2011，“世界末日”前夕，拉斯?馮?提爾攜強(qiáng)大的演員陣容，獻(xiàn)上末世情懷隆重的《憂郁癥》，搞的電影界一片爭議，也有一片肯定，再到戛納電影節(jié)，因?yàn)椤坝H納粹”言論被逐出電影節(jié)，拉斯?馮?提爾的2011足夠豐富難忘。當(dāng)然，盡管他的言辭給自己帶來麻煩，電影界還是對事不對片，整體而言，《憂郁癥》在歐洲獲得了很大肯定。我個(gè)人也對這片表示贊賞，解讀提爾的電影向來麻煩，又向來簡單，因?yàn)樽顚?dǎo)演個(gè)人的東西，也常常最可讓我等觀眾去各自解讀，何況這片從心理到外在，從個(gè)人到社會，從末世大事到日常生活，涵蓋多種層面，可謂一個(gè)肆意汪洋扯淡的良好平臺。

        總體而言，這部電影就是賈斯汀和克萊爾兩姐妹的舞臺，提爾的設(shè)計(jì)很巧妙，前半段以賈斯汀為中心，后半段以克萊爾為中心，而兩人的表現(xiàn)又呈現(xiàn)截然不同的差異性，更妙的是兩段故事又以末世臨近前和臨近時(shí)分開，社會的脆弱與分裂得以充分展現(xiàn)。在第一段故事中，賈斯汀表現(xiàn)出“非常態(tài)”，她是個(gè)憂郁癥病人，在新婚來臨之際，表現(xiàn)出異常的煩躁和不安，以至于把自己的上司、親人到郎君得罪個(gè)遍。而克萊爾和參加婚宴的眾人則表現(xiàn)出“常態(tài)”，難道新婚之夜不該是興致勃勃，載歌載舞嗎？克萊爾對妹妹的關(guān)心；克萊爾丈夫的成功人士形象；賈斯汀老板的世故商人表現(xiàn)；賈斯汀父親的玩世不恭；賈斯汀母親的婚姻悲觀態(tài)度，這一切難道不是“常態(tài)”的人間百態(tài)嗎？提爾這點(diǎn)很強(qiáng)大，在一場婚宴把整個(gè)社會的主要階層人物典型都囊括進(jìn)來，只有賈斯汀顯得格格不入，而這一切為后面的反轉(zhuǎn)式劇情埋下伏筆。

        賈斯汀真是“非常態(tài)”的嗎？是孤獨(dú)的嗎？其實(shí)不然，與她一樣“非常態(tài)”的是大自然，那些動(dòng)蕩不安的動(dòng)物們，還有那漸進(jìn)的神秘星球，說白了就是，這個(gè)世界已經(jīng)非常態(tài)了，你們這些人還故作常態(tài)做什么？在大災(zāi)難來臨之際，往往現(xiàn)代人類感知能力最弱，反倒是螻蟻這樣的生物有更早的感應(yīng)。而身患憂郁癥的賈斯汀，倒是免去了對世俗功名和所謂幸福的感知，更自然，更正常的與世間生靈一道感知到了危機(jī)的來臨。而前一段表現(xiàn)“常態(tài)”的克萊爾夫婦則在第二段故事走向崩潰，克萊爾作為一個(gè)女人，比丈夫更直接的表現(xiàn)自己的不安，末日行星將來，世間已是眾說紛紜，動(dòng)蕩不安，但是人們又往往強(qiáng)作笑顏，掩飾內(nèi)心的慌張。那些非高等生物們，往往最先感知危險(xiǎn)，又秩序井然的逃難，而對于即將到來的災(zāi)難，它們無助中又顯得淡然，不會有更多掙扎和追求。但克萊爾們不同，感知的最少，知道的又最多（實(shí)際上是現(xiàn)代信息社會，讓我們以為自己知道的很多），恐懼漸漸吞噬心靈，無力的哭泣和顫抖。而更接近世間普遍生靈的賈斯汀卻淡定的面對死亡，她心理上病了，卻超然于已經(jīng)被末日折磨的大病的現(xiàn)代社會的恐懼反應(yīng)。片中還有一個(gè)重要角色，就是克萊爾的丈夫，這是現(xiàn)代社會楷模式的典范，他們事業(yè)有成，生活富裕，世界往往由這個(gè)階層的人士運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)和操盤，而平日里他們也充滿自信，認(rèn)為自己掌控局勢。于是，克萊爾丈夫的變化，正是這個(gè)社會支柱階層崩潰的過程，他出錢操辦婚禮，他極力維持失控的婚禮，他一面安慰妻子的恐懼，一面又準(zhǔn)備可能災(zāi)禍降臨的生活儲備物資。然而，最終，當(dāng)一切已成定局，最需要他頂住的時(shí)候，他選擇以死亡逃避，我們無法說他懦弱，但是卻可以看出，這個(gè)有序的社會是多么脆弱。

