At the age of 32, a prolific Wim Wenders forays into adapting Patricia Highsmith’s Tom Ripley story to the celluloid screen in his seventh feature, THE AMERICAN FRIEND receives a Cannes main competition entry and stars Dennis Hopper as the self-exile middle-aged Tom Ripley in a cowboy hat living inside a big mansion on his ownsome in Hamburg, partakes in art forgery racket. Nicholas Ray plays a presumedly dead painter Derwatt, sometimes wears an eye-patch, cynically tossing off new works for Ripley to sell in the auction house.

It is where, Ripley meets Jonathan Zimmermann (Bruno Ganz in his big screen breakout role), a painter framer and art restorer, who is diagnosed with a rare blood disease, may or may not be pushing up daisies any day sooner, Jonathan unceremoniously brushes aside Ripley with a curt“I’ve heard of you” (a , the slight triggers the latter’s retaliation (typically Ripley!), by disseminating rumors about the former’s blood condition to be fatal, and recommends Jonathan when a French gangster Raoul Minot (Blain) needs a candidate with a clean slate as a hitman.

Rebuffing Minot’s offer at first, Jonathan naively agrees to have another medical checkup in a Parisian hospital organized by Minot, beyond any doubt, no one would believe that its pessimistic outcome is not doctored by Minot but Jonathan himself, tempted to earn some fast money for his wife Marianne (Kreuzer) and their son Daniel (Dedecke) when he will be gone, he commits his first sortie (conveniently) inside a Paris metro station (albeit drolly clumsy) before heading back to Hamburg.

However, an improbable freemasonry between Ripley and Jonathan burgeons in spite of their prima facie disfavor, Wenders fidgets with multifarious artifacts to smooth the transition, objects like golden foil, zoetrope, stereopticon, gyroscope, Polaroid, etc. suffuse the faintly insipid narrative with its ethos-signalling vim and melancholia, which writs large in Ripley’s solitary existence, e.g. his monologue “There is nothing to fear but fear itself” is manifested not once but twice,infused with lurid chromatic choices in full bloom (red, blue, leaden-gray and green are primal pointers to the mood-scape). Their bond veers into partners-in-crime when Jonathan nearly botches a second mission on a train from Munich to Hamburg if not for Ripley’s sudden succor, and Ripley’s confession as the rumormonger, apparently doesn’t stir Jonathan’s ill-feelings, only leads to a final betrayal after they eliminate their common assailants, that halts with an ironic outcome when mortality suddenly beckons.

Less a genre practitioner than an arch stylist, Wenders meanders through the discomfiting drama with an Edward Hopper-esque commitment to its milieu and surroundings, tonally, it bewitchingly tallies with Tom Ripley’s existential crisis which vaguely stoked by a smack of homoerotic impulse, and Jonathan’s thrill-inflected imprudence. A brooding Bruno Ganz eloquently betrays an enthralling temperament which is buried under Jonathan’s pedestrian appearance, and is affectively unpredictable and sympathetic in the eyes of this beholder. Dennis Hopper has a less prominent screen-time but it is an eye-pleasing experience (on the condition that if we could overlook his unsavory wig during the scenes of the second mission)to watch him not in his trademark menacing mode, but registers something more self-revealing.Lisa Kreuzer, is hindered by a stereotyped suspicious wife role, must put on a strong face against all odds, yet plumbing into a feminine mindset is not Wenders’ forte.

A cineaste’s lollapalooza, with many an auteur taking on an acting gig (Nicolas Ray, Samuel Fuller, Daniel Schmid, Jean Eustache, not to mention actor/director hyphenates Hopper and Blain), THE AMERICAN FRIEND is a testament that Wenders’ faculty is on the verge of its full maturity, not a conventionally cut-throat crime thriller but a nostalgic scenester recapitulating its zeitgeist with a splash of idiosyncrasy and quaintness.

referential points: Wenders’ ALICE IN THE CITIES (1974, 8.0/10), Anthony Minghella’s THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (1999, 8.4/10).

