節(jié)選自

O Ornitólogo – An Interview with Jo?o Pedro Rodrigues – August 11, 2016byJeremy Elphick|Locarno Film Festival

Q: There was clearly a lot of sexual undertones and overtones throughout the film, but I felt like there were a lot of allusions to a more politicalpart of that sexuality identity. I’m not sure if I read too much into the part of the story where he has to take these pills to stay well, but yeah, I felt it was referencing AIDS treatments, and with the song at the end, I wasn’t too clear on it but the closing song is a piece that emerged from a certain context.

A: Not really the song, but what it has … The guy who made that song was a pop singer from the 80s in Portugal, and he was also a hairdresser. He was a very flamboyant guy, very weird guy but really great. He was one of the first, I don’t know, cases in Portugal that you knew that he died with AIDS. The song talks about loneliness, basically. It’s called … what is it called in English? Something like the cruising song? It’s about people meeting and not knowing each other being alone and not wanting to be alone.

Q: Did thesemore like political kind of histories fed into how you wrote any part of the work at all or if that was just a coincidence thing that—

A: No, it wasn’t a coincidence because for me, it was … it was also connected with my personal life because he was an important singer for me and when I was growing up. I think these things, they keep up coming and when I thought about the scene and when I shot it, I really felt that song was the ideal song for … in the film, in the end, there’s this happy ending but it’s like an afterlife happy ending, because they die and resurrect several times throughout the film. You don’t really know if it’s real life or not but the song, at the same time, is about being together but being together but being, at the same time, alone. I think in relationships, there’s always that contradiction of … I don’t know. Perhaps I feel it like that, like in homosexual relationships, there’s the fact that you’re with a man and it’s like same gender. We’re looking for something that is the same but at the same time, it’s like you’re looking for an image of your own self. I don’t know. Perhaps it’s also me and perhaps it’s also my age, and so that I … how can I put this? There’s a tone that the song gives that, for me, it’s very truthful to being together and wanting, at the same time, to be alone. I don’t know. I think there’s always this contradiction when you’re together. I thought that it was a really perfect and beautiful way to end the film. I think I gathered everything I’d seen in the competition so far. It was the ending that I was watching and I just like, “This makes complete sense. It’s the way the finish this film,” and it was just such a interesting mixture of feelings to watch it. Because the end went very fast.

類似于這類電影，說(shuō)真的，我不特別能懂，它是宗教、文化、導(dǎo)演意識(shí)世界的產(chǎn)物交雜，但是作為一門開放性的電影藝術(shù)而言，它其實(shí)有多重解讀空間！不過(guò)我傾向于兩個(gè)方向:究竟是一場(chǎng)求道轉(zhuǎn)化、信仰歸屬之旅，還是失去主我人格，鳩占鵲巢的邪教同化之旅？

我們通常說(shuō)到宗教儀式，不僅在正統(tǒng)宗教里有某些在一種科學(xué)式眼光看來(lái)匪夷所思的思想(教義)和儀式，在邪教的宗教狂熱中會(huì)衍生更極端的教義和宗教儀式，這種儀式通常成為一種信仰的橋梁，他們認(rèn)為通過(guò)儀式的轉(zhuǎn)化能夠更接近他們的信仰。

相比于正統(tǒng)神學(xué)思想，這一部在我看來(lái)應(yīng)該是神學(xué)本土化的一種產(chǎn)物，有很強(qiáng)的地域文化色彩，也就是所謂的迷信或者說(shuō)儀式在里頭，我不好去斷定這種儀式屬于一種正常范疇的儀式，或者是脫離正常的邪異信仰儀式？如果屬于前者，顯然它是一場(chǎng)正常的求道之路，如果歸屬后者，顯然它是異化的！ 因?yàn)槲也皇煜る娪氨澈笮叛鑫幕尘昂蛯?dǎo)演的思想世界，我只能從一個(gè)相對(duì)客觀的角度去假設(shè)，一是，電影的男主角是否承擔(dān)導(dǎo)演思想意志的某種替代？他從觀察鳥類(實(shí)際上寓意一種科學(xué)性行為，也即背離電影所處自然叢林內(nèi)主流信仰)，到遭遇所謂的正統(tǒng)信仰(兩個(gè)中國(guó)女孩)對(duì)他的審判，并詭異的令他陷入這樣一個(gè)儀式的進(jìn)程中，并最終完成這場(chǎng)儀式轉(zhuǎn)化，獲得所謂的自由(似乎是以失去主我人格為代價(jià)的自由)...二是，導(dǎo)演是不是在完成一種開放性的討論，這種陷入宗教形式的自由是否可取？(插一句題外話，我身邊世界所見，其實(shí)挺多宗教人士，它們更多的實(shí)現(xiàn)信仰對(duì)自我的替代，而不是一種自我意志的建全和補(bǔ)充。但是人類內(nèi)心痛苦的源頭成為一種不可解的矛盾時(shí)，越來(lái)越多的人選擇用信仰來(lái)替換這種根植于內(nèi)心的痛苦。)電影實(shí)際上也可以理解為這樣一種論證，即是以自我換取痛苦解脫，從而自由的一場(chǎng)求道，這個(gè)過(guò)程是中性的，無(wú)所謂好壞對(duì)錯(cuò)，但它極端的衍化，必然是邪性的。 電影細(xì)節(jié)層面充滿隱喻，這些隱喻層面更多是充滿正統(tǒng)神話色彩，也勾連了整部作品復(fù)雜的轉(zhuǎn)化進(jìn)程和主題升華。我不具體去聊，但從儀式的完成，懺悔，與轉(zhuǎn)化，到重生，我還是看到了導(dǎo)演以此來(lái)代指一種無(wú)神論者向信神者轉(zhuǎn)化的一個(gè)過(guò)程(指代他自己，或者只是作為一種思想創(chuàng)作)，也有類似于阿彼察邦帶有某種傳統(tǒng)信仰色彩的神秘性創(chuàng)作。 如果要深入去解讀這部作品還是需要回歸導(dǎo)演文化和信仰邏輯的土壤，尋找他創(chuàng)作的初衷，目的?？偠灾?，一部挺有特色的高水準(zhǔn)佳作，這部作品會(huì)擠下李滄東的燃燒進(jìn)入我這個(gè)十年十佳之一！

喜歡電影的畫面呈現(xiàn)，上帝角度和神性配樂。觀影過(guò)程我基本是享受的，津津有味地思考這一系列事跡的意味。無(wú)神論科學(xué)家，朝圣卻邪惡的基督教同性戀情侶，原始部落儀式，耶穌交歡，殺害基督見證復(fù)活……但看完電影進(jìn)行梳理后很失望。本來(lái)以為電影把人剝離社會(huì)放入大自然是要呈現(xiàn)人類的某種境況、進(jìn)行精神、心理學(xué)上的探索。結(jié)果只是把中世紀(jì)圣徒圣安多尼的故事改編成當(dāng)代政治正確的版本（女權(quán)、同性），并混雜各種元素故弄玄虛，瞬間無(wú)聊，尤其科學(xué)家悔改后電影突兀結(jié)束peace and love簡(jiǎn)直太尷尬了……發(fā)生了一系列科學(xué)家解釋不了的（‘超自然’）事跡然后他敬畏上帝悔改了，所以結(jié)論是需要一系列的神跡才能建立信仰？我是喜歡看神性電影的，但這種基督教“現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)型”的宣傳片太無(wú)聊。而且我懷疑即使是當(dāng)代基督教允許同性戀的可能性，如果真有進(jìn)展倒比較振奮人心。