1 ) 浅显的观后感
我没有宗教信仰也不算是无神论者,我对任何一种宗教都充满好奇与敬畏。而我对这一切又是一无所知。
谈伯格曼的电影就无法绕开这些宗教信仰带来的思辩,我很少看到有这样能力能够与神对话的导演,伯格曼算一个,塔可夫斯基算一个,看伯格曼的电影常常让人陷入沉思,伯格曼的电影里没有答案,只有与神的对话和抛向观众的问题。爱即是上帝,上帝证明了爱?那么我把全身心都交给了你为何仍然得不到你的回应?我是该怀疑自己的信仰还是该怀疑自己的怀疑?没有答案!
人们渴望与神对话渴望奇迹的将临,然而得到的永远是神的沉默。是什么让我们如此坚定的相信神性的存在?又是什么让我们一次次质疑神性的存在?还是没有答案!我想伯格曼也有着和我们一样的困惑,他不是因为知道答案而拍电影,他只是拍出了他的困惑。
这个时代不再产生像伯格曼老塔那样能够与神对话的导演了,电影的神性艺术的神性正在慢慢丧失,这个时代只产生取悦观众与票房资本对话的导演。
浅显的观后感。
2 ) 当信仰丢失了时
和英歌伯格曼的缘分应该是从大学开始,电影史和视听语言的老师力推博格曼大师的作品,连考试也是用他的创作生平来作为考题。第一次看野草莓的时候,完全被梦中看到自己尸体的荒诞场景给迷住。觉得那是有史以来我看到的最让我心悸的片段。后来很无意中看了《第七封印》,说实在的,当时并不能够完全懂究竟在讲些什么,但是博格曼的电影就是会有种魔力,哪怕不能get导演的意图,却还是愿意一直一直看下去。
研究生时,上男神的课被男神问到为什么会选择和电影相关的课程,答曰,只是想要看懂那些我看不懂的电影。博格曼的电影位居前列。这次终于有机会在电影院看了冬日之光。
最近在看一些电影的时候总是在想,内地究竟有没有对应上的风格。比如看完《东京物语》包括侯孝贤的作品时就在想内地有没有相关的,平静记述的这种类型的电影,这次看完冬日之光,也在考虑我们是否有拍过信仰缺失的电影,想来,作为一个本来就没有什么信仰的国家,可能信仰最缺失的时候也就是在文革吧,又刚好遇到文化管制。这个点日后可以好好挖一下。
3 ) 有上帝的地方就有死亡
《Nattvardsgästerna》
有上帝的地方就有死亡
上帝无处存在,而揭示他冷酷沉默的证据却又无处不在,上帝目睹教民们饱受折磨,虔诚的祈祷唤起河边一声枪响;上帝存在于爱,当持续施加伤害于身边人的上帝代言人,牧师怀疑地念出圣餐典故,自身的信仰讽刺性地岌岌可危。教堂是上帝的私人空间,墙上画着的死神与挂着的骷髅竟可以随意进出毫不避讳,巨大的耶稣受难雕像下,圣子的目光从未怜悯地投注世人连他自己也在等待救赎。
走进小镇冬日,日落时分的最后一缕阳光怎么都穿不透寒冷彻骨的昏沉,俨然一副末日即将到来的惨状,苦难发生的第一时间,渔夫寻不见上帝,牧师自顾自宣泄,对神的怀疑已成真,随着信念垮塌,有人自杀逃避,有人恼羞成怒,人与人之间的爱意被自私取缔,剩下礼拜空无一人的死寂。
做不成上帝的信徒,便做教堂的奴隶,为求得生存意义和维持精神稳定,他愿意自欺欺人,浸淫于天主的无声中去。
4 ) 一个并非普适的质疑
伯格曼认为这是他最好的作品之一,我却不这么认为。他自己评价《冬日之光》:“将牧师所缺乏的信仰与他之前情妇的竞争作对比,将她的怨恨带点宗教色彩,去帮助他透过凡人的爱情去了解精神心灵上的辩解。”
可问题在于,这种剖析建立在他对宗教的认识和理解上。他首先是个信徒(虔不虔诚另当别论),其次才是一个挣扎着的怀疑者。在我看来他在《冬》里对信仰的怀疑并非普适的,至少对我这样的人产生不了共鸣感。打个比方,怀疑中国核战危险和自杀,这样对我来说就是一个黑色幽默,而一本正经的态度对我来说就有点莫名其妙。
无疑伯格曼对基督教的见解是非常深刻,不然不会丢出对上帝存在的质疑。但这种质疑是基于他年少时与身为牧师的父亲的争执上,所以对教徒和对信教模凌两可的人来说具有很强的冲击力。但对我就不行,因为于我这个对耶稣阿拉还是佛祖都不相信的人而言,伯格曼在《冬》里举的几个信仰丢失的例子都不普适,而且缺乏逻辑内核。
姑且不论我是有神论者还是无神论者,至少我对宗教有一种深深的不信任,并且从艺术观点对待宗教是理性和批判的。这可能是我理解伯格曼信仰三部曲时,不可能逾越的一条鸿沟。
好在他仍然是世上最伟大的导演,抛开这些内容不说,他的光影可谓是用得绝妙,几次侧光勾勒出人纠结不定的内心,却又仿佛有神在一旁注视。有人说看了像是在听巴赫的哥德堡变奏曲,我想大概就是这个味道。
5 ) 沉默
祈祷时的基督徒肯定希望天主能俯听祷告并有所回应。毕竟耶稣曾亲口承诺:“你们求,必要给你们;你们找,必要找着;你们敲,必要给你们开,因为凡是求的,就必得到……”(玛窦福音7:7-8)然而有的时候,任凭我们苦苦哀求,内心的愿望也未必能实现,天主有时甚至会毫无反应。
毫无回应的祈祷是基督徒生活中必然要面临的问题,宗徒雅各伯对此的反思是:“你们得不到,是因为你们不求;你们求而不得,是因为你们求的不当,想要浪费在你们的淫乐中。”(雅各伯书4:2-3)这里的“淫”字当作广义的理解,就好像在“淫雨”和“侵淫”中一样:不要把过分的欲望包装成祈祷,妄图博得天主垂怜。
