伍迪艾倫1979年的電影曼哈頓快到結(jié)尾 他自己演的叫色艾薩克斥責(zé)朋友耶魯 你太放任自己了 你沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)么 這就是問(wèn)題所在 你的全部問(wèn)題 什么事你都能找著借口 你對(duì)自己就不誠(chéng)實(shí)

艾薩克不只是說(shuō) 耶魯為了干不那么有道理的事情 找些理由向他搪塞 他也是再說(shuō)也錄得自我欺騙 當(dāng)然可以認(rèn)為艾薩克是更泛泛的指摘人的自我欺騙和自圓其說(shuō) 保持操守 或者說(shuō)堅(jiān)持個(gè)人原則 就要求我們既按一定的規(guī)則行事 也按這個(gè)規(guī)則思考 如果我們?cè)诓粩嗾医杩谥刑^(guò)縱容自己 就失去了可靠的行為指導(dǎo) 操守是曼哈頓的主題

我們應(yīng)當(dāng)把操守與堅(jiān)持 執(zhí)拗清楚的區(qū)分開(kāi) 通常認(rèn)為后兩者近乎操守 有操守是褒義的形容 雖然堅(jiān)持是操守的成分 但僅有堅(jiān)持并不足以得到操守所具備的褒義 有很多不含道德色彩的堅(jiān)持 比如在居室裝修上堅(jiān)持一種審美觀 況且人還會(huì)有道德上不正當(dāng)?shù)膱?jiān)持 比如專一的 不放過(guò)一個(gè)有太人的納粹 性格缺陷也可以表現(xiàn)為一種堅(jiān)持 比如影片安妮霍爾里艾倫扮演的角色艾維爾 他的愛(ài)情婚姻總是黃掉 通常說(shuō)的忠于自我或許也是操守的成分 但僅僅如此又太過(guò)主觀 不具任何價(jià)值 徒然的自戀者是典型的忠于自我 但這不成其為道義上的善

一段頗有造物恩寵的段子
耶魯 好 我不是圣人 行了吧
艾薩克 可是你也太放任自己了 你沒(méi)發(fā)現(xiàn)嗎 這就是問(wèn)題所在 你的全部問(wèn)題 什么是你能找著借口 你對(duì)自己就不誠(chéng)實(shí) 你說(shuō)過(guò)你要寫本書 可是到最后你寧可買輛保時(shí)捷 你知道嗎 你現(xiàn)在對(duì)艾米麗不老實(shí) 跟我也?；ㄕ?下次 你就該在參議院委員會(huì)前公出一串名字 出賣了你的朋友
耶魯 你太自以為是了 咱們都是人 都有七情六欲 你以為你是上帝吶 艾薩克 我做人有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)
耶魯 得了 你那樣是不行的 太準(zhǔn)求完美了
艾薩克 想想以后的人會(huì)怎么說(shuō)我們呢 天哪 我們總有一天和他們一樣 他過(guò)去美春也是個(gè)造物恩寵 沒(méi)準(zhǔn)兒也跳著舞 打著網(wǎng)球 想盡一切 到時(shí)候我希望人們能念我的好

艾薩克顯然認(rèn)為買保時(shí)捷是耶魯缺法操守的象征 而不是證據(jù) 艾薩克的說(shuō)法事項(xiàng)確保后人能年他的好 也去可以認(rèn)為這是暗指操守或德行的唯一價(jià)值 在于后人對(duì)他有個(gè)好印象 艾薩克可能不那么認(rèn)為 他認(rèn)為講道德價(jià)值是不能從主流觀點(diǎn)里探知的 后來(lái)在電影里 艾薩克列舉了若干特定的事物 沒(méi)有操守就無(wú)法協(xié)調(diào)理智與情感 這樣的不和諧造成內(nèi)心沖突 帶來(lái)沒(méi)完沒(méi)了的不滿足 讓人不能堅(jiān)持做正確的有價(jià)值的事 少了德行 只能得到膚淺而短暫的歡愉

