1 ) 现代生活之图解
在现代生活里,追逐金钱成为唯一解脱。追逐金钱的过程,需要摘除同情与爱。当冷酷无情开始占据上风,自我逐渐丧失,情感机能便也随之破碎。丧失自我的本我,攫取金钱的面孔,与纳粹又何异?这便是生活恐惧本源。
以为刻意麻木,便能甩开恐惧,殊不知恐惧如影随形,在生活的某个闪回空间里便会显现。现代城市生活,不过是另一辆通往集中营的列车。你去感知,它便以痛苦的方式存在;你若不觉,你只是一具可以行走的死尸。
想以死亡来了结这一切么?生活怎会如此简单便如你愿?它会在你未料的某个时刻,植入给你更大的痛苦。讽刺地,是以你最想要的死亡的方式,但那个死亡却是别人的。你需面对与担当的,仍是麻漠或恐惧。无所遁逃、无能为力。
这便是现代生活困境。
2 ) 生而為人,對不起。
鑒于確實沒有好好讀過書也沒有好好看過阿倫雷內和羅布格里耶,因此只是看過之后閑扯幾句。
一定是受豬影響所以才會想到都市與現代性上面。 開篇和結尾的對比:戰爭之前的田園牧歌,現代都市的"條條框框"。主人公消逝于混亂的街道人群。
影片空間的選擇饒有趣味,閉塞,擁擠,到處都是網格。(與之對比的毫無疑問的二戰監獄的鐵絲網)
閃回并不是電影中的新鮮手法,即便在60年代也如此。勾勒串起全篇的實際上是現實與記憶。但是不同于我印象中看過的其它影片,閃回并不是為了推進現在的敘事,恰恰相反,閃回與現在并列。相似性的并列產生類比效果,回憶中試圖逃出集中營在鐵絲網上掙扎的人與現在被毆打的年輕人;擁擠的地鐵與運送猶太人的車廂;突然闖入的德國士兵與進到典當行搶劫的年輕人等等。有趣的是,有些地方的回憶饒富力量。比如Nazerman回憶在集中營以頭撞碎玻璃的下一個鏡頭剪接的恰恰是現在的自己(如同我注視著我自己)。
Nazerman這個家伙總讓我想起《對話》里面的Caul。一樣將自己關在一個密閉空間,躲藏在陰影處,沉默冷淡,藏著不為人知的秘密。Caul的創傷來自個體,而Nazerman來自歷史。因他是一個沒有信仰的人,戰爭奪取了他愛的一切活在無以名狀的痛苦愧疚自責當中-他沒有死,還娶了亡故朋友的妻子,他的生活圍繞著典當行以及錢。戰爭只是影片展開的背景,而它的著力點似乎并不在揭露創傷,指責暴行——我的意思并不是它沒有,而是它不僅于此。我們在影片中看到的諸多并列我認為是指涉Nzazerman所活的現在——回憶只是為了對比現在,隱喻現在生活的逼仄冷漠恐懼以及與欲望相關的所有齷齪骯臟——現在是一場沒有硝煙的戰爭。
這場模糊了善惡的“戰爭”以年輕人Jesus的死為故事的終結,這是一個絕望的結尾。Jesus接受了Nazerman“Money is all of things”的理念而決定打劫典當行,在Nazerman告訴他你對我來說什么也不是的情況下他還是為了Nazerman飲彈而亡。
Nazerman最后用針刺自己的舉動我以為是想獲得知覺——一直以來他都過著麻木不仁的生活。(集中營里的猶太人即像是被割斷了所有知覺)。結尾出現的那些未曾歷經戰爭的人的臉看起來疲憊憂傷,Nazerman緩慢穿行人群離開,消失在一個充滿規則,網格,條條框框的世界里。而開篇以慢鏡頭表現的草地撲蝶更像是一場久遠的不會再度想起的夢境。
昨天看到昆德拉一句話“記憶并不是對遺忘的否定,記憶是遺忘的另一種形式”。豬在文章中提到的在retrieve和association正好可以解釋我前面提到的并列類比。
額,似乎又在標題黨了。其實是看片的時候想到太宰治的遺言。關于生命的不可抗力。我們都活在記憶與遺忘里。記得,忘記。被記得,被忘記。
豬關于記憶的舊文
http://icebluewonder.blogbus.com/logs/1278284.html 3 ) 这段pawnbroker的台词治疗一切文艺病
Well,my friend, you have no land to call your own, to grow food on or to hunt.
