看德萊葉的《圣女貞德》。
不吃。不喝。不如廁。不變換姿勢。
堵。一直堵到貞德最后一次領(lǐng)圣餐。眼淚無聲無息滾滾而落。滾滾而落。

德萊葉真的是大師。在表達人性的丑態(tài)上。
持續(xù)的面部大特寫。那么堅硬。那么殘酷。那么丑陋。。

貞德的表演，我不喜歡。
太多的眼淚。太夸張的軟弱。還有那雙巨大的眼睛。過于蒼老。
她最美的時候，是在誦讀主禱文，和領(lǐng)圣餐的時候。
臉上圣潔的光輝。天使一樣。

結(jié)尾過于拖沓?；馃耐纯啾磉_過于現(xiàn)實，貞德被淪落成為法蘭西女英雄。
還有那些小丑穿插其間的鏡頭，諷喻得太明顯，反而多余。

我更喜歡布列松《圣女貞德的審判》的結(jié)尾。
烈火，十字架，燒焦的火刑柱，鴿子。
以他一貫的節(jié)制，簡潔到只用這幾個元素，戛然而止。
任憑觀影者內(nèi)心的情感，在靜默的黑暗里，洶涌激蕩。

在布列松那里，貞德被還原成上帝的女兒。一個殉道者。一個堅守真理的基督徒。

是的。我更喜歡布列松影像里的貞德。
我知道那更接近真實的貞德?；蛘哒f，那就是真實的基督徒貞德。
柔弱。羞怯。平靜。堅忍。
她的軟弱，恐懼，瞬間爆發(fā)的哭泣，布列松只用兩三個鏡頭就完全交代。
他真是節(jié)制的典范。56分鐘的電影，只用三兩個鏡頭，就鋪墊了貞德后來的軟弱認罪。
但是通篇都在指向她最后的結(jié)局。她必然會選擇上帝。選擇真理。選擇烈火。

布列松的《圣女貞德的審判》，所有的對白，都是來自于當(dāng)時的庭審記錄。
為此我愛這位樣貌非我心儀的導(dǎo)演。
因為那樣一份未經(jīng)導(dǎo)演篡改的庭審記錄，使我可以知道，貞德的確是上帝所差遣的。
她不是為了一個國家，她是為遵行上帝的旨意。
貞德的受難，和耶穌基督的受難，多么一致。

貞德。
圣女。

為此我也知道，呂克貝松的《圣女貞德》，顛覆了真相。
他的電影很過癮。不過他卻成了一個說謊者。
達斯汀霍夫曼出演的黑衣人，以洞穿人心的智者形象出現(xiàn)。卻是說謊者。
或者，那黑衣人，就是呂克貝松本人吧。。

瓊芳登的圣女貞德，我就連看的欲望都沒有。
對可口可樂就是有偏見。

因，布列松和德萊葉，足矣。
足矣。




 
關(guān)于貞德：http://baike.baidu.com/view/8434.htm

1.根據(jù)宗教裁判的答辯，貞德在1425年她十六歲時的一日，在村后的大樹下遇見天使圣米迦勒、圣瑪嘉烈和圣凱瑟琳，聽到“聲音”，而得到“神的啟示”。要求她帶兵收復(fù)當(dāng)時由英格蘭人占領(lǐng)的法國，并帶領(lǐng)王儲至蘭斯進行加冕典禮。

2.“她持續(xù)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)著軍隊進行了一系列不可思議的勝利，扭轉(zhuǎn)了整場戰(zhàn)爭的局面?！?br>
3.審判紀錄證明貞德有著卓越才智。紀錄中最著名的一段質(zhì)問是：“你是否覺得自己受到上帝的恩典？”而貞德回答：“如果沒有的話，希望上帝能賜與我；如果我已得到，希望上帝仍給予我。”

這個問題是一個學(xué)術(shù)上的陷阱。當(dāng)時教會的教條是沒有人可以肯定他自己受到上帝的恩典，如果她做出肯定答覆，那她就證明了自己是異端邪說。而如果她的答復(fù)是否定的，那她就承認了自己是有罪的。公證人Boisguillaume后來證實了當(dāng)時法庭在聽到了貞德的回復(fù)后，“那些質(zhì)問她的人全都目瞪口呆”，并且只得暫停了那天的審問。