          “He adored New York City.” (Manhattan)Of course. Why else would Woody Allen title his film Manhattan? He makes it clear from the very beginning that this film is dedicated to the city. Seeing Midtown in black and white unfolding to the rhythm of “Rhapsody in Blue”, the audience romanticizes the city together with Allen and eagerly awaits what he has to say about the city. And then through the hustle bustle of daily street scenes of Manhattan, we hear it, “a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture”(Manhattan).
          Before we proceed, we shall ask ourselves, what is the “contemporary culture” that Allen is referring to? The film was released in 1979 and the “Manhattan” he refers to is the one in the 70s. New York City in the 1970s was “dirty, dangerous and destitute”(Tannenbaum). Crimes were rampant around the city and Times Square was filled with hookers and drug dealers. The economic chaos and political upheaval brought by the war and Watergate rendered the city powerless in the face of crisis. It is not surprising that Allen was heartbroken, seeing his beloved city turning into a nest of crimes and drugs. While Manhattan is not Taxi Driver, which exposes the crimes of New York unreservedly and praises actions against them, that doesn’t mean Allen shies away from all the trouble the city and the society is in. He turns it, instead, into a celebration of New York and the people living in it. Allen, born in Brooklyn, has spent his entire life living in the city, knowing all the bits and pieces about it. Certainly it is far from perfection, but neither is anything else. Nonetheless Allen knows that New York is a great city, and the reason is written all over Manhattan, from the stunning 59th Street Bridge at dawn to the enchanting and dark Planetarium in the American Museum of Natural History.
          The film centers on four people living in Manhattan, Isaac (played by Allen himself), Mary, Yale and Tracy. These characters embody the spirit of the city. All of them are highly educated and possess rich cultural knowledge. Cultural debates take place among them throughout the film. The most heated debate happens when Isaac meets Mary at an art fair, where Mary criticizes the photography Isaac likes as derivative and witless and praises the steel cube Isaac dislikes as textual and “has a marvelous kind of negative capability”, which is clearly a reference to John Keats. These polished critiques of art clearly reflects their knowledge and insight in art. Thanks to the city’s inexhaustible amount of cultural institutions, numerous scenes in the film take place in museums, art galleries and special art exhibits, which allows these debates to happen. These characters themselves also work in television, book editing and universities. They are supposed to represent the intellect of this city that is famous for its huge international media conglomerates, Broadway and several of the greatest museums in the world, among others. Allen himself obviously takes pride in the status of New York as one of world’s greatest cultural capitals. When Mary later says that she is from Philadelphia, believes in God and does not want to have this conversation, Isaac is confused by what Mary means by that. But we know for sure that Allen himself isn’t. From these characters, we can see how the status of New York as a cultural capital affects the way they live and shape them as who they are.
          However, apart from their glamorous appearance and fanciful cultural glossary, what is truly intriguing about those characters is the problems they each have, just as in the case of New York City. A lot of their problems have to do with their relationships and emotions. For Isaac, the fact that he is involved with a teenage girl, Tracy, bothers him greatly. Upon knowing that Tracy goes to a high school, Mary wittingly remarks that “somewhere Nabakov is smiling”, referring to the devastating relationship between Lolita and Humbert in the novel Lolita. If anything, the feelings Humbert has for Lolita, a girl much younger than his age, ruins his life almost completely. After Lolita disappears all of a sudden one day, Humbert goes on a frantic search for her that lasts years. When he finally finds her at the end, he goes on a killing spree of her abductor that ends in a disaster. Though not nearly the case of Lolita, the relationship between Isaac and Tracy is equally troublesome because of the age gap. The difference here is that Isaac keeps things under control because he knows that he might wind up in a similar situation as Humbert if he lets things go freewheeling. But at the end, feelings still get the upper hand. Yet the struggle of Isaac is the battle between his ideal and his morality. The same thing can be said about Mary, who is involved in an extra-marital relationship with Yale. She constantly repeats that she is from Philadelphia and her parents are married for 43 years and “nobody cheats at all”. This indicates her repulsion towards the nature of her relationship with Yale because she knows that “this is going nowhere” and she’s merely wasting her time. She knows that she is “young, highly intelligent and got everything going for [her]” yet she is “wasting herself on a married man”. This happens to the best of us. Regardless of how much knowledge one has or how well-to-do one is, it seems inevitable that we at some point struggle to find the right places for ourselves. This is especially true for New Yorkers in the 1970s who all of a sudden find themselves in the middle of an ailing city. Allen’s film, clearly dedicated to this city and all the problems it has, rings a bell among audiences.
          Is there anyway that these problems can be solved? Allen certainly explores some of the possibilities in this film. He has an earnest appreciation for great minds, which he constantly shows in various films. Notably, Interior is written in the style of Ingmar Bergman and Stardust Memories is a remake of Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2. There are also several references to Bergman and Fellini in Manhattan itself, showing their tremendous influence on Woody Allen. When Mary includes Ingmar Bergman in her “Academy of the Overrated”, Isaac rebuts with “Bergman? Bergman is the only genius in cinema today.” Later on, after meeting Mary’s friends at MoMA, Isaac remarks that “it’s an interesting group of people, your friends. It’s like the cast of a Fellini movie”. Apart from the apparent influence, is Allen suggesting that we should rely on them to solve our own problems? Mary doubts so, harshly criticizing that “it is the dignifying of one's own psychological and sexual hangups by attaching them to these grandiose philosophical issues”. It suggests that appreciation for the great minds is merely a hypocritical dignification of one’s own problems, but not the solution to them. In the case of Manhattan, we can see that the abundance of culture institutions and marvelous exhibits still cannot save Times Square from becoming the haven for prostitutes. Maybe art merely provides us a way to recognize or discern the problems, but fails to actually prevent them from happening.