You have nothing. You are never in one place long enought to have a geography or an army or a land myth.
All you have is a little brain. A little brain and a great bearded legend to sustain you ahnd convince you that you are special,even in poverty.
But this brain is the real key,with this little brain you go out and you buy a piece of cloth, and you cut that cloth in two, and you go out and sell it more than you paid for it.Then you run right out and buy another cloth, cut into three pieces and sell it for three pennies profit. But during that time you must never succumb to buying an extra piece of bread for the table.
No! You must immdiately run out and get yourself a still large piece of cloth, and you repeat this process over and over, and suddenly you discover something.You have no longer any desire, any temptation to dig into the earth, to grow food or to gaze a limitless land and call it your own.You just go on and on and on, repeating this process over the centuries, over and over, and suddenly you make a grand discovery ------ You have a mercantile heritage. You are a merchant. You are known as a usurer, a man with secret resources. A witch, a pawnbroker, a sheeny, a mockie and a kike !
4 ) Boundaries Blurred
On Miss Birchfield’s terrace, our somber, reserved hero Sol Nazerman bitterly uttered his ‘long lost’ experience: ‘It’s been a long time since I felt ... fear. ... There have been memories that I have ... Well, I thought that I had pushed them far away from me, and they keep rushing in. And then there are words that I thought that I have kept myself from hearing and … now they flood my mind.’ Indeed, the fear that overwhelms Sol is generated from his memories. And memory introduces two key issues in this film, that is, how does one live with traumatic memories that he intentionally tried to ‘push away’ and in what ways can the art of filmmaking approach them.
As for the first question, one may answer with the role played by memory in Sol’s ‘dead’ life: in fact, this debilitated character, who keeps himself remote from everyone, solely has his dire memories as company. In the terrace conversation, he refuses Miss Birchfield’s sympathy of him ‘being alone’ with a sneer – for Sol, the problem is not loneliness (we may also recall her naïve comparison between her loss of husband and Sol’s experience in the camp), but the memories that kept haunting him and depriving him of serenity. Despite Tessie’s father’s furious accusation of being a ‘walking dead’, Sol cannot, if we quote Rodriguez in a later scene in the film, ‘die when (he) want(s) it so badly’. Memory is a phantom lives in his body, dominating his pawnbroker life all the time. Thus, we may say that, although related to the old times, memory, per se, is not a series of events that happened in the past. It is what grabs you and parasitizes you as you walk down the journey of life.
So, how does one live with memories that they try to eliminate but keep flooding back? The answer is, he takes them as fragments that randomly interrupt his semi-conscious mind. And here comes the answer to our second question: Lumet’s splendid montage is the key to represent such kind of memory. Take the scene when the prostitute strips at the pawnshop for example. When she first mentions the name of Rodriguez, a picture of a Nazi officer is cut in twice, extremely briefly. And then a static picture of his wife cuts in, also very briefly. The pictures disappear so quickly that the audience almost cannot figure out what it really is – some may not even notice it. Then, as she strips with her suggestive line ‘Look’, we begin to catch the full picture of Sol’s dreadful memory of seeing his wife being forced into prostitution. And this is exactly how such kind of memories intrudes our real life. At first, it comes to you almost randomly and briefly, so brief that you might not even notice it. You only sense, something is there. And this tiny fragment works like a pebble drops into the deep lake of your mind. As it sinks, a dimple hundreds times bigger than the pebble itself expands in the surface - the brief fragments eventually recall a huge picture which overlays your current life. And the disturbing truth is, once the pebble drops, you can no longer protect your lake from forming the toxic dimple.
Apart from the brilliant montage that reveals the myth of how memories work, the usage of black and white pictures also contributes to enhance the effect of memories. On the one hand, as in Schindler’s List, the black and white in The Pawnbroker also works to express hopelessness, bitterness and solemnness. But unlike the much more reassuring colored candle used as a symbol of hope in Schindler’s List, The Pawnbroker’s usage of complete black and white places a much harsher reality: 20 years after the WW II, survivors cannot see any hope. This change, by the way, is also a very interesting topic concerning the possibilities of making art out of the Holocaust. On the other hand, if we see black and white as a widely used method in filmmaking to illustrate things happen in the past, we discover an intention to eliminate the boundary between the past and the present. The memories of old days before the Camp are colorless because they make the tragedy even tougher. Days in the Camp are reasonably black and white whereas the current life cannot be colorful because memories from the past are always there, depriving any possible colors. Also, while Lumet used sharp contrast of black and white to present different places and mental status, in most cases the two colors mixes into an undistinguishable grey, a color that best summarizes the state of Sol’s mind – indifferent, inescapable and desperate. Though one may argue that on seeing the death of Jesus, Sol starts to ‘sense the shame of his detachment’ (the flashbacks of faces before he slams his hand down on a paper spike can be an evidence), we have to be aware of the fact that Sol is actually going through another cycle of picking up horrible memories and carrying them downwards.