一、剪輯

我記憶最深刻的一個鏡頭：

他把在巴黎的約納生，剪到在紐約的里普利；把在搭機(jī)飛往漢堡的里普利，剪到搭火車赴漢堡的約納生，接著就是約納生黎明走在漢堡河畔的鏡頭。漢堡與紐約的場景都是在河畔的道路。

在巴黎，文德斯用了一個叫作“小曼哈頓”的場景，在那兒的塞納河畔，豎立了一座自由女神像的復(fù)制品。有一幕都市場景的鏡頭剪接如下：

1.巴黎“小曼哈頓”市景的橫搖鏡頭

2.從約納生旅館房間俯拍。

3.約納生漢堡住家的電話鈴響鏡頭

4.真正的曼哈頓大廈群剪影（從布魯克林拍

5.德瓦的倉庫式住家（曼哈頓）場景。

6.約納生巴黎旅館房間，電話鈴正響著。

7.米諾站在巴黎公寓陽臺上，正在接電話。

8.從約納生旅館房間拍的第二個巴黎市景的橫搖鏡頭，米諾小小的身影正在陽臺上揮手

9.約納生掛電話

10.約納生旅館電梯特寫鏡頭

11.約納生手中一份偽造醫(yī)療報(bào)告的特寫，接著是米諾公寓的場景。約納生合上報(bào)告時(shí)，塞納河畔的自由女神像變得清晰可見。

一口氣看完是真的服氣

二、色彩運(yùn)用

和剪輯一樣，電影中的色彩運(yùn)用具有令人震撼與不安的效果。當(dāng)約納生第一次殺人后，走出地下鐵車站時(shí)，整座城市沉浸在火燒似的紅橙色中。稍后他離開巴黎時(shí)，天空是紫色的。漢堡港口則有時(shí)呈橘色，有時(shí)紫色。

為了達(dá)到這些艷麗的效果，鏡頭不加濾鏡，也不修正霓虹燈色彩，強(qiáng)烈的色彩刻畫出約納生平靜生活與黑道世界之間的沖突。約納生的公寓與工作房幽暗而色調(diào)自然，裝潢與采光造成“林布蘭棕色”的效果。相反的，黑道人物的色彩則為紅與橘。約納生在巴黎的旅館房間以紅、橘色裝潢，窗外還有看來虎視眈眈的橘色建筑起重機(jī)。里普利臥房的紅色令人觸目驚心，絲綢床單和窗簾全是紅的。紅與鮮血的關(guān)系呈現(xiàn)得最戲劇化的時(shí)刻，莫過于薩姆·富勒所飾之角色在港邊階梯倒下死亡的那一幕，河畔馬路上的紅燈使他的鮮血都發(fā)光了。

綠色也與里普利有關(guān)聯(lián)。綠色的彈子臺，由上方的 CanadaDry廣告牌照亮，發(fā)出綠光。有一回我們看到他在彈子臺旁吃早餐，另一回則用拍立得替自己拍照。稍后，當(dāng)他在電話里和約納生談話時(shí)，整個人浴在綠光里。這種常與疾病和“火星來的小人兒”聯(lián)想在一起的顏色，也強(qiáng)調(diào)了里普利的怪異。

三、配樂

若以驚悚片視之，它的冥思性高于懸疑性，不過文德斯往往透過聲音與色彩等完全正規(guī)的手法來制造張力。電影配樂利用不和諧的和弦來傳達(dá)步步驚魂的感覺，從而在故事辦不到的時(shí)候，制造了緊張。