因此,受过一定教育的基督徒都知道,如果自己罹患晚期癌症,与其向天主祈祷康复,不如请求他在治疗和死亡的过程中给予自己平静面对一切的勇气,帮助自己参透病痛与死亡的意义。那些将自己的康复归因于祈祷的人将会面临一些无法回答的问题:那些祈祷康复而死去的人,难道他们不值得天主同情吗?如果康复之后恶疾复发,难道能说天主在开玩笑吗?
可问题在于,求而不得的情况并不局限于患病之人,更不是只有身处绝境者才会面临的困境。有时,我们的祈求并无任何过分之处,但依然得不到任何回应。俗话“叫天天不应,叫地地不灵”讲的就是这种情况。
天主不回应,抑或说用沉默来回应我们的祈求,没有什么能比这更能动摇信仰、摧毁信仰。《冬日之光》中的路德宗牧师托马斯所面临的,正是这种令人恐怖的沉默。天主的沉默(汉语字幕译为“上帝的沉默”)使得他对自己的信仰产生了疑惑,让他变成了一个软弱无力的可怜人。他既不能帮助精神崩溃的渔夫,也不能直面自己的(前)情人玛尔塔。据他自己交代,沉默第一次打击到他是西班牙内战时,那时他在远航的船上为瑞典渔夫服务。尽管电影里没有明说,但很有可能是在无神论共和派和天主教保守派的相互残杀中,他第一次领略到了天主的沉默。大批教堂被毁,神父被杀,天主为什么没有反应?天主教徒借天主之名滥杀无辜,天主怎么能无动于衷?对于长期和平而富裕的瑞典,想要在国内找到这种天主默然的情况并不容易:诱发渔夫精神问题的,也是当时远东某国的核扩散危机。
但无论发现天主沉默的场景是远方的杀伐,还是个人内心的挣扎,最终引发的都是信仰的疑惑,动摇,甚至毁灭。当托马斯与渔夫交谈结束,他从牧师办公室里冲了出来,在玛尔塔的怀里大喊:“我自由了!”如果天主并不存在,那祈祷没有回应就很正常了:对着空气说话,回应你的只有沉默。对于基督徒而言,认识到这一点的过程十分痛苦(渔夫没有经受住,自杀了),但承认自己的信仰全是虚空实际上是一种自我解放的过程——至少在一些无神论者看来是这样的。
但伯格曼显然不是这样简单的无神论者。伯格曼的父亲埃里克是瑞典著名的神职人员,曾任瑞典宫廷的专职牧师。拍摄《冬日之光》前,父子二人走访了乌普兰乡间的许多教堂。伯格曼深知,承认天主不存在不能化解人的精神危机,高喊过自由之后,托马斯依然无力面对渔夫的遗体和遗孀,依然无法接受恋人的情感。实际上,他用最恶毒的语言回绝了她。
承认自己信仰崩溃的托马斯依然需要去另一个教堂,而这个教堂里除了他、玛尔塔、管风琴师、残疾的帮手之外,并没有人来参加礼拜。(上午那场礼拜参加者也是寥寥无几,这多少表明信仰在这个基督教国家正在迅速消失。)在准备礼拜时,残疾的帮手与牧师分享了他最近看《玛窦福音》的心得,耶稣被捕之前祈祷,发现他的门徒全都在熟睡,他被捕后,他们一哄而散,而他最心爱的门徒居然还不肯认他。当他受难被钉上十字架后,他也会无助地大喊:“我的天主,我的天主!你为什么舍弃了我?”然而天主用沉默回应了他。托马斯似乎受到了启发,毅然决定在没有人参加的情况下依然要进行礼拜,因为他意识到,哪怕是耶稣基督,贵为天主之子的救世主,也会面临天主的沉默。教堂里没人确实会让人对信仰产生怀疑,但是学会与怀疑共存,正是耶稣为我们做的榜样。
学会接受沉默,将其视为信仰的一部分,是每一个有信仰的人必修课。如果我们知道天主必然会沉默,或是必然会回应,那这种确信无疑的事情就不再是信仰,而是科学,或是其他别的东西。
6 ) Fear and Trembling --- Michael Joshua Rowin on Winter Light
Fear and Trembling
Michael Joshua Rowin on Winter Light
The published screenplays of Ingmar Bergman’s “religious trilogy” contain, as a sort of introduction, a single-page announcement of the director’s intentions. “The theme of these three films is a “reduction”—in the metaphysical sense of the word.” Then, as if Bergman wanted to descriptively reduce these films of reduction, one-line summations of each film of the trilogy follow: “Through a Glass Darkly—certainty achieved. Winter Light—certainty unmasked. The Silence—God’s silence: the negative impression.” While the first and the last entries seem inadequate to their respective films’ complexities, it is the