        作為Dogma95的起草人之一，拉斯?馮?提爾倒是練就了一身用簡單設(shè)備和手法制造出色敘事和個(gè)性化鏡頭的好本領(lǐng)。所以，哪怕他開始有了變化，但是這種風(fēng)格依然不變，倒是讓他的鏡頭更加多樣。在《憂郁癥》中，從第一部分的不安的鏡頭，到第二部分冷峻風(fēng)格的畫面，都極好的烘托出影片的氛圍和主題。特別在末日將來的那十幾分鐘，神奇的自然現(xiàn)象，賈斯汀冷靜到底的安然，克萊爾絕望到底的歇斯底里，這一切讓這個(gè)故事充滿強(qiáng)烈的代入感，讓人身臨其境般的感受一種恐懼。而最后一幕，姐妹倆與克萊爾的兒子，在幾個(gè)樹棍搭起“山洞”中，等待末日的到來，這顯得無形的“山洞”讓人感到給心靈包裹堅(jiān)強(qiáng)的外殼才是最好的自我保護(hù)。最后一刻，拉斯?馮?提爾獻(xiàn)上了極具末日美感的鏡頭，那越來越近的火紅的行星不再是末日的主題，而是背景，三個(gè)人影，充滿殉難般的神圣感覺，美好轉(zhuǎn)瞬即逝，這是命運(yùn)，需要的只是不同心態(tài)的面對。

        《憂郁癥》的出色還在于演員的集體發(fā)揮，克斯汀?鄧斯特的表演在戛納獲得了肯定，拉斯?馮?提爾的片子向來要讓女主角脫衣服，這次也不例外。然而，克斯汀?鄧斯特在河邊的一段全裸鏡頭，卻充滿安詳寧靜的美感和神圣，而克斯汀?鄧斯特整部影片都很好的刻畫著人物的細(xì)微神情。憑借《反基督者》，夏洛特?甘斯布已經(jīng)拿過戛納影后，本片的表演，她表現(xiàn)的更加立體，從開始的充滿親和力的姐姐，到不安的母親和妻子，到最后，她已經(jīng)是一個(gè)絕望的人類一員，她在塵雨中痛哭一幕極具爆發(fā)力，一個(gè)女人對生命的不舍，對無法保護(hù)兒子的絕望，被這個(gè)敏感的女演員演的動(dòng)人極了，讓人心疼極了。由于基弗?薩瑟蘭拯救美國已經(jīng)救的手軟，所以他在片中出現(xiàn)，我還隱隱希望“小強(qiáng)”拯救地球。然而，這一次，他是一個(gè)中上層階層的代表，他的成功依托于現(xiàn)代社會的秩序，當(dāng)一顆行星到來，這個(gè)社會破碎了，他也就無處安放自己的位置。薩瑟蘭將這個(gè)角色演的很典型，他的個(gè)人魅力也很突出，一個(gè)極力維持秩序的家長，一個(gè)令人依然尊敬的“失敗者”和“逃兵”。

