男主角受到好友的邀请到法国巴黎这个浪漫之都去做脱口秀节目,他好激动啊,浪漫之都哦,约炮天堂啊。在他开秀之前,他要去领略下法国酒吧文化,可是都不得要领。在那,他遇见了女主角,而他赢得了吃鸡翅比赛,女主角便跟他一夜情了,然后约定不见面、不联系、不纠缠的三不政策。可是后来,偶然机会下,他们又见面了,于是于是就发展为同居关系了。其实,他们不是爱情故事,是性欲故事,就是所谓的炮友关系。然而......他们是大家都爱对方但没说出口呢,还是真的是只是炮友呢?谁知道呢!
戈达尔哲学 估计有不少人会对戈达尔剧中的哲学部分望而却步,但是电影并不是无聊的,只是观影体验比较差,至少第一遍时是这样。如果说昆汀的话唠像睡前的催眠音乐一样自然,那么戈达尔的哲学就像睡前播英语听力一样折磨。戈达尔和特吕弗都是我比较喜欢的导演,穷苦出身的特吕弗会很贴近现实,或者说直接取材于现实,而影片也是为观众服务的,特吕弗会将将一个哲学命题讲得浅显易懂。而富家子弟的戈达尔明显拍摄的花样更丰富,哲学讨论也更开放,这种开放和它主题并不明晰有关。特吕弗的生活气息,戈达尔对生活深层次思考,都令人着迷。 Porthors的悲剧 剧中讲了一个Porthors的悲剧,他在前20年的生活中都没有思考,在他引爆地窖的炸药时,却开始思考认识如何走路的,以致于他不会走路了而被炸毁的地窖砸死了。我想起另外一个也比较贴合的故事,民国一个作家写的,忘记是谁了。一个酒店的老板卖的黄酒都是兑过水的,然后一个工人时每次发钱都会来喝一碗,过年的时候酒店老板良心发现没有兑水,结果工人喝完一碗酒回家时直接闷在路上然后被车轧死了。而《随心所欲》也差不多讲了一个类似的悲剧,娜娜从售货员变成了妓女,在她遇到爱的人生活将要重回正轨的时候,她被杀了。有时候做了正确的决定,想要重回正确的道路时,因为命运还有走的路太弯了,反而起了反作用,这就是Porthors式的悲剧吧 存在主义妓女 “我举手,我有责任;我转头我有责任;我不高兴,我有责任;我抽烟,我有责任;我闭上眼睛,我有责任; 即使我忘了我有责任,可我仍有责任。”这全然是存在主义的主张,而当时正是萨特的思想最火热的时候,不怎么思考的娜娜也受了这样的风潮的影响,存在主义其实是一种生活方式,一种人生观,它并不解释世界是什么样,只指导你应当如何选择自己的人生。而信奉存在主义的人,必然是一个独一无二的人,而这也与娜娜与男友的争执相符,娜娜想被认为是与众不同的,而男友说他认为每个人都是一样的。不过与众不同的人确实是令人着迷的。 语言 “突然间我不知道要说些什么;我常常出现这种状况:我知道我想说什么了,我在想那是不是我所想的,但就当要说的时候,我就说不出来了。”这种痛苦不就是《挪威的森林》里直子的痛苦吗,像是隔着柱子追逐合适的语言。“话说的越多,话意味着越少”,这用后面的话解释,我们的表达是不准确的,并不能完全传递真实,而话语中的错误和说谎还是不一样的,而话说的越多,错误的累积甚至已经超过最初的一句话,所以说“话说的越多,话意味着越少。”而解决的办法则是借黑格尔和康德的话“让我们回归生命的本质,让我们明白只有认清了错误才可获知真相。” 其实我觉得语言是在进化中的,从最初的手势等肢体语言,再到后面的口语,再到后面的文字,语言在表达中的准确性是逐步提高的。而进化中也意味着还有再进化的可能,而进化的动力源于需求,就现在而言或许还没有特别大的需求,即使男女之间,团体之间常常因为语言传递带来的偏差而产生误会,但是还没有到达阻碍生产力发展的地步。不过我想在人们可以通过脑电波提取脑中语言的技术成熟之后,或许就能催生出新的需要更准确的形式。
“我想,我们总是要为我们的所作所为负责。我们是自由的”
“即使我忘了我有责任,可我仍有责任”
“我想告诉你,你是无处可逃的。everything is beautiful,你需要的仅仅是对某事产生兴趣。”
“毕竟,东西就是他们本身”
“消息就是消息,盘子就是盘子,男人就是男人,以及生活....就是生活”
一个人为什么必须说话呢?
人不应该常常交谈,而应该活在沉默中。
有时候说的越多,言语表达出的东西越少。
看法国电影配英文字幕的中国观众。
不知道为什么就变成了这样。
但证明好电影阻拦不了。
人们想看的冲动。
除结尾不喜欢。
挖到宝的。
一天。
真好~
嘻~
Nana: Why are you reading?
Parain: It's my job.
Nana: It's odd. Suddenly I don't know what to say; it often happens to me. I know what I want to say. I think about whether it is what I mean. But when the moment comes to speak, I can't say it.
