美人计1946

看希区柯克 7⃣️ 《美人计》

二战后希胖的第二部作品，在我看来，与前作《爱德华》相比，这部要逊色很多，更像是一部披着间谍，悬疑外皮的爱情电影。

是什么可以让“褒曼”冒着生命危险，去成为一名肩负国家利益重任的间谍呢，是对“格兰特”深切的爱！而其情绪波动变化，源自于“格兰特”有没有在下派任务时说出关心自己的话语，显得很矫情，不像是一个间谍。影片后半，也是影片氛围营造相对较好的，藏钥匙那段很妙！想必是惊天魔盗团的手法来源吧！打碎的酒瓶和撒落的铀，也解释了前面埋下的一个小伏笔。结尾很有意思，塞巴斯蒂安渴望被拯救无果后，在德国佬的呼唤下，恐慌的回到房子里，大门关上隐入黑暗。迎接他的大概率是死亡，也展现出了战时敌人冷血，虚假的丑恶嘴脸。

影片里有一段褒曼和格兰特的吻戏，间断的亲了好几次，一边亲一边说台词，颇具喜感！原来是《海斯法典》规定吻戏不能超过三秒，所以他俩不得吻三秒后停下再吻，哈哈哈哈！

Yet let us recall the final scene of Notorious (1946): Devlin elopes with the poisoned Alicia from Sebastian's house in full view of the latter's Nazi collaborators. What we have here is a homologous underlying structure of the three gazes, of the three subjective positions: the ignorant Other is here the members of the Nazi ring who do not know that Alicia is an American spy and that Sebastian knows it (the reason why he is slowly poisoning her with his mother's help); the actants are Devlin and Alicia-Devlin escorts her down the staircase, posing as her friend who will take her to the hospital, with Sebastian's agreement; the helpless opponents are Sebastian and his mother, reduced to the role of passive observers-although Devlin's act is directed against them, any public countermove of theirs would instantly reveal to the members of the Nazi gang present that Alicia is an American spy and that Sebastian knows it, whereby Sebastian would sign his death warrant. What makes this scene different from the three above-mentioned comic interludes is the character of the third agency, the ignorant big Other, the public which witnesses the duel of the actant and his opponent: the Other loses here its benevolent innocence and assumes features of a threatening paranoiac agency. Those who range Notorious among the few Hitchcock's films which display noir sensibility are therefore in the right: one of the features which characterize the noir universe is precisely this mutation in the status of the big Other.

引自

Enjoy Your Symptom!

评价人数不足

Slavoj Zizek / 2007 / Routledge

The very notion of the big Other (of the symbolic order) is founded on the special kind of double deception that becomes visible in a scene from the Marx brothers' Duck Soup, where Groucho defends his client before the court of law with the following argument in favor of his insanity: "This man looks like an idiot and acts like an idiot—but this should in no way deceive you: he IS an idiot!" The paradox of this proposition exemplifies perfectly the classical topos of the Lacanian theory concerning the difference between animal and human deception: man alone is capable of deceiving by means of truth itself. An animal can feign to be or to intend something other than what it really is or intends, but only man can lie by telling a truth that he expects to be taken for a lie. Only man can deceive by feigning to deceive. This is, of course, the logic of Freud's joke about two Polish Jews often cited by Lacan. One of these men asks the other in an offended tone: "Why are you telling me that you are going to Cracow,, so that I'll think you're going to Lemberg, when you are really going to Cracow?" This same logic structures the plot of a whole series of Hitchcock's films: the amorous couple is at first united by a pure accident or an external constraint, i.e., they find themselves in a situation in which they must pretend to be married or in love, until, finally, they fall in love for real. The paradox of such a situation could be adequately described by a paraphrase of Groucho's plea: "This couple looks like a couple in love and acts like a couple in love—but this should in no way deceive you: they ARE a couple in love!" We find perhaps the most refined version of this in Notorious, when Alicia and Devlin, American agents in the house of Sebastian, a rich Nazi supporter and Alicia's husband, furtively enter the wine cellar to explore the secret contents of the champagne bottles. There, they are surprised by the sudden arrival of Sebastian. To conceal the real purpose of their visit to the cellar, they embrace quickly, feigning a clandestine meeting of two lovers. The point is, of course, that they are effectively in love: they succeed in deceiving the husband (for the time being, at least), but what they offer him as a lure is truth itself. This kind of movement "from outside inward" is one of the key components of the intersubjective relations in Hitchcock's films: we effectively become something by pretending that we already are that. To grasp the dialectic of this movement, we have to take into account the crucial fact that this "outside" is never simply a "mask" we wear in public but is rather the symbolic order itself. By "pretending to be something," by "acting as if we were something," we assume a certain place in the intersubjective symbolic network, and it is this external place that defines our true position. If we remain convinced, deep within ourselves, that "we are not really that," if we preserve an intimate distance toward ''the social role we play," we doubly deceive ourselves. The final deception is that social appearance is deceitful, for in the social-symbolic reality things ultimately are precisely what they pretend to be. (More precisely, this holds only for those of Hitchcock's films designated by Lesley Brill as "romances," in opposition to the "ironic" films. The "romances" are ruled by the Pascalian logic whereby social play gradually changes into an authentic intersubjective relationship whereas the "ironic" films [Psycho, for example] depict a total blockade of communication, a psychotic split where the "mask" is effectively nothing but a mask, i.e., where the subject maintains the kind of distance from the symbolic order characteristic of psychoses.)