        2011已經(jīng)過去，想想《憂郁癥》帶來的末世情懷，難免讓人也憂郁那么片刻。然而，我們還是更多將2012的末世預(yù)言當(dāng)做一個(gè)玩笑，一份談資，一種調(diào)侃，一次商機(jī)。拉斯?馮?提爾看起來也“投機(jī)”了這個(gè)題材一把，不過，這只是抓住了一個(gè)合適的載體，表現(xiàn)的依然是他個(gè)性化，極端化，內(nèi)省與批判的導(dǎo)演才華。

http://hi.baidu.com/doglovecat/blog/item/de2abb1134962a60cb80c418.html

拉斯馮提爾自稱是世界上最好的導(dǎo)演。作為道格瑪95早期的代表人物，其作品一直關(guān)懷人物抑郁的內(nèi)心和殘酷的命運(yùn)。馮提爾曾經(jīng)是各大電影節(jié)的寵兒，直至他兩年前備受爭議的作品《反基督者》。 新片《憂郁癥》看似科幻驚悚片，其實(shí)跟《反基督者》一樣，仍然關(guān)注的是心里災(zāi)難。
　　《憂郁癥》分為兩個(gè)大的部分。第一部分里，妹妹賈斯汀是一個(gè)意圖借結(jié)婚來正常自己生活的女人。她竭盡全力在婚禮上扮演符合人們期待的自己——甜美幸福的新娘，卻終究被情緒的洪流擊垮，忽視父母的戰(zhàn)爭，未婚夫的失落，姐姐姐夫的希冀。自私地做自己。而第二部分，小行星對地球的接近，肉眼可見，且速度越來越快，對姐姐克萊爾的生活造成毀滅性的影響，巨大的恐懼導(dǎo)致她精神和行為都漸漸失常。面對死亡反倒是賈斯汀表現(xiàn)鎮(zhèn)定，與她之前所表現(xiàn)出的堅(jiān)定獨(dú)立倒是相互應(yīng)和。最終姐妹倆跟克萊爾的兒子三人坐在象征性的“保護(hù)棚”里迎接命運(yùn)。
　　影片的序曲，就是一個(gè)大膽的嘗試。用唯美圣潔的升格畫面，且之間無關(guān)聯(lián)可尋，花了約10分鐘的時(shí)間，把故事“展現(xiàn)”了一遍，好像看圖說話一樣。古典油畫般的意向性畫面，夸張刺耳的背景樂，令這個(gè)序曲充滿意識的張力和給人以聯(lián)想的空間。關(guān)于結(jié)局的前置，導(dǎo)演解釋為，很多電影其實(shí)我們在看之前已經(jīng)能知道結(jié)局了，比如007系列，誰都知道結(jié)局一定是007會搞定生還，但大家還是會去看，想看事情將如何發(fā)展，人跟人之間會發(fā)生什么。事實(shí)上，這個(gè)序曲倒是沒有削弱觀眾看下去的興趣，只是影片后兩個(gè)部分尤其是第二個(gè)部分，張力相對較弱，確實(shí)不如序曲那么精彩，有點(diǎn)虎頭蛇尾，十分可惜。
　　而關(guān)于“憂郁癥”的主題，一部分來自導(dǎo)演自身的經(jīng)歷，一部分仍然跟他過去作品中的主要人物的情緒類似。很多人看完影片后認(rèn)為，這是一部釋放情緒之作。大概因?yàn)?，以前他作品中的許多人物，總是十分壓抑自己的情緒，最后借由外界力量的推動(dòng)爆發(fā)。而這部電影中的賈斯汀，對自己放任自由，不再受超我束縛。外界也沒有任何力量能壓迫她，連世界毀滅都不能。簡直是超乎尋常強(qiáng)大的心靈。用劇中賈斯汀老板扮演者，斯特蘭斯卡斯加德的話來說，這是一部導(dǎo)演不控制任何東西的電影。而拉斯馮提爾自己也表示，拍這部電影的時(shí)候感覺很好，不像拍《反基督者》那時(shí)備受折磨。像習(xí)武之人，一日打通任督二脈，忽而脈絡(luò)疏通，功夫猛進(jìn)。且不說馮提爾是不是最好的導(dǎo)演，相信算是最好的之一，如果他能通過拍攝電影，消減自己內(nèi)心的災(zāi)難；又能夠通過釋放自己的心靈，拓展創(chuàng)作的意境，那不論對他自己還是對影迷們，都將意義非凡。
　　值得一提的是夏洛特甘斯布在片中有非同尋常之鮮明貼切的表演。兩年前她曾憑借主演《反基督者》獲得戛納電影節(jié)最佳女主角的稱號。兩年后她在馮提爾的調(diào)度下又成功塑造出一個(gè)被瘋狂與恐慌兩種情緒同時(shí)主宰的女人。表演深切自然，情緒由內(nèi)至外，跟《反基督者》中的妻子有某種相似，又截然不同，很有再度角金的實(shí)力。

