朱迪

古美门律师说“一般成功的童星，有两种种式，一种是像玩偶一般被大人操控，被鞭子追着打的可悲的赚钱机器；另一种就是懂得察言观色，颐指气使的早熟毛孩”。

在最开始的最开始，在朱迪还不是一个非常有名童星的时候，她两个都不是——她显然只是单纯的热爱表演，梦想演出完美的舞台剧。但后来她选择了这条路作为工作。她开始成为同时具备这两个特点的行走的悲剧（可能有点言重，但至少和她最初的期待不一样）。我觉得，当一个人把梦想作为谋生手段时，环境的压力会让这个梦想本身逐渐失去原本的样子，变得面目可憎，甚至可怕。儿时被对发胖的恐惧和睡不着的药支配着唱歌，长大后她也不再唱歌，直到中老年，又一次被养孩子的经费不足支配着唱歌。

她毫无疑问是热爱唱歌的，她也毫无疑问唱的很棒。那为什么面对她热爱的音乐之路、她有那么多焦虑？因为除此之外她无路可走。所以她怕，她怕她以后唱不好歌，那种不安使人窒息。当米奇问她会不会演奏什么乐器时加了一句“还是说你只会唱歌？”朱迪笑了笑点点头。一辈子只做一件事情，如果同时伴有对自己能力的怀疑，那种不安全感就是悬在头上的剑，抚摸喉咙的冰冷的双手。即使是热爱的事业，在几十年挣扎之后也变得残破不堪。

但影片最后，朱迪意识到自己可能再也不会站在舞台上唱歌了。她也许找回了最开始对音乐的热爱，不参杂任何对生活妥协的热爱，尽情演绎，挥洒泪水，最后她唱的那首歌是关于梦想与希望，结局观众一起站起来歌唱也是把整个影片从前面一直丧的基调抬了起来，这么说这片电影还是关于梦想。

There is a point in the movie where Judy asks her fifth and last husband ‘What is that you do, anyway, Mickey?’, criticizing his incompetence in negotiating an unlikely deal that has promised her to be financially-secured in the long run.

My question to the movie is: What is that you do, anyway, JUDY? Initially, I was intrigued to see the life of the famous singer/actress/LGBT icon, but I grew furious as the story develops. It is not about acting. I like Renee and her performance is alright. The others okay. But the writing is so awful. I compare JUDY to CATS because they both have a good cast, but the execution is an epic fail. However, the awards season decides unanimously it is the movie for the Best Actress category, and I am dismayed by this decision. For me, JUDY doesn’t deserve a winner because a good acting cannot make up for the fact that it is a degrading, stereotypical, and lazy portrayal of yet another story of a fallen woman. The celebration of it is, therefore, questionable.

Also, like CATS, JUDY demonstrates that not every story is fit for retelling, especially when you can’t figure out a relevant perspective to introduce this story to the contemporary audience. Let’s find out how the writers decide this story should be told.

In the film, the biggest concern for Judy is she cannot be the custodian for her two young kids. She has to make money, not because she loves performing (or she won’t rejoice after learning Mickey’s plan will free her from her job), but because she needs money to be a good mother. Novel isn’t it? Obviously we cannot get enough stories of women desperate to be a good mother while they, in fact, are ill-equipped.

To achieve this goal, Judy works as a resident singer in London, which is good. But notice how she is unprofessional on many levels: she doesn’t rehearse, she puts her business partners in an awkward situation (not that they are nice people), and she is often late. When she should be aiming at making money so that she may fulfill her motherhood (which, as the film suggests, is the only role that gives her peace and happiness), she does the job poorly. But she still needs money and – oh – here comes the rescuer! A man! To rescue the world-renowned Judy Garland, all you need is a young white man from nowhere. How inspiring is that?! How lovely to see Judy desperate for love and gets it?! (Mind, it’s not love for stage.) How refreshing to see a woman falling for man and blinded by love because 1) she’s desperate for money and he promises to get her money 2) she is appreciated by him (Mind, she doesn’t feel appreciated by the audience).

Like everything in the film, the lovers’ break-up is predicable. But who is it to blame for the failure of the union? ‘You!’ shouted Mickey, throwing a glass away. For a second, I am actually convinced by him. The unprofessionalism by Judy certainly provides excuses for Mickey’s failure to seal the deal.

