剧照
更新时间：2023-11-17 20:41
详细剧情
萝拉·蒙蒂斯是19世纪欧洲贵族的宠妓，在马戏团里兜售自己的艳史，这似乎是她为放纵付出的代价。这是奥菲尔的最后一部电影，影片以此作为框架，用闪回拼贴的方式表现箩拉巡回欧洲各国表演记忆，尤其她与巴伐利亚的路德维系国王以及作曲家李斯特之间的关系。
长篇影评
1 ) 摘自Criterion的film essays
To speak the unspeakable --
1. On history and movement:
“Life for me is . . . a movement,” says the movie’s Lola. “My life is whirling in my head,” she frets. Few would have been surprised if Ophuls—the bard of pictorial motion, whose camera doesn’t simply permit us to see but rather, like an enthusiastic friend, pulls us into the whirl of life—had made those statements about himself. Yet his Lola is far removed from history’s spitfire dervish. If Lola Montès is a film infatuated with motion, its heroine is often a study in motion denied. This is nothing like a conventional movie biography. It is, instead, a profound meditation on the presumptions and limitations of all biography. So much has been written about the director’s virtuosity that relatively little is said about his scrupulous treatment of truth, power, gender, compromise, the selling of the self.
2. On objectification:
Carol, however, turned out to be a blessing, though admittedly this is a minority view. Her stony beauty encouraged Ophuls to objectify Lola in a way that would not have been possible with a more expressive actor. This is a film that is often intent on keeping its emotional distance. In transforming the immodestly blonde Carol into a corseted brunette, Ophuls created an image surprisingly close to portraits of the real Lola, while emphasizing the cryptic nature of sexual allure. Had he been able to hire Gina Lollobrigida, he might have given us the spider dance Lola; with Danielle Darrieux, Jeanne Moreau, or Ingrid Bergman, he might have given us a contemplative, flirtatious, commanding Lola. With Carol, he presents Lola as a prisoner of sex, and draws a cinematic line—a tracking shot, of course—between the waxen object of our curiosity and her unknowable interior life.
The real Montez gave lectures, receiving a higher fee than Dickens during their respective American tours. But she never appeared in a circus or toured as a sideshow act, unlike other notorious figures, from Robert Ford to Evelyn Nesbit to the fallen stars of today’s talk show confessionals. No, the circus is Ophuls’s inspired tour de force, its skull-like claustrophobia heightened by the absence of a single shot to place it in the larger world. We enter the big top at the start, and exit when the camera forces us backward, away from the arena, at which point a curtain shuts us out. There is no outside, no reality beyond the tent and Lola’s memory.
3. On prostitution and capitalism:
The business of prostitution hovers over this film, but Ophuls makes a clear distinction between prostituting one’s body (in Ophulsian theology, a venial sin at most) and selling one’s soul (a mortal sin at least). Ophuls loves Lola, and whatever the real Lola was, his Lola is not a whore, not even a courtesan. True, she will get a palace from her Bavarian king, but the film depicts theirs as a genuine love match. Elsewhere, sex is a means of escape or an escapade in pleasure. Money does not change hands. Not until she descends, in the ringmaster’s phrase, “from kingdom to carnival,” sacrificing sexual independence and the possibility of love (however fleeting) for the commerce of show business, does she put herself on the market.
Ophuls had nothing against whores; he treats them with humor and respect in La ronde and Le plaisir. He was, however, impatient with soulless capitalism, as in his early Dutch film Comedy of Money, in which a singing ringmaster explicates corruption in the market. By 1955, Ophuls had endured his own experience with ballyhoo in Hollywood, and it is tempting to see Lola as a fragile artiste at the mercy of the machinations of callous producers.
4. On feminist autonomy and power:
By beginning the flashback sequences with Liszt, the film establishes Lola as an adventuress with celebrity connections while showing that, far from being on the make, she possesses a mature sense of love’s labors and the tussle for power that is the price of emancipation—an issue played out repeatedly as she flees her mother, her husband, and Bavarian mobs. The ringmaster will later tell her: “Talent doesn’t interest me . . . only power and efficiency.”