Lars von Trier’s Melancholia (2011) stages an interesting reversal of this classic formula of an object-Thing (an asteroid, alien) that serves as the enabling obstacle to the creation of the couple. At the film’s end, the Thing (a planet on a collision course with Earth) does not withdraw, as in Super 8; it hits the Earth, destroying all life, and the film is about the different ways the main characters deal with the impending catastrophe (with responses ranging from suicide to cynical acceptance). The planet is thus the Thing-das Ding at its purest, as Heidegger would have it: the Real Thing which dissolves any symbolic frame – we see it, it is our death, we cannot do anything. The film begins with an introductory sequence, shot in slow motion, involving the main characters and images from space, which introduces the visual motifs. A shot from the vantage point of space shows a giant planet approaching Earth; the two planets collide. The film continues in two parts, each named for one of two sisters, Justine and Claire.

In part one, ‘Justine’, a young couple, Justine and Michael, are at their wedding reception at the mansion of Justine’s sister, Claire, and her husband, John. The lavish reception lasts from dusk to dawn with eating, drinking, dancing and the usual family conflicts (Justine’s bitter mother makes sarcastic and insulting remarks, ultimately resulting in John attempting to throw her off his property; Justine’s boss follows her around, begging her to write a piece of advertising copy for him). Justine drifts away from the party and becomes increasingly distant; she has sex with a stranger on the lawn, and, at the end of the party, Michael leaves her.

In part two, ‘Claire’, the ill, depressed Justine comes to stay with Claire and John and their son, Leo. Although Justine is unable to carry out normal everyday activities like taking a bath or even eating, she gets better over time. During her stay, Melancholia, a massive blue telluric planet that had been hidden behind the sun, becomes visible in the sky as it approaches Earth. John, who is an amateur astronomer, is excited about the planet, and looks forward to the ‘fly-by’ expected by scientists, who have assured the public that Earth and Melancholia will pass each other without colliding. But Claire is getting fearful and believes the end of the world is imminent. On the internet, she finds a site describing the movements of Melancholia around Earth as a ‘dance of death’, in which the apparent passage of Melancholia past Earth initiates a slingshot orbit that will bring the planets into collision soon after. On the night of the fly-by, it seems that Melancholia will not hit Earth; however, after the fly-by, background birdsong abruptly ceases, and the next day Claire realizes that Melancholia is circling back and will collide with Earth after all. John, who also discovers that the end is near, commits suicide through a pill overdose. Claire becomes increasingly agitated, while Justine remains unperturbed by the impending doom: calm and silent, she accepts the coming event, claiming that she knows that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe. She comforts Leo by making a protective ‘magic cave’, a symbolic shelter of wooden sticks, on the mansion’s lawn. Justine, Claire and Leo enter the shelter as the planet approaches. Claire continues to remain agitated and fearful, while Justine and Leo stay calm and hold hands. The three are instantly incinerated as the collision occurs and destroys Earth.

This narrative is interspersed with numerous ingenious details. To calm Claire, John tells her to look at Melancholia through a circle of wire which just encompasses its circular shape in the sky, thus enframing it, and to repeat this 10 minutes later so she will see that the shape has become smaller, leaving gaps within the frame – a proof that Melancholia is moving away from the Earth. She does this, and grows jubilant when she sees a smaller shape. However, when she looks at Melancholia through the frame some hours later, she is terrified to see that the shape of the planet has now expanded well beyond the frame of the wire circle. This circle is the circle of fantasy enframing reality, and the shock arrives when the Thing breaks through and spills over into reality. There are also wonderful details of the disturbances that happen in nature as Melancholia approaches the Earth: insects, worms, roaches and other repellent forms of life usually hidden beneath the green grass come to the surface, rendering visible the dis-gusting crawling of life beneath the idyllic surface – the Real invading reality, ruining its image. (This is similar to David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, in which, in a famous shot after the father’s heart attack, the camera moves extremely close to the grass surface and then penetrates it, rendering visible the crawling of micro-life, the repelling Real beneath the idyllic suburban surface.)