4.1431年5月，貞德被判處火刑。5月20日—5月30日，貞德每天都會被捆綁在囚車之上，游街示眾，受盡了屈辱。

死刑于1431年5月30日在法國盧昂進行，目擊者描述了死刑的那一幕。游街示眾之后，貞德被押赴刑場，捆綁在火刑柱上，她手握著十字架不斷地祈禱著，并向旁邊的牧師請求讓她握著一個小十字架。最后火被點燃，幾分鐘后，一切都結(jié)束了。英國人將燒焦的木炭撥開，暴露出焦黑的尸體，以向人群證明她的確死了，接著又燃燒了尸體一次，以避免她的骨灰被人收集。圣女貞德就義之時，年僅二十歲。

英國人將剩余的灰燼都扔進了塞納河。負責(zé)點火的劊子手后來形容他當(dāng)時：“……非常害怕燒死了一位圣女而會被打入地獄?！?。。

5.法庭在1456年7月7日正式宣布了貞德的清白。

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970216/REVIEWS08/401010350/1023

Roger Ebert / February 16, 1997

You cannot know the history of silent film unless you know the face of Renee Maria Falconetti. In a medium without words, where the filmmakers believed that the camera captured the essence of characters through their faces, to see Falconetti in Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc'' (1928) is to look into eyes that will never leave you.

Falconetti (as she is always called) made only this single movie. "It may be the finest performance ever recorded on film,'' wrote Pauline Kael. She was an actress in Paris when she was seen on the stage of a little boulevard theater by Carl Theodor Dreyer (1889-1968), the Dane who was one of the greatest early directors. It was a light comedy, he recalled, but there was something in her face that struck him: "There was a soul behind that facade.'' He did screen tests without makeup, and found what he sought, a woman who embodied simplicity, character and suffering.

Dreyer had been given a large budget and a screenplay by his French producers, but he threw out the screenplay and turned instead to the transcripts of Joan's trial. They told the story that has become a legend: of how a simple country maid from Orleans, dressed as a boy, led the French troops in their defeat of the British occupation forces. How she was captured by French loyal to the British and brought before a church court, where her belief that she had been inspired by heavenly visions led to charges of heresy. There were 29 cross-examinations, combined with torture, before Joan was burned at the stake in 1431. Dreyer combined them into one inquisition, in which the judges, their faces twisted with their fear of her courage, loomed over her with shouts and accusations.

If you go to the Danish Film Museum in Copenhagen you can see Dreyer's model for the extraordinary set he built for the film. He wanted it all in one piece (with movable walls for the cameras), and he began with towers at four corners, linked with concrete walls so thick they could support the actors and equipment. Inside the enclosure were chapels, houses and the ecclesiastical court, built according to a weird geometry that put windows and doors out of plumb with one another and created discordant visual harmonies (the film was made at the height of German Expressionism and the French avant-garde movement in art).

It is helpful to see the model in Copenhagen, because you will never see the whole set in the movie. There is not one single establishing shot in all of "The Passion of Joan of Arc,'' which is filmed entirely in closeups and medium shots, creating fearful intimacy between Joan and her tormentors. Nor are there easily read visual links between shots. In his brilliant shot-by-shot analysis of the film, David Bordwell of the University of Wisconsin concludes: "Of the film's over 1,500 cuts, fewer than 30 carry a figure or object over from one shot to another; and fewer than 15 constitute genuine matches on action.''
What does this mean to the viewer? There is a language of shooting and editing that we subconsciously expect at the movies. We assume that if two people are talking, the cuts will make it seem that they are looking at one another. We assume that if a judge is questioning a defendant, the camera placement and editing will make it clear where they stand in relation to one another. If we see three people in a room, we expect to be able to say how they are arranged and which is closest to the camera. Almost all such visual cues are missing from "The Passion of Joan of Arc.''

Instead Dreyer cuts the film into a series of startling images. The prison guards and the ecclesiastics on the court are seen in high contrast, often from a low angle, and although there are often sharp architectural angles behind them, we are not sure exactly what the scale is (are the windows and walls near or far?). Bordwell's book reproduces a shot of three priests, presumably lined up from front to back, but shot in such a way that their heads seem stacked on top of one another. All of the faces of the inquisitors are shot in bright light, without makeup, so that the crevices and flaws of the skin seem to reflect a diseased inner life.