For Ophuls’s purposes, the student shows that Lola dispenses her favors freely and inspires fierce loyalty, representing to the fraternal revolutionaries “love, freedom, everything [the conservatives] detest!”
Ophuls will not let us see Lola dance—neither her unsuccessful audition (her maid remarks, “As always, they didn’t like the bolero”) nor her royal performance (we see the king tapping his fingers in time); nor do we get to see her illustrious breasts (we get extended business about finding a needle and thread to sew up her ripped bodice). But Lola is no longer a waxen figure! The Lola who on the Riviera dashed to confront her lover’s wife now predominates, as she gallops to meet the king, and charms him with a single step of a Spanish fandango—no more than a pose, really.
5. On success and worthiness:
The sixth and final movement is itself a circus trick. Lola, a ghost of her former self, must perform the climax of her act, which we learn she has been doing for an astonishing four months—astonishing because even a top acrobat in the best of health would have trouble diving from a high-wire platform onto an object no larger than a mattress. This, we are told, she has done show after show without a net. Lola is dizzy, wavering, colorless; she has no more chance of surviving her fall than Scottie does his in the preamble to Vertigo. But, of course, she does survive, promptly resurrected as a captive in the menagerie, selling kisses for a dollar, pimped out to the end. Yet can anyone doubt that Lola remains triumphant, an object of veneration for all trusting suckers everywhere, including Max Ophuls, who believed that character is a kind of talent? His camera tracks back for a hundred glorious seconds before he allows the curtain to be drawn, leaving Lola in peace, or at least enjoying the bliss of celebrity homage, until, once more, we hit “Play” and return to the big top.
6. On the film itself:
It was as if Orson Welles had made a movie of Camille with Betty Grable in the lead, but with all the intricate flashbacks, visual pyrotechnics and distancing ironies of Citizen Kane.
1. On history and movement:
“Life for me is . . . a movement,” says the movie’s Lola. “My life is whirling in my head,” she frets. Few would have been surprised if Ophuls—the bard of pictorial motion, whose camera doesn’t simply permit us to see but rather, like an enthusiastic friend, pulls us into the whirl of life—had made those statements about himself. Yet his Lola is far removed from history’s spitfire dervish. If Lola Montès is a film infatuated with motion, its heroine is often a study in motion denied. This is nothing like a conventional movie biography. It is, instead, a profound meditation on the presumptions and limitations of all biography. So much has been written about the director’s virtuosity that relatively little is said about his scrupulous treatment of truth, power, gender, compromise, the selling of the self.
2. On objectification:
Carol, however, turned out to be a blessing, though admittedly this is a minority view. Her stony beauty encouraged Ophuls to objectify Lola in a way that would not have been possible with a more expressive actor. This is a film that is often intent on keeping its emotional distance. In transforming the immodestly blonde Carol into a corseted brunette, Ophuls created an image surprisingly close to portraits of the real Lola, while emphasizing the cryptic nature of sexual allure. Had he been able to hire Gina Lollobrigida, he might have given us the spider dance Lola; with Danielle Darrieux, Jeanne Moreau, or Ingrid Bergman, he might have given us a contemplative, flirtatious, commanding Lola. With Carol, he presents Lola as a prisoner of sex, and draws a cinematic line—a tracking shot, of course—between the waxen object of our curiosity and her unknowable interior life.
The real Montez gave lectures, receiving a higher fee than Dickens during their respective American tours. But she never appeared in a circus or toured as a sideshow act, unlike other notorious figures, from Robert Ford to Evelyn Nesbit to the fallen stars of today’s talk show confessionals. No, the circus is Ophuls’s inspired tour de force, its skull-like claustrophobia heightened by the absence of a single shot to place it in the larger world. We enter the big top at the start, and exit when the camera forces us backward, away from the arena, at which point a curtain shuts us out. There is no outside, no reality beyond the tent and Lola’s memory.