middle that, if one has seen Winter Light, brings pause. “Certainty unmasked”: the two words at once totally evoke and yet only hint at what might be the greatest achievement of Bergman’s mature work, an incredibly—almost painful—personal struggle with the nonexistence of God and the responsibility to oneself and others in the harsh light of doubt. The unmasking of religious certainty informs Winter Light’s sparse, skeletal story and structure, in which Bergman sheds any artistic ornamentation that remained from earlier films like The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries. But, like a leafless tree in the dead of January, the film also contains jutting branches, subtle articulations of concept and character that touch upon a multitude of emotions, ideas, and considerations, eventually extending into one of the most spiritually ambiguous endings in all of cinema and provoking a profound and haunting transformation.
In Through a Glass Darkly Bergman first presented his vision of the “spider-god,” an insidious, corrupt obverse to the benevolent Christian God, a tormenting idea of God’s failure within a meaningless reality. As Bergman himself described the concept in interview, “It’s a question of the total dissolution of all notions of an otherworldly salvation.” Everything in this first film of the religious trilogy points to an Inferno, and yet Bergman backs off. Creating the character of Karin as a schizophrenic allowed him, as well as the viewer, to keep a safe distance from the consequences and possibilities of God-as-evil-manipulator. And after Karin completely succumbs to insanity, her father closes the film by letting son Minus and the viewer know that all is not lost, that “God is love” and that Karin is surrounded by this love. One senses that this speech ends the film on an utterly false note, offering a facile solution in face of an enormous existential dilemma—the director even admitted as much later on. While Bergman begins to grapple with religious uncertainty in Through a Glass Darkly, the process is undertaken with trepidation and lacks sustained moral conviction.
