{{B}}Sectence TranslationDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear 5 sentences in English. You will hear the sentences ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each sentence, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]

As a thriving midwestern city, Chicago is still the beating heart of much of America's industry. But its arteries—both road and rail—are increasingly clogged. A report released earlier this month by Illinois's auditor, William Holland, highlighted some chronic glitches in the network of buses and commuter trains. The region also needs a better approach to highways and rail freight. It is hard, of course, to co-ordinate commuter transport between an urban system and one that serves surrounding counties with a different tax base. Chicago's Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), which covers the six counties of the metropolitan area, is supposed to promote better planning and links among the city's system and a pair of others that run suburban train and bus networks. But it has clearly come up short so far. The RTA, Mr. Holland's audit concluded, needs to wield a firmer hand, over budgets and in general. No matter how the RTA allocates the pie, however, the current pot of money seems woefully inadequate. Operating costs have grown three times as fast as revenues over the past five years. Last month the RTA released a five-year "strategic plan" (otherwise known as a request for money) that called for, among other things, an extra $400 million in annual operating funds and $10 billion in capital spending over the next five years. That will be a tough sell in the state legislature. Freight traffic is arguably an even bigger problem. In this, Chicago is unique. Six of the country's seven biggest-earning railways converge there, and the city is still the hub for a staggering amount of trans-continental commerce. Managing logistics and supply chains for distant companies, as well as physically moving goods around at warehouses and inter-modal hubs, generates lots of jobs for the area. Chicago's ability to handle all this traffic is being badly stretched, however. Ann Drake, the head of DSC Logistics, says that west-east freight traffic continues to grow rapidly, as ever more goods from Asia try to make their way to the east coast. Ms. Drake's worry—and that of many others—is that Chicago's congestion will eventually cause many shipments to be rerouted around it, a process that could eat away its advantages. "We do not want to become another St. Louis," she says, gloomily invoking the city that lost its midwestern primacy to Chicago after failing to invest in infrastructure. Helpfully, many business and civic leaders are moving transport problems up their list of priorities. The Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC), which presses for a co-ordinated policy for the region's big issues, has done a good job of channeling their frustrations into useful ideas. But there is something odd about the way that many of Chicago's leaders talk about these problems. They invariably try to link their suggestions to grand or abstract ideas, such as being a "global city" or winning a bid to host the Olympics. The simpler need is to get goods and people moving. The awful state of Chicago's transport comes home most plainly to drivers sitting stationary in their cars. The public debate over making drivers pay to use the roads has been as shallow in Chicago as in the rest of America. The argument tends to revolve around whether it makes more sense to use tolls and private enterprise to pay for better roads, or instead to keep charging taxpayers for a system that just limps along. By contrast, not much is said about the role that prices might play in altering the behaviour of both companies and commuters. MarySue Barrett, president of the MPC, says that her outfit hopes to make road pricing a bigger part of that debate. Hostility towards road pricing might be understandable in other parts of America. But one of Chicago's proudest feats was the creation of financial futures markets, which prompted far-flung firms and farmers to adjust their behaviour to the slightest twitch in the price of pork futures or Canadian dollars. Surely the system would work for Chicago commuters as well.

