昨天晚上终于把血色浪漫看完了，有点小感想。 前两天说了，我最讨厌写观后感，因为很多感想都是感性的，模糊的，真要一条条清清楚楚的列出来，还得好好想一想。 我懒得费这个劲。 所以在这里我就当个小蜻蜓，点着水面，随便胡说几句。 一般来说，我是不太喜欢看这类电视电影的。有那功夫还不如看周星星，忙碌一天之后开怀大笑，不用费脑筋去想东想西，心情也不会无端的沉重。 但这部电视剧真的很不错。 情节紧凑，自然，流畅，台词精采。原著我没看过，但一定写得很好。演员的表演也很出色。某些同学的偶像刘烨演得不错，不过我觉得他更适合演农村青年。 昨天晚上看到倒数第二集的时候，李奎勇得了晚期肺癌，命不久矣，钟跃民去看他，两个人坐在桌边说话，我觉得那场戏特别的精采。 一个普通的胡同老百姓，用普通的老百姓语言，淡淡的几句话，就勾画出来了他的普通的一生，他的家庭，他的经历，他的爱情，他跟钟跃民的友谊，等等。特感人。 当然，这部电视剧并不是完美无缺的。 我不喜欢对宁伟的处理。一个生死与共的朋友兄弟，阴差阳错成了黑道上的杀手（杀的都是黑道上的坏人），换了我，我至少会睁一只眼闭一只眼让他亡命天涯，而张海样和钟跃民却一付正义凛然的面孔，非要置别人于死地不可。气愤。
血色浪漫观后感
Tegg 发表评论于
他的眼睛瞪著，嘴巴张著，翅膀张开。这是我们想像中的历史天使。他的脸朝向过去，我们看到一连串的事件，他看到的却是一件大灾难，不断将残骸堆积到残骸上，并且通过堆到他的脚跟前。天使想留下，唤起死者，让残破的东西回复原状。然而一阵暴风自天堂吹来，他的翅膀感到巨大的暴力，天使再也合不上双翅。这场风暴不断将他推向他背后的未来，而他的前方成堆的瓦砾残骸则堆得如天高。
华特．班哲明，现代的记录者，要求历史放进现在时，必须要能救赎过去。他描绘的历史天使被吹向未来的残骸时，脸是朝向过去的，这个形象有也可以用在纪录片工作者身上，他们只能在历史上的此刻拍片，即使拍的是历史事迹也是如此。纪录片通常是一种建构－是为不同观众所做的另一时空的重现，利用电影影像和录制的声音为现在描绘历史。
一九四五年，联军军队进入Bergen-Belsen和Dachau的集中营时，摄影师拍下了令人悚然的景观。有些片段后来被英国宣传部剪接起来，变成一部惊人的电影，《集中营的记忆》（Memory of the Camps），或者更长的版本，《痛苦的提醒》（A Painful Reminder）。由于这些影像太悲惨，这部影片始终没有发行，而原先它是预备用来放映给德国人看，做为反纳粹宣传的。影片中万人冢被挖开，里面填满尸骨，这类令人困扰的画面被认为对英国政府在战后全力促成的新成立的联盟而言太过刺激，影片于是被放进帝国战争博物馆，一直到八零年代中期，才被另一个世代的电影工作者发现，并且终于搬上银幕，做为一部有关该片拍摄过程的纪录片的片段，也成为《前线》（Frontline）中的历史，由崔沃．霍华（Trevor Howard）担任主述。
这些影片原打算给那些坚决不肯「知道任何事」的德国人看，因此有意诱使一般人产生自责情绪。这些影像是那么可怕，如曳引机推著残破的尸骨等等，因而特别令人难忘，几近于一首挽歌。宣传部部长席尼．伯恩斯坦（Sidney Bernstein）不知如何将此素材转变成一部电影－纪录胶卷可不同于纪录像片－他向叙事电影、惊悚、恐怖片大师希区考克（Alfred Hitchcock）讨教，请他提供一个建构这部电影的方法，结果产生了一个定景镜头∶金发儿童在半隐于森林里的巴伐利亚田野屋舍中戏耍，摄影机从树丛中横摇而过，拍到倒钩铁丝和成堆的人骨。这个希区考克式的开场有可能引发官方的电检，横摇镜头建立的叙事－在德国人身体里跳动的黑暗之心－比集中营影片更清楚有力，而后者已有破坏战后联盟的潜力。
这部纪录片的重点乃是一部记忆的电影，摄影机的任务是记录一件历史的错乱。拍摄一件基本上转眼即逝的事件，一个消失中的习俗，一只快绝种的生物，纪录像像背后的动机多半是因为它稍纵即逝。纪录片为不断变动的真实世界提供一种稳定性，将影像冻结在景框内，供作稍后的教育用途。《痛苦的提醒》及其诞生的历史正是环绕本章的三大纪录片主题的缩影∶历史、纪录片与电影。该片显示影像本身如同玛莎．罗丝勒（Martha Rosler）对摄影的意见，是“愚笨的”；其意义建构在我们透过科技－诸如声音、蒙太奇等等－所给予的解读，藉此传达上下文脉络、叙事和主观性。3剪接蒙太奇表现的农场和集中营影像交错的状况，依华特．班哲明的说法，各个影像都是等同于一个“标题”。
What is the history of this film?