There is a lot of screen time given to Judy’s unprofessionalism; the question then becomes: is professionalism worthy celebrating? Not necessarily so. The film, with its flashbacks of her early career as a child actress in Hollywood, does show the toxic working environment that leaves a long-standing bad impact on her (anorexia, insomnia etc). But the comment on the dark side of professionalism ends there. Instead of serving as an opportunity to reflect on the exploitative nature of show business, the early trauma functions more as a lead to what the film tries hard to demonstrate: that is, Judy does not love stage; in fact, she hates it. In return, the audience does not love her that much. Yes there are two gay men who are devout followers, but there are also boos and things thrown onto the stage from more than two men. This makes the last sentence the director decides to put on the screen saying Judy is ‘loved by others’ all the more weaker and unpersuasive.

The last subtitles remind people Judy passed away six months after her London shows, amplifying and encapsulating the sad mood of the film. In fact, the film is obsessed with showing how miserable Judy is. As a result, it misses tons of opportunities to look into the why. It stops before delving into the details of how Hollywood abuses young actors (what it shows is really no news); it shows how inconsiderate the media (TV show host) is but it does not push further into the area where things are studied more closely. The host asks Judy questions about her not being with her kids and Judy is vulnerable and tormented, with her PR/assistant staring and doing nothing – it feels like this film was doing nothing: it shows the misery and abuses, but it does not feel the obligation to investigate and to engage. It is as if the film-makers were saying: don’t mind the bullies, let’s only look at the victim. The result is erring, an almost voyeuristic view into others’ vulnerability. It feels more insensitive if the later scenes between Judy and her assistant and the pianist guy are to be considered. The assistant is a flat character and there is no connection between Judy and her. Not even a cake can save the situation. The pianist has every reason to reject a lunch with Judy, yet he chooses to be there graciously. Both the assistant and the pianist are condescending. They are like, I am doing my job; you are not cooperating but we still put you in beautiful dresses and take you to fancy dining hall NOW SAY THANK YOU. The film’s take on show business, therefore, is completely perplexing. Although it has opportunities to raise awareness of how Hollywood destroys a talented girl, it is reluctant to do so. Instead, we see the ‘humane’ side of the staffs, regardless of how empty and incoherent their humanity is. Casting a beloved Michael Gambon as a high-end figure of the theatre certainly does not help.

Judy Garland is regarded as an LGBT icon. Some claim that gay men feel an affinity with her because they see themselves in her struggles. There are also people who claim, as time passes, Judy’s icon status slips. Resilience to fight back, rather than being miserable, becomes the quality that gay people identify with more. My problem with the film’s take on the episode between Judy and her gay fans is that it attaches too much importance to how it is misery that ties them together. With the gay community’s changing perception of how they want to be seen, the film’s highlighting ‘the common ground’ feels anachronistic – it feels like we were given something that is no longer needed in today’s conversation. A historical autobiographical film is historical and autobiographical, but it doesn’t mean that creating ‘the past’ is all that needs to be done. Precision in portraying the past is a myth. Every shot is a commentary. What I read from the film is a message that doesn’t fly anymore: that gay community connects with certain celebrities only because they are all treated unfairly by the society. Needless to say, the unfairness exists, but if you want to revoke Judy’s gay icon status, why not find something enabling, empowering and forward-looking, or you can be more reflective: don’t just present the miseries, take an active instead of passive stand: stare at the bullies and ask why.

But isn’t there anything brave about Judy? That brave qualities that people, gay or straight, find inspiring and endearing? It is scandalous that this film doesn’t present any of these; all it does is to show the fifty shades of miseries of Judy (and gay fans). Is that all they have? If that’s all you can think of saying about them, why do we need a film like this?

Not we don’t love a story that assures us celebrities live a shitty life too, but this one is different. This film is about: a woman, abused by an industry that disrespects and abuses women from a young age, fails at something she is good at, only to be told by the society that she fails because it’s her fault – that she sucks at her job, that she is unprofessional, that she has bad taste in men, that she is not a good mother – oh yeah look how serene and stable life her ex-husband has provided the kids with and how can you not believe this?! When this film is about how a woman fall and it’s her fault; when it revokes the classic narrative where a woman’s destiny is chasing someone to love her (husbands or audience), instead of learning to love herself; when such a portrayal is actually celebrated – the whole thing feels like a mimic of the shitty deeds done to Judy, and it’s bad news.