有時(shí)候，動物的聲音增加了緊張，并與約納生較晦暗的情緒相關(guān)。在一個場景中，他走出兒子房間的小陽臺，對丹尼爾和瑪莉安揮手道別。他望著他們離去，陷于沉思，由于前一天收到那封假電報(bào)，他又氣又怕。在他上空盤旋的水鳥叫聲，在聲帶上突然變得非常大而且刺耳。他轉(zhuǎn)身，踉蹌地走回臥房，被丹尼爾的玩具電車絆倒，這時(shí)內(nèi)心獨(dú)白出現(xiàn)。在背景中，港邊機(jī)器聲砰砰作響，就像約納生的心跳聲。約納生砸碎工作房中畫框的場面，和里普利沿著小巷來找他的鏡頭交互剪接。在巷中，狗吠得很兇，約納生砸畫框的聲響，和狗吠重疊在一起。

大師之作。

rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrt…?！?？、、、//？，？、、、、、、、、////////////////rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrt…?！?？？、、、//？，？、、、、、、、、////////////////如題如題如題如題/如題如題如題如題/如題如題如題如題/如題如題如題如題/如題如題如題如題/如題如題如題如題/如題如題如題如題

維姆·文德斯的《美國朋友》大概是他娛樂性最高的作品了，這部電影改編自派翠西亞·海史密斯的著名犯罪小說“雷普利系列”的第三部《雷普利的游戲》。這本書曾兩次搬上銀幕，第二次的導(dǎo)演是意大利女導(dǎo)演莉莉安娜·卡瓦尼，她最有名的作品是《午夜守門人》。

文德斯版忽視了雷普利，竟將主角換成了喬納森，而且忽略了情節(jié)的描述，著重了氛圍的營造和心理刻畫。如果你看過文德斯的偶像尼古拉斯·雷的《高于生活》，就會理解文德斯這么做的根由了，這部電影實(shí)際上是講一個絕癥男人的中年危機(jī)。

不得不說扮演喬納森的布魯諾·甘茨的演技真好，一個老實(shí)木納的中年人被唆使去殺人，從最初的惶恐不安，到后來的鋌而走險(xiǎn)，再到最終的絕望放任，他真的樂在其中于這個游戲了。而雷普利卻更加的陰郁，他和喬納森的關(guān)系更像法斯賓德的史詩巨著《柏林壓力山大廣場》中的賴因霍爾德和畢勃科夫之間的關(guān)系。

片中喬納森和妻兒的關(guān)系是疏離的，兩人分居、貌合神離。這一點(diǎn)和后來的卡瓦尼版大相徑庭，后者用足夠的篇幅來描述喬納森的“家庭幸?！保狭死灼绽馁\船都是為了家庭。而《美國朋友》中的喬納森卻大部分是為了“放飛自我”，以擺脫無聊乏味的刻板生活。

片中的地鐵站追殺一段拍的非常精彩。整段戲沒有臺詞，直接用肢體語言來表達(dá)喬納森的急躁、猶豫、怯懦、笨拙，他藏在風(fēng)衣里的槍甚至裸露在外，讓人替他著急。正當(dāng)觀眾的耐心就要耗盡時(shí)，喬納森在扶梯上突然開槍，讓人始料未及。這段戲很不“文德斯”，我估計(jì)有參演的大導(dǎo)演--尼古拉斯·雷或塞繆爾·富勒出的一份力。

之后在火車上兩人共同作案一節(jié)顯得中規(guī)中矩了，丹尼斯·霍普在片中顯得格格不入，好像一個局外人?？ㄍ吣崤牡倪@一段和文德斯的差不多，但增添了黑色幽默感，她的雷普利--約翰·馬爾科維奇擅長演“狠人狼狽”這類的戲，他搶了喬納森的所有風(fēng)頭。

《美國朋友》的結(jié)局很曖昧，喬納森知道被騙卻無動于衷，反而對自己最后的這段蹩腳殺手的經(jīng)歷非常滿意。在彌留之際，他甩開了雷普利飛車而去，并狂笑不止。雷普利滿含眼淚深情地凝視著喬納森走向死亡，似乎也羨慕他最終擺脫了中年危機(jī)，結(jié)束了沒有希望的灰暗殘生。相比之下，卡瓦尼版的就俗氣多了，喬納森竟然為雷普利擋子彈死了，也太“吳宇森”了吧！