丽亚，露露·威尔逊饰演少女时期的自己。不同的角色设定有时会共享屏幕，交换见解并寻求建议。

这个结构像是掷骰子，但它或多或少是有效的。对于真正的斯泰纳姆来说，这只会增加她的怪异感，对她来说，这部电影一定已经感觉像是《天国之门》的幻灯片了。

朱莉·泰莫(Julie Taymor)这部充满激情、雄心勃勃的电影见证了一个巨大的生命被整齐地划分为章节。

孩子是女人的母亲。在印度，作为法律助理的时间是形成性的。在20世纪60年代的曼哈顿，维坎德饰演的格洛丽亚(Gloria)比男同事写得更好，即使他们唠叨着让她煮咖啡。她对花花公子兔女郎生活的著名揭露就是这场行动的开端。

很快，斯泰纳姆制造了最大的麻烦：生殖权利和哈佛法学院的性别歧视只是一个开始。

如果这一切听起来像是敷衍了事，那么它确实是，无论多么富有创造性和深思熟虑。无论是由摩尔还是维坎德扮演，斯泰纳姆都只是在一次一个机构地对抗父权制。这就是问题所在。向上的弧线永远不会有危险。我们知道，进步会发挥它的作用。

斯坦纳姆家族似乎也是如此。尽管这部电影是在致敬，但无风险的过去式剥夺了他们宝贵的东西:他们的无畏。

从当时社会的主流视角即“男性的凝视”(male gaze)看，美国1960、70年代女权运动的风云人物中，格洛丽亚·斯泰纳姆（Gloria Steinem）容貌最出众，因此最受关注。她定居曼哈顿以后周末经常举办派对，照理说应该一票难求，但事实上绅士们都会犹豫，远非趋之若鹜。大家都知道这么个传说，每到午夜，她家的派对上都会挑出一位男性予以阉割。如果说生理阉割不太可能，智力上的阉割或许并不特别出人意料。各种重要议题的讨论中，如果一群思考和辩论能力跟斯泰纳姆相当的女性集中火力对准一位男性，他几乎可以肯定将深陷于挫败感而无法自拔。

由斯泰纳姆回忆录改编的电影《格洛丽亚在路上》(The Glorias)中，她自己的父亲也会在女儿的才华与容貌之间犹疑。Gloria希望投身写作，做记者、作家。父亲回应说，如果你打字的十个手指不灵，你还有两只长腿。在男性主导的新闻编辑室里，她得到的好评首先是漂亮，然后是“写得像男记者”。总体来说，这部电影很难说是一部好作品，而更像是斯泰纳姆80多年人生的精彩集锦，她的挣扎、低潮不多，即使有也是一眨眼就撑了过去，紧接着迎来下一个高光时刻。

电影中有包括Juliane Moore在内的四位演员分别扮演不同年代的斯泰纳姆， 但在我看来最有趣的还是片尾活动家兼作家本人出场的时候。那是2017年1月21日即特朗普就职一天后，50万人参加了华盛顿的“女性大游行”抗议活动。斯泰纳姆发表了演讲，场地离国会山很近，大致就在美洲印第安人博物馆和我们办公楼之间。她和我们办公楼大致同龄，都出自罗斯福新政时期。

#格洛丽亚在路上#（The Glorias）（A-）这部人物传记片说实话是比较长且偶尔会平淡，但非常值得一看。感谢之前布兰切特的《#美国夫人#》（Mrs. America）让不少人率先了解了那部剧中罗丝·伯恩出演的格洛丽亚·斯泰纳姆（Gloria Steinem），这位70年代妇女-解放-运动的代表人物和知名女-权-运-动领袖，正好站在布兰切特出演的Phyllis Schlafly的对立面，强调女性不需要通过结婚生子证明自己的价值，及支持堕-胎。

最有趣的是，看完这部她的传记片，你就会注意到为何Mrs. America那部剧标题里用了Mrs, 强调Phyllis Schlafly已婚的身份，而Gloria则创办了一本女性杂志起名《Ms》，标题正为了减弱婚姻对女性的影响，并通过她们的努力，最终让美国从只接受Miss 和Mrs，到正式接受了Ms这个称谓。

Mrs和Ms正是最好代表了这两个人的立场和观点的分歧：女性是否应该由婚姻来决定称谓。

两人对女性价值的争论在本片中也有继续体现，只是这次Phyllis Schlafly是以真人形象在电视新闻里出现，且并不多，但她所代表的“女性一定要结婚、生子、顾家”的观点在整部电影里依然通过其他方式呈现。比如几乎每个第一次见到 Gloria的人，都会问她：“你结婚了吗？依然没孩子吗？” 依然是以这两项在定义一个女人。而 Gloria则在本片中由四个不同年龄的女星出演，展示了人生不同阶段她的成长和领悟。其中两位成人演员是朱丽安·摩尔（Julianne Moore）和坎妹艾丽西亚·维坎德（#Alicia Vikander#）。两人从气质和形象上都与人物原型很符合，缺乏了罗丝·伯恩的有趣与妖娆，但多了一份稳重和严肃感。