In Britain's overheated property market, the only things hotter than the prices of the houses for sale are the firms that build them. On March 26th Taylor Woodrow and George Wimpey agreed upon a ￡5 billion ($9.8 billion) merger to create the country's largest housebuilder. The financial logic of the deal seems hard to fault. Last year the two firms built about 22,000 homes in Britain, a tenth of all completions. Together they will be able to trim costs by more than ￡70 million a year and they will be in a stronger position in America, where they have operations in Florida, California, Arizona and Texas. The merger may be the biggest of its kind but it is not the first, as a wave of consolidation sweeps through the industry. Of the country's ten biggest builders in 2002, only six remain. The rest have been taken over by the three largest firms. Four years ago the top three firms controlled about 20% of the market; now they have around 30%. The upheaval is transforming an industry that Kate Barker, a member of the Bank of England's monetary-policy committee, heavily criticised in 2004. Ms. Barker was investigating why the supply of new houses had responded so sluggishly to the house-price boom, with completions actually falling to a low of about 175,000 in 2001, although they have since staged a recovery. One reason she highlighted was a fragmented and inefficient industry, whose firms competed not for customers by offering better homes or building them more cheaply but for that scarce British commodity, land with permission to develop. Local firms dominated their regions because they often stood a better chance of gaming the planning system than their national rivals. Quality often suffered because demand was so great that builders could sell all but the shoddiest of homes. Two things have since changed. First, publicly quoted builders now look vulnerable to takeovers from rivals or private-equity firms because rising house prices have pushed up the value of their land faster than their share prices. This is partly because they value land on their books at its historic purchase price, rather than its current price. So it has often been cheaper to get land by pouncing on a rival than by buying it on the open market, says Kate Moy, an analyst at Teather & Greenwood, a stockbroker. The second change is that Britain may soon weaken longstanding rules that have preserved "green belts" around towns and cities. Another report by the energetic Ms Barker, released in December, argued that farms and parks will have to be concreted over to provide living space for an extra 209,000 new households each year over the next two decades. One consequence is that firms may soon be able to buy land in suburb-sized chunks. The potential change has sparked a flurry of interest in land adjoining towns and cities that may be reclassified. That seems to be shifting the balance of power from local builders to large firms with enough capital to buy rights to huge tracts of land. A sign of the shift, says Peter Damesick, head of research at CB Richard Ellis, is that even institutional investors with little previous experience are now getting into the game of speculating on town-edge land. With interest in land running high the merger between George Wimpey and Taylor Woodrow is unlikely to be the last, if indeed it proceeds. Other builders and private-equity firms are running their slide-rules over the two companies, whose shares have gained on optimism that a counterbid may emerge. And several smaller housebuilders are also expected to fall to bids soon. Given the industry's generally shoddy customer service, few of them will be missed.

Good morning. The discussion topic for today's seminar is "Homelessness in America. " In the United States, homelessness has【C1】______during the last decade. Estimates of the number of Americans currently without 【C2】______vary wildly. Advocacy groups like the National Coalition for the Homeless say that 【C3】______Americans live on the streets or in emergency and temporary shelters. The US Department concerned puts the figure at【C4】______. Yet both bureaucrats and advocates agree on one point, that is, the face of homelessness【C5】______in the past 10 years, as more and more low-income housing is mowed down【C6】______. Some 20 years ago, the typical "street person" was a white male who suffered from a mental illness or【C7】______. Today's homeless, however, are a more eclectic group. 【C8】______of the homeless today are Black, mostly【C9】______. More than half of them have never been homeless before. In many cases, they have been evicted from their homes, or the【C10】______in which they lived was demolished or burned down. About 60 percent of all homeless people live on【C11】______with an average monthly income of 450 dollars. About 20 percent are mentally ill. All sorts of people have been pushed out of【C12】______because of the critical shortage of affordable places to live. As a result, homelessness has climbed to the top of the【C13】______of social concerns. But there is a great gap between concern and active involvement【C14】______this growing problem. For many people, the inaction is【C15】______, not indifference. The fact is that there are many ways in which individuals can【C16】______. Yet for those people【C17】______, one of the first steps is to get to know the homeless and understand how they【C18】______. Many advocates believe that it is important for【C19】______to get to know and reach out to the homeless and【C20】______.

{{B}}Part B Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in Chinese. After you have heard each passage, interpret it into English. Start interpreting at the signal.., and stop it at the signal…you may take notes while you're listening. Remember you will hear the passages ONLY ONCE.Now, let us begin Part B with the first passage.{{/B}}

{{B}}Part B Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in Chinese. After you have heard each passage, interpret it into English. Start interpreting at the signal.., and stop it at the signal…you may take notes while you're listening. Remember you will hear the passages ONLY ONCE.Now, let us begin Part B with the first passage.{{/B}}

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]