       Allen then goes on to explore other possibilities, again through Mary’s voice. At this point we can see that while Isaac clearly represents Allen himself, Mary can be considered the “other” in his mind that constantly doubts the “self” and proposes alternative ideas. In this case, in an intimate setting at the planetarium, their heads appear as silhouettes in front of a huge bright image of Saturn. The dark images of heads seem to suggest the insignificance of their appearance at this point and the importance of their ideas instead. Mary suddenly asks Isaac fondly how many satellites of Saturn he knows, and Isaac frankly admits that he doesn’t know any. As Mary boasts that she “got a million facts on [her] fingertips”, Isaac defends himself calmly with “nothing worth knowing can be understood with the mind. Everything really valuable has to enter you through a different opening”. “Where would we be without rational thought?”, asks Mary in disbelief, to which Isaac quickly responds with “You rely too much on your brain. And the brain is the most overrated organ.” What we have here is a debate between rationality and emotionality, which has certain connections with the previous discussion regarding the great minds but is one step further. Mary, critical of the importance of great minds, relies on her own instead and emphasizes on rational thought, while Isaac suggests that rational thought cannot get us anywhere. The “different opening” Isaac talks about here must be emotions, unrelated to mind and rationality, yet makes up a huge part of our lives. Isaac, thus, may appreciate the great minds precisely for their emotional capabilities, the way they stir up feelings inside us that we might not have before. But aren’t feelings the cause of all the problems in the film to begin with? Mary describes her extra-marital relationship with Yale as “a no-win situation” and the only thing that keeps them from getting out of that dreadful situation is their feelings for each other. However, when Yale rationalizes everything and finally decides to break up with her, he becomes “depressed and confused”. It seems that rational thought cannot really help them out here, and feelings only make it worse. It has come a full circle since we started.
          Isn’t it just like New York City in the 1970s? As the fiscal crisis loomed over the city, there was really little people could do. The police couldn’t do anything about the soaring crime rates since they needed money and thus were corrupted themselves. Anyone fond of rebuilding the city’s ailing infrastructure couldn’t change the situation because people have lost their faith and started leaving, which meant that bricks and broken walls of those demolished buildings in the Bronx just lay there without redevelopment. Even the federal government refused the city’s grant for bailout. Any form of rationality wouldn’t work because nobody had the strength to take actions anymore. Emotions didn’t help either as everyone was left in a hopeless and frustrated state. So what was it, as Allen may ask, that could change the fate of the city and the Isaacs and Marys living in it?
          In 1977, Ed Koch was elected the new mayor and he might have an answer to this. He did a marvelous job pulling the city out of its nadir and the most important factor for his success might be the active restoration of hope. At one of his most iconic attempts, he spent hours riding subways and asking passengers “How am I doing?”. In order to restore hope, he used his limited funds to refurbish city streets and subways. He also made a considerable effort clearing the city’s iconic parks such as Washington Square Park and Central Park from drug dealers and broken glasses. Though not the most financially profitable conducts, these acts essentially changed people’s attitude toward the city. People once again started having hopes for the city to come back to its glory. And that’s a starting point for any significant changes since you need to believe in them first. “Nothing’s perfect,” says Yale’s wife Emily calmly after acknowledging Yale’s affair with Mary. She is supposed to be the most agonized character in the film since she is the only one being cheated, while the others are just confused about their inappropriate relationships. Yet she seems to be the calmest and most understanding one. Because she, of all people, knows what a difference it makes if you just admit that nothing is perfect and prepare to make compromises along the way. She tolerates Yale’s affair with Mary and thus she still has her marriage unbroken. Just as how the Koch administration was willing to give up some financial profits in order to reconstruct the public faith in the city. If you are willing to take a look at anywhere in the city now, especially in the Bronx, you know these compromises in the name of hope and faith paid off tremendously.
           And fortunately, that is exactly what this film is trying to do, to give us hope. Just as Tracy’s final words before leaving for London, “you gotta have a little faith in people”, followed by some astounding images of Manhattan along with “Rhapsody of Blue”, as we are once again impressed by the beauty of the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building and the 59th Street Bridge. We can almost hear Allen whispering to our ears, “you gotta have a little faith in the city too.” Tracy cannot stay with Isaac and has to leave him for the time being, just as the city disappointed its people and was in disarray back then. But that doesn’t mean changes won’t happen. “Six months isn’t that long,” says Tracy. And we know she will be back eventually. As for the city, a decade is nowhere near the end of the world. It’s exactly because of people like Woody Allen and his Manhattan that we realize how difficult it is to be free of trouble and how little that matters when we have the right attitude, and a little faith.

