摇尾狗

After watching the film wag the dog the first idea that came to my mind is: How can people be fooled that easily?! But after a while a came to an astonishing conclusion which even shocked me, that is: people like being lied to and they only doubt about things they can’t accept.But somehow once they find out they have been lied to they got angry because they feel embarrassed.As they need a weapon or excuse to defence themselves,our protagonist---ethic come on stage.

I think the reason why a song with the lyrics” Just gonna stand there and watch me burn But that's alright because I like the way it hurts Just gonna stand there and hear me cry But that's alright because I love the way you lie”.Can indicate part of what I said is right.. Some may say that is words people only say to the one they truly love. But I think that’s exactly the only reason they don’t use anger to hide their embarrassment.

Just like plumber, people think of ethic only when they are feeling there is something wrong. It seems to me that ethic is just a so subjective word that people can use it in what every ways they want to.The only judge is their own persuasive skills.

Of course we can have certain rules. But who make these rules? ---People.And how people do things?----Acording to their aim. So from my point of view, you can never judge wether a person’s behavior is right or wrong base on the so-called ethic.

People do things to achieve their goals.And where there is a will there always are more than one way.But one thing is inevitable that is, what ever you behave some people will get hurt.And I think the less hurt people get the more right your behavior is.Yes,there are a lot of cases that showing this thought is unfair or totally wrong.But every theory is controversial because again,there is no certain rules.

As for professional,if we could put all the ethics things aside,I think the president’s PR apartment is a really good one.They are aware of the close connect between show business and briliant enough to go to find help from the top Hollywood producer.And if thinking from an open point of view we can find out actually they have matched at least part of every articles in IABC code of ethics for professional communicators.
People tend to turn to experts when they have a problem in a certain area.Thus I’d like to suppose that “professional” is use your knowledge to solve problems in the field your are in.And the more problems you can solve the more professional you are.

Let’s see what problem the president’s PR is facing : To ensure the president can be elected despite of there is a scandal.And here is a definition of PR : the practice of managing communication between an organization and its publics.Public relations provides an organization or individual exposure to their audiences using topics of public interest and news items that provide a third-party endorsement and do not direct payment.It is concerned with relational, which can in principle be private, but also with public consequences of organizational behaviour.
According to the result of the election and the definition of PR I think they really have done a wonderful job.

But in contrast let’s see whether the “top” Hollywood producer is really professional.
The problem he is facing: Creating a event attractive enough to distract people’s attention to the oresident’s scandal.
The definition of Showbiz: The word applies to all aspects of the entertainment industry from the business side (including managers, agents, producers and distributors) to the creative element (including artists, performers, writers, musicians and technicians). It applies to every aspect of entertainment including cinema, television, radio, theater and music.
I think before he decided that he wants the credit for the production he is professional.Because getting himself the credit is not a problem included in this task.Actually I think there is a song which can explain Showbiz better then its definition here is the lyrics:
” The opening when your heart beats like a drum
The closing when the customers won't come
There's no business like show business
Like no business I know
Everything about it is appealing
Everything the traffic will allow
No where could you have that happy feeling
When you aren't stealing that extra bow
There's no people like show people
They smile when they are low
Yesterday they told you you would not go far
That night you opened and there you are
Next day on your dressing room they've hung a star
Let's go on with the show
The cowboys, the wrestlers, the tumblers, the clowns
The roustabouts that move the show at dawn
The music, the spotlights, the people, the towns
Your baggage with the labels pasted on
The sawdust and the horses and the smell
The towel you've taken from the last hotel
There's no business like show business
If you tell me it's so
Traveling through the country is so thrilling
Standing out in front on opening nights
Smiling as you watch the benches filling
And see your billing up there in lights
There's no people like show people
They smile when they are low
Even with a turkey that you know will fold
You may be stranded out in the cold
Still you wouldn't trade it for a sack o' gold
Let's go on with the show Let's go on with the show!
The show! The show!”
What the Hollywood producer is wrong is he have forgot the words” No where could you have that happy feeling When you aren't stealing that extra bow ” He is in Showbiz but he have forgot its definition. So he is not a professional but a victim of his own egotism.