This documentary on the liberation of the German concentration camps in 1945 was assembled in London that year, but never shown until FRONTLINE first broadcast it -- 40 years later -- in May of 1985. Five of the film's six reels had survived in a 55-minute fine-cut print without titles or credits. (The quality of the print reflects the fact that the negative was lost and it was made from a nitrate positive cutting copy, the equivalent of a work-print today.)
In 1952 the five reels, together with an undated, unsigned typed narration which closely matched the edited film, were transferred from the British War Office film vaults to London's Imperial War Museum. The Museum gave the film the title "Memory of the Camps."
At the time the film was transferred to the Museum, a shot list, dated May 7, 1946, suggested that the missing sixth reel comprised Russian film of the liberation of Auschwitz and Maidanek. But this reel had been left in Moscow in the hands of the Russian cameramen who shot it.
"F3080" was the name given to a project to compile a documentary film on German atrocities. The project originated in February 1945 in the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force). It was there that Sidney Bernstein, chief of PWD's Film Section, began preparations for producing a film using material shot by the service and newsreel cameramen accompanying the British, American, and Russian armies.
As the Allied forces advanced in the final weeks leading up to the German surrender, cameramen of the British Army Film Unit and of the American Army Pictorial Service began to make a systematic record of the newly liberated concentration camps. By early May 1945, the British Ministry of Information and the American Office of War Information began collaborating on the collation and rough-cutting of the film material.
+ Why was it made?
It was made to document unflinchingly the conditions of the death camps and show this to the German population. It was proposed that the filmmakers make three separate versions, one for showing to Germans in Germany, the second to German prisoners of war, and the third to "audiences, perhaps specialised, in neutral, liberated and allied territories."
As defined by Bernstein, the object was to shake and humiliate the Germans and prove to them beyond any possible challenge that these German crimes against humanity were committed and that the German people -- and not just the Nazis and SS -- bore responsibility.
+ Why was the film never released?
An incomplete file in the British Public Record Office chronicles delays and difficulties in the film project from February to July 1945. Progress was held up by the Army Pictorial Service's slowness in providing the British with duplicates of American material, by bottlenecks in the London film laboratories, and by the search for an editing machine.
By June 1945, impatience grew between the British and American partners. London still had not appointed a director, producer or writer and the Americans suggested that Billy Wilder complete the film in Munich. The project was also slowed down by the British determination to build a quasi-legal case proving German guilt and authenticating the evidence beyond any possibility of future denial.
Finally, on July 9, 1945, the Americans withdrew from the film. This came just a few days before the dissolution of the Psychological Warfare Division and SHAEF. The project now was the responsibility of the British Ministry of Information which quickly assembled a production team.
Although there was a flurry of activity in July, the film was still unfinished in September of 1945. By then, the new post-war climate interfered with the film's completion and release.
The British military command who screened the film-in-progress felt the need for a more congenial approach to improving Anglo-German relations. Their local military authorities in the liberated territories were arguing that the priority was to rally Germans out of their apathy. A film that would instill a collective guilt on the German population would only increase the chaos and demoralization.