这是一个关于Judy Garland的传记类电影。Judy，作为LGBTQ的 icon拥有短暂坎坷戏剧化却极其多彩的一生。本片聚焦的是她在人生暮年，最后一次登台演出，一场为期五周，远在异国他乡——英国伦敦的演唱会。她是一个过气的演员，在美国寻遍机会却仍然无法得到大众像当年一样的赏识与认可；她是一个妈妈，为了一双儿女，在各种酒吧摸爬滚打登台献唱，赚尽了最后一分钱却还是无法将孩子留在自己身旁好好照顾；她是一个演员，在孩子们面前装作若无其事，实际内心如千刀万剐；她是一个歌手，在英国剧院舞台上一首接着一首，让观众沉迷，让所有人醉心；她是一个酒鬼，每天表演都会迟到甚至醉到与观众起冲突而罢演；她是一个失眠者，整夜整夜地睡不着只好靠酒精来麻痹自己痛苦又脆弱的神经；她是LGBTQ🏳️‍🌈团体的icon，以一首Somewhere over the rainbow 抚平了多少同志心灵深处的创伤......历史赋予了她多种多样的角色，好的坏的一起咽进肚子里；生活为她涂抹上了很多色彩，不管哪些是她喜欢的，哪些是她不愿意的。殊不知，在她心中，她一直渴望的，或者说她一直就是，《绿野仙踪》里那个无忧无虑天真活泼的桃乐丝。 1939年，Judy迎来了事业巅峰——绿野仙踪里的Dorothy，从此开启了她在好莱坞里自带光环的演员生涯。所有人都看到了Dorothy单纯可爱的百灵鸟的形象，却看不到荧幕背后制作人用药物对这只小百灵鸟的摧残，饿了，两片药片，困了，两片药片，没精神了，再来两片......她已经分不清什么时候是白天什么时候是黑夜了，她所知的只有工作和不工作，拍戏和不拍戏，睡不着和...睡不着。仅仅是为了让她在拍《绿野仙踪》时保持身材，就毁了她的整个身体，她的噩梦也从此开始。Judy这一辈子必须要靠药物才能睡着，可以说除了钱包，药片是她必备的“包里揣”。她放下自己最牵挂的一双儿女只身一人来到伦敦街头，只为能赚够钱做一回自己。她像小女孩一样任性，开心就唱，不开心就酗酒罢演，她爱着那个聚光灯下的舞台，爱着那个清清楚楚地让自己遍体鳞伤的职业，最后一场演出，她眼里满含不舍，对于她割舍不下的观众，对于她满怀歉意的乐团，对于她享尽荣华最后却身败名裂的演艺圈。她想做回一个普通人，过一个平凡的渺小的，不太危险，不太刺激，本本分分的家庭主妇的生活，或者是一个出纳员，一个小学老师，一个农夫的妻子，像其他女孩那样去看电影，像其他女人那样看着自己的皮肤因家务活而粗糙。可她是Judy，是演员，是歌手，是全美国的邻家女孩，她就像美人鱼爱丽儿，为了心之所向放弃鱼尾换来了人类的腿，每一步都像走在刀尖上却仍然向大自然贡献自己美妙的歌喉，向生活歌唱。她也是全世界第一个同志icon，她是这首歌的原唱，这首歌也被认为是彩虹旗🏳️‍🌈的灵感来源，但是大多数LGBTQ的人生都跟她一样并没有《Somewhere over the rainbow》那么美好。 《Judy》献给所有勇于与命运抗争的人，就像她最后说的: "It isn't a song about getting anywhere. It's about walking toward somewhere that you've dreamed of. And maybe,maybe the walk,is every day of your life. And the walking has to be enough. It's about hope. And we all need that." 朱迪·嘉兰，全世界第一个同志icon，她是这首歌的原唱，这首歌也被认为是彩虹旗🏳️‍🌈的灵感来源，但是大多数LGBTQ的人生都跟她一样并没有《Somewhere over the rainbow》那么美好。 The Wizard of Oz： A heart is not judged by how much you love; but by how much you are loved by others. 君心澄澈不以君爱多少而判， 但以他人爱君之广深而断。

故事开始于20世纪30年代的好莱坞，14岁的朱迪因为其甜美的嗓音而被经纪人梅耶看中，就此走上了星途，但此时的朱迪并不知道的是，等待着她的，除了功成名就所带来的的名声和财富之外，更多的是痛苦。 时间来到几十年后，已经40岁的朱迪同丈夫西德尼离了婚，独自抚养两个孩子罗和乔伊，经济状况十分的糟糕。无奈之下，朱迪做了一个决定，那就是将两个孩子留给前夫，自己前往英国继续打拼事业，可是此时的朱迪的健康情况已经非常的糟糕了，更糟的是，她早已经失去了粉丝们的信任。