3. On prostitution and capitalism:
The business of prostitution hovers over this film, but Ophuls makes a clear distinction between prostituting one’s body (in Ophulsian theology, a venial sin at most) and selling one’s soul (a mortal sin at least). Ophuls loves Lola, and whatever the real Lola was, his Lola is not a whore, not even a courtesan. True, she will get a palace from her Bavarian king, but the film depicts theirs as a genuine love match. Elsewhere, sex is a means of escape or an escapade in pleasure. Money does not change hands. Not until she descends, in the ringmaster’s phrase, “from kingdom to carnival,” sacrificing sexual independence and the possibility of love (however fleeting) for the commerce of show business, does she put herself on the market.
Ophuls had nothing against whores; he treats them with humor and respect in La ronde and Le plaisir. He was, however, impatient with soulless capitalism, as in his early Dutch film Comedy of Money, in which a singing ringmaster explicates corruption in the market. By 1955, Ophuls had endured his own experience with ballyhoo in Hollywood, and it is tempting to see Lola as a fragile artiste at the mercy of the machinations of callous producers.
4. On feminist autonomy and power:
By beginning the flashback sequences with Liszt, the film establishes Lola as an adventuress with celebrity connections while showing that, far from being on the make, she possesses a mature sense of love’s labors and the tussle for power that is the price of emancipation—an issue played out repeatedly as she flees her mother, her husband, and Bavarian mobs. The ringmaster will later tell her: “Talent doesn’t interest me . . . only power and efficiency.”
For Ophuls’s purposes, the student shows that Lola dispenses her favors freely and inspires fierce loyalty, representing to the fraternal revolutionaries “love, freedom, everything [the conservatives] detest!”
Ophuls will not let us see Lola dance—neither her unsuccessful audition (her maid remarks, “As always, they didn’t like the bolero”) nor her royal performance (we see the king tapping his fingers in time); nor do we get to see her illustrious breasts (we get extended business about finding a needle and thread to sew up her ripped bodice). But Lola is no longer a waxen figure! The Lola who on the Riviera dashed to confront her lover’s wife now predominates, as she gallops to meet the king, and charms him with a single step of a Spanish fandango—no more than a pose, really.
5. On success and worthiness:
The sixth and final movement is itself a circus trick. Lola, a ghost of her former self, must perform the climax of her act, which we learn she has been doing for an astonishing four months—astonishing because even a top acrobat in the best of health would have trouble diving from a high-wire platform onto an object no larger than a mattress. This, we are told, she has done show after show without a net. Lola is dizzy, wavering, colorless; she has no more chance of surviving her fall than Scottie does his in the preamble to Vertigo. But, of course, she does survive, promptly resurrected as a captive in the menagerie, selling kisses for a dollar, pimped out to the end. Yet can anyone doubt that Lola remains triumphant, an object of veneration for all trusting suckers everywhere, including Max Ophuls, who believed that character is a kind of talent? His camera tracks back for a hundred glorious seconds before he allows the curtain to be drawn, leaving Lola in peace, or at least enjoying the bliss of celebrity homage, until, once more, we hit “Play” and return to the big top.
6. On the film itself:
It was as if Orson Welles had made a movie of Camille with Betty Grable in the lead, but with all the intricate flashbacks, visual pyrotechnics and distancing ironies of Citizen Kane.
2 ) 劳拉的奥德赛，奥菲尔斯的回望
短评写不下，就来写篇不长的长评吧。
上海影城前排看开头马戏简直鸡皮疙瘩停不下来，琳琅满目目不暇接，刚开始还试图琢磨，想抓住那些颜色，服饰，人群的动线，水晶灯的动线，解说词... 后来放弃了，就跟着晕跟着转就完了...