Another factor should be noted regarding the shelving of the film: there already were Allied films on German atrocities. The Americans had Billy Wilder direct their concentration camp film "Die Todesmuhlen" which was released in the American zone in January 1946. And, a large amount of the material used in the Wilder two-reeler as well as in "Memory of the Camps" had already been exhibited to German audiences in the joint Anglo-American newsreel "Welt im Film" No. 5 released on June 15, 1945.
+ Why was there no mention of Germany's policy to eliminate Europe's Jewish population?
The film was assembled in London within a few months after the Allied liberation and thus reflects what the filmmakers knew at the time. They had not yet grasped the full scale of Hitler's Final Solution for Europe's Jews.
Another factor in this omission was the tactics of propaganda. A principle of war propaganda was to make its target identify with the victims. Thus, the film's aim was to universalize Hitler's victims; they would be defined by their humanity and innocence, and not by race or religion. The film's narration mentions men, women and children "from every European nationality."
A revealing 1941 British Ministry of Information guideline advised war propagandists that to make the Nazi evil credible, they must deal with "the treatment of indisputably innocent people, not with violent political opponents and not with Jews."
+ What was Alfred Hitchcock's role?
Sidney Bernstein, the film's director, persuaded his friend Alfred Hitchcock to leave Hollywood and come to England to collaborate for several weeks in the making of the film. Hitchcock arrived in late June, after the Belsen material (the first three reels of the film) had been assembled. He left in late July, two months before work on the film appears to have stopped. According to Bernstein, Hitchcock would not take a fee for his work.
Hitchcock is credited as "treatment advisor." He acted as a consultant in organizing the footage, along with writers Colin Wills and Richard Crossman (both of the London News Chronicle) and editors Peter Tanner and Stewart MacAllister.
In an interview before he died, Lord Sidney Bernstein explained that Hitchcock's contribution was to help shape the way the material was presented. "He took a circle round each concentration camp as it were on a map, different villages, different places and the numbers of people -- so they must have known about it...Otherwise you could show a concentration camp, as you see them now, and it could be anywhere, miles away from humanity. He brought that into the film."
Another known contribution was Hitchcock's including the wide establishing shots which support the documentary feel of the film and showed that the events seen could not have been staged. According to Peter Tanner, one of the film's editors, Hitchcock's concern was that "we should try to prevent people thinking that any of this was faked...so Hitch was very careful to try to get material which could not possibly be seen to be faked in any way."
+ What did FRONTLINE do with the film?
FRONTLINE acquired "F3080" in 1985 and commissioned the late actor Trevor Howard to record the original typed narration script.
FRONTLINE broadcast the film just as it was found in the Museum's archives, unedited, with the missing sound tracks, and with the title given to it by the Imperial War Museum: "Memory of the Camps."
The first broadcast was on May 7, 1985 to mark the 40th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps.
Bibliography:
"The Fate of F3080" by Elizabeth Sussex, "Sight and Sound," British Film Institute, April 1984. (This is a well-researched article on the film's history and the contributions of all involved. The author drew on her access to Lord Sidney Bernstein's files. Quotes in this web site summary are from her article.)
"Films for liberated territories. Investigation of War Atrocities. Factual Film Report on German Concentration Camps." File INF 1/636 (F3080) in Public Record Office.
"Todesmuhlen" Brewster S. Chamberlin in Vierteljahrsheft fur Zeitgeschichte, pp 420-436, Heft 3, 1981.
"Portrait of an Invisible Man. The Working Life of Stewart McAllister, Film Editor" Dai Vaughan, British Film Institute, 1983.
"Der Fruhling war es wert. Erinnerungen" Hanus Burger, C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1977.