I think the answer to the question” Could it happen in reality?” is “yes”. The Hollywood producer in this film said” Look at it. The whole thing is a fucking fraud, and yet it's 100 percent real!” And Is it true?how the fuck do we know? Nobody knows so a film can be either something people make up or the truth.People are being deceived and information is withheld.But still what matters most is people like being lied to.

And what really matters is “who” is trying to create a better reputation instead of “what” he have done. Everyone have their own duty PR department,showbiz president etc.It is the president that people put expectation on. So PR department can never let the public down.So I think if you are aware what is your duty and what you gonna do is legal and really can solve a problem, it is allowed.

第二次写英文的影评居然是交作业，哎，岁月无常世事难料啊~

人世道理，所谓道可道，非常道，很难说个清楚道个明白看个真切想个彻底，雾里看花水中观月自相矛盾前后抵触皆为常态。比如要不要换工作，你说“滚石不生苔”，我说“树挪死人挪活”。这些陈述貌似矛盾，却在不同的前提下各自成立。诗人惠特曼自我解释：我自我矛盾吗？是的？因为我伟大，我包罗万象。（Do I contradict myself? Yes. I am large. I contain multitudes.)

当年布什和克里辩论前，有人就嘲笑说，布什不需要和克里辩论，从前的克里拉出来和现在的克里，就有得好辩论。

很多道理有两面性，讲起来要想一剑封喉制服敌手，恐不容易，其实连一下子把观众听众吸引住都难，更不用说让他们去理解，消化，分析，评估。人们习惯了让一些所谓博学的pundit来给自己去思考，自己成了十分被动的消费者。这时候你去问大部分选民，奥巴马、麦坎、佩林、拜登的政见是什么？一般老百姓都很难跟你说出个一二三四来。

而一个个故事，一个个噱头，你若是问起来，大家都能说得头头是道，比如奥巴马的牧师如何在讲道中攻击美国911是报应，佩林十八岁女儿未婚先孕，麦坎如何做战俘，水管工Joe要不要加税, 这些故事，这些人物，这些逸闻，这些八卦，打败了“政见”，成为最引人关注，最能左右选情的因素，因为用故事包装起来的道理、信息、暗示，就如同包裹了糖衣的苦药一样，更易服用。

在美国看大选，所谓“选情”，只不过是一个接着一个的选举故事。有时觉得这简直都像是好莱坞包装出来的一样。好莱坞的特点不是说道理，而是讲故事。

有这么一部荒诞影片，叫Wag the dog，说的就是用讲故事的方法脱困，在选举当中起死回生的故事。中文译名似乎错误，叫摇摆狗什么的。Wag the dog, 来自The tail wags the dog这个俗语，意思是手段大过目的，喧宾夺主。

片中的总统选举（election）变成了一个制片（producing）的宏大策划。选举前11天，美国总统访华期间，后院失火，爆出了性丑闻来。为了在短短时间之内转移视线，改变选情，总统幕后高手策划了一场针对阿尔巴尼亚的“战争”，以形成“不可中流换马”（Don’t change horse in mid stream）的局面，好让总统连任。从策略上讲，这是围魏救赵。

为了将事情做实，总统的策划人去找到好莱坞的名制片人。制片人给了他故事，给了他激动人心的画面，给出了一首首人人传唱的歌曲，给出了人人难忘的意象：比如四处挂着的旧鞋(象征有待营救的伪英雄)。为了遮掩一个丑闻，扭转选情，制造一个一个危机和故事。

可是如此捏造，人们怎么就会上当受骗呢？美国人不说人民是创造历史的英雄，而说：People are stupid. 他们对事物真相的反应是：“电视上都这样说了！”（Of course it’s true. It’s on TV!）这还能有假？电视上都说了。一般人不会去政客的黑屋里，看着（甚至策划）黑幕如何铺开，于是也就容易被忽悠。

大部分人接触事物的渠道是传媒，是宣传。他们接受传媒的一切灌输，并不带多少思考。别以为大家都会去思考。要是大家都去思考，怎么各家商店里都会在卖那些显然不管用的保健品？群众雪亮的眼睛盯着电视，作为大后方的脑袋就空虚了，商贾和政客乘虚而入。他们只要去宣传，余下的事情不要动手，这些人会帮着去做，这叫操纵民意。此影片中，一个Redneck模样的选民，还印制了“操他娘的阿尔巴尼亚”文化衫来！在体育场，成千上万的球迷自发地将自己的球鞋扔到体育场，以体现自己的爱国热情。