5 ) 如何剪辑潜意识——谈西德尼吕美特的《典当商》
《典当商》是1964年上映的一部电影,由西德尼吕美特执导,改编自美国作家Edward Lewis Wallant的同名小说。主人公是一位犹太人典当商,从奥斯维辛集中营幸存后,在纽约以经营当铺生意为生,平日里待人冷漠,不近人情。今天我不做故事梗概 ,只聚焦于西德尼吕美特的电影拍摄技巧。推荐大家看完电影后再来看本视频以便更加深刻理解导演的拍摄用意。顺便说一句,本片是第一部经美国电影协会(MPAA)批准并授予海斯法典(Hays Code),可以展示女性腰部以上裸体的公映电影,也为1960年代电影制作人与美国电影协会(MPAA)之间的一系列对抗揭开序幕,这些对抗导致五年内Hays Code被废除,转而启用电影评级制度。
太痛苦了,观影过程非常压抑,主人公无边的痛苦和极度的麻木都透过屏幕蔓延出来并且深深地烙在观者的心上。闪回、配乐都在传递着不堪回首又永远萦绕着的回忆的恐怖。Sol太痛苦了,无论在集中营还是哈林区,他关心的和关心他的全部离他而去,他无能为力,只能像行尸走肉一般活着,生不如死……我好喜欢吕美特,但他经常拍我不敢再看第二遍的片子……
这是最早探讨德国纳粹集中营的幸存者在余生中受集中营创伤的影响的电影之一,导演是西德尼·鲁迈特。影片的主人公是一个当铺的老板,犹太人,经常受到集中营回忆的影响。片中运用了大量闪回,而且特别快,可能需要一帧帧播放才能捕捉到闪回的画面,这样做也能让观众身临其境般体验主人公痛苦的回忆
电影的终点并不在集中营创伤,而在众生皆苦。那挤在地铁车厢里摇晃的麻木脸谱与集中营列车内的景象高度重合,难道是偶然?那妓女袒露的乳房能刺痛记忆神经中久被埋葬的痛苦画面,难道是偶然?往大了看,主人公在劫后余生的美国成为一个典当商,难道是偶然?他打断向他示好的女人,怒斥她的遭遇“什么也不是”;他对美国人是蔑视的,每天来当铺的可怜人无论脸上有怎样的神情,都激不起他一丝一毫的怜悯,因为他认为与自己相比,这些人的遭遇根本不值一提。他有幸存者愧疚,令他最痛的事情一是“I didn’t die”,二是“I could do nothing”;而他选择的面对方式是像死尸一样活下去,对自己不作为,对世间一切都不作为。就是在这样的傲慢与冷漠中,他毁掉了一切救赎的可能,并导致了悲剧的重演:学徒死了,他还活着。一个人心中有监狱,在哪里都是监狱。
好的坏电影
有些記憶並不會隨時間的流逝而淡化遺忘,它之所以不再明顯,只是因為我們刻意將之驅趕到記憶的盲點,讓它自顧結出堅硬的痂,可是總會有某些細瑣不經意地觸碰到,慢慢撕開,滲出更痛的血肉。沒有輕飄飄的救贖,只是靈魂的再次沉陷與崩塌,只有極大的愛才會牽引出刻骨的痛,深深刺進那塊柔軟,世界坍塌。
光影质感强,空间感也好(逼仄和空旷,紧张和放松)通过控制每次闪回单个镜头的长度,不断交代更多的背景故事,逐渐塑造出完整的人物,回想起开始的镜头如同噩梦。列车那段蒙太奇震了,让主人公的心理创伤真能感同身受到。画面非常有设计感,镜头语言精准有力,看得出我们吕大爷的独具匠心! #补遗#
尽管故事的架构是经典的悲剧体,真正让这片不朽的是其在接受了法国新浪潮影响而对电影技法的完善。布景和剪辑显然是最大的功臣(啊那些闪前镜头太牛),辅之以暗调摄影和不祥的配乐,这黑色电影几乎梦魇一般压迫而挥之不去。Steiger的表演是神一样的完美,那股子绝望的麻木和无法沟通的孤独入木三分!