電影兒一開(kāi)始，一組城市的空鏡慢慢展現(xiàn)在我們面前，同事佐以一個(gè)絮絮叨叨的聲音在猶豫如何開(kāi)始這個(gè)故事。鏡頭由凌亂的日景切換成一組煙花綻放在城市的上空。冷漠，浮躁，嘈雜，陰郁，在一組關(guān)于這座城市的描述詞匯之中，作者最終選擇了浪漫——這也是由鏡頭最終落在那組夜晚的煙花上決定的，而且，畫外音從一組不斷自我否定的敘述中漸漸嵌入了導(dǎo)演的視角和觀點(diǎn)：“浪漫，哦，我喜歡這個(gè)開(kāi)頭?！?br>
在伍迪·艾倫的鏡頭里，曼哈頓被描述成為一個(gè)冷漠而擁擠的城市，每個(gè)鏡頭都給人逼仄的感覺(jué)，城市的小酒館里，幾個(gè)朋友喝酒，畫框里滿滿當(dāng)當(dāng)?shù)姆胖鴰讉€(gè)主要角色，話題并不投機(jī)，言語(yǔ)里充滿了隱藏的對(duì)抗。

導(dǎo)演似乎想用這種逼仄的鏡頭語(yǔ)言傳達(dá)給我們：在一座擁擠的城市里面，每個(gè)人的相遇，乃至碰撞是尷尬而無(wú)奈的。善于挖掘戲劇元素的伍迪·艾倫似乎一下子就抓住了“城市”最明顯的特質(zhì)。