Parain: Yes, of course. You've read the Three Musketeers?
Nana: I saw the film, why?
Parain: Because in it, Porthos, this is really in Twenty Years Later, Porthos, all strong, a little stupid, he has never thought in his life. He has to place a bomb in the cellar to blow it up. He does it. He places the bomb, lights the fuse, then he runs away of course. But suddenly he begins to think. What about? How is it possible to put one foot before the other? You must have thought about that too. So he stops running. He can't go on. He can't move forward. The bomb explodes, the cellar fell on him. He holds it up with his shoulder. But after a day, or maybe two, he is crushed to death. The first time he thought, it killed him.
Nana: Why did you tell me that story?
Parain: No reason, just to talk.
Nana: Why must one always talk? Often one shouldn't talk, but live in silence. The more one talks, the less words mean.
Parain: Perhaps. But can one?
Nana: I don't know.
Parain: I've found that we can't live without talking.
Nana: I'd like to live without talking.
Parain: Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it? Like loving one another more. But it isn't possible.
Nana: But why? Words should express just what one wants to say. Do they betray us?
Parain: But we betray them, too. One should be able to express oneself. It has been done in writing. Think: someone like Plato, can still be understood - he can. Yet he wrote in Greek, 2,500 years ago. No one really know the language, at least not exactly. Yet something get through, so we should be able to express ourselves. And we must.
Nana: Why must we? To understand each other?
Parain: We must think, and for thoughts, we need words. There's no other way to think. To communicate, one must talk, that is our life.
Nana: Yes, but it is very difficult. I think life should be easy. Your talk of the Three Musketeers may make a good story, but it's terrible.
Parain: Yes, but it's a pointer. I believe, one learns to talk well only when one has renounced life for a time. That's the price.
Nana: So, to speak is fatal?
Parain: Speaking is almost a resurrection in relation to life. Speech is another life from when one does not speak. So, to live in speech, one must pass through the death of life without speech. I may not be putting it clearly, but there's a kind of ascetic rule that stops one from taking well until one sees life with detachment.
Nana: But one can't live everyday life with... I don't know
Parain: With detachment. We balance, that's why we pass from silence to words. We swing between the two because it's the movement of life. From everyday life one rises to a life we call superior, the thinking life. But this life presupposes one has killed the everyday too elementary life.
Nana: Then thinking and talking are the same thing?
Parain: So I believe. Plato said so, it's an old idea. One cannot distinguish the thought from the words that express it. An instant of thought can only be grasped through words.
Nana: So one must talk and risk lying?
Parain: Lies too, are part of our quest. Errors and lies are very similar.
Nana: (Tries to interrupt)
Parain: I don't mean ordinary lies, like I promise to come tomorrow, but I don't, as I didn't want to. You see, those are ploys. But a subtle lie is a little different from an error. One searches and can't find the right word. That's why you didn't know what to say. You were afraid of not finding the right word, that's the explanation.
Nana: How can one be sure of having found the right word?
Parain: One must work. It needs an effort. One must speak in a way that is right, doesn't hurt, says what has to be said, does what has to be done, without hurting or bruising.
Nana: One must try to be in good faith. Someone told me: "There is truth in everything, even in error."
Parain: That's true. France didn't see it in the seventeenth century. They thought one could avoid error, and what's more, that one can live directly in the truth. It isn't possible. Hence Kant, Hegel, Germany philosophy: to bring us back to life, and makes us see that we must pass through error to arrive at the truth.
Nana: What do you think about love?
Parain: The body had to come into it. Leibnitz introduced the contingent. Contingent truths and necessary truths make up life. German philosophy showed us that in life, one thinks with the servitudes and errors of life. One must manage with that, that's true.
Nana: Shouldn't love be the only truth?
Parain: For that, love would always have to be true. Do you know anyone who knows at once what he loves? No. When you are twenty you don't know. All you know are bits and pieces, you make arbitrary choices. Your "I love" is an impure affair. But to completely at one with what you love you need maturity. That means searching, that is the truth of life. That's why love is a solution, on condition that it is true.
