這是中譯名。我在社區(qū)圖書館胡亂借來。還是依賴英文字幕。
電影長達(dá)2小時(shí)55分鐘。中間還有場休?？辞鞍爰?，心痛難忍。大哭起來。
百度的介紹說，
“影片以一艘在1925年航向中國的美國炮艇為故事舞臺。主人翁賀曼是艇上的海員，喜歡躲在底層的機(jī)房工作，不料炮艇駐守中國之后卻逼令他跳到甲板上跟各方面的政治和文化壓力周旋，復(fù)雜的局勢發(fā)展改變了他獨(dú)善其身的個(gè)性。”
可是，我看到的，是中國人。
苦難，無救，可惡，奴才，忘恩，誣陷……
中國人在電影中的形象讓我難過，不是因?yàn)橥崆?，而是因?yàn)檎鎸?shí)。

阮次山說，阿扁就是臺南小流氓的性格，叫著“來啊，來扁我啊”。
而當(dāng)美國大兵被三倍于他們的北伐軍隊(duì)包圍，北伐軍“護(hù)送”他們回船時(shí)，夾道相送的中國人，個(gè)個(gè)喊著“洋鬼子，怎么不開槍啦？”“開槍啊，怎么不開槍啦？”反復(fù)出現(xiàn)的背景便是如此。

看到美國大兵，叫著“Master”，卑賤的面孔。
看到炮艇演習(xí)，拍掌叫好，全然不知道自己的演習(xí)的針對對象。
互相傾軋，出賣。
木枘的黃浦學(xué)生軍，死在原本可以教他們怎么用磨面粉機(jī)的人手中。
于是他們開始報(bào)復(fù)。殺害留下來教他們學(xué)習(xí)的神父。

只看見仇恨，卻未見到自尊。
只看見疼痛，卻未見到醒來。

不管怎樣，我不要我的祖國再回到那樣的場景中去了。再也不要。

三個(gè)小時(shí) 干點(diǎn)什么不好
但我喜歡這部電影
他們都曾經(jīng)存在過 在那個(gè)時(shí)候在那個(gè)地方 又自己的原則 面對當(dāng)時(shí)的情況 作出自己的選擇
你會(huì)愿意 你會(huì)有耐心看這個(gè)三個(gè)小時(shí)的故事嗎
你的耐心會(huì)得到回報(bào)的
不要快進(jìn) 經(jīng)典需要細(xì)心體驗(yàn)

一個(gè)美國朋友推薦我看此片，另外還有the painted veil,這是看后的回復(fù)：

Dear Jim,

Thank you for the movies you lent me. Both are great
movies. But if I were American, I would enjoy it more
because these movies are very American in the way
heroes are defined and made.

But as a Chinese, Sand Pebbles sometimes upsets me
because it seems to make Chinese look like nothing but
mobs who twist situations for their goal (such as the
killing of the pregnant woman). The movie makes it
look like there is less humanity in the Chinese than
in the Americans who are aboard this ship. Chinese at
this time were made to look like intimidating forces
threatening Americans, but one cannot help wondering:
Why is the ship there in the first place? Our
description of history tells us a story much from the
perspective similar to that of Jamerson. Our
collective memory tells exactly the opposite things:
we thought that the foreigners at this time in these
military or polictical missions were provocative, and
are unfairly privileged, and caused us great
sufferings, which jeopardizes the good will and good
work that could have been done, such as teaching and
mission work. And as you recall from Madam Jiang
Kai-shek's article in the Atlantic Monthly, China was
struggling with issue of foreign exploitation at this
time of national awakening.

We thought that is the exploitation and all the unfair
treaties that lead to all the anti-foreign sentiments.
 The movie is very true on this level. Usually the
Chinese governments are quite docile in front of
foreign powers in spite of all their slogans for
national interests (except during Mao's time). It's
the people that can turn against foreigners because
they are frustrated that their governments are not
doing enough to protect them against foreign invasion
or intrusion. I see the same thing here in the US.
All administrations start with China bashing of some
sorts to get votes, but once in power, they went on to
get along fairly well with China. Yet it is the
people who turn against China, Chinese people or
Chinese goods. Unless that changes, the two nations
cannot actually get along with each other. It is
great if the peoples find ways to get along with each
other, because that matters more.

I am a little puzzled that the nationalists government
are turned against the foreigners at this time. I am
not sure if that is true to history, because the close
alliance with the Americans is what the communist
party often faults the nationalists with. And it is
pretty well known later on that the nationalists used
US-armed forces against the communists in the
nationalist-communist civil war. The nationalist
takeover of Nanjing should not have been a cause for
distress for Sand Pebbles. I am wondering if there is
a time in history when the nationalists are against
the US as well. Because the other movie (painted
veil) seems to say the same thing. I need to look
into that. I remember the Pearl Buck book says
something about that as well?

That's a lot of reflections for now. But both movies
are very much thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing
them.

Have a great week!

Berlin