婚姻破裂，因?yàn)槔掀抛兂闪送詰?，朋友不理解，重新認(rèn)識(shí)的女人都是充滿自我保護(hù)意識(shí)的“刺猬”，電視臺(tái)的工作因?yàn)樽约旱囊粫r(shí)沖動(dòng)丟掉了——這是一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的都市人的形象。梅麗爾·斯特利普的同性戀情節(jié)很快就能讓我們想到《六人行》中的ROSS，也許是后者的抄襲，但我認(rèn)為更多的，是一個(gè)開(kāi)放得不能再開(kāi)放的國(guó)家的通病。

倒霉，似乎是伍迪·艾倫影片永遠(yuǎn)的主題，主人公伊薩克42歲，擁有沒(méi)完沒(méi)了的麻煩和永遠(yuǎn)解不開(kāi)的心結(jié)，倒霉的運(yùn)氣讓這個(gè)老男孩總是不停的抱怨自己的生活，遇到的人，和這座城市的不合理，言語(yǔ)之中投射出都市人的尷尬與可笑。

在與那個(gè)一身是刺的女人熟識(shí)之后，伊薩克意識(shí)到，兩個(gè)人對(duì)這座城市有著驚人相似的印象：混亂，不可理喻。

“大樓要拆了，我曾經(jīng)號(hào)召過(guò)人們抵抗這件事，躺在大樓下面試圖阻止他們拆掉它，結(jié)果一個(gè)警察從我的手上踩過(guò)去，唉，這城市瘋了！”

曼哈頓大都市中的孤獨(dú)個(gè)體，其中灌注的是對(duì)整個(gè)城市，整個(gè)城市的文化的熱愛(ài)，甚至是同生共死的感情。無(wú)論是事業(yè)上的失敗，生活中的孤獨(dú)，都是伍迪熱愛(ài)這個(gè)城市的原因。他愛(ài)的不只是曼哈頓的快樂(lè)幸福，也同樣熱愛(ài)這個(gè)城市中的沮喪頹唐。

影片中最能體現(xiàn)城市感的人物要算那個(gè)從外地（實(shí)在想不起來(lái)哪個(gè)城市了）的女人了。出場(chǎng)的時(shí)候長(zhǎng)篇大論，對(duì)這個(gè)城市的藝術(shù)，文化，以及所有的事務(wù)不屑于故，并且一再的重申自己是剛剛到達(dá)這里的。言語(yǔ)之中充滿了緊張與自我保護(hù)意識(shí)。這也許就是造成都市冷漠的最終原因，每個(gè)人都小心翼翼的保護(hù)著自己，生怕被別人認(rèn)為淺薄和沒(méi)有獨(dú)立見(jiàn)解，這種抬杠式的對(duì)話方式造成了人與人之間溝通的困難，所以，伊薩克在第一次見(jiàn)到這個(gè)女人之后的那一段絮絮叨叨的抱怨也就很容易理解了。

然而影片從一開(kāi)始就告訴我們，這是一個(gè)關(guān)于浪漫的故事，那么愛(ài)情應(yīng)該是影片最主要的情節(jié)。在作者眼中，這座城市雖然冰冷，雖然逼仄，但還是有讓他熱愛(ài)的東西，也許正是因?yàn)槌鞘械睦淠抛寪?ài)情在一片冷色中顯得尤為突出。