The idea for Melancholia originated in a therapy session von Trier attended during treatment for depression: the psychiatrist told him that depressive people tend to act more calmly than others under extreme pressure or the threat of catastrophe – they already expect bad things to happen. This fact offers yet another example of the split between reality – the social universe of established customs and opinions in which we dwell – and the traumatic, meaningless brutality of the Real: in the film, John is a ‘realist’, fully immersed in ordinary reality, so when the co-ordinates of this reality dissolve, his entire world breaks down; Claire is an hysteric who starts to question everything in a panic, but nonetheless avoids complete psychotic breakdown; and the depressed Justine goes on as usual because she is already living in a melancholic withdrawal from reality.

The film deploys four subjective attitudes to-wards this ultimate Event (the planet-Thing hitting the Earth) as Lacan would understand them. John, the husband, is the embodiment of university knowledge, which falls apart in its en-counter with the Real; Leo, the son, is the cherubinic object-cause of desire for the other three; Claire is the hysterical woman, the only full subject in the film (insofar as subjectivity means doubts, questioning, inconsistency); and this, surprisingly, leaves to Justine the position of a Master, the one who stabilizes a situation of panic and chaos by introducing a new Master-Signifier, which brings order into a confused situation, conferring on it the stability of meaning. Her Master-Signifier is the ‘magic cave’ that she builds to establish a protected space when the Thing approaches. One should be very careful here: Justine is not a protective Master who offers a beautiful lie – in other words, she is not the Roberto Benigni character in Life Is Beautiful. What she provides is a symbolic fiction which, of course, has no magic efficacy, but which works at its proper level of preventing panic. Justine’s point is not to blind us from the impending catastrophe: the ‘magic cave’ enables us to joyously accept the End. There is nothing morbid in it; such an acceptance is, on the contrary, the necessary background of concrete social engagement.

Justine is thus the only one who is able to propose an appropriate answer to the impending catastrophe, and to the total obliteration of every symbolic frame.

……………………..

Alan Weisman’s book The World Without Us, a vision of what would have happened if humanity (and only humanity) were suddenly to disappear from the earth – natural diversity blooming again, nature gradually overgrowing human arte-facts. In imagining the world without us, we, humans, are reduced to a pure disembodied gaze observing our own absence, and, as Lacan pointed out, this is the fundamental subjective position of fantasy: to observe the world in the condition of the subject’s non-existence (the fantasy of witnessing the act of one’s own conception, the parental copulation, or of witnessing one’s own burial, like Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn). The World Without Us is thus fantasy at its purest: witnessing the Earth itself retaining its pre-castrated state of innocence, before we hu-mans spoiled it with our hubris. So while The Tree of Life escapes into a similar cosmic fantasy of a world without us, Melancholia does not do the same. It does not imagine the end of the world in order to escape from family deadlock: Justine really is melancholic, deprived of the fantasmatic gaze. That is to say, melancholy is, at its most radical, not the failure of the work of mourning, the persisting attachment to the lost object, but their very opposite: ‘melancholy offers the paradox of an intention to mourn that precedes and anticipates the loss of the object’.

Therein resides the melancholic’s stratagem: the only way to possess an object that we never had, which was from the very outset lost, is to treat an object that we still fully possess as if this object is already lost. This is what provides a unique flavour to a melancholic love relationship, such as the one between Newland and Countess Olenska in Wharton’s The Age of Innocence: although the partners are still together, immensely in love, enjoying each other’s presence, the shadow of the future separation already colours their relationship, so that they perceive their current pleasures under the aegis of the catastrophe (separation) to come. In this precise sense, melancholy effectively is the beginning of philosophy – and, in this precise sense, Justine from Melancholia is not melancholic: her loss is the absolute loss, the end of the world, and what Justine mourns in advance is this absolute loss – she is literally living in the end time. When catastrophe was just a threat of catastrophe, she was merely a depressed melancholic; once the threat is here, she finds herself in her element.