德语部分的法语字体也太大了吧... 国王要针线和看耳朵很有喜剧效果也让人深思，要个小小的针线竟这么费事？耳朵出问题不是一天两天了，只有真正关心他的劳拉带他去看医生？结果医生在那儿不停地赞美：oh！您的耳朵是那么美妙绝伦！
因劳拉引起的示威，国王一开始镇定得很：持续时间短的话是暴动，持续时间长的话就是革命...几分钟后就匆匆从后门上了马车离开，连告别都顾不上。
劳拉对营救她的学生说：你们是哪个派别跟我有什么关系？对于他的表白和劝解跟随天意，她说，不要违抗天意，也不要误解天意... 你这么英俊的脸庞都不能让我再感到希望，一定是有什么东西碎了... 她泪流满面。是什么碎了呢？
她还说，我经历过很多事情，你要听我说，试图理解... 这话不也是对观众说的吗？你要看奥菲尔斯说什么，怎么说，试图理解，我这么告诉自己。
不认为爱情故事是主要的，劳拉马不停蹄的一生，辗转欧洲各国。她没有屈服于母亲安排的年迈银行家，和音乐家李斯特曾有一段深厚的感情，后来好心分手。之后爱上了一位国王，却背负骂名，不得善终，成为巴伐利亚的杨贵妃。最后投身马戏团，宛如幻梦的娱乐行业，到美国去演自己，正襟危坐地兜售所谓的堕落史，去伸手要那些1 dollar。而曾经，剧院的水晶灯都因为献给她的掌声而颤抖... 她的结局和战后的欧洲命运何其相似，她的奥德赛也浓缩着欧洲历史和文化的众多切面，说她是某种意义上的欧洲化身也不为过。
看奥菲尔斯的初衷其实是好奇一个德国导演在战后会拍什么，近一年连续看了意大利，俄国，法国影展，交叉对比相近年代，点连成线，线连成面。最好奇的就是德国，德国导演那时候在干嘛呢？现在明白了，奥菲尔斯的这部遗作是他作为一位欧洲导演而不仅仅是德国导演，在战后的一种回望吧。
片中劳拉对古典主义表示轻蔑：古典？！那些都过时了！在当时因为本片摄影和叙事结构过于前卫而不被观众接受的奥菲尔斯，现在看来怕是也成了古典吧...
劳拉颠沛流离的人生轨迹和奥菲尔斯辗转欧洲各国后来去往好莱坞也惊人得相似。最终作品的呈现同样难逃被误解的命运，这巧合真令人唏嘘。
奥菲尔斯曾在访谈中说，“所有在《劳》中美好的东西，都是因为我不曾拍过彩色片和宽银幕影片──当我看向摄影机观影器时，我宛如新生，我做的一切，就是事物向我呈现的那个样子”。他还说，《劳》让他想去讲一些为了驾驭它们而可能必需要与其斗争的故事，即使自己可能錯了，但他为朝着想走的步伐前进而高兴，且不惜任何代价。他说，人们不相信他，沒有人会让他再拍一部像这样的影片了。当想到人们不仅不尊重自己的作品，甚至根本看不懂就选择抵制，这让他感到不可思议... “负责本片的制作公司不想要这部片，他们根本没搞懂过它”。
最后的马戏，心惊胆战地看着她往上爬，到达巅峰，似乎只是为了纵身一跃。表演是这样，她的人生也是，她一遍又一遍地演自己，疲惫到演不下去，但是尊严依旧，蔑视依旧。所以当她听到要不要撤掉安全网？Are you ready？她坚定地轻声说：ready. 当她坐在笼子里接受那些one dollar的时候，她坐得那么端正而坦然。
3 ) 红颜征战史
美轮美奂，色彩明艳而典雅，镜头讲究，极小的细节都一丝不苟，用闪回的方式讲述人物生平免去了平铺直叙的乏味。许多情节拍得不疾不徐十分耐看，比如和国王的初会，暴乱，马戏团的贩卖艳史……手法纯熟，功力深厚。且全片洋溢一种古典时代才有的格调与情怀。
遗憾的是我对卡洛的罗拉无甚感觉。不是不美，也不是演得不好，而是在我看来她长得实在是常规，这样的模样怎会符合“倾国倾城孽海花”的盛名？难道在欧洲人眼里，此类端庄到好像没啥特点的名媛才是贵族口味？.....我觉得爱娃加德纳的类型更神似，又或者爱娃妖艳了些，那玉婆那样的也符合......
