收播新闻

刚看完的时候觉得本片在叙事上有些非类型化。但是仔细思考后感觉这一观点有些站不住脚。它的非类型化更多是源自类型的混乱，起码在本片中，我们能够看到三种类型间的混搭，首先是神经喜剧，这也是女主角主要的角色设定；其次是爱情类型；最后是职场戏。

一般来说，两种类型的混搭足够支撑一部完整的影片，最常见的就属于某类型混搭爱情戏份，从而在一部电影里构AB两条叙事线。当然也存在其他类型间的混搭，比较成功的有《异形》，科幻和恐怖相结合。在这些电影里，如果有爱情线的话，爱情线必须让位于主类型，从而对观众的观影期待不构成任何威胁。这方面做得非常好的是《星球大战》，《星球大战》主类型显然是西部片和科幻片，但电影又存在一定的爱情因素，可这一因素从来不是观众观看电影的理由，没有人抱以爱情片的念头走进电影院。

但《收播新闻》在类型上存在较多问题。说实话，我刚开始以为本片类似于《电视台风云》。确实，在本片开头的很长一时间里，创作者老老实实的将叙事焦点集中在电视台职场展示。但在一个小时之后，叙事重心突然转移到人物间的情感关系，并牢牢占据了后半段的叙事主体。这就造成电影存在非常明显的失衡感，无论是职场和爱情之间都给人一种意犹未尽（贬义）的感受。

主类型是神经喜剧，但兼具职场和爱情的电影也并非没有。达斯汀·霍夫曼的《窈窕淑男》就是这样一部电影，但它显然在类型上更清晰。没有观众认为《窈窕淑男》是一部关于表演的电影，但表演又的确在本片中占据非常大的空间。之所以没像《收播新闻》那样造成误解，原因在于《窈窕淑男》开场没多久，观众就被明确告知，电视片场只作为爱情推进的叙事空间来展示，而不承担类型叙事的目的。正是这种清晰的边界划分，让《窈窕淑男》能将电影的叙事焦点集中于最主要的部分。

同样，讲述职场野心和道德间关系的电影也很多，而且它们中很大一部分都涉及到爱情戏份。《华尔街》是其中翘楚，前两年的《爆裂鼓手》也属于该类型，更早年的《彗星美人》也是该类作品的典范，它们无一例外都涉及了个体在职业成功和道德间的艰难抉择。不管是《华尔街》里的幡然悔悟，还是《爆裂鼓手》里的彻底背叛，它们都是同一种故事类型。但在《收播新闻》里，这种职场类型即便曾处于叙事焦点，也很快让位于其他焦点。

我并非说《收播新闻》不是一部好电影。从神经喜剧的角度来说，它不弱于《西雅图夜未眠》、《当哈利遇上哈莉》这类经典影片，甚至我认为它在一定上还启发了《美国丽人》的角色塑造。但这些都不能遮掩本片的缺陷。导演拥有野心不是坏事，但也并不总会是好事。有时候收敛下自己的表达欲望，反倒可能是不错的尝试。

第7届#法罗岛电影节#无人知晓单元第2个放映日为大家带来《收播新闻》，下面为大家带来前线电台记者们纠缠不清的评价了！

Leah：

注水的新闻，纠葛的三角。

Harper Yug：

影片最大的弊端莫过于中间部分的过于冗长和无趣。

汤达人：

有一个让人惊喜的开头和一个不落俗套的结尾，可惜中间冗长乏味。

我们敏熙：

角色的状态都挺自由，但同时影片结构又十分散漫凌乱。最后不过是道不同不相为谋，没有绝对的对错。

果树：

关于奋斗、成功学遇上真正的良心、道德、生命价值的追问的命题，其实是部好电影，尤其是结尾，女主翻过这一篇那种拨云见日的感觉。但前段和中段拖沓了，看得兴味索然。

Charmbracelet：

Tom和Jane分手是必然的，从小时候那次Obsessive就能看出她的原则，2011加的结尾我不是很满意。全片的意图性有些明显和单调，但演员的情感传递都在线，不过有几次Jane的哭让我实在get不到点。

我略知她一二：

霍莉·亨特就像是水做的一样，从头哭到尾，她水汪汪的大眼睛无时无刻都在告诉我这个横扫影评人和拿下柏林影后的表演实至名归，可是虽然真的演的很好可是难免让人感到疲累，但我也不得不承认她非常具有感染力。 如果说艾伦是可爱的愣头青，那么汤姆就是性感的万人迷。可以说威廉·赫特出神入化的演技让这个没那么完美的人物变得如此惹人爱而不舍得去责备他。有趣的坏男人和固执的好男人你会选择哪一个？不知道她会不会后悔放弃那个当年媚眼如丝而今事业有成的大坏蛋，至少我会后悔。

#FIFF7#DAY2的无人知晓场刊评分稍后会在广播中为大家释出，请大家拭目以待了。

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).