And here we reach the limit of event as re-framing: in Melancholia, the event is no longer a mere change of frame, it is the destruction of frame as such, i.e., the disappearance of humanity, the material support of every frame. But is such a total destruction the only way to acquire a distance from the frame that regulates our access to reality? The psychoanalytic name for this frame is fantasy, so the question can also be put in the terms of fantasy: can we acquire a distance towards our fundamental fantasy, or, as Lacan put it, can we traverse our fantasy?


Zizek, S. (2014) Event: Philosophy in Transit. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

     太小眾了吧，開始8分鐘的畫面和音樂真的讓人有點(diǎn)抓狂了，中間大段大段的空虛情節(jié)，拉斯·馮·提爾雖然是個(gè)藝術(shù)家，可絕對不是普通老百姓的藝術(shù)家。。。
     克爾斯滕·鄧斯特的表演確實(shí)沒看出怎么精彩來，倒是身材確實(shí)是不錯(cuò)，本片前8分鐘和后面30分鐘很難讓人堅(jiān)持看下去。。。
     

有圖的版本（沒圖還介紹個(gè)毛）... ...

http://www.douban.com/note/218806198/

首先是片頭第二個(gè)鏡頭出現(xiàn)的畫作《雪中獵手》

The Hunters in the Snow 雪中獵手 Artist ：Pieter Brueghel the Elder Year ：1565

這幅是老布魯蓋爾的畫作，關(guān)于老布魯蓋爾的一些情況可以參見由另外一部《磨坊與十字架》引申出來的介紹：

http://www.douban.com/note/212570175/

這幅畫作于1565年，也另名為獵手歸來。是老布魯蓋爾廣為稱道的一副板上油畫，亦被認(rèn)為是北方文藝復(fù)興運(yùn)動(dòng)的代表作之一。

畫面表現(xiàn)了在獵狗陪伴下的獵手打獵歸來的場景。但顯而易見的是這次圍獵并不太成功，獵人們拖著沉重疲倦的步伐，狗兒們看起來都悲慘而垂頭喪氣，只有一名獵人扛著他瘦弱不堪的狐貍尸體，顯現(xiàn)出他們窘迫的處境。整幅畫面處理得十分冷靜，籠罩在一片冰涼而陰霾的天氣之下。色調(diào)灰白，樹木幾乎片葉不存。在山腳下的山谷中，一個(gè)輪子結(jié)冰的水車被凍住了，冰封的山尖看起來十分遙遠(yuǎn)。在凍住的湖面上還有一些像剪影一般的人。

1560年正處在荷蘭宗教改革的時(shí)代，布魯蓋爾（以及他老板）或許試圖描繪一種他們希冀的，想要的農(nóng)村景象。

這幅畫并不是第一次在電影中出現(xiàn)，俄羅斯導(dǎo)演安德烈.塔可夫斯基就在他的影片飛向太空/索拉斯星/Solaris(1972) 和鏡子/The Mirror(1974)中也用到過這幅畫。

然后Justin在房間里的場景，她看到書架上攤開的都是現(xiàn)代主義畫作，幾乎全是冰冷的幾何抽象以及構(gòu)成主義。于是重新翻開幾本書蓋了上去，第一幅畫仍然是布魯蓋爾的雪中獵手。之后幾幅能夠看清的有下面這兩幅，出自同一位英國畫家約翰.埃弗雷特.米雷斯爵士：

非常熟悉的奧菲利婭/Ophelia, 作于1851年左右的板上油畫，畫的是哈姆雷特的情人墜亡在水中的場景。這幅畫現(xiàn)藏于英國泰特美術(shù)館，市值估計(jì)在3千萬英鎊... ...

這幅畫后來廣泛地影響了很多其他藝術(shù)，電影和攝影。Laurence Olivier的電影哈姆雷特/Hamlet(1948)中奧菲利婭之死場景便基于此畫。本片片首Kirsten Dunst漂浮在水上的畫面也毫無疑問來源于此。

據(jù)說John Everett Millais都是習(xí)慣先畫場景，再把人物畫上去。當(dāng)時(shí)房間的取暖條件大概不太好，他讓模特兒在冰冷的浴缸里泡了若干小時(shí)使得可憐的姑娘幾乎得肺炎死掉，姑娘的父親差點(diǎn)和他打官司...