总之这点导致我对影片建立不起真正念念难忘的观感，尽管彼得的角色非常出彩，而安东饰演的国王更让我眼前一亮，但麻木于女主魅力始终是致命的缺失~~
必须要重提的是，影片的场景真的很出色，包括马戏团的数场戏，设计得十分精致，绚丽，梦幻……值得一看。
《看电影》里说，此片作为马克斯的最后一部电影，透露出对日渐势微的欧洲无尽的惆怅伤怀，我这种肤浅的看客，要自发联想出这层含义实有难度。倒是劳拉这个角色对女性观众而言不乏打动。倾其一生追逐欲望的劳拉，身历无数危机关头，宁愿流落异国繁华落尽，也要婉拒嫁做人妇寻常度日，最后那纵身一跳真是百味杂陈，刨去其造孽的过往道德意义上的背逆，这份愿赌服输的泰然，这份始终不肯舍弃的内心的颠沛，何其自我，何其忠诚，何其彻底。
遗憾的是我对卡洛的罗拉无甚感觉。不是不美，也不是演得不好，而是在我看来她长得实在是常规，这样的模样怎会符合“倾国倾城孽海花”的盛名？难道在欧洲人眼里，此类端庄到好像没啥特点的名媛才是贵族口味？.....我觉得爱娃加德纳的类型更神似，又或者爱娃妖艳了些，那玉婆那样的也符合......
总之这点导致我对影片建立不起真正念念难忘的观感，尽管彼得的角色非常出彩，而安东饰演的国王更让我眼前一亮，但麻木于女主魅力始终是致命的缺失~~
必须要重提的是，影片的场景真的很出色，包括马戏团的数场戏，设计得十分精致，绚丽，梦幻……值得一看。
《看电影》里说，此片作为马克斯的最后一部电影，透露出对日渐势微的欧洲无尽的惆怅伤怀，我这种肤浅的看客，要自发联想出这层含义实有难度。倒是劳拉这个角色对女性观众而言不乏打动。倾其一生追逐欲望的劳拉，身历无数危机关头，宁愿流落异国繁华落尽，也要婉拒嫁做人妇寻常度日，最后那纵身一跳真是百味杂陈，刨去其造孽的过往道德意义上的背逆，这份愿赌服输的泰然，这份始终不肯舍弃的内心的颠沛，何其自我，何其忠诚，何其彻底。
4 ) 电影学习札记
巴洛克式的古典主义的繁重，在一个不甘于向命运妥协的悲剧人物身上，隐喻出欧洲的落寞之感，最后共鸣于悲观的存在主义。
讲究的场面调度，深焦摄影，宽银幕在单幅的画面上叙事信息量和视觉信息量都有提升，从最外在提升了影片的节奏感。巴洛克的繁复和形式的美感从内而外流露。
但是如此高的资金投入，所回馈的视觉饕鬄盛宴，我认为还欠缺更多。
在剧作上，劳拉蒙特斯这个人物具不具有可塑造的必要性，典型性。人物鲜明与否。在塑造人物，由人物产生的悲剧共鸣中，对环境的塑造有没有到位。劳拉蒙特斯个人认为不是一个典型性的人物，从人物的剧作塑造上特别一般，因为父亲的战死家庭没落，母亲淫荡，和母亲中意的副官结婚，婚后追寻芭蕾舞，其中有若干个情人，得到了权利的巅峰，最后没落于美国的大马戏团。在剧作的环境场景塑造上，人物缺乏内涵，人物内在的实质空洞，人物缺乏环境的推动力，人物缺乏内在的戏剧性，人物经历太过于俗气。
古典主义，有古典主义叙事的狭隘，若拍摄时注重人物的表现，注重一定的渲染，这个电影也许走的更远，至少，我觉得劳拉梦特斯和安娜卡列尼娜，战争与和平那种电影里的人物缺乏大气。
视觉上的冲击力做的还是蛮不错的。单幅画面达到叙事能量的最大是很好的教学材料。对称的美感，布景和色调对叙事的推动......