Falconetti, by contrast, is shot in softer grays, rather than blacks and whites. Also without makeup, she seems solemn and consumed by inner conviction. Consider an exchange where a judge asks her whether St. Michael actually spoke to her. Her impassive face seems to suggest that whatever happened between Michael and herself was so far beyond the scope of the question that no answer is conceivable.

Why did Dreyer fragment his space, disorient the visual sense and shoot in closeup? I think he wanted to avoid the picturesque temptations of a historical drama. There is no scenery here, aside from walls and arches. Nothing was put in to look pretty. You do not leave discussing the costumes (although they are all authentic). The emphasis on the faces insists that these very people did what they did. Dreyer strips the church court of its ritual and righteousness and betrays its members as fleshy hypocrites in the pay of the British; their narrow eyes and mean mouths assault Joan's sanctity.

For Falconetti, the performance was an ordeal. Legends from the set tell of Dreyer forcing her to kneel painfully on stone and then wipe all expression from her face--so that the viewer would read suppressed or inner pain. He filmed the same shots again and again, hoping that in the editing room he could find exactly the right nuance in her facial expression. There is an echo in the famous methods of the French director Robert Bresson, who in his own 1962 "The Trial of Joan of Arc'' put actors through the same shots again and again, until all apparent emotion was stripped from their performances. In his book on Dreyer, Tom Milne quotes the director: "When a child suddenly sees an onrushing train in front of him, the expression on his face is spontaneous. By this I don't mean the feeling in it (which in this case is sudden fear), but the fact that the face is completely uninhibited.'' That is the impression he wanted from Falconetti.

That he got it is generally agreed. Perhaps it helps that Falconetti never made another movie (she died in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1946). We do not have her face in other roles to compare with her face here, and the movie seems to exist outside time (the French director Jean Cocteau famously said it played like "an historical document from an era in which the cinema didn't exist'').

To modern audiences, raised on films where emotion is conveyed by dialogue and action more than by faces, a film like "The Passion of Joan of Arc'' is an unsettling experience--so intimate we fear we will discover more secrets than we desire. Our sympathy is engaged so powerfully with Joan that Dreyer's visual methods--his angles, his cutting, his closeups--don't play like stylistic choices, but like the fragments of Joan's experience. Exhausted, starving, cold, in constant fear, only 19 when she died, she lives in a nightmare where the faces of her tormentors rise up like spectral demons.

Perhaps the secret of Dreyer's success is that he asked himself, "What is this story really about?'' And after he answered that question he made a movie about absolutely nothing else.

An excellent essay by Matthew Dessem on "The Passion of Joan of Arc" here:
http://criterioncollection.blogspot.com/2006/11/62-passion-of-joan-of-arc.html
This is part of his undertaking to watch and write about every film in the Criterion Collection.

卡爾·西奧多·德萊葉執(zhí)導(dǎo)于1928年的《圣女貞德受難記》，被譽為“電影史上探索人類靈魂的密度最大的一部影片”。英語中，Passion同時具有“激情”與“受難”兩層含義，兩者并非對立，而恰似一枚硬幣的兩面。愛與犧牲在德萊葉的影片中以一種異常粗糲又深藏著無限柔情的方式銘刻在火刑柱上，用痛苦的火焰溫暖著世人。

圣女貞德的版本太多了，呂克·貝松的《圣女貞德的故事》采用了做作的神魔人三段論；雅克·里維特的《審判篇》與《監(jiān)獄篇》則立足于蕭伯納的戲劇，略微疏離地表現(xiàn)人物；布列松的《審判貞德》則“要求我所挑選的女孩一刻也不要想她曾經(jīng)或可以是貞德”。貞德對于法國人民來說象征著民族心、愛國情，對宗教來說象征著信、望、愛，對皇權(quán)來說象征著忠誠。她是純潔的少女、善戰(zhàn)的勇士、堅定的信徒、無悔的殉道者……任何一面都充滿戲劇性，值得被拿來大作文章。然而德萊葉像是受到神啟一樣，在他之前不曾有人表現(xiàn)這樣的貞德，在他之后也不敢有人再表現(xiàn)這樣的貞德——一個疲憊的貞德。