Winter Light, on the other hand, tackles the issue of a sick or absent God directly, with a greater sense of gravity and with precise mastery of form. For one thing, the mise-en-scène of Winter Light never overwhelms or startles as it does in the previous film, instead becoming quietly and effectively integrated with the action. The various settings of Through a Glass Darkly provide natural habitats for a spider-god, allowing Bergman to create expressionistic cinematic set pieces like the sea-wrecked ship and the room with ripped wallpaper. But in Winter Light the surroundings become muted, hushed, as if God’s silence had left a palpable expectancy in the very air the characters breathe. Bergman, like Ozu, is a seasonal director (Summer Interlude, Virgin Spring, Autumn Sonata, etc.), and the role winter plays is as important as the Reverend Tomas’s church, providing a cover of gray, melancholic resignation and suffering.
The film opens, however, within the interior of a cold, humble church in the rural Swedish town of Mittsunda. A service is in progress, with Rev. Tomas Eriksson leading the congregation. Tomas tells the story of Christ’s last supper with the disciples, in which he offers them his body and blood as eternal salvation. Thus Bergman introduces the film’s main theme—communication, a true giving and receiving between beings that redeems the meaninglessness of existence. As visual commentary, something occurs soon after that is, cinematically, almost preternatural in its simplicity and power. As the Reverend says the Lord’s Prayer, Bergman cuts to three exteriors (each fading into one another) that normally would serve as opening establishing shots, with the church looking like an abandoned ruin among winter trees, the hardened ground, and a half-frozen river. This unconventional but structurally integral insertion of a montage sequence at this point in the film creates a feeling of extreme alienation and loneliness—through a seemingly gratuitous move to the bitter outside world during a prayer of great strength and confiding, Bergman undermines the potential warmth of the words and transforms a God’s-eye-view into its opposite, a hollow, empty space where a caring God cannot reside. Communication and solace seem remote.
Similar in environmental effect is a scene in which Tomas visits the place where Jonas, the man whose fear of nuclear war he had previously attempted to address, has killed himself. The body lies near that same earlier shown river and, over the course of five long shots handled from two strategic camera positions, the viewer sees, in documentary-like footage, Tomas’s encounter with the rote process of tending to a fresh corpse: the body is covered with tarp, kept company by Tomas when the doctors leave the scene, and finally transported to a hospital van. Bergman shoots all of this in as subjective a manner as possible by remaining completely objective—that is, as Tomas now sees the world as being absent of any higher power, Bergman films the scene with attention to the concreteness, the pure materiality of the landscape, as if existence were pressing itself upon Tomas for the first time. There is no recourse to a close-up which would neatly spell out Tomas’s emotional state—Bergman demonstrates here his aesthetic restraint in creating a sorrow rooted in nature, in the half-glow of the dreary surroundings and the relentless rushing water nearby.
The languishing sadness of Jonas’s suicide comes from its particular pertinence to Tomas. Bergman unmistakably links both in their individual torments, Tomas’s an intensely personal one in his relationship to God, Jonas’s a global one in a sane assessment of an insane world’s death drive. The reverend’s earlier offhand, routine remark to Jonas—a seemingly pathetic try to dispel anxiety—haunts the screen during his lonely stay with the body: “We all go with the same dread, more or less.” Both fears emanate from the same, desperate place in the soul, the annihilation of the earth deeply related to the annihilation of the self’s significance in reality. Tomas’s existential dread carries with it a terrible possibility—might not the winter light that accompanied Tomas’s acceptance of meaninglessness also be the blinding flash of the A-bomb?
Tomas’s openness with Jonas is the crux around which the film revolves. Tomas reveals that God for him was once a secure “echo-god . . . who loved mankind, of course, but myself most of all,” one that became “a spider-god, a monster” emerging after his wife’s death. Although the nursing, unchallenging God of his conventional Christian upbringing and practice revealed its perversity in the face of personal tragedy, Tomas’ desperation is unlike Karin’s madness. Tomas’s spiritual and emotional breakthrough, his realization of God’s silence and the falsity of his role as a man of the cloth, brings with it freedom, a terrible existential vertigo. Winter Light here answers Through a Glass Darkly by allowing the “spider-god” a positive manifestation without falling back onto evasive reassurances like “God is love.” Thus, when Tomas cries out, in the midst of his consuming illness and after his monumental admission, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” the question is answered by the expressionist winter light of the title streaming through the windows, mysteriously illuminating the features of a man reborn.
