论文部分内容阅读
商子雍同志: 与你素不相识,今天冒昧借篇幅于《电影评介》,是因为这样一件事——摆在我面前的是二本电影杂志:《电影评介》一九八二年第一期和《银幕与观众》第二期,在相隔千里,而又几乎同时出版的这二本期刊中,都刊有你批评某些影片细节不真实的大作:前者题:“不合‘时’的旱烟袋和闪光灯”,后者题:“旱烟袋与闪光灯”。拜读后,发现两文竟然如此一致(只在后一篇头尾二小段有几个字的删节),其原因我想是不言而喻了。
Comrade Yong comrades with you: today you take the liberty of borrowing space in the “Film Review” because of such a thing - in front of me is the two film magazine: “Film Review” in 1982 In the first issue and the second issue of “The Screen and the Audience,” in the two journals which are thousands of miles away and are published almost simultaneously, you have criticized your criticism of the unrealistic masterpiece of certain film details: The former title: The Pilgrim and Flash “, the latter title:” Pilgrim and flash. " After reading, I found that the two articles are so consistent (only a few short paragraphs after the headline delete a few words), the reason I think it goes without saying.