讲究的场面调度，深焦摄影，宽银幕在单幅的画面上叙事信息量和视觉信息量都有提升，从最外在提升了影片的节奏感。巴洛克的繁复和形式的美感从内而外流露。
但是如此高的资金投入，所回馈的视觉饕鬄盛宴，我认为还欠缺更多。
在剧作上，劳拉蒙特斯这个人物具不具有可塑造的必要性，典型性。人物鲜明与否。在塑造人物，由人物产生的悲剧共鸣中，对环境的塑造有没有到位。劳拉蒙特斯个人认为不是一个典型性的人物，从人物的剧作塑造上特别一般，因为父亲的战死家庭没落，母亲淫荡，和母亲中意的副官结婚，婚后追寻芭蕾舞，其中有若干个情人，得到了权利的巅峰，最后没落于美国的大马戏团。在剧作的环境场景塑造上，人物缺乏内涵，人物内在的实质空洞，人物缺乏环境的推动力，人物缺乏内在的戏剧性，人物经历太过于俗气。
古典主义，有古典主义叙事的狭隘，若拍摄时注重人物的表现，注重一定的渲染，这个电影也许走的更远，至少，我觉得劳拉梦特斯和安娜卡列尼娜，战争与和平那种电影里的人物缺乏大气。
视觉上的冲击力做的还是蛮不错的。单幅画面达到叙事能量的最大是很好的教学材料。对称的美感，布景和色调对叙事的推动......
5 ) 精妙绝伦又平凡至极！
我偶尔会替一些作品可惜，在技术与内容之间，没有找寻到一个侧重点，使得作品就是有一些缺憾，比如这部！ 电影的镜头无与伦比，华丽的服饰和布景让电影显得无比高贵，整部作品其实都在服务于这一份高贵却自由的悲剧，但是作品整体而言，有种未尽兴的残缺。我不知道那个时代怎么看这样一个剧本，但这个时代的我看这个剧本却觉着还有很大的打磨空间，甚至可以让叙事像镜头一样精巧，但它没有，颇为可惜！ 提提镜头，电影有三次旋转运镜，第一次在7分钟以前，第二次在9分钟左右，第三次在39:30左右，头两次令我惊叹于它的精巧，简直妙不可言，这正如整部作品，精巧之下是平淡的瑕疵，整体来说，有些高开低走，无论叙事，还是技术层面... 影像95分 剧本80分 导演95分 我挺想给满分，但是我认为电影的瑕疵导演需要承担很大的责任 表演90分 表演有好，也有不足，整体而言，还有空间 创新90分 作品分90分 内容系数0.9 影史分81分
6 ) 一个十九世纪追求独立的女人的命运
影片主要内容有两段：一段是少女萝拉拒绝嫁给年老的伯爵，让她父亲的副官娶她，但婚后她的丈夫追逐别的女人，她毅然离开他，开始了独立自由的生活。另一段是萝拉到巴伐利亚去演出，被国王爱上，与国王在一起的一段生活。后来萝拉为了国王的王权安全，毅然离开巴伐利亚。萝拉是那个时代不甘被命运摆布的女子，但最后却不得不在马戏团里像一只动物一样被人驱使赚钱。影片结尾，萝拉被关在笼子里，让观众排队去抚摸和亲手，马戏团对观众每人收取1块钱。她遭受的耻辱令人感同身受。
有一俗說是：歐佛斯想以此片替在如戲子般可笑的民主與消費中沒落的貴族文明弔唁。對此我語帶保留，唯一確信是：歐氏美學這回著實與故事主旨近乎無縫靠攏，美術服裝愈浮誇，場面調度愈繁華，就愈顯得勞拉夫人得靠這些包裝來兜售親身經歷餬口的悲戚與可恥，成就了結尾那幕反諷的雷霆萬鈞之勢。
19世纪热搜女王飘若浮萍的一生。虽然写的都是情事，但没有get任何真情。Lola最后的握手会简直是她浮华一生的写照：虚荣是男人低头的亲吻，也是困住她一生的囚笼。服化道极致华丽，但女主最美的一幕是巴伐利亚雪地马车里斗篷里露出的一张小小美人脸，我看了都心动。奥菲尔斯@影城