引自

Looking Awry

8.8

Slavoj Žižek / 1991 / The MIT Press

What matters in Notorious is not the fact that there are some bottles of wine filled with sand ('ore'), but that the wine is in the cellar; that the cellar door is locked; that the key is in the husband's possession; that the husband is in love with his wife; that she herself is in love with another; and that the third party wishes to know what is in the cellar.

第二部分第五章

Everything You Always Wanted to Kno

评价人数不足

Zizek, Slavoj (EDT) / 1992 / Verso

作者：罗杰·埃伯特 发表日期：1997年8月17日 译者：八月三十一 评分：Great Movie

阿尔弗雷德·希区柯克的《美人计》是他的大师视觉风格的最优雅的表达，正如《迷魂记》是关于他的痴迷的最充分的表达。它包含了他（或任何人）作品中的一些最有效的镜头，它们共同催生了最后的伟大段落，其中两个男人都发现了自己酿成了大错。

这部电影与《卡萨布兰卡》确立了英格丽·褒曼的不朽。她饰演的女人的声名狼藉使得美国特工招募她在战后的里约监视纳粹分子。当她所爱的男人不信任她时，她的声名狼藉险些让她丧命。他的误会是情节的核心，其中，所有部分完美地结合在一起，导致两人走下楼梯通往自由，第三人则登上台阶走向毁灭。

希区柯克于1946年拍摄了这部电影，当时二战已经结束，但冷战才刚刚开始。几个月后，他本可以把反派写成共产主义者，但在他和本·赫克特创作剧本的过程中，他们心里想的最多的仍是纳粹。

故事中，褒曼饰演一个名叫艾丽西亚·休伯曼的爱国的美国人，她的父亲是一个被定罪的纳粹间谍。艾丽西亚因酗酒和明显的滥交而出名，并被一位名叫德夫林（加里·格兰特 饰）的特工招募，飞往里约，潜入由塞巴斯蒂安（克劳德·雷恩斯 饰）领导的一个间谍组织。塞巴斯蒂安曾爱过她，也许他现在依然爱着她；德夫林则主要是要求她与间谍同床共枕，以发现他的秘密。她之所以愿意，是因为当德夫林要求她时，她已经爱上了他。

当然，所有这些涉及性的情节都是通过那种微妙的对话和暗示来处理的，好莱坞以此来绕过海斯法典。不恰当的行为从未被真正地表示或表现出来，但观众其实都已心知肚明。当真相大白时，实际上我们对塞巴斯蒂安的同情要多过对德夫林的同情。他或许是间谍，但他真诚地爱着艾丽西亚，而德夫林或许是美国特工，但他利用艾丽西亚的爱来迫使她投入另一个男人的怀抱。

希区柯克以注重视觉细节而闻名。在拍摄之前，他为每个场景都画了分镜，并在德夫林登场的那个场景中巧妙地利用了格兰特的明星效应。在父亲被定罪的那天晚上，艾丽西亚在派对借酒消愁。摄像机位于坐着的德夫林后面，所以我们只能看到他的后脑勺。当摄影机左右移动时，画面始终没有离开德夫林，他注视着道德上模棱两可的艾丽西亚，看她调情、喝酒并试图忘记一切。