Now the levee breach has been fixed. The people have been evacuated. Army Corps of Engineers magicians will pump the city dry, and the slow (but quicker than we think) job of rebuilding will begin. Then there will create a wall of illusion thicker than the new levees. The job of turning this national disaster into sound-bite-size commercials with somber string music will be left to TV. The story will be sanitized as America's politicians congratulate themselves on a job well done. Americans of all stripes will demonstrate saintly concern for one another. It's what's done in a crisis. This tragedy, however, should make America take an account of itself. It should not allow the mythic significance of this moment to pass without proper consideration. Let the size of this cataclysm be assessed in cultural terms, not in dollars and cents of politics. Americans are far less successful at doing that, having never understood how the country's core beliefs are manifest in culture—and how culture should guide political and economic realities. That's the city of New Orleans can now teach the nation again as all are forced by circumstance to literally come closer to one another. I say teach again, because New Orleans is a true American melting pot: the soul of America. A place freer than the rest of country, where elegance met an indefinable wildness to encourage the flowering of creative intelligence. Whites, Creoles and Negroes were strained, steamed and stewed in a thick, sticky, below-sea-level bowl of musky gumbo. These people produced an original cuisine, an original architecture, vibrant communal ceremonies and an original art form: jazz. Their music explored irrepressibly from the forced integration of these castes to sweep the world as the definitive American art form. New Orleans, the Crescent City, the Big Easy—home of Mardi Gras, the second-line parade, the po' boy sandwich, the shotgun house—is so many people's favorite city. But not favorite enough to embrace the integrate superiority of its culture as a national objective. Not favorite enough to digest the gift of supersized soul internationally embodied by the great Louis Armstrong. Over time, New Orleans became known as America's national center for frat-party-type decadence and (yeah, boy) great food. The genuine greatness of Armstrong is reduced to his good nature; his artistic triumphs are unknown to all but a handful. So it's time to consider, as this great American city is rebuilt, exactly what this bayou metropolis symbolizes for the US. New Orleans has a habit of tweaking the national consciousness at pivotal times. The last foreign invasion on US, soil was repelled in the Crescent City in 1815. The Union had an important early victory over the South with the capture of the Big Easy in 1862. Homer Plessy, a black New Orleanian, fought for racial equality in 1896, although it took our Supreme Court 58 years to agree with him and, with Brown v. Board of Education, to declare segregation unequal. Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference was formally organized in Orleans in 1957. The problem is that all Americans have a tendency to rise in that moment of need, but when that moment passes, fall back again. The images of a ruined city make it clear that the US needs to rebuild New Orleans. The images of people stranded, in shock, indicate that it needs to rebuild a community. The images of all sorts of Americans aiding these victims speak of the size of people's hearts. But this time what's needed is to look a little deeper. The US should use the resurrection of the city to reacquaint its citizens with the gift of New Orleans: a multicultural community invigorated by the arts. Forget about tolerance. What about embracing? This tragedy implores all to re-examine the soul of America. Its democracy, from the very beginning, has been challenged by the shackles of slavery. The parade of black folks across TV screens asking, as if ghosts, "Have you seen my father, mother, sister, brother?" reconnects to the still unfulfilled goals of the Reconstruction era. Americans always back away from fixing the nation's racial problems. Not fixing the city's levees before Katrina struck will now cost untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost so much more.