有意思的是，兩位愛(ài)情主人公對(duì)彼此的了解，也正是我們通過(guò)影片對(duì)于曼哈頓的了解，伊薩克表面上絮絮叨叨，充滿對(duì)這個(gè)城市和自己不行遭遇的抱怨，然而這個(gè)外來(lái)女人慢慢的了解到，原來(lái)這是個(gè)內(nèi)心情感豐富，并且非常善良的人，而伊薩克對(duì)女人的了解，也是從一開(kāi)始的一百個(gè)看不上，到后來(lái)漸漸剝?nèi)窝b之后的熱愛(ài)。由此，一個(gè)通過(guò)人物展現(xiàn)出來(lái)的城市情感慢慢顯露在我們面前，對(duì)于一座城市的感情，就是對(duì)一個(gè)情人的感情，里面摻雜了由厭惡到了解，到喜愛(ài)，進(jìn)而驚喜，最終變成習(xí)慣的各種感覺(jué)。

片中還有一個(gè)比較有意思的人物，就是那個(gè)17歲的女孩瑪麗，如果用符號(hào)學(xué)的角度來(lái)分析的話，這個(gè)女孩象征著純潔和執(zhí)著。影片中伊薩克對(duì)這個(gè)女孩的態(tài)度非常有意思，始終在抱怨兩個(gè)人的年齡差距太大，并且不厭其煩的告訴瑪麗：“你的人生還沒(méi)有開(kāi)始，將來(lái)你會(huì)遇到比我好上千倍的男人?！痹谟龅揭疇枺莻€(gè)外來(lái)女人）之后，這種感覺(jué)更加強(qiáng)烈，但是說(shuō)辭也隨著伊薩克對(duì)耶爾的感情逐漸升溫而慢慢變得虛偽起來(lái)。就在最終耶爾離他而去之后，伊薩克感到自己非常孤獨(dú)，不能讓自己的感情生活沒(méi)著沒(méi)落，于是重新對(duì)17歲的瑪麗展開(kāi)愛(ài)情攻勢(shì)。在影片的最后，那些說(shuō)辭顯然非常的虛偽，并且前后言行不一，但這卻讓瑪麗感動(dòng)——也許城市中還存在著純潔？這個(gè)結(jié)尾太棒了！把問(wèn)題留給觀眾去想。

最有還有一點(diǎn)補(bǔ)充，就是伍迪·艾倫式的幽默。幽默元素在他的電影中無(wú)處不在，然而每個(gè)元素都不是隨興的安插，都是有非常嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)膬?nèi)涵。舉兩個(gè)例子：

一是伊薩克在與耶爾表達(dá)感情之后，有一段MV式的表現(xiàn)愛(ài)情的段落，兩個(gè)人在湖上劃船，湖光山色，畫面爛漫得無(wú)以復(fù)加，伊薩克無(wú)意間把手伸進(jìn)湖水里，臉上是一副陶醉的表情，但是慢著！手里抓到了什么？再次把手拿上來(lái)的時(shí)候是一手的泥。這個(gè)橋段將整個(gè)爛漫氣氛變得尷尬可笑。導(dǎo)演似乎想通過(guò)這個(gè)小動(dòng)作來(lái)預(yù)示，這兩個(gè)人的愛(ài)情不會(huì)一帆風(fēng)順——不浪費(fèi)任何一個(gè)可以為主題服務(wù)的視覺(jué)元素，實(shí)在是太高明了。

還有一個(gè)段落，同樣是沒(méi)有對(duì)白。伊薩克帶著兒子逛街，在櫥窗前兒子看上一條巨大的帆船模型，伊薩克卻建議兒子買那個(gè)相對(duì)小一點(diǎn)的，鏡頭是從店里面拍的，兩個(gè)人經(jīng)過(guò)一番無(wú)聲的爭(zhēng)執(zhí)之后，失去耐心的父親打了兒子的腦袋一下，兒子進(jìn)入店中，而伊薩克卻開(kāi)始掏兜數(shù)錢——都市人的尷尬與無(wú)奈被表現(xiàn)得淋漓盡致。