电影开始的时候，MCM老板说你难道想成为千千万万那些普通城镇里的普通妇女吗？她们有人比你长的更好，身材更好。但是你有她们没有的，你可以有百万钞票，Judy说她不知道，我接话说Voice。哈哈哈。不知喜悲。

Judy 晚年没有公开的录音说，where is my money？她应该是非常富有。但实际上她常常无家可归（她的经理人被告上法庭）。她是老板赚钱的工具。没有童年，没有自己的时间。不能吃汉堡和蛋糕🍰。睡不着她们就给她安眠药，需要清醒给她另一种药。第一次结婚怀孕了，公司说不行，就被她妈妈陪着去打胎。她女儿接受采访时说她12岁就知道她妈妈病的很重。说不像现在，经过研究和宣传，大家对这些药的副作用非常了解。

我觉得这部BBC的电影非常不错。那是JUDY 人生中最后的一段时光。积习难返，她继续依耐药物和想利用她的男人在一起。好像除了唱歌什么都不会。助理穿着薄衣的时候，她穿貂皮觉得冷。在那个冰冷的世界唱着自己的歌，舍不得那个舞台。我觉得RENEE把握的很好。她的走台，表演都非常传神。唱的那部分不好评论。一个传奇的谢幕，还算很棒。

如果不是因为这部《朱迪》，我几乎都快忘记Renée Zellweger到底有多好了。

当然这句话并不是真的，如果让我评选心中最精彩十个的cinematic moments，其中一个肯定是《BJ单身日记》的结尾，Zellweger踩着Ain't No Mountain High Enough副歌的鼓点，穿着内衣在大雪中奔向科林叔的场景。

2001年，《BJ单身日记》横空出世，这部改编自《傲慢与偏见》现代畅销书版的英式喜剧，为Zellweger挣得了职业生涯中的第一个奥斯卡提名。

在那之前，她最有名的作品是和阿汤哥合作的《甜心先生》。在男人喜剧中担任女配，我们都知道这类角色留给女演员发挥的空间多么有限。

而在《BJ单身日记》中，她终于有机会大显身手。她塑造的大龄单身女青年Bridget Jones虽然丧但是善良，虽然酗酒但是有责任心，虽然无法控制体重但是却能以一片真心感动达西先生。并且，来自德州的Zellweger奉上了近二十年内美国演员能达到的最完美的英国口音之一。

紧接着的第二年，她又带着《芝加哥》席卷归来。

这部曾经被认为是《红磨坊》跟风制作的电影，却成为近些年来最为经典的音乐剧改编歌舞片。导演Rob Marshall是百老汇出身的导演，《芝加哥》在原音乐剧的基础上，对编舞进行了符合歌舞片特色的影视化改编，尤其是开场的All That Jazz一鸣惊人。在《芝加哥》获得奥斯卡奖的十年后，2013年的奥斯卡舞台上，Catherine Zeta-Jones被邀请重新演绎了一次电影中的开场舞。

在《芝加哥》中，Zellweger一改《BJ单身日记》中那个胖胖的善良女孩形象，减肥化身成为想要出名却一事无成的女演员，Roxie和Nowadays两首歌再次惊艳全场，也为她带来了第二次奥斯卡提名。

《芝加哥》在当年奥斯卡所向披靡，获得了十三项提名，并最终拿到了最佳影片的桂冠。至于Zellweger，很可惜的是，她当年的对手是百年一遇的《时时刻刻》中的Nicole Kidman，因此也与影后的宝座失之交臂。

虽然如此，但是两次奥斯卡最佳女主角奖的提名足以让她成为好莱坞最炽手可热的明星。

2003年，《冷山》。她与去年的对手Kidman搭配Jude Law，上演了一出荡气回肠的美国南北战争爱情史诗。当年这个组合有多火，或许可以贴上我看过最棒的《冷山》的短评：

“那一年妮可基德曼拿完奥斯卡正直颜值巅峰风头一时无两，那一年瑞妮齐薇格是最卖座的女演员演女配角拿和女主角一样的片酬，那一年裘德洛刷屏好莱坞奥斯卡颁奖礼都要揶揄他两句。后来，这些风光都散了。