字幕来源: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUp_du3awI0
与Nana交谈的学者为法国哲学家 Brice Parain (Courcelles-sous-Jouarre, 10 March 1897 - 20 March 1971 ) //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brice_Parain
法国新浪潮时期各种刻意标新的手法看着真是特别烦。
所谓才华,就是做什么都对。
8.4 十二幕剧,正侧面看个遍,就后脑朝着你,妓女行业介绍,绕台球室独舞。她看圣女贞德看哭了,她不是个妓女,她是个存在主义妓女。
“黑短发大眼睛,懂电影会跳舞,聊哲学谈情感,爱抽烟性冷淡,有个性多薄命”
[2019年10月戈达尔√] 奖项收割机时期的戈达尔。可能做得最有趣的还是声音,技巧用的比较节制(跟他最具挑衅的片子比起来)但是不少地方依然很新颖(旁白、音乐、完全静场等等用的都很不错,皮条客朗读法国妓女现状那段太讽刺了,戈达尔应该自己还担任了一段配音[imdb显示未署名])。除了有趣的小标题之外还用到了字幕技巧。把女主角的脸跟德莱叶的[圣女贞德的激情]混剪非常好。最后拐到存在主义哲学探讨上其实有些跑偏了。
桑塔格那篇著名的影评,其实也只是点到为止,开了一个小小阐释的角度。但是结论却很清楚,这是一部除了结尾,几近完美的电影。
《圣女贞德受难记》的片段——对肩上脸部的突出、《朱尔与吉姆》的海报,遮挡乃至背对观众的对话与消除环境声配合主角的思考和给观众留下空隙。和哲学家对话、爱伦坡的故事,以及爱上想要摆脱后的突然死亡,都完美的融合在影片的叙事氛围中。当然此片最动人的还是Nana的神情——如此神秘如此迷惘。
Godard月,16号晚在BFI终于见到了我多年女神Anna Karina,一位健谈、和蔼可亲又有趣的女士,对了话,如梦似幻……
资料馆…看到好几个戈达尔哲学退场的朋友…还有好几个戈达尔美学屏摄的朋友…还有好几个在戈达尔式只有画面没有声音时义务配音的呼噜兄…
“说话越多,没有意义的话也就越多…不用说话也能生活,一想到这点我就觉得很惊讶” 第二部戈达尔,感受好一点了…喜欢“吹气球”、“桌球室跳舞”、“妓院抽烟”三场戏。娜娜的美,是镜头都不足以构画的!
戈达尔对其跳剪、宣言等独特手法最为节制的一部电影了吧。可能真是太爱安娜,以致于不舍得“随心所欲“的雍破坏一切的新浪潮思想和政治化电影做法,去破坏贞女与妓女的形象平衡度,以及那些从中蔓延开的完整悲剧。
她说:"我举手,我有责任;我转头,我有责任;我不高兴,我有责任;我抽烟,我有责任;我闭上眼睛,我有责任.即使我忘了我有责任,可我仍有责任.我想告诉你是无处可逃的.凡事都是好的,你需要的仅仅是对某事产生兴趣.毕竟,东西就是它们本身."其间,不经意地舔着嘴唇.
安娜卡里娜乃至全片那种令人难以抗拒的优雅与忧郁,台词间的微妙联系,圣经般的摄影,极简却细节丰富,戈达尔精确的调度水平可见一斑,和精疲力尽时期区分开来但还完整保持了自己的风格,美妙。
透析生活的娼妓,命运如纸薄,禁不起这么执着的追问。形式感更强,零散碎裂,又精光毕现。
2021-1-9重看;特写、移镜、长镜、空间、构图、阴影。开场酒吧里背部的来回凝视,《圣女贞德》的面部互文,谈论《基督山伯爵》波多斯的哲学家,跑过《祖与占》的海报,爱伦坡的故事,结尾与《精疲力尽》的呼应。十二个章节的结构与随性灵动的调度设计。
疙瘩儿的娼妓——黑短发大眼睛,懂电影会跳舞,聊哲学谈情感,爱抽烟性冷淡,有个性多薄命
戈达尔让观众忘记了女主角的妓女身份,就像卡拉克丝让观众忘记男女主人公以外的世界一般,两人都拥有专注的叙述力量,叙述,叙述~
戈达尔第3部长片,威尼斯评审团大奖。1.12幕分段,依镜头次序拍完并只取初拍镜次,镜头运动宛若人眼般活力四射,好奇主动。2.内外多重文本,女性欲脱离边缘地位"男性化"只有死亡,一如[圣女贞德蒙难记][椭圆画像]与火枪手波尔多斯。3.中断的配乐与突然静默,机关枪抖动式跳接。4.第11幕,语言与爱。(9.5/10)【2021.1.9.上海影城2K修复版重温】还是在玩混搭与解构,如纪录片式拍摄风格+各种游戏式间离手法;分章节/分幕制造断片感,却又在每一幕开头写明情节、人物或环境的关键词;突兀却点题的哲学论文式探讨,对语言的反思与声画分离实验上承[女人就是女人],妓女议题则下启[我略知她一二]。消去配乐的[圣女贞德蒙难记]与咖啡馆窗外的假街景很间离。从后方与侧面多角度拍卡里娜,果然真爱。其他迷影梗:露易丝·布鲁克斯式发型,[祖与占],墙上的泰勒。
本该给观众留下些什么情感的故事,最终却给观众留下一堆思考,这就是这部电影的意义吧。但是,戈达尔本人无疑也是个矛盾体:他一方面强调着语言和交流,另一方面又显而易见地拒绝着观众,无论他怎么诡辩;一方面让一切都发生在最表象的画面上,拒绝给予解释,另一方面却又因为他的影评人身份作祟,不断地通过引用/反对他者来构建自身。不如这么说:当他试图站在电影反面的时候,也一定丢掉了一半电影。
“人生在世”。戈达尔镜头里的安娜卡丽娜永远美丽又充满灵气,她就算变成卖淫女我也觉得她纯洁得像天使。。“把自己借给他人”原来是这个意思。。。天啦噜一天之内看了两部这么不同却各自精彩的电影,我愿意死在影院!