第二天早上有更多著名的镜头。艾丽西亚宿醉未醒，前景是一个关于一杯Alka-Seltzer的大特写（它将与之后出现在前景中的一杯下了砒霜的咖啡相呼应）。从她的视角来看，她看到了德夫林在门口，背光且画面倾斜。随着她起身，他旋转了180度。他建议合作。她拒绝了，并说她打算去旅游。他播放了一段秘密录音，证明她本质上还是爱国的——尽管她生活放荡。当录音开始播放时，她位于阴影之中。随着它继续播放，她部分身体位于光线之中。当播放结束时，她已完全位于光线之中。希区柯克对视觉效果进行了精心设计，使其能够准确反映正在发生的事情。

这部电影还有很多优雅的镜头，在最著名镜头中，摄影机从塞巴斯蒂安在里约的豪宅的门厅的高处开始，一镜到底，以艾丽西亚紧张地扭动着的手上的一把钥匙的特写结束。这把钥匙将打开酒窖，德夫林（冒充客人）将与艾丽西亚一起寻找塞巴斯蒂安的秘密。其中一个瓶子里装的不是酒，而是一种用于制造炸弹的放射性物质。当然，它可以是任何东西（地图、密码、钻石），因为它是一个麦高芬（这是希区柯克对每个人都关心的情节元素的称呼，尽管它是什么并不重要）。

赫克特的剧本巧妙地将这两个男人对立起来。由雷恩斯饰演的塞巴斯蒂安更瘦小，更优雅，更脆弱，且受他那令人生畏的母亲控制。格兰特饰演的德夫林身材高大，体格魁梧，有时还很粗鲁，对于塞巴斯蒂安信任的事情他则持怀疑态度。两个男人都爱她，但不该爱她的那个男人却信任她，这一情节催生了一个充满精彩创造力的时刻：德夫林能够当着所有间谍的面，护送艾丽西亚走出纳粹的豪宅，而当时没有人能阻止他。（在这之前，德夫林走上了同一个楼梯，如果你细数他走了多少步，你会发现他和艾丽西亚下楼时的台阶要比实际的多，这就是希区柯克延长悬念的方法。）

在希区柯克的整个职业生涯中，他设计过一些故事，其中优雅的女性，通常是金发碧眼，受人操纵，并陷入危险。希区柯克是操纵大师，男演员则是他的代理人。《迷魂记》如此公开地处理这一主题，以至于几乎泄露了这个游戏的秘密。但看看在《美人计》中它是如何运作的，德夫林（就像《迷魂记》中詹姆斯·斯图尔特的角色）培养和训练无辜的女人，让她们成为他所希望的样子，然后让她听从他的命令。

《迷魂记》中最伟大的性欲时刻是男人亲吻他幻想中的女人，同时房间围绕着他旋转。《美人计》中有个类似的场景，当时以“影史上最长的吻”而闻名。然而，正如蒂姆·德克斯在其关于这部电影的文章中指出，这并不是一个简单的吻。海斯法典禁止接吻时间超过三秒，因此褒曼和格兰特接吻、对话和眼神交流交替进行，同时从未离开过对方的怀抱。这段序列从能够眺望里约的阳台开始，包括一通电话和一段关于菜单的讨论，最后在公寓门口分开，共计三分钟。三秒法则催生了更好的场景；而真正的180秒的接吻看起来可能会像是一场流口水练习。

英格丽·褒曼是理想人选；她巧妙地将高贵与肉欲结合起来。想想《卡萨布兰卡》，其中，她与一位抵抗英雄生活在一起，但内心深处爱着一位邋遢的酒吧老板，然而却以一个理想主义女主角的形象出现。在《美人计》中，我们从不怀疑她是女主角，但我们可以理解格兰特的角色为什么会怀疑。她看起来是个酒鬼，此外，她还和塞巴斯蒂安上过床。但她这么做是因为她爱德夫林。德夫林很难爱上一个愿意这样做的女人；这让人想起格劳乔·马克斯，他拒绝加入任何愿意让他成为会员的俱乐部。

很多电影都以强制性的追逐和枪战结尾，以至于很少有人能写出一段精心设计的第三幕。《美人计》优秀的结局，是其诸多的成就之一。按照计划，最后十分钟不可避免的事件发生了，它们共同催生了最后一个完美的镜头，其中，另一个纳粹分子对塞巴斯蒂安说：“亚历克斯，请你进来好吗？我想和你谈谈。”亚历克斯进去了，他知道自己永远不可能活着出来。

欢迎关注我的公众号：电影的审慎魅力