男主对伙计那一番痛彻心扉的自述倒是挺能展示整个犹太民族在过去几个世纪的被动的悲惨际遇。没土地的白手套,被所有人鄙夷的吸血鬼,最后自己的手上沾满鲜血,非常写实主义。
开头典当群像非常好,故事感很强,可是中间并没有被丰满的故事所填充,开始着重表达人物的内心和意识形态,使得影片非常无聊,后半场回忆和情绪的落入了情绪陷阱,更是非常糟糕。亮点是快速剪辑展示回忆,地铁与火车车厢内的现实与历史的交叉剪辑,成为教科书常客。影片首先是由好故事支撑起来的,我不太喜欢这种回忆情绪模式,作者主观性太强了,对观众不友好,表达一个人的内心要用故事,用情绪的表达是比较低等的,人物独白说内心是低等的,显得太过刻意,用侯孝贤的现实主义对话形式肯定更高级,或许电影本身不应该是主观的,而应该是旁观的。
西德尼·吕美特太会拍了,太稳了。即便是描述起来容易俗套的情节和剪辑,可看起来就是不一样。这种平静的慢慢渗透的力量,别人很难学得来。绝大多数电影和观众有一层隔膜,他的片没有,非常奇怪。简直开创了一种独一无二的通往真实的方式。在看《不设限通缉》时就感觉到了。既细腻又坚定。
http://t.cn/zjH2h3u
当一个人不再随意指责愤世嫉俗者和冷酷者,你已触摸残酷生活的本色,并已是上帝的孩子(The children of God);Rod Steigner为该片贡献了殿堂级的震撼表演,如有神助地呈现了患有奥斯维辛集中营创伤综合症的犹太裔典当商这一角色,让“冷酷索尔”的病态而极端的情绪捕获了所有人的心;意识流电影:过去的记忆与现在的生活纠缠不清,昨日的幽灵早已扼住了时光,让幸存者成为活死人;蝴蝶标本:过去德国纳粹的洗劫与现在Harlem区的洗劫呼应,人的暴力从未远离;监守自盗者的阻遏与赎罪,每一个人,不管是幸存者、旁观者抑或是悔罪者,都是下一代年轻人的“教授”和“老师”——不要再传递暴力,不要再传递扭曲;改编自的Edward Lewis Wallant的小说,精彩配乐出自Quincy Jones。
较早的讨论集中营后遗症的影片。非常精彩的闪回,将角色情绪完美传达给观众。并没有直接描写集中营的恐怖,间接的表现反而更有力,也更新鲜。即便在和平的时代,主人公却一直生活在一个狭小、压抑、黯然无光的典当店中。网格状的铁网以及阴影也将主角一直囚禁其中。麻木的行尸走肉,无尽的悲剧,四星半
"What happened", "I didn't die".所选择的视角,当铺内栅栏始终隔离一切的场景设置和表现记忆的形式真的很独特。故事不断进展,越来越让人喘不过气来 。他活了下来,但从来没有逃出来,行尸一般,想起荒原里那句,你要什么...我要死
8/10。吕美特描绘的生命是被往事困住的囚徒,片头躺椅之上男主一脸麻木的应付家人打算周游欧洲的想法,脑中闪现战前妻子形象,随后又忆起开往集中营的列车、好友趴在铁丝网上浑身鲜血的画面,他早已习惯不露情绪地应付他人,索取金钱排解恐惧,给年轻伙计灌输打劫店铺的冷酷思想,他变得如纳粹般无情。
恐惧日常收集,又是近乎《十二怒汉》的单主场景,吕美特让人发寒的调度能力。
场景不多,整体很有话剧感却一点都不削弱电影的节奏,吕美特真得是大师啊。关于二战后犹太人在哈林区的生存状态、PTSD都有很好的展现,闪回虽频繁但镜头点到即止。更别提斯泰格尔的表演和昆西琼斯的配乐都是超棒。有时候真觉得半世纪前就有如此简单有力的杰作,现在的电影是该好好想想了吧
用黑白色调勾勒出的纳粹梦魇,吕美特用快速闪回诠释了记忆的破碎与侵略性,典当商麻木不仁的表情令人更想去了解他背后的创伤,也得以呈现出了一部与众不同的纳粹电影,更加私人化,也更重视情绪的表达。
chill,rod steiger联想到了 Kevin Spacey
flashback 配乐也牛逼。