另外一副：守護(hù)林人的女兒 The Woodman's Daughter 1851

顯然這本畫冊這一頁介紹的是英國的前拉斐爾派（The Pre-Raphaelite）。

那么之后是大名鼎鼎地卡拉瓦喬繪制的手提歌利亞頭的大衛(wèi)。關(guān)于這幅畫評議很多，說的是舊約中講述的猶太人的王大衛(wèi)用石子擊殺巨人歌利亞的故事。米開朗基羅的雕塑大衛(wèi)表現(xiàn)的也是這位王在擊殺前的瞬間。

據(jù)說這幅畫中的頭顱就是卡拉瓦喬畫家本人，我好懶，有時(shí)間再慢慢寫。有興趣的人可以去找BBC的紀(jì)錄片《藝術(shù)的故事》中關(guān)于卡拉瓦喬的那一集，有比較有趣和詳細(xì)的解釋。

剩下的幾幅都一閃而過看不清楚，最后姐姐Claire走進(jìn)同一間房找藥片的時(shí)候，似乎還掃到了克里姆特的吻。這幅是維也納分離派時(shí)期的作品，金光閃閃，華麗異常，十分受廣大人民喜愛。

畫基本上就是這些。此外詢問朋友后得知，片中沒完沒了我痛苦啊我痛苦世界上我最痛苦用到的曲子是瓦格納的歌劇《特里斯坦與伊索爾德》序曲?？磦€(gè)歐洲導(dǎo)演的失心瘋片兒容易么，需要全面復(fù)習(xí)西方藝術(shù)音樂史，太有文化有時(shí)候往往反而是種殘障，思考過多生命力衰竭，你不抑郁誰抑郁呢。

首先。我是想給’較差‘的

但考慮到萬一這只是因?yàn)楸容^小眾，不是因?yàn)椴缓茫蔷秃軐Σ蛔∠矚g它的朋友了
=============================
后來回頭看，發(fā)現(xiàn)這個(gè)評論有這么多人跟，就覺得還是要負(fù)責(zé)任一點(diǎn)，嗯，這個(gè)片是給憂郁癥病友看的，沒有這類心里障礙的朋友會覺得這片難以理解，不過如果你看出了蛋疼的感覺，那就證明你看懂了憂郁癥的不爽。
=============================
以前遇到滿屏好評，出現(xiàn)一個(gè)差評后，大多數(shù)人都會無情拍磚差評者，認(rèn)為他們是自己理解不了而滿口噴糞。。。所以我先澄清，我只是想寫貼給觀影經(jīng)驗(yàn)不甚豐富的童鞋，如果想看片消遣，不要對這片有太大期望


我一直自覺屬于觀影經(jīng)驗(yàn)較為豐富的看客了，大多數(shù)種類的電影我都還是能接受的，但這片讓我對自己的觀影能力產(chǎn)生了疑問

片子全長2個(gè)小時(shí)，前5分鐘的開場是相當(dāng)驚艷的，各種nb的鏡頭和畫面，講了一個(gè)藍(lán)星球浪漫地撞爛了地球的故事

然后就是1個(gè)小時(shí)的。一個(gè)蛋疼的婚禮

講了一個(gè)女的，在婚禮上莫名其妙的崩潰，然后自我折磨然后折磨別人。不曉得是怕結(jié)婚還是討厭世俗，還是討厭父母的不和諧，還是討厭拜金主義。。。。這一個(gè)小時(shí)看得我相當(dāng)無語，無語是因?yàn)椴焕斫?，不理解為什么一個(gè)什么都看不慣的人還裝模作樣的結(jié)婚，還各種想讓自己開心，然后立刻干出相當(dāng)崩潰的事情讓自己重新不開心。

這時(shí)候我已經(jīng)忘了電影名字了（因?yàn)楫?dāng)時(shí)看這片完全是隨機(jī)看到的）

然后我就果斷回顧了一下，發(fā)現(xiàn)這女的原來是憂郁癥。好吧一切都說得通了，這貨的精神是個(gè)悲劇，所以會這么蛋疼

理解了這個(gè)人的行為，我就不理解導(dǎo)演了，這果斷是一個(gè)專門拍給憂郁癥人士找共鳴的片吧。。。我一直以為，電影看的是種共鳴，導(dǎo)演的任務(wù)是把某些自己想表達(dá)的，震撼的東西用某種更易懂，更有力度的方式展現(xiàn)出來，以和觀眾思想中的某處達(dá)成共鳴，讓觀眾體會到那種想法和震撼。