Gloria本人其实依然健在，今年86岁，且在60多岁时还结婚了，因为她确实遇到了真爱，但一辈子没有孩子。她原本是一名女记者，但工作中常常受到男上司的打-压和限制，让她的才华无法得到展示，也没办法为女性发声，于是最终她决定辞掉工作，成为一名女-权运动者，并最终出书。其实在此之前她也因被上司性-骚然而辞职过。通过这部电影，你可以清楚看到，几乎所有女性在职场上和生活上受到的压力在她身上都有体现，特别是她生活的年代女性地位还不如今天，但她从未因此妥协或被占便宜，而是每次都昂首挺胸地回击。

但Gloria与很多女-权主义者最大的不同就是，她是一个美女，而且有着不错的时尚品味。即使她穿一身黑，是长袖、长裤，根本没做任何不当举动，依然有男性被她吸引，并说她是“性--感女神”。在这种情况下，很多媒体报道她，其实是为了她的颜值，而不是真的听她说话。本片也展示了这点，曾让她非常恼火。她尽力减少自己曝光机会，越穿越低调，但就算是同性，有时也会嫉妒她的外貌和成就。

不过Gloria依然做着很多鲜为人知的公益事业，比如在大学里采访女学生，了解她们的处境，四处演讲，或帮助少数-族-裔-女性团体，这些事真正让她超越了外貌的限制，赢得了别人的尊重。

她所倡-导的除了同工同酬外，主要是协助女性获得堕-胎合法权，强调女性有决定自己身体的权利。有一句台词她说：“并不是每个女生每天一醒来就想去堕--胎，这是最后没办法才做的，但我们应该有自主决定的权利。”

影片中标题是复数，意思就是说Gloria代表的这类女性，在片中有很多，不止她一个，是这一群人推动了这场运动。而且正如Gloria说的，这是一场接力赛，必须继续跑下去，远远没有到终点。RBG的名字在片中也有被提到。回看那个时代，人们会更加珍惜今天，女性-平-权运动已经获得了初步成绩，但确实还有很多路要走。而且在各地都并不同步，甚至随时可能倒退。

影片有趣的一点是四个不同时期的Gloria会同时出现在一辆象征着生命的大巴上，偶尔彼此交谈，看过去的理想和目标是否实现，想法有何改变。Gloria小时候理想也是找到真爱结婚，住大房子，生三个孩子和养一只狗；但后来她受过教育后，为了事业曾一度不想结婚，也不想要孩子，到了晚年却因又遇到真爱结婚了。可见，人是会变得，随着自己的境遇和年纪增长，没有什么是一成不变的。

这部拍的绝对比《美国夫人》大快人心，毕竟始终她就是一个正面的人物，有很多激动人心、深受鼓舞的场面，即使她被男性看低或调侃，她的坚韧和犀利也始终让人敬佩。但《美国夫人》则是相对压抑，人们只能一直无法决定如何看待Phyllis Schlafly，对她的言论可能不同意，甚至厌恶，最终又会可怜她，结局让人觉得伤感绝望。但两个女人的故事真的都值得一看，才能更好地了解当时不同女性的处境。

正如RBG，Gloria的事迹可以鼓舞和启发到很多女性，片中也有很多描述女性处境的内容容易获得共鸣。本片圣丹斯电影节首映，目前在Amazon Prime可以看到

虽然片子时间很长，但Glorias的四个年龄阶段的穿插叙事还是很有趣，一辆长途车，一直在路上，就像她的人生，追随他父亲的节奏，一刻也没有停息。四段人生的Glorias同框在黑白画面里，仿佛也是与自我心灵的一段对话。

父亲强调travel is the best education, and the only one. 确实有道理，但母亲为了孩子上所好大学也还是要把房子卖了。旅行负责眼界和性格养成，好学校负责进入圈子和阶级，所以，没钱就别提教育了。幸运的Glorias通过奖学金可以深度走访印度各个偏僻村庄，甚至是在放弃婚礼的前提下，回想爸爸从小带着她到处靠卖古董和赌场旅行，两人在大雨中跳舞，最后父亲还是在电话里支持女儿先去印度再结婚，能做出这个决定其父功不可没，印度的深度游也在青年的Glorias心中埋下了equal right的种子。

后半部分描写Glorias各种维权和创办杂志想对有些重复枯燥，但好在Julianne Moore看着很舒服，从年轻到老，由美丽变得有味道，另一个这样的演员应该是Meryl Streep。

了解了Ms.一词的由来，如果是英文老师以后可以把这个知识点在课堂上稍微延展发挥一下。