They're smug, egotistical, and already think they run the country (if not the world). So what's the rest of the nation to do now that three of them are mentioned as White House hopefuls, ready to swap Penn Station for Pennsylvania Avenue? Cringe? Clap? Or just consider somebody else? "That's pretty sick," said Norm Whipple, 59, of Los Angeles, offering a wry grin about the presidential prospects of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, Republican Rudy Giuliani and unaffiliated New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "Someone has to keep an eye on those New Yorkers." The specter of an all-New York November 2008 was raised when Bloomberg, a titular Republican since his 2001 mayoral run, announced last week that he was quitting the GOP to become an independent. His predecessor, Giuliani, is running for the Republican nomination for president, while second-term New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is among the Democratic hopefuls. While New Yorkers are all too aware of the differences between the Big Apple's big three, folks beyond the Hudson River were not as certain. "I think basically they are the same candidate," said Bob House, a Republican from Des Moines, Iowa. "We all love New York. But when our options are New York, New York, New York, I think people want to see a different life experience." Angeles Perry, 65, feeding the slot machines in Las Vegas, saw more similarities than differences among the New York triumvirate. "They have the money," said the retiree from California's Silicon Valley. "And they all have big egos." She's right. Billionaire Bloomberg spent more than $155 million for his two mayoral campaigns, and reports indicated he could drop $500 million on a presidential campaign despite his repeated and coy refusals to announce a candidacy. Giuliani and Clinton have millions of dollars on hand. None shrinks from the national spotlight, although it's shone a little brighter on some than others. "I know nothing about Bloomberg," said Belinda Abelar, 51, a nurse from Los Angeles. "Can you tell me something?" Although the nation's most populous city is regarded by many—including its residents—as the nation's financial, fashion and cultural capital, it has rarely served as a catapult to the White House. Mayor John V. Lindsay's Democratic presidential bid in 1972 was the most recent failure. Statewide office offered little promise, either: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected in 1932, was the last governor elected president. Oft-mentioned Mario Cuomo, a Democrat, never mounted a campaign, and talk about his GOP successor, George Pataki, making the move was just talk. Attorney Felix Lasarte, 36, brought his 9-year-old daughter to see Giuliani speak last week in Hialeah, Fla. He was not bothered by the concept of three New Yorkers vying for the presidency; he even thought their Empire State pedigree was a plus. "Coming from a big city, it really helps the candidate to address the issues that are really relevant to the country," Lasarte said. "Certainly on issues of safety and terrorists, it helps if you're from New York." As some people noted, two of the three are not New Yorkers anyway: Giuliani was born in Brooklyn, but Clinton hails from Illinois and Bloomberg still bears a trace of his Boston accent. "They just happen to be living in the New York area," said Marvin Hall, 57, of Chicago. Hall said he is more concerned with the abilities than their addresses, although a fellow Windy City resident wondered if too many candidates from adjoining zip codes was a good idea. "It doesn't give me heartburn, or cause concern, but you know what?" said Mary Tripoli, a Chicago court clerk. "I don't think it's a great idea. For one thing, it's not really representative of the nation."

The word for The Da Vinci Code is a rare invertible palindrome. Rotated 180 degrees on a horizontal axis so that it is upside down, it denotes the maternal essence that is sometimes linked to the sport of soccer. Read right side up, it concisely conveys the kind of extreme enthusiasm with which this riddle-filled, code-breaking, exhilaratingly brainy thriller can be recommended. That word is wow. The author is Dan Brown (a name you will want to remember). In this gleefully erudite suspense novel, Mr. Brown takes the format he has been developing through three earlier novels and fine-tunes it to blockbuster perfection. Not since the advent of Harry Potter has an author so flagrantly delighted in leading readers on a breathless chase and coaxing them through hoops. Consider the new book's prologue, set in the Grand Gallery of the Louvre. (This is the kind of book that notices that this one gallery's length is three times that of the Washington Monument.) It embroils a Caravaggio, an albino monk and a curator in a fight to the death. That's a scene leaving little doubt that the author knows how to pique interest, as the curator, Jacques Sauniere, fights for his life. Desperately seizing the painting in order to activate the museum's alarm system, Sauniere succeeds in buying some time. And he uses these stolen moments, which are his last, to take off his clothes, draw a circle and arrange himself like the figure in Leonardo's most famous drawing, "The Vitruvian Man." And to leave behind an anagram and Fibonacci's famous numerical series as clues. Whatever this is about, it is enough to summon Langdon, who by now, he blushes to recall, has been described in an adoring magazine article as Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed. Langdon's latest manuscript, which "proposed some very unconventional interpretations of established religious iconography which would certainly be controversial," is definitely germane. Also soon on the scene is the cryptologist Sophie Neveu, a chip off the author's earlier prototypes: "Unlike the cookie-cutter blondes that adorned Harvard dorm room walls, this woman was healthy with an unembellished beauty and genuineness that radiated a striking personal confidence." Even if he had not contrived this entire story as a hunt for the Lost Sacred Feminine essence, women in particular would love Mr. Brown. The book moves at a breakneck pace, with the author seeming thoroughly to enjoy his contrivances. Virtually every chapter ends with a cliffhanger: not easy, considering the amount of plain old talking that gets done. And Sophie and Langdon are sent on the run, the better to churn up a thriller atmosphere. To their credit, they evade their pursuers as ingeniously as they do most everything else. When being followed via a global positioning system, for instance, it is smart to send the sensor flying out a 40-foot window and lead pursuers to think you have done the same. Somehow the book manages to reconcile such derring-do with remarks like, "And did you know that if you divide the number of female bees by the number of male bees in any beehive in the world, you always get the same number?" The Da Vinci Code is breezy enough even to make fun of its characters' own cleverness. At one point Langdon is asked by his host whether he has hidden a sought-after treasure carefully enough. "Actually," Langdon says, unable to hide his grin, "that depends on how often you dust under your couch."

