本书稿把張藝謀在二○○○年代制作的三部大片电影进行分析。 通过 《英雄》，《十面埋伏》, 《滿城盡帶黃金甲》，我分析張藝謀的创作精神, 谋求电影与中国现实的接点、 以男与女, 華与夷的构图分析武俠史剧。中 国历史的力学构图，‘華夷論’的概念，按德勒兹与伽塔里的区分，以華例定 居民, 以夷例遊牧民。如中國史的力學構圖视为華与夷, 即定居与遊牧的对 峙，張藝謀的电影由 《英雄》转移至 《十面埋伏》，是由華至夷, 由定居 民的领域至遊牧民的领域扩展的局面。略而言之，《英雄》由非制度圈至制 度圈领域化，《十面埋伏》由制度圈至脱制度圈解域化，而《滿城盡帶黃金 甲》由脱制度圈至制度圈再领域化。 比《英雄》或《滿城盡帶黃金甲》，《十面埋伏》难免观众的苛评。但 張藝謀的近作中，《十面埋伏》正如原题，处处设下讽喻，可以多边符号学 的解释。由性别角色看此三部电影，在男性为主的《英雄》与《滿城盡帶黃 金甲》中性别角色的分任维持，在《十面埋伏》中性别角色的分任解构。为 此分析，本书稿以‘同姓紐帶慾望’与‘行事性癔病’, ‘愛戀’与‘回避’等的槪念例 此。可见，張藝謀的以前作品针对女性人物在社会的压力，癔病，复仇，虐 變，他的武俠大片 《英雄》, 《十面埋伏》, 《滿城盡帶黃金甲》转移，针对男性。可以说，在性認識方面，《英雄》位于張藝謀的电影世界转移的转 折点。張藝謀武俠大片的观看体验使观众个人刻印作为中華民族的位相，把 大英雄接受为絶對当位， 自己重生的进程。

This paper examines the ways in which Yeats constructs and idealizes his Anglo-Irish Identity. After bitter disputes over Synge's plays he realized the insoluble opposition between the Irish Catholic and the Anglo-Irish, which meant his failure to unify Ireland through his Celtic Romanticism. He needed to make a new poetics to justify his predicament and to form a new identity. He creates, in his essays and poems, the identity and tradition of the Anglo-Irish from Burke through Swift, Goldsmith, Parnell to Synge and Yeats, the intellectuals who tried to enlighten the native Irish people only to fail and be isolated from them. According to Yeats, the reason the Anglo-Irish intellectuals had to meet the same fate in Ireland is due to the ignorance and sectarian hate of native Catholic Irish people. Although the Anglo-Irish always become victims, their defeat is considered by Yeats to be inescapable and even worthier than success in the reality where ignorance prevails. This is the discourse of tragic heroism. Yeats constructed the identity that is based on the dichotomy between the few Anglo-Irish and the Irish people, by which he attributes culture to the one, and nature to the other. Here culture is supposed to be superior to nature and that sense of superiority rests on the ability to culturalize nature. Yeats connected the culture with breeding which means being cultivated by discipline and education. In writing, it was through his poetics of mask, what he called “the sense of style,” that he could overcome his rage and hate to the mass and futhermore transform them to the higher virtues such as reason, manners and beauty. As the poems dealing with the Anglo-Irish big house and the Thoor Ballylee show, in their tradition what they have inherited is a heroic spirit of overcoming and transforming the adversity each generation has faced. Some critics have asserted Yeats shows de-mystifying recognition when he reveals his ancestors' illicit and unjust violence to the native Irish in the past. But we have to note that it finally leads to justifying his Anglo-Irish violence, for he thought it had been transformed by their overcoming spirit and efforts into order and culture whereas the violence of the Irish mass resulted into disorder and chaos. David Lloyd's opinion needs to be reconsidered in this regard. He praised Yeats's de-mystifying insights in some later poems and asserted, borrowing Paul de Man's terms, his writing is allegorical rather than symbolic. But in the poems he cited Yeats seems to be more interested in heroicizing and idealizing his Anglo-Irish identity and tradition. Yeats's Anglo-Irish identity should be understood as an response to the changed reality and is formed by his peculiar writing or representation.