片中达斯汀•霍夫曼扮演的制作人是个自信乃至于狂妄的家伙，有化腐朽为神奇的特别本领。他最终通过精心虚构，导演了选战的最后一役，扭转了选情。

至此，我们看到的政治，是一场大秀，是包装，是策划，是故事，是一个接着一个绑架观众注意的噱头。政治的实体内容很少，做政治原来是在做舆论，做宣传，做展示。《辛德勒名单》里的犹太经理问辛德勒，他们生产，我帮你管理，你做什么？辛德勒说：Presentation. 也就是做表面文章。

罗伯特•德尼鲁扮演的总统策划人足智多谋，但不显山露水。他很现实，知道自己需要什么，也知道什么样子的人能帮他实现这个目标。他用人，用得淋漓尽致，让人放手去发挥所有才智，只要这一切，都是用于他的目的。影片中从来没有透露他具体的职位，他是幕僚，又是爪牙。他藏在幕后，可是他才是真正的producer, 把个好莱坞的精英团队都玩得团团转，还让他们一个个自我感觉好得不得了。好莱坞的那些人物，就如同风筝一样，飞得再高，时间一到，他说收就收回来。如果你不知道怎么做领导，你看看这片子，学习人家如何收放自如。

如果你不知道如何做下属，你也看看这片子，从反面看看如何进退有度。好莱坞制片已经不辱使命，却不见好就收，非要青史留名，那就成了摇狗的尾巴，本末倒置了，结果狡兔死走狗烹，飞鸟尽良弓折，人死于非命。做人得知道自己所处位置，你给人做事，完事后轻轻地走开，不带走一片云彩，不带进一点麻烦。不然的话，壁虎尚可断尾求生，不要说狗尾。狗尾尾大不掉之时，对方只会挥刀不挥泪。

这是一部看起来轻松幽默的影片，这是一部幽默中又带着些许的政治讽刺的影片。
       影片讲的其实就是总统的特别顾问们鼓捣的一系列猫腻事件。该影片一针见血地揭示了美国政治生活中政客、媒体与好莱坞之间相互利用的丑恶关系，与此同时还对白宫进行了戏剧化的巧妙讽刺。
影片的名字《wagthedog》，尾摇狗。也许你会有这样的疑问，影片为什么会有这样的一个名字呢？影片中有这样的一段话：为什么狗摇尾巴？因为狗比尾巴聪明。如果尾巴更加聪明，他就可以摇狗。
其实，总统就好像是作为纳税人的公民养的一只是狗，而他所依靠的自己背后的公关团队就是自己的尾巴。
       聪明的总统撰稿人在关键的时刻握住了舆论的刀柄，操纵了大众的传播，仅仅与好莱坞制片人制作了一部短短的影片，就扭转了总统的败局。可以说，总统的公关团体为自己在公众面前的作为编写“符号”，如果说是总统的感召力使这群精英聚在一起从而使“符号”成为可能，那么正是他们的智慧使完美的“符号”为总统遮风挡雨。
      舆论是掌握在懂得操纵舆论的人手上的。越是大众的传播，真相就越不重要，因为人们更愿意相信符合自己理解能力的解释。传播学的影子理论这样说：我们看到的不过是事实的影子，这个影子和其产生的物体到底有多大相似，取决于光线。光线掌握在谁手里，舆论就掌握在谁手里。这个理论精辟的揭示了受众、舆论信息、传播者三者之间的辩证关系。
       在本部影片中，真正在舆论海洋的掌舵手是总统撰稿人。在他看来，不管它是无风起浪还是有风起浪，索性就弄个更大的浪来淹没它。就这样总统的丑闻浪潮被战争及其他的大浪所吞没。