华特．班哲明，现代的记录者，要求历史放进现在时，必须要能救赎过去。他描绘的历史天使被吹向未来的残骸时，脸是朝向过去的，这个形象有也可以用在纪录片工作者身上，他们只能在历史上的此刻拍片，即使拍的是历史事迹也是如此。纪录片通常是一种建构－是为不同观众所做的另一时空的重现，利用电影影像和录制的声音为现在描绘历史。
一九四五年，联军军队进入Bergen-Belsen和Dachau的集中营时，摄影师拍下了令人悚然的景观。有些片段后来被英国宣传部剪接起来，变成一部惊人的电影，《集中营的记忆》（Memory of the Camps），或者更长的版本，《痛苦的提醒》（A Painful Reminder）。由于这些影像太悲惨，这部影片始终没有发行，而原先它是预备用来放映给德国人看，做为反纳粹宣传的。影片中万人冢被挖开，里面填满尸骨，这类令人困扰的画面被认为对英国政府在战后全力促成的新成立的联盟而言太过刺激，影片于是被放进帝国战争博物馆，一直到八零年代中期，才被另一个世代的电影工作者发现，并且终于搬上银幕，做为一部有关该片拍摄过程的纪录片的片段，也成为《前线》（Frontline）中的历史，由崔沃．霍华（Trevor Howard）担任主述。
这些影片原打算给那些坚决不肯「知道任何事」的德国人看，因此有意诱使一般人产生自责情绪。这些影像是那么可怕，如曳引机推著残破的尸骨等等，因而特别令人难忘，几近于一首挽歌。宣传部部长席尼．伯恩斯坦（Sidney Bernstein）不知如何将此素材转变成一部电影－纪录胶卷可不同于纪录像片－他向叙事电影、惊悚、恐怖片大师希区考克（Alfred Hitchcock）讨教，请他提供一个建构这部电影的方法，结果产生了一个定景镜头∶金发儿童在半隐于森林里的巴伐利亚田野屋舍中戏耍，摄影机从树丛中横摇而过，拍到倒钩铁丝和成堆的人骨。这个希区考克式的开场有可能引发官方的电检，横摇镜头建立的叙事－在德国人身体里跳动的黑暗之心－比集中营影片更清楚有力，而后者已有破坏战后联盟的潜力。
这部纪录片的重点乃是一部记忆的电影，摄影机的任务是记录一件历史的错乱。拍摄一件基本上转眼即逝的事件，一个消失中的习俗，一只快绝种的生物，纪录像像背后的动机多半是因为它稍纵即逝。纪录片为不断变动的真实世界提供一种稳定性，将影像冻结在景框内，供作稍后的教育用途。《痛苦的提醒》及其诞生的历史正是环绕本章的三大纪录片主题的缩影∶历史、纪录片与电影。该片显示影像本身如同玛莎．罗丝勒（Martha Rosler）对摄影的意见，是“愚笨的”；其意义建构在我们透过科技－诸如声音、蒙太奇等等－所给予的解读，藉此传达上下文脉络、叙事和主观性。3剪接蒙太奇表现的农场和集中营影像交错的状况，依华特．班哲明的说法，各个影像都是等同于一个“标题”。
What is the history of this film?
This documentary on the liberation of the German concentration camps in 1945 was assembled in London that year, but never shown until FRONTLINE first broadcast it -- 40 years later -- in May of 1985. Five of the film's six reels had survived in a 55-minute fine-cut print without titles or credits. (The quality of the print reflects the fact that the negative was lost and it was made from a nitrate positive cutting copy, the equivalent of a work-print today.)
In 1952 the five reels, together with an undated, unsigned typed narration which closely matched the edited film, were transferred from the British War Office film vaults to London's Imperial War Museum. The Museum gave the film the title "Memory of the Camps."
At the time the film was transferred to the Museum, a shot list, dated May 7, 1946, suggested that the missing sixth reel comprised Russian film of the liberation of Auschwitz and Maidanek. But this reel had been left in Moscow in the hands of the Russian cameramen who shot it.
"F3080" was the name given to a project to compile a documentary film on German atrocities. The project originated in February 1945 in the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force). It was there that Sidney Bernstein, chief of PWD's Film Section, began preparations for producing a film using material shot by the service and newsreel cameramen accompanying the British, American, and Russian armies.
As the Allied forces advanced in the final weeks leading up to the German surrender, cameramen of the British Army Film Unit and of the American Army Pictorial Service began to make a systematic record of the newly liberated concentration camps. By early May 1945, the British Ministry of Information and the American Office of War Information began collaborating on the collation and rough-cutting of the film material.
+ Why was it made?
It was made to document unflinchingly the conditions of the death camps and show this to the German population. It was proposed that the filmmakers make three separate versions, one for showing to Germans in Germany, the second to German prisoners of war, and the third to "audiences, perhaps specialised, in neutral, liberated and allied territories."