How is it that the louder the calls for "civility," the less civil the behavior? On American campuses today, the call for civility has become the cry of the craven. So basic, so decent, so safe does civility sound that it's hard to imagine anyone's opposing it. Until, that is, the uncivilized rise up, at which point—from the University of Missouri to Claremont McKenna and Yale—those in charge either acknowledge their guilt or hurl themselves onto the funeral pyre of resignation prepared for them. As Hillary Clinton alluded to in Saturday night's Democratic debate, for some Americans the latest student unrest awakens fond memories of the 1960s. In truth those were far more tumultuous times, with the frenzies of the sexual revolution, the civil-rights movement and the Vietnam War all converging on our campuses at about the same time. The more dispiriting comparison with the 1960s, alas, has less to do with the self-indulgence of the young than the learned fecklessness of the older and presumably wiser. Across the country the coddled activists with iPhones have rendered college presidents, chancellors and deans unable or unwilling to challenge the moral superiority of the mob. A pity, because even the 1960s gave us examples worth emulating. Start with 1968 at San Francisco State College. In the teeth of raging protests that had already claimed the scalps of his two immediate predecessors, a linguistics professor, S. I. Hayakawa, became acting president—and a national hero when he climbed atop a sound truck and ripped out wires to the speakers protesters were using to shout him down. Or John Silber. When activists in 1972 tried to block students from meeting with Marine recruiters, the Boston University president showed up with a bullhorn to direct those interfering with their fellow students' right to interview where they should line up to be arrested. Perhaps most successful was the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame. Though by this time a dove on Vietnam, he believed the universities played an important role in training the nation' s military officers. At one point he prevented protesters from burning down the school' s ROTC building. In November 1968, protesters staged a lie-in aimed at blocking other students from job interviews with Dow Chemical and the CIA. Father Hesburgh was appalled by the idea of forcing a fellow student to walk across your body because you disagree with him. Scarcely three months later, he would issue a letter to the entire campus community—a letter reprinted in this paper and The New York Times. The Hesburgh letter recognized "the validity of protest" but made clear that any group that "substituted force for rational persuasion, be it violent or nonviolent," would be given 15 minutes to meditate. Students who persisted would have their IDs confiscated and be "suspended from this community." Father Hesburgh went on: "There seems to be a current myth that university members are not responsible to the law, and that somehow the law is the enemy, particularly those whom society has constituted to uphold and enforce the law. I would like to insist here that all of us are responsible to the duly constituted laws of this University community and to all of the laws of the land. There is no other guarantee of civilization versus the jungle or mob rule, here or elsewhere. " The Times called his letter " the toughest policy on student disruptions yet by any major American university in the course of recent disorders. " An editorial in this paper further noted Father Hesburgh's warning that if the universities didn't get their act together, they would invite "unwholesome reactions" from others including government. History has by and large vindicated Father Hesburgh. At the time, it was a different story. A Wall Street Journal news story reported a " majority" of university administrators rejecting Father Hesburgh' s stand and predicting(incorrectly)it would prove a "prescription for disaster. " "Confrontation," read the Journal news story, "is what administrators fervently seek to avoid. " Then as now, what those avoiding confrontation did not understand is that civility and free expression do not occur in a state of nature: They require ground rules that must be enforced. So where are we today? At Yale, students provoked by a faculty member insufficiently sensitive to potentially offensive Halloween costumes have called for the head of said teacher along with a list of other demands for more diversity, apologies and self-criticism from the top. On cue, Yale President Peter Salovey calls for civility and has repeated Yale' s commitment to free expression. But at a moment when people thirst for a university president who will back up his words, Mr. Salovey, like so many others, apologizes. "We have failed you," he told protestors. Indeed they have failed. Just not in the way they imagine.