终于，那年的学院没再让Zellweger失望，给了她一尊最佳女配角奖。奥斯卡一直有个说法，叫补偿颁奖。有人说02年Kidman拿的奖是补偿她01年没拿到的《红磨坊》的那尊，11年Colin Firth拿的是他10年《单身男子》没拿成的，12年Meryl Streep拿的是06年《穿普拉达的女魔头》没拿成的。如果这个说法是真的，那《冷山》这一尊应该是学院一次性奖励她连续三年出色表演的奖。

除了事业上的成功之外，Zellweger还是传说中的男神收割机，维基上有一个她前男友的列表，乔治·克鲁尼、布拉德利·库珀、金·凯瑞都在榜上。

然而，正如短评所说，那些风光后来都散了。当年奥斯卡还没有那个“保障演员五年饭碗”的说法，而是让人事业与爱情走下坡路的奥斯卡魔咒。04年的《BJ单身日记：理性边缘》，05年的《铁拳男人》和07年的《波特小姐》虽然口碑都不错，但是已经比不上当年风光无限的气势。

2013年的奥斯卡，Zellweger和《芝加哥》剧组的几位演员重聚登台，为当年的最佳原创配乐和最佳原创歌曲颁奖。多年未见的Zellweger让我几乎已经认不出来了，可她的声音仍然很动听，带着BJ那标志性抿着嘴才能发出来的音色。

2016年，《BJ单身日记3》终于来了。戏内，BJ需要面对高龄产妇这个身份所带来的挑战；戏外，Zellweger也失去了BJ最标志性的圆脸。

我记得这部电影上映的时候，我去电影院看了两遍。我一直很喜欢《BJ单身日记》系列，它们陪我走过了高三压力最大的时候，因此能在电影院再看一次Zellweger和科林叔总是很开心。

我能感觉到，Zellweger多少有寄希望于这部电影来为自己打一个漂亮的翻身仗，但事与愿违，无论是Zellweger本人还是曾为她打下天下的英式喜剧，都已经不再享受聚光灯下的掌声了。

2019年，Zellweger出演了《朱迪》。

和所有讨巧的传记片一样，《朱迪》没有费力地去展现朱迪·加兰的完整人生，而是选取了她生命中最后的一次演出，伦敦演唱会期间发生的事情。开头是年轻的朱迪在片场的风光无限，镜头一转就是中年的加兰为了一百五十块的演唱费唱歌，在被酒店拒绝入住后投靠到前夫门下安顿两个孩子。那一年，朱迪四十七岁了，而现实中的Zellweger也已经五十了。电影给了朱迪很多的面部特写，而Zellweger有一双令人无法抗拒的眼睛，这也是为什么她在胖瘦之间摇摆那么多次却仍然能捕获人心的原因。

同样地，大量的特写也在时刻告诉观众，告诉我——她的粉丝，她已经老了，我想起她曾经在科林费斯和休格兰特之间摇摆可爱，想起她在漂亮的镜子布景中摇曳生姿妩媚动人，想起她在美国南部的山村里为Kidman守夜时的坚毅果敢。

当朱迪最后一次拿起麦克风，唱起Over the Rainbow这个代表作的时候，那一瞬间，她不再是朱迪，而是Zellweger本人，或者说此时的Zellweger和加兰合为一体，回望过去，他们都曾有过如此辉煌的过往，放眼当下，周围又是如此地寂寥。当她唱到中间语塞的时候，台下的观众为她合唱唱完整首曲子，银幕外的我也想告诉她，我们仍然记得那句经典的“Titspevert”，那条丑到极点的老奶奶收腹裤和那本惹事的日记，我们也想为她唱一次Ain't No Mountain High Enough，让她能够再一次跑过下着雪的伦敦街道，朝着更好的未来奔去。

最后，加兰插着腰，泪光闪闪地对台下的观众说：“你们不会忘记我的，对吗？”

那就让我再对你说一次：“我们从未忘记你，Renée Zellweger。”

恭喜Zellweger拿下金球，离奥奖更进一步了，分享一下她在金球奖领奖台上的一句感人至深的话：

“...the top doesn’t matter. It is the journey that matters and the work that matters.”

美国太平洋时间 2020年2月9日晚，杜比剧场，Renée Zellweger在凭借《冷山》拿到最佳女配角奖的十六年后，凭借《朱迪》获得了第92届奥斯卡最佳女主角奖。