As defined by Bernstein, the object was to shake and humiliate the Germans and prove to them beyond any possible challenge that these German crimes against humanity were committed and that the German people -- and not just the Nazis and SS -- bore responsibility.
+ Why was the film never released?
An incomplete file in the British Public Record Office chronicles delays and difficulties in the film project from February to July 1945. Progress was held up by the Army Pictorial Service's slowness in providing the British with duplicates of American material, by bottlenecks in the London film laboratories, and by the search for an editing machine.
By June 1945, impatience grew between the British and American partners. London still had not appointed a director, producer or writer and the Americans suggested that Billy Wilder complete the film in Munich. The project was also slowed down by the British determination to build a quasi-legal case proving German guilt and authenticating the evidence beyond any possibility of future denial.
Finally, on July 9, 1945, the Americans withdrew from the film. This came just a few days before the dissolution of the Psychological Warfare Division and SHAEF. The project now was the responsibility of the British Ministry of Information which quickly assembled a production team.
Although there was a flurry of activity in July, the film was still unfinished in September of 1945. By then, the new post-war climate interfered with the film's completion and release.
The British military command who screened the film-in-progress felt the need for a more congenial approach to improving Anglo-German relations. Their local military authorities in the liberated territories were arguing that the priority was to rally Germans out of their apathy. A film that would instill a collective guilt on the German population would only increase the chaos and demoralization.
Another factor should be noted regarding the shelving of the film: there already were Allied films on German atrocities. The Americans had Billy Wilder direct their concentration camp film "Die Todesmuhlen" which was released in the American zone in January 1946. And, a large amount of the material used in the Wilder two-reeler as well as in "Memory of the Camps" had already been exhibited to German audiences in the joint Anglo-American newsreel "Welt im Film" No. 5 released on June 15, 1945.
+ Why was there no mention of Germany's policy to eliminate Europe's Jewish population?
The film was assembled in London within a few months after the Allied liberation and thus reflects what the filmmakers knew at the time. They had not yet grasped the full scale of Hitler's Final Solution for Europe's Jews.
Another factor in this omission was the tactics of propaganda. A principle of war propaganda was to make its target identify with the victims. Thus, the film's aim was to universalize Hitler's victims; they would be defined by their humanity and innocence, and not by race or religion. The film's narration mentions men, women and children "from every European nationality."
A revealing 1941 British Ministry of Information guideline advised war propagandists that to make the Nazi evil credible, they must deal with "the treatment of indisputably innocent people, not with violent political opponents and not with Jews."
+ What was Alfred Hitchcock's role?
Sidney Bernstein, the film's director, persuaded his friend Alfred Hitchcock to leave Hollywood and come to England to collaborate for several weeks in the making of the film. Hitchcock arrived in late June, after the Belsen material (the first three reels of the film) had been assembled. He left in late July, two months before work on the film appears to have stopped. According to Bernstein, Hitchcock would not take a fee for his work.
Hitchcock is credited as "treatment advisor." He acted as a consultant in organizing the footage, along with writers Colin Wills and Richard Crossman (both of the London News Chronicle) and editors Peter Tanner and Stewart MacAllister.
In an interview before he died, Lord Sidney Bernstein explained that Hitchcock's contribution was to help shape the way the material was presented. "He took a circle round each concentration camp as it were on a map, different villages, different places and the numbers of people -- so they must have known about it...Otherwise you could show a concentration camp, as you see them now, and it could be anywhere, miles away from humanity. He brought that into the film."
Another known contribution was Hitchcock's including the wide establishing shots which support the documentary feel of the film and showed that the events seen could not have been staged. According to Peter Tanner, one of the film's editors, Hitchcock's concern was that "we should try to prevent people thinking that any of this was faked...so Hitch was very careful to try to get material which could not possibly be seen to be faked in any way."
+ What did FRONTLINE do with the film?
FRONTLINE acquired "F3080" in 1985 and commissioned the late actor Trevor Howard to record the original typed narration script.
FRONTLINE broadcast the film just as it was found in the Museum's archives, unedited, with the missing sound tracks, and with the title given to it by the Imperial War Museum: "Memory of the Camps."
The first broadcast was on May 7, 1985 to mark the 40th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps.
