少了些詩(shī)意和深刻的氛圍，幾個(gè)片段依舊延續(xù)了流動(dòng)的影象風(fēng)格。

嗯，天使縱身一躍，鏡頭飛向一個(gè)個(gè)工業(yè)制造工具里滿目倦怠的現(xiàn)代人，耳語(yǔ)響起；把盔甲賣掉下注。下場(chǎng)藝術(shù)館內(nèi)面對(duì)展品，扭曲的時(shí)空和現(xiàn)實(shí)的交疊，不禁想起蒙克的圖。結(jié)尾水上船只流動(dòng)的風(fēng)格，人該何去何從呢？是要滿懷希望，還是繼續(xù)壓抑著上路嗎？

兩個(gè)天使的性格實(shí)際上非常迥異，而這一部跟拉大這種差距，還加入了另兩位角色。如果說(shuō)上一步是對(duì)真善美和愛(ài)與存在意義的追問(wèn)的話，那這部可以說(shuō)是對(duì)成長(zhǎng)罪惡和救贖的解答。

呃服裝也值得品味。從一開(kāi)始的大衣到睡衣到便裝到仿佛流浪者，而后西裝。我仿佛看到了赫爾左格筆下的卡斯帕（忘記了）

依舊很愛(ài)，困了。

柏林啊…柏林。

很喜歡影片一開(kāi)始的鏡頭。天使在云端，底下是二十世紀(jì)柏林三十年光陰變遷如浮光幻影奔流而去。我們對(duì)時(shí)間無(wú)能為力，我們無(wú)法改變?nèi)魏问虑?，無(wú)法選擇時(shí)代，也許無(wú)法選擇命運(yùn)，我們只能體驗(yàn)。

而天使們是靜觀者。他看到黑白的印象，“素描”；依稀記得康德在第三批判里寫，素描較之油畫更美，因?yàn)樗孛柚话瑑?yōu)美的結(jié)構(gòu)，卻不包含感官的刺激，即色彩；感官的——人間的，彩色的。天使的世界沒(méi)有色彩，所以得與彼岸相連。而天使是此岸與彼岸間的Beobachter, “Boter”, 懸置其中，不屬于此岸，或許同樣不屬于彼岸；而如果拋開(kāi)宗教的視角，就同時(shí)讓人想到了“審美靜觀狀態(tài)”。

《柏林蒼穹下》里，Damiel走入人間，得到了愛(ài)和幸福；這部電影里，Cassiel不再滿足于Beobachten，跌到人間，卻是一片孤獨(dú)和迷茫。

為什么？如果做純粹個(gè)人的解讀：Damiel選擇成為人時(shí)，他已懷抱著愛(ài)的信念；但Cassiel，孤獨(dú)的天使，他來(lái)尋求的是體驗(yàn)。而人類的世界如此短暫、紛雜、瑣碎，他沒(méi)有信念，只能扎進(jìn)陸離幻影。

我們受困于時(shí)間…我們可以決定什么嗎？生命的意義是什么？大部分人被涌流裹挾，無(wú)暇反思，一生仿佛輕飄飄逐水而逝，直到生命的盡頭回望此生?！八劳鍪浅林氐摹薄Ｋ劳鼋o予生命重量。

I had read about this movie in a book, got interested in it and researched it on line, but that's when I found out that there’s ZERO resources with this movie in it ,not even on YOUTUBE, but luckly a guy uploaded it online on baidu without any chinese captions; Lucky me.

Now, I think the movie IS fairly great, and I want to discuss two pieces of the storyline which reminded me of some classic literature stuff which seemed to symbolize something from my point of view.First,I want to talk about that GUN;It seemed to be ''simply one of the BILLIONS of the movie props they act with'' but the more I thought about it the more suspicious this ''innocent prop'' seemed to be. Let me explain: The first time it appeared in this movie was when a teenager wanted to use it to shoot his stepdad, right? But remember that even if your stepdad IS every bit as tyrannical as he is but he is still your stepdad, AKA your father in law.Thus making it KINSLAYING, which is something that will end you up in Dante's hell.''By the way'' and later Cassiel took away that very gun as his ''first good deed'' but later on he used that same gun to rob a store. (And get himself a fake passport.)

Now, there is a famous theme in the Greek Mythology, Harmonia's necklace, with Harmonia, the daughter of Aphrodite and Ares marrying a greek hero Cadmus, and Aphrodite's LEGAL husband,Hephaestus forges her a necklace with a curse on it as his wedding gift. well__Harmonia and Cadmus were turned to snakes,Jocasta hanged herself，Eriphyle got killed by her own son__ I wonder what will happen if that pre-mentioned gun got passed on to SOMEONE ELSE__

Also,Thomas C.Foster once said that all stories are basically the same.So let me just say that I completely agree with him; some stories ARE the same if you strip them deep down into the bones. Nineteen Eighty Four and Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows do share a few of the MAIN themes, and Diary of A Wimpy Kid also got ripoffed for about five to six times. So let's face it:THE REASON WHY FEW GOOD BOOKS EXIST TODAY IS BASICALLY BECAUSE OF HOW MOST OF US CAN'T EVEN FIND OUR OWN WAY OF STORYTELLING, OUR STORIES KEEP BUMPING INTO EACH OTHER! (Sorry, I have gone too far about how every story shares a parallel to other stories.)