The passage from exterior to the interior, from the absurdity of existence to the individual’s realization of that absurdity, takes place within this crucial moment. It was initiated, in part by Marta, Tomas’s mistress and the local schoolteacher. Marta is one of Bergman’s most complex characters, a substitute mother/wife, searching atheist, and stigmatized Christ figure all at once. In her extended letter to Tomas, Marta details her own struggle with God, reminding him of how one day she prayed “to be of use,” to put her abundant strength to a task that will give her life meaning. The prayer was prompted by eczema that, symbolically, afflicted her hands, feet and crown. The Christ symbolism is clear, and Marta easily sees Tomas’s religious compromises corresponding with the breakdown in their relationship—after mentioning the moment she realized Tomas didn’t love her she pinpoints his lack of faith, his “peculiar indifference to the gospels and to Jesus Christ.”
Tomas’s reading of the letter while waiting for Jonas is another example of Bergman’s simple, delicate and yet rich approach in dealing with storytelling. When the reverend begins to read Marta’s words it becomes rendered as—instead of, typically, a voiceover or flashback—a four-and-a-half minute shot of Marta, seated in front of a bare wall, talking directly at Tomas and the viewer. This is unmediated communication, openness and expressivity, the spiritual and emotional nakedness that has been lacking ever since the service that was conducted entirely with foreign (i.e., the Church’s) words, and not the characters’ own. Prefiguring the radical forms of address in Persona and Hour of the Wolf, it is as if Bergman announces the intent of the entire trilogy with this shot (a similar two minute shot follows a minute-long flashback scene), a complete demolition and removal of psychological, emotional, and cinematic defenses—an unmasking.
Marta’s confession of finding meaning in wanting to share a life with Tomas, as well as her critical insight into Tomas’s hidden jealousy and hatred toward God, shifts the focus of the film. Later, in reaction to Jonas’s suicide, in reaction to a meaninglessness that only further exasperates questions of responsibility and duty, Tomas flees from individual salvation by bluntly confronting Marta. His grievances—that she treats him like a child, repulses him with her various illnesses that require constant attention, and her failure to replace his true love, his late wife—come as a shock. So accustomed have we been to Tomas’s resignation that this outburst comes across as a frantic testing of freedom and at the same time a return to the spiritual stalemate in the struggle to understand God’s silence. Marta (the praying, physically suffering atheist) offers a new kind of faith in the form of human love and companionship for Tomas (the atheistic, physically suffering reverend) but—as the location of their conversation, a schoolhouse, suggests—the teacher’s lessons in love and connection cannot reach the confused, bitter priest-turned-pupil. Tomas’s renunciation of a dead God now only allows him to burrow deeper into his own pity and coldness.
Ironically, Tomas finds redemption in a church, a place he earlier damned for stifling his life with the false cover of servile Christian faith. There, Algot, the hunchback sexton, tells Tomas before the service something that has been troubling him about the Gospels: Christ’s physical agony could not have been as bad as his own. The true agony was Christ’s abandonment by the disciples and his ultimate moment of doubt on the cross when demanding to know why God had forsaken him. “To understand that no one has understood you. To be abandoned when one really needs someone to rely on . . . Surely that must have been his most monstrous suffering of all? I mean God’s silence.” Tomas responds in the form of a decision—will the service proceed in the absence of any congregates, save Marta? Bergman moves the entire sequence from gothic, candle-illuminated lighting to electric, reflecting both the otherworldliness of the atmosphere and its unbeautiful blandness. As Marta herself offers a silent prayer (“If we could dare to show each other affection . . . if we could believe in a truth . . . if we could believe . . .”), Tomas comes out to lead the service: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty. All the earth is full of His glory . . .”
In unmasking the certainty of religious faith, Bergman ends Winter Light with the almost unfathomable image of a godless reverend conducting a service for no reason other than his own sense of religious responsibility. Tomas’s final gesture suggests neither a reconciliation with God nor a turn toward self-parody, but a Sisyphian struggle in coming to terms with the absurdity of life. Marta’s prayer calls for the aspects (affection, truth, belief) still missing in the lives of damaged souls, while Tomas’s prayer confirms the ability to continually search for them, not through hollow ritual which made the first church service a theater of the grotesque, but through a personal, austere dedication to challenging and helping oneself and others in the face of meaninglessness. If God exists anywhere in Winter Light it is in that “absurd image,” as Tomas calls it, of Jesus on the cross questioning God as to the purpose of the Passion. The anguish of doubt, magnified in the cavernous, nearly empty church, proves that God need not exist for us “to be of use.” Instead, it proves that communication of that doubt—even absurdities like Tomas’s prayer to an empty church and a dead god—renders the silence bearable, makes it know that we are not dead in life, that we are constantly rediscovering ourselves in the midst of chaos and inertia, in the brilliance of that winter light which casts itself upon the valley of woe.