Bibliography:
"The Fate of F3080" by Elizabeth Sussex, "Sight and Sound," British Film Institute, April 1984. (This is a well-researched article on the film's history and the contributions of all involved. The author drew on her access to Lord Sidney Bernstein's files. Quotes in this web site summary are from her article.)
"Films for liberated territories. Investigation of War Atrocities. Factual Film Report on German Concentration Camps." File INF 1/636 (F3080) in Public Record Office.
"Todesmuhlen" Brewster S. Chamberlin in Vierteljahrsheft fur Zeitgeschichte, pp 420-436, Heft 3, 1981.
"Portrait of an Invisible Man. The Working Life of Stewart McAllister, Film Editor" Dai Vaughan, British Film Institute, 1983.
"Der Fruhling war es wert. Erinnerungen" Hanus Burger, C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1977.
茶叶蛋 发表评论于
Memory of the Camps
flyingbird68 发表评论于
飞鸟来和一下稀泥吧，血色浪漫咱还没浪漫过，对老汉的评论就没啥发言权，但觉得在海外能看到咱中文的电视剧，都好看，都好看！
至于周星驰，飞鸟年青是很不感冒，最近倒是看出点味道来了。
还有亲爱的小听，昨晚你给飞鸟扣的漂亮帽子太沉啦，压的脖子好疼啊，嘿嘿。心大令，你的好文笔，千万不要戒网啊！！！
至于周星驰，飞鸟年青是很不感冒，最近倒是看出点味道来了。
还有亲爱的小听，昨晚你给飞鸟扣的漂亮帽子太沉啦，压的脖子好疼啊，嘿嘿。心大令，你的好文笔，千万不要戒网啊！！！
春天里的老汉 发表评论于
怀疑吧怀疑吧，我已经被怀疑惯了，我可以安慰自己，我不俗啊。嘿嘿
笑语轻声 发表评论于
LOL....我们同怀疑....
唯一2005 发表评论于
小汉，偶现在开始怀疑你的电影艺术欣赏能力。。。。。。
春天里的老汉 发表评论于
不罗嗦啊，也没占一集，中间穿插了很多其他的事。
我觉得是点睛之笔。呵呵。
我觉得是点睛之笔。呵呵。
唯一2005 发表评论于
小汉，偶觉得李亏用那段太罗嗦，占了一集。
而，那个宁为的故事应该拍成另一个电视剧。偶同意你，偶会放朋友一马的
而，那个宁为的故事应该拍成另一个电视剧。偶同意你，偶会放朋友一马的
春天里的老汉 发表评论于
通知：当天在灌水库在楼上。
春天里的老汉 发表评论于
血色浪漫不错，大胆的看吧，趁还没坐月子。呵呵。
冬青 发表评论于
嘿嘿，那个坐月子的有功夫看电视？俺知道自己开始看就停不住了，所以通常不敢看连续剧。
春天里的老汉 发表评论于
小冬，什么叫坐家？坐月子？呵呵
春天里的老汉 发表评论于
又来气我老人家了，以后，不喜欢周星星一律要被窝棚人民专政。嘿嘿
嗝常委，不好意思，我就是太懒了，懒得写什么梗概，所以我点的水都是给看过电视的人看的。呵呵
嗝常委，不好意思，我就是太懒了，懒得写什么梗概，所以我点的水都是给看过电视的人看的。呵呵
冬青 发表评论于
俺看过的连续剧只有流星花园。当时俺是坐家
笑语轻声 发表评论于
心,我们在下面水库.我也巨不喜欢周星星,又不帅又不好玩......
嗝儿嗝儿 发表评论于
小蜻蜓啊，你要点水也得先说说在哪条河不是，连情节梗概都没有，是抒情还是破案，看得偶一头雾水。
呵呵，跟你捣乱来着，偶有10几年没看连续剧了。
呵呵，跟你捣乱来着，偶有10几年没看连续剧了。
心星 发表评论于
haha ,diyi!!!!
心星 发表评论于
我也不喜欢周星星!不知道为什么,大概和老汉喜欢的原因差不多!
不是刚写的,昨晚写的.早上起来说话不利索!我是夜猫子.
不是刚写的,昨晚写的.早上起来说话不利索!我是夜猫子.
登录后才可评论.
WENXUECITY.COM does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by other users.
Copyright ©1998-2024 wenxuecity.com All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Terms of Use & User Privacy Protection Policy