劳拉像卡门一样，插着鲜花跳起西班牙舞曲，又被画成安格尔《大宫女》，和李斯特吻别，说着不要瓦格纳，马戏团却声色俱厉，宛如其“总体艺术”，进入巴伐利亚问路，问出一场革命，在我看来，不仅是红颜祸水，简直是以爱情拆解历史，在自己身上活出浪漫主义的欧洲，再被美元装进笼中（演员和倪虹洁一样长相）。奥菲尔斯如果长命一些，大概能拍出《爵士春秋》那种效果，对费里尼、维斯康蒂形成有力的补充，可惜没有如果，他的电影停留在某种古典的韵律，像巨大的枝形吊灯，光影流转，照耀在曲终人散的舞场。
2021-7-11重看；影城一号厅重温此片堪称圆梦，宽幅框内的细节一一呈现，尤其是马车内部的绮丽装饰铺陈于大银幕真是令人惊叹；巴洛克式繁复极致构成某种奇观，她端坐于被物质堆拥起来的人造舞台上，彻底成为一件被物化的「商品」，将人生奇情经历浓缩于一场盛大华美而虚假空洞的真人秀；镜头的升降恰是起起落落的一生，被遮挡的画面犹如人生大戏的幕布拉上或开启。开到酴醾花事了，红颜非薄命，凡人焉能体会？灿烂绝唱任留身后评说，华丽精致娴熟圆滑的运镜酽厚至纯，登峰造极的调度炫技。
如果他们停下，便是暴行。如果没有停下，便是革命。
奥菲尔斯回顾展，影城1厅，2008年2k修复版，8.2分“人们有时一直会期盼奇迹的发生，那就是你找到幸福的时候”1，继理财纠纷后又见马戏团。生活仿如喜剧，让别人笑笑，自己也笑笑。再绝色的女子也终有如笼中猴儿的一天，在最后冠绝长廊的男性霸权下，得了个红消香断有谁怜的寂寥与落寞2，艺术造诣确实绝伦，在其光辉下故事的叙述显得不那么出色了。19世纪的黄金欧洲，有多少璀璨女子的人生就这么零落成泥碾作尘土往事3，本片配乐出自曾为罗马假日创作过配乐的Georges Auric
又一部深刻剖析女性心理变迁和崇尚自由爱情的影片。电影完成不久，Max Ophüls即因病去世，在许多方面，这都是他最伟大的电影，也是他唯一的彩色片，娴熟的运镜和场景多么令人神往
【上海影城 4K修复版】1.尽管命途多舛，但奥菲尔斯能以如此华丽盛大又与自己电影生涯所钟情的母题和形式完美契合的绚烂之作收尾，也不复有遗憾了。2.虽然影片更多着墨于物化女性的悲剧，但劳拉亦有自己的慧识与追爱/寻自由之心，可叹终究逃不出欲望与社会的网罗，被囚禁的宿命也由屡屡现于前景的栏杆映衬出来。3.前景遮挡式构图还与不断暴露演艺框架（如班主评说与报幕）的外层叙事一道突显出【观看】与【虚构】，于是，一切都变得暧昧而虚空，一如巴洛克舞台剧“人生如戏”的内核。4.大量古典的叠化转场，其中抗议巴伐利亚国王为劳拉所“蛊惑操控”的漫画与民众焚烧草人的叠印尤为妙绝。5.以黑场遮挡或推散来自如变换画幅，起到集中焦点或烘托氛围之用，相当超前。6.色彩运用得当，曾经炽热多情，如今却心冷如霜。7.致敬安格尔[大宫女]。（8.5/10）
这是一个十九世纪穿越存在的后现代消费主义的故事
马克斯·奥菲尔斯的彩色片，运镜和调度依然精彩，甚至压过许多当今的导演。不过这个故事看着闹心、
lola问革命的学生，“我只是个女人，左派右派跟我有什么关系？”不要说女人不懂政治，女人和政治，都只是男人的玩物而已。