{{B}}Part B Listening and TranslationTask 1 Sentence TranslationDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear 5 English sentences. You will hear the sentences ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each sentence, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}

[此试题无题干]

ABN Amro is not the only big, floundering bank under fire. Across the Atlantic, disgruntled investors continue to call for a shake-up—or even a break-up—of Citigroup, the world's biggest bank. Its share price has languished for the past five years and shareholders are restless. On February 25th it said it had hired Gary Crittenden, the well-regarded chief financial officer of American Express, to fill the same role at Citi. The person he replaces, Sallie Krawcheck, was a former research analyst with surprisingly little experience in the "financial" bits of a chief financial officer's job. You might think shareholders would be pleased. In fact, the shares drooped. This was partly because of the news, disclosed late on February 23rd, that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was investigating the way Citi handled the taxes that arose from its acquisition in 2000 of Associates First Capital, a consumer-finance firm. But investors were also dismayed by the broader implications of Mr. Crittenden's solid, but uninspiring, appointment. Chuck Prince, Citi's boss, is staying put. And so is his strategy. Mr. Prince's predecessor, Sandy Weill, oversaw years of hard-charging growth. But Citi now seems to have lost its way. It has trailed behind rivals that dedicate themselves either to investment banking or to retail, but not to both. Its costs have ballooned. Critics snipe that, having seen a lot of its managers leave, Citi's top brass lacks experience. Mr. Prince is doing his best to answer them. Installing Mr. Crittenden adds depth to Citi's executive suite, and he is busy working on a cost-cutting initiative, to be unveiled this spring. But complaints linger about Mr. Prince's strategy and how soon it will pay off. The chief executive has set out to transform Citi from a bank that knew how to grow only through acquisitions to one that grows "organically". This is something his predecessor never accomplished, perhaps because he doubted it could be done. "Sandy Weill had little faith that he could grow Citi internally," explains Dick Bove of Punk Ziegel, an investment bank, "so he consistently ripped capital out of Citi to buy growth elsewhere." As long as the buying binge went on, this worked handsomely. But managing the bits and pieces he acquired became increasingly difficult, A series of regulatory snafus prompted Mr. Weill to bring in Mr. Prince, a lawyer by background, to tidy up. Last month Mr. Prince ditched the name "Citigroup" for the punchier "Citi", and decided to fold the firm's famous red umbrella once and for all. Mr. Prince wants to make Citi one cohesive company, rather than a jumbled group amassed under a single canopy. Rebranding a company may be easy; restructuring one is not. "Old" Citi's shadow is proving hard to escape. It is not just the SEC's probe into Associates, which was described in Mr. Weill's autobiography as one of the worst purchases of his career. Rocketing expenses, Mr. Prince's biggest problem, have their origin in a failure to invest in the technology and infrastructure needed to fuse Citi into a coherent whole. Mr. Prince is also intent on investing in Citi's international presence, which should be its greatest strength. He aims to increase international revenues to 60% of the total, from around 45% today, through internal growth and small acquisitions. The latest effort is in Japan. Citi is reportedly trying to boost its small holding in Nikko Cordial, Japan's third-biggest broking firm, which is reeling from an accounting scandal. This would give Citi a stake in Nikko's branch network and well run asset-management business. Old Citi was forced to close its private-banking operations in Japan in 2004, after serious breaches of anti-money-laundering rules. Controlling Nikko might mark a new start for a new Citi.

{{B}}SECTION 5 READING TESTDirections: Read the following passages and then answer IN COMPLETE SENTENCES the questions which follow each passage. Use only information from the passage you have just read and write your answer in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}

京剧中的“生、旦、净、丑”其实不过是角色分类。“生”是男性正面角色，“旦”是女性正面角色，“净”是性格鲜明的男性配角，“丑”是幽默滑稽或反面角色。每种角色又有表明身份的脸谱、扮相等，只要演员一上场，你一望便知。 在人的脸上涂上某种颜色以象征这个人的性格和品质、角色和命运，是京剧的一大特点，也是理解剧情的关键。简单地讲，红脸含有褒义，代表忠勇；黑脸为中性，代表猛智；蓝脸和绿脸也为中性，代表草莽英雄；黄脸和白脸含贬义，代表凶诈；金脸和银脸代表神秘、神妖。