簡介：勞拉·穆爾維laura mulvey是英國著名的電影理論家，尤其作為女性主義電影批評(píng)家而出名，她于1975年發(fā)表的論文《視覺快感與敘事電影》系統(tǒng)分析了以經(jīng)典好萊塢電影為例的父權(quán)文化下的影像產(chǎn)品，是如何建構(gòu)女性形象的，這篇論文目前仍是國內(nèi)高校在本科階段介紹女性主義電影批評(píng)時(shí)的重點(diǎn)材料。但事實(shí)上，《視覺快感與敘事電影》在70年代引起西方學(xué)界大范圍討論時(shí)，一個(gè)重要的女性主義問題也繼而被提出：

如果電影里的男性/女性，呈現(xiàn)出主動(dòng)/被動(dòng)這樣的二元狀態(tài)，女性或在色情的特寫畫面中被貶低、或在敘事中通過被判有罪而受到懲罰......那么，女性觀眾的位置在哪里？這樣二元對(duì)立的結(jié)構(gòu)突破口在哪里？

勞拉在1996年出版的論文集《戀物與好奇》，某種程度上在嘗試對(duì)20年前自己論文所引發(fā)的問題進(jìn)行回答。在分別闡述弗洛伊德和馬克思的“戀物”概念，并對(duì)其進(jìn)行聯(lián)系之后，她提出，如果電影（以及電影）中的女性形象是“戀物”的同構(gòu)，那么也許“好奇”——對(duì)探求與理解的快感