Bergman would complete the religious trilogy with The Silence, taking doubt to what is perhaps its inevitable flowering: communication, but for the faint candle that is Ester’s letter to Johan, becomes completely obliterated; war, only talked of in Winter Light, literally comes to town; and disease—that consistent Bergman metaphor—destroys mercilessly, hardly abated by human kindness or prayer. Persona moves further in this direction, with the relationship between Alma and Elisabeth a distillation of all the trilogy’s stumbling attempts at understanding. Winter Light, then, located in the middle of Bergman’s film career, stands as Bergman’s strongest testament to the nature of doubt, that paralytic wavering over the waters of faith and skepticism that infuses this singular film with its world-weary eyes and shivering soul.
对白写得真好。两个很棒的段落:Lundberg女士念信,直面镜头难以逃脱;神父与Lundberg在铁轨前停车,神父说是他父母期望他成为神职人员,此时火车喷着蒸汽,头也不回地往前驶去。
那個愛著牧師的女人,給我一種除了牧師其他人都看不見她的錯覺。
百子湾2016.2.26.7pm 首尾仪式的截然不同与相互映照。可以窥见冷战的重大影响(“中国人要造原子弹”并不对瑞典小镇造成直接威胁,却毁灭了他们对于人的无限发展进步的想象),上帝的沉默与情感无力的结构性仿佛。
【中国电影资料馆展映】大部分场景在室内,摄影和构图非常讲究。观影时状态不佳,有待重看。三星半
伯格曼一生不断地相信、质疑、否认、肯定、幸福、痛苦的回环纠缠和激荡,在他和上帝的“摔跤”过程中,他通过影片来表现他幽冥晦暗处的驳杂思想和宗教浩渺感:世人痛苦焦灼、上帝神秘莫测、灵魂低语无奈,许多潜伏在幽冥深处的哲学玄妙通过他的不可言说的混沌和丰富多彩的影像表达出来。
在充斥着「中国」威胁论调,看似严肃神圣实则滑稽可笑的《冬日之光》里,爱是「上帝」许诺给渴望被爱之人的礼物,可惜,这种轻易就能被中国人感同身受的甜蜜之爱既成了西方男性精神上逃避着的责任,也成了西方女性腹中怀揣着的负担与绝望。这套「叙事」话语明显是擅长「当面一套,背后一套」把戏的马戏团小丑抑或《魔术师》伯格曼忽悠抑或安慰「老弱病残孕幼」群体的谎言。接近甚至可以「以假乱真」扮演上帝的神父自己是一个不信上帝的「爱无能」患者。在主动释放「结婚」信号的情人抑或爱人面前,他高大上的伟岸形象被灵肉分离导致的精神分裂折磨得不成样子。宛如一根不幸的阳具,无法满足这个让女主感到安全的乞求。然而,他婴儿般的示弱(示爱)却能召唤母亲般的怜爱。他顺势将责任推卸给父母,并把自己背叛上帝或者婚姻不忠归咎于他们的呼唤和期待。
信仰像冬日阳光一样惨白无力,牧师也困惑其中。中国无神论者的胜利严重的打击了那个时代人们对上帝的信仰(电影里表现出来的)。信仰三部曲的中间作品,伯格曼这是叫人信基督还是反基督啊--
神的语言是沉默,我想其实人不是在跟神对话,而是跟自己对话;每个人都跟你对话,或者是神的意旨,或者根本只是自己的臆想;而这些对话都发生在法罗岛。
太残忍。教堂里的各怀心事,对上帝的各取所需。牧师是否其实是在聆听世俗的同时为自我的困惑寻找出口?然而当对自我都无法坦诚相见,自我的祷告和施予世俗的祷告是否成为了逃避懦弱的山洞,教堂也已经不再是寻找答案的避难所?这样看来牧师眼中的凡夫俗子或许对于爱的理解其实更加真挚深刻。
柏格曼最叫人厭斥的要素集大成…….為什麼自私的男人在他的電影(總)是如此受女人寵愛?