So which story may we find after we got rid of the location of this movie, the minor characters, the minor themes and stuff like that? Faust. Let me explain. Faust, as we all know, is about a guy who treaded his soul to a devil, Mephistopheles, in exchange for some sort of youth stuff. He later fell in love with a girl named Gretchen, but since he treaded his soul to the devil she died in jail. Then in the end of the book he got saved by god for some reason. While in Far Away, So Near___Well, I still am struggling to find out about what does Emit Flesti symbolize in the movie but HE tricked Cassiel into drinking brandy (Even though I don’t understand about how Cassiel had been living for BILLIONS of years without knowing what a brandy is__) and HE’S the one who keeps hurting him even after how Raphaella keeps begging him to let Cassiel go__Anyways, both stories have one guy (specifically a man of god.) getting tricked into leading some sort of corrupt life ,(Cassiel actually started BEGGING in order to buy wine, how ridiculous.) and then stuffs happen in order for them to redeem themselves in order for them to go to heaven, even though part of Faust’s redemption might have something to do with his last word__which they(at least Cassiel did) usually grasp at. Then in the end the go to heaven. Also, the beginning of Faust starts when Mephistopheles makes a deal with god about how he will win Faust over, and god’s like “I don’t care what you do to him since a true christian will always come around one way or another.” While in Far Away, So Near Raphaella seldom reproaches Flesti for misleading Cassiel, while god just watches over everyone and the only thing we know is that god exits in the movie. So I guess that’s something both stories have in common. Also when Faust finally died in Faust among the bunch of angels who greeted him was Gretchen. While in Far Away, So Close__

Well, of course Raphaella didn’t do any wrong stuff enough to get her to be a member of the “repenting ladies” crowd but this is one thing both of the stories have in common.

But one thing they do NOT have in common is that Faust WAS tired with his current situation,(He was old, tired, and had to spend his days burying himself with books at the time.) while even though Cassiel did save that girl HIS downfall has something to do with his own STUPIDITY; first of all he couldn’t even recognize the same guy who stole his armor and nearly ended him up in jail,(Also he was tricked into gambling by the same guy and thought that gambling IS just some sort of fun maths game) he got drunk in a bus station causing a random woman to slap him in the face, then he tried to redeem himself by doing stuff like__Pouring drinks for__a bunch of__GAMBLERS (he’s a waiter at the time)__And he lack the ability to separate the nice people from the BAD guys, and then he’s basically playing the scapegoat without knowing it from start to finish__At least Peter Falk has the ability to sense the presence of angels while Cassiel lacks the ability to separate angels from FALLEN angels.

But despite Cassiel’s flaws, at least he IS kind and loyal to his friends, and he does have the ability to mark his OWN salvation. And I do like the ending of the film; since despite the fact that they shot Cassiel in the end at LEAST he’s not officially K.O. yet. And I don’t expect every films to end with a “ And They All Lived Happily Ever After”, try imagine Orwell’s 1984 with a happy ending, then we will say,”oooh, it’s just a Disney film with R rated content’s.” OK, that’s it, the end.

P.S: I know that you’re not supposed to judge a person by how he looks but__

2022.8.12，百麗宮電影展，廣州天盈廣場(chǎng)，還和瓜西出來(lái)逛了一下。

相似的手法，不同的創(chuàng)作背景，誕生了兩部截然相反的作品。這次的觀影不止一點(diǎn)失望，比看《柏林蒼穹下》還要難受，這次我都不能用沒(méi)在大熒幕看的理由安慰自己。除了開(kāi)頭的，接近2個(gè)半小時(shí)片場(chǎng)的影片，剩下的內(nèi)動(dòng)都像是由同名角色飾演的故事拼湊而成，又冗長(zhǎng)又乏味，節(jié)奏是斷層的，角色在里面的行為沒(méi)有動(dòng)機(jī)，前后找不到邏輯，卡爾好多行為我都沒(méi)辦法理解，哪怕我是提前看了簡(jiǎn)介才進(jìn)去的。故事里的人物像是被強(qiáng)行串聯(lián)，最后匯成一起，從小失散的兄妹，搶匪天使，馬戲團(tuán)一伙，最后居然還能一起呆在船上，是夠離譜的。

角色莫名的英語(yǔ)德語(yǔ)混講，正如電影像是歐洲文藝片中塞進(jìn)了違和的好萊塢喜劇和動(dòng)作元素，也好似威廉達(dá)福的角色，違和得不知道是天使還是凡人，處處搗亂，最后結(jié)局吊威亞救人犧牲，就像是梅姨的死，沒(méi)有氛圍的鋪墊，犧牲時(shí)內(nèi)心毫無(wú)波瀾，死后到時(shí)由念了一大段對(duì)白。

想了想，兩部作品更大的區(qū)別，是天使的戲份被削減后，天使這個(gè)角色意義不明了，原本討論天使的內(nèi)心掙扎少了，取而代之的是在一旁碎碎念，天使像是被簡(jiǎn)單概念化成角落里的隱形人，沒(méi)了前作為愛(ài)決心落入凡塵的靈魂?？赐晡ㄒ挥涀?，還是娜塔莎金斯基，她的美再次觸動(dòng)我的心靈，她的聲音撫慰著我的靈魂，讓我還能坐在座位上，沒(méi)有和隔壁大哥一樣跑了。