       传播的构成要素包括：传播者、传播内容、传播媒介、受众、反馈、传播效果。
       
       在《摇尾狗》中，老谋深算的布里恩、总统助理爱姆斯和大名鼎鼎的好莱坞制片人斯坦利莫斯（包括其团队）是传播者，其中，布里恩惯于操纵政治、新闻和政治理论，由于总统在大选十一天前被绯闻缠身，这很可能使总统的连任计划失败，他便想出一条对策：制造一场世界性的危机，转移公众对性骚扰事件的注意力。而这场世界性的危机就是阿尔巴尼亚战争，即传播内容。传播的媒介在电影中主要表现出的是电视，我认为里面也隐含着报纸、广播、互联网等传播媒介。还有，此次制造的阿尔巴尼亚战争的目的是让美国民众“中途不要换马”，让总统连任，所以受众是美国大选的选民们。在传播学的定义中，反馈指受众接受传播内容后将其接受状况和意见通过某种渠道反映给传播者，从而导致传播者与受众的角色互换和保持传播的持续性。在《摇尾狗》中，反馈是通过民意调查（可能包括问卷调查、电话访问、网络调查等等）。传播的最后一个构成要素是传播效果。影片在接近尾声时告诉我们，总统连任，布里恩及其团队大获全胜，说明布里恩的传播达到了预期的目的，即有了较好的传播效果。
       
       有人说，如果狗比尾巴聪明，那么就是狗摇尾巴，倘若尾巴比狗聪明，那么就是尾巴摇狗了。的确，《摇尾狗》中谁操纵着大众传媒，谁引导着舆论，谁就是最后的胜者。大众传媒不仅在一定程度上左右着人们的视听，也左右着大众的思想。以更大的浪去覆盖绯闻这个小浪，是布里恩的计谋，虚无的阿尔巴尼亚战争被无数媒体竞相报导，这个更大的浪吸引了民众的视线，而得益者是欺骗民众的政客们。
　　　
       布里恩是典型的传播者，他是此次事件的领导人，操纵着媒体和政要发言人，其符合传播者的心理特征自我感觉亢奋，他把自我的意志灌输给受众，强迫受众接受自己单向传播的信息。而且在阿尔巴尼亚战争的传播中，他对民众有轻视和控制心理。
　　　
      “不要中途换马”是传播者利用受众的怀旧心理来引导他们的思想。同样，民众们也具备普通受众们的心理，从众的心理、盲从的心理、好奇的心理、求新的心理和逆反的心理。
　　　
     《摇尾狗》在一定程度上反映着社会的现实。总统的桃色新闻让我们想起了克林顿和莱温斯基，阿尔巴尼亚战争类似于伊拉克战争，媒体的作用如此之大，在影片中很好的展现出来。如今，书籍、杂志、报纸、广播、互联网充斥着我们的生活，各种各样的新闻是真正的事实、是事实的冰山一角还是虚无缥缈的泡沫？答案无从而知。而作为受众的我们需要冷静的面对这些新闻，多方求证，独立思考，形成自己正确的传播视觉。
　　　
　　　

97年的片子，本来是要讽刺克林顿的，但是如果不告诉你时代背景我想你更可能会觉得是讽刺小布什竞选连任的，因为那个时候小布什正好在打伊拉克战争，反恐战争帮他赢得了竞选，这和片中的总统竞选班子请来好莱坞制片人捏造一场反恐战争正好时一致的。

我印象里面每次达斯汀 霍夫曼 (Dustin Hoffman)和 罗伯特.德尼罗飙戏总是达斯汀 霍夫曼胜出。这个片子也是一样。片中Dustin Hoffman饰演一个偏执而非常厉害的好莱坞制片人，而罗伯特.德尼罗演一个老谋胜算的狗头军师。每次他们的阴谋遭到挫折，罗伯特.德尼罗和他的女秘书就在想着退休或者要把房子卖掉（没工作就供不起房子了），而达斯汀 霍夫曼则很执着的力挽狂澜。这份执着或者是偏执最后也让他送了命。

电影里面反应的美国总统竞选非常容易被电视媒体的造势而改变。不过那是97年到了上次小布什竞选连任的时候就不是电视风光而是blog打出风头，N多blog上爆内幕发评论；当每个普通人都可以发表自己的看法的时候，电视媒体就不是那么容易影响大众了。

总之这个片子还是非常搞笑的，全世界被一个制片人欺骗了，还是非常过瘾的。响马大日报：http://niuma.blogspot.com