"神之默示"三部曲中篇。1.风格极简而质朴,布光精妙,以静止镜头和小景别为主,摄影机对人脸的凝注一如既往。2.冷漠、疏离、傲慢、信仰动摇的牧师解答不了苦难与生死问题(由中国即将研制成功核弹引发的焦虑),亦无法接受玛塔对自己的爱。3.片尾教堂司事自承对耶稣受难时高喊的“我的神,为什么离弃我?”(见于[马太福音][马可福音],后两福音书则无此细节)的思考发人深省,身心的苦难与信-疑的纠结溢于言表。4.八分钟的玛塔对镜读信段落情真意切,中途插入的手中溃烂皮疹镜头则同质于耶稣圣痕。5.牧师发出天问后的一刹那,窗外耀眼的光线兀自笼罩了他,一如马力克[通往仙境]结尾的那道神秘圣光。6.牧师说,每当直面上帝,祂就会变成某种丑陋恶心的东西,如蜘蛛——恍若[犹在镜中]变奏。7.首礼拜详尽展示,末尾则仅有非信徒玛塔一人。(9.0/10)
在信念终于垮塌的黑暗时分,一束[冬日之光]倏忽照亮了牧师的脸。呵!上帝不是爱,爱亦不是上帝,怀疑才是。当结尾的钟声敲响,女主角跪下去祈求哪怕一丁点的信仰,我们很难不为之动容。这就是人类吧,在疑惑中苦苦寻觅着光亮。伯格曼不仅用他高超的语言、更用他的沉默轻松地摧毁了我。那是上帝的沉默。
相比《犹在镜中》,对上帝的直观讨论减少了些,但还是浓重于《沉默》
宗教仪式越是庄严肃穆,与会者们的小动作越是放大得明显。而后大部分时间里,几乎只有大段大段的台词文本,缺乏肢体语言和表情,甚至连镜头都不移动。吊诡的是,不动镜头的摄影竟然广受赞美(不可否认光的运用确实是亮点)。在这样一部仅有81分钟却模糊了故事性的电影里,伯格曼就是在利用电影做文学。
4星半,微弱的信仰残烛,宗教性强于《犹在镜中》更为阴冷而封闭,伯格曼将自己前一部影片中的理论“上帝存在于爱中”的反复思索、质疑、甚至推翻。能够切身感受到对于信仰崩塌以及众人背离的悲观绝望,虽然在结尾,“上帝存在”这一理论和信仰仍然维系,但已经摇摇欲坠,亟待解构
#重看#古典、简洁、沉默、肃穆,德莱叶与布列松隐约可见;冬日之微光惨淡稀薄,恰如信仰之岌岌可危,光线变化折射勾连心理转变;构图与镜头都很工整,与牧师职业&教堂氛围契合;他永远在书写亲情的疏离、神性的质疑,父亲的阴影像冬日的雪彻骨一生。
没有了《犹在镜中》的复杂外景调度,室内景加戏剧化的表演简直就是神学课,主题是深邃了,可供玩味的余韵就不多。几位主演撑起了全片。西班牙内战、丧偶、伤残……这就是神创造出来的不完美的世界啊。中国人应该自豪吧,我们当年造出原子弹的新闻至少吓死了一个瑞典佬。
上帝都是沉默的,他不为信仰他的人指明道路,总是在事情发生之后通过神迹来补偿,假如我们相信上帝的存在,信仰就是一件痛苦的事情。渔民的自杀代表着希望的苍白,信仰是一个沉重的负担。伯格曼摧毁了上帝代表安全感、上帝即爱的概念,这样的上帝形象不过是人的心理投射,应该予以革命,予以背叛。
《犹在镜中》探讨了“上帝是爱,爱是上帝”,《冬日之光》则嘲讽了这观点。同属“信仰三部曲”,延续了上帝是否存在的探讨,但比前作的癫狂更绝望,心如死灰的牧师再无装载盛情的可能,反向信众倾吐苦水。管家说,耶稣被钉死前使徒离弃,上帝不应,在怀疑中死去最痛苦。谈及中国原子弹威胁,有意思。
1.冬日之光,虽然明亮却显得苍白无力,虽然仍有热量却无法温暖人心;2.上帝即是爱,若失所爱,心中的上帝是否还在?信仰的动摇,焦虑的世界,上帝在沉默。