戲團和人生過往用雙重蒙太奇來呈現的敘事手法真是太有趣、太新奇了！（對我來說）勞拉的人生從一開始就被父母商品化了，在那艘郵輪上，她徹底頓悟了，既然逃不開被商品化的命運，那不如我自己來運營這個商品。以現代的視角來看，勞拉的內容、營銷、市場、轉化都是非常高的，只不過和現在的網紅一下，生命週期很短，最終的境遇也很難說很好⋯⋯即便經過半個世紀，不論東方還是西方，男人和女人的權利地位和喜好都沒有什麼特別大的變化，結構性問題和矛盾依然存在。當我們今天來看勞拉的命運，再對照當下的社會，不難發現在第二次工業革命之後，除了科技，我們在文化和意識上可以說是毫無進展。
绮罗堆里埋华年，璇梯长镜某夫人
720p的CC，一场顶级的视觉享受。德勒兹盛赞完美时间晶体。奢华超越《豹》，色彩领先《红色的沙漠》，繁复巴洛克堪比费里尼。一位德国人，在法国拍的片，启示了三位意大利的电影大师。1955年，意大利还在新现实主义，法国新浪潮还没到来，奥菲尔斯已经拍出这部可以令后世所有的古装剧都黯然失色的作品。
戏中戏本就凸显一生如镜花水月虚幻，马戏团更添小丑般供人亵玩谈笑的悲凉。演出除了串起劳拉的一生，本身也设计了各种符号隐喻，亦是她人生浮沉的写照。只可惜这个仿佛法国杨颖的女演员完全没演出她身上应有的强烈的冲突感和生命不同经历后的变迁。
＃资料馆＃优质电影的排场和品质，巴洛克式繁复的风格，用（马）戏中戏讲述祸国舞女艳史，颇像《西鹤一代女》那类，结尾贵族宠姬落魄到一美元任摸的处理很犀利→欧美地位势头的隐喻……不过女主基本上是叙事工具，感受不到她的情感，人物塑造很单薄，我对这个故事也比较无感……奥菲尔斯遗作，运镜调度还是行云流水（镜前遮挡物尤多，运动长镜头算收着用了，几处斜角镜头比较惊艳）；也是他唯一彩色片，有那个年代的浓郁饱满；用了变形宽银幕？效果应该还不太行，边缘黑虚明显。好几幕应该是影响了《爵士春秋》，女主这个演法倒是联想到德莱叶的《葛楚》。
2021125 上海影城。彩色宽屏版《众人之妻》，美轮美奂。以“看戏”切入，“入戏”结束，传记电影本身与马戏团的表演并无二致，滤镜下的劳拉蒙特斯都是一种被物化的虚实结合的角色兜售。
2.5/5 关于罗拉蒙特斯的电影 看完之后 她仍然是个神秘人物 缺少对蒙特斯本人内心世界的挖掘 显得流于表面 奥菲尔斯的长镜头的确吊 但这台摄影机似乎有点问题 有好几个画面的边缘明显变形 广角畸变严重 奥菲尔斯首次尝试彩色片 在色彩上做的不错
轻轻松松的，没啥意思，而且很不喜欢这股浓郁的舞台感，不仅空间很舞台，连时间都很舞台，后者主要与表演节奏有关，但我认为，如果明确想要舞台化，还不如对内心活动更为外化，但又想回来，一直思考影片中有舞台的这种设计是否在追求离间效果。变形宽银幕、多用前景的构图、复杂的摄影运动营造出出色的视觉空间感；尽管许多后期声，但处理细心，空间感与语气都把握得很不错；美术与服装很抢戏，颜色一块一块很显眼，这真的好吗？对于剧情，是真心很陌生，看得不知该感受什么，该思考什么，看到50多分钟时瞌睡了十分钟左右。这片多少让我想到十年后德莱叶《葛楚》。
還是要重看才能了解德勒茲所論的「完美晶體」的問題。如果說時間－影像的能耐是能讓人擱置（或置入括號）康德的知性，而回到圖式及感性上做某種現象學還原的敞開問題，是否能跟巴洛克產生連結？在迴旋中的跳躍是否是要超越此軸心往當刻尖點去？程度上來說，即使把它拿起來跟我愛你、我愛你比也不奇怪。