貞德只有十九歲啊，可在德萊葉的鏡頭下，她像十天十夜沒有合過眼的失眠者，像一天工作十八小時的紡織廠女工，像行將就木的老人，像中世紀的風(fēng)化了的石雕，像千年的古樹……她太累了，面對不停追問她的神父，面對愛戴她的人民，面對審判，面對死亡，乃至面對上帝，面對窗戶投影在地上的十字。疲憊是塵世的枷鎖，貞德赤身裸體行走在核輻射中，她終將死去，然而死亡還要過一會兒才到來，這延宕讓她倍受熬煎?！翱禳c來吧?！彼耄安?，不要來?！弊詈筮B同內(nèi)心的斗爭一同捐棄了，在火焰中除了焦黑的碳還剩什么呢？教堂頂端棲息的鴿子四散飛去。
 
巴贊把此片比作“仿佛是由頭像組成的奇妙壁畫”，“是面部的紀錄片”。整部影片幾乎全由特寫連接起來，貞德臉上的每一道細微的皺紋、每一個斑點、每一個毛孔都如此逼近觀者，每一次呼吸都如同潮汐一般洶涌，這些面部的細微變化成為心靈的軌跡，通往神性的超驗之路。
 
戈達爾《賴活》里的女主角，淪落為妓女的Nana，在電影院看《圣女貞德蒙難記》，眼淚滴落像黑暗中的花朵盛開。評說的人懂也不懂，流淚的人不懂也懂。

貞德的鏡頭就像一段音樂中的主旋律，而其他是伴奏：“神啟”的貞德和整個已經(jīng)沒有靈性為現(xiàn)實所腐朽的宗教機構(gòu)的比較。整個審判的過程就是問出與教義不相符的答案，這些答案都是因為現(xiàn)實的介入和與信仰格格不入導(dǎo)致的，兩者之間有矛盾的地方。而貞德就是要去揭露這些矛盾的地方。貞德在沒有被問到關(guān)于上帝的問題的時候，是多么的恐懼，表演也非常的瑣碎及現(xiàn)實。這時作為一種回答的是，貞德的眼淚。而當(dāng)問到對上帝的信仰問題的時候，貞德就通過一種象征的靈性的答案回答一種現(xiàn)實性詰難。（具有具體的物質(zhì)性和對象性）于是答案就有危險性之分，因為對于宗教審判所得教士來說，他們只是想盡快結(jié)束這場審判。歷史上的貞德應(yīng)該也是這樣為這些問題絞盡腦汁的，她必須回到自己的內(nèi)心去尋求答案，

貞德的表演者，她的驚愕是一種很奇特的表演，一開始表現(xiàn)出一種天真的模樣，但是警惕。然后是一種悲天憫人，這種悲天憫人很讓人感到奇特，與她自認為上帝派來的身份的自信有些格格不入。也許是為了表達某種“神啟”的回答。

第二場審判：在回答“你能肯定自己能得到救贖”（那么就不需要教堂）中，特別的精彩，貞德確確實實地一步一步走向教士們的問題陷阱，然后通過她的靈性將自己救出來，她回答：如果我已經(jīng)得到救贖，求上帝繼續(xù)給我，如果我還沒得到，求上帝賜給我。

貞德在鏡頭中經(jīng)常往左右兩邊轉(zhuǎn)頭。貞德轉(zhuǎn)向左邊，左邊是她的援助（或者她認為的援助），右邊則是她的審判。

在影像中，恐懼還有遭遇圣恩的，這就是貞德的兩個狀態(tài)。“她非常狡詐?！边@卻就是審判機構(gòu)對她的判斷。

支持她的教士，都想讓她簽名，挽救回性命，這個時候，疲憊的貞德....（貞德的表演者好像真的已經(jīng)成為了貞德），這是表演的最高層次。貞德在里面不行動，她只是說話，以及做出表情。當(dāng)她說，我要收回（簽名）的時候，她覺得自己為了挽救性命，否定了上帝?！拔艺f的每句話，都是因為害怕火刑?！彼ε禄鹦痰谋硌菔潜仨毘绦蚧模孟褚贡硌葑兂闪艘环N視覺上的食物。

盧曼說個體在媒體中是不重要的，確實是這樣子，個人就可以被完全埋沒起來，而只用媒體來宣布事情，媒體的公布可以成為機構(gòu)的核心工作。但是在貞德的故事中，看到的是，個人的命運與其信仰是機構(gòu)所關(guān)注的，或者說是它們處理的工作。