但這么一種小眾的情感，是想要我等世俗生活中的“現(xiàn)實(shí)主義粗鄙觀眾”找哪樣的共鳴呢？完全理解不了，就開始覺得片子拖沓冗長了，不由得開始尋找鏡頭，影片細(xì)節(jié)方面有無亮點(diǎn)。

不得不說亮點(diǎn)還是相當(dāng)多的，比如主角婚禮，一開始我還以為他們辦婚禮的地方是個(gè)酒店什么的，后來發(fā)現(xiàn)原來是主角姐姐的家，不得不說老美真tm會享受啊，住這樣的地方。。。主角你還憂郁癥啊 啊 啊。。住在天朝的窮b不理解啊

好吧，根據(jù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)。。一個(gè)片要是前期這樣拍，一般都是因?yàn)閷?dǎo)演實(shí)際上是在做細(xì)膩的鋪墊，為了使后面某種驚人的事的發(fā)生更自然點(diǎn)，于是我就帶著這樣的期待，去看后面那一個(gè)小時(shí)了


后一個(gè)小時(shí)的主要任務(wù)是將這一幫人丟到世紀(jì)末日的大背景下。
現(xiàn)實(shí)主義世俗們無法接受世界覆滅這樣的事情。好不容易整了那么nb的大房子，說完就完，那哪成啊。。。他們一開始極力否認(rèn)世界會毀滅。。但當(dāng)那大藍(lán)星星真的越來越近以后，所有正常人都不淡定了，以主角姐夫（自殺）和主角姐姐（不知所錯(cuò)，憂郁了）為代表。而我們的主角淡定得一塌糊涂。

要我說。。這不廢話嗎，以我對憂郁癥的理解，他們每時(shí)每刻都處于所有人都不能理解的壓抑之中，每日面臨的都是世界毀滅般的絕望無助，早都習(xí)慣了，他們最大的痛苦是周遭人完全無法理解他們，就如同我看這片的情感一樣。

但當(dāng)世界毀滅的那一刻，全世界正常人都體會到了憂郁癥患者平日的那種感覺了。全世界都抑郁了。于是抑郁癥患者說，你們總算能體會到我有多tm不爽了吧，突然覺得自己特有優(yōu)越感。

我覺得這可以類比肚子疼。我每每肚子疼到想拉X卻沒廁所的時(shí)候，就渾身出冷汗。那時(shí)候，我就特不能理解為什么別人那么開開心心蹦蹦跳跳，覺得全世界都應(yīng)該和自己一樣肚子疼，然后滿臉糾結(jié)啊。

咳，說遠(yuǎn)了

莫非這就是導(dǎo)演想要表達(dá)的？憂郁癥患者，平時(shí)那么苦B，只是因?yàn)樗麄兇翦e(cuò)了環(huán)境，因而不適應(yīng)了。就好像把魚拿到陸地上一樣。
但如果把他們放到正確的環(huán)境（世界末日）里面，他們就能用表現(xiàn)的比正常人要好多了？

如果真是這樣。。我真是服了。。。。。

后5分鐘就是全篇前5分鐘繼續(xù)演下去。。好吧畫面不錯(cuò)。。。

綜上。。我的評論就是，夠矯情，夠矯情，夠矯情

矯情的慢速鏡頭切換，矯情的敘事節(jié)奏，矯情的主角

以我對電影的適應(yīng)能力來說。。適應(yīng)不了

但片子的章法技巧都無可挑剔，演員演技也很好，所以絕不是那種imdb 5分一下的爛片。只是實(shí)在無法體會導(dǎo)演想表達(dá)什么

另外吐槽一下豆瓣影評。和imdb評分。。。不知是大家看到不懂的片就不敢打低分，還是我的理解力已經(jīng)跟不上前沿思潮，竟然都這么高分誒。。。還看不到負(fù)面評論誒。。。


非常希望看這片感到震撼的人。。能幫我翻譯翻譯這片。。順便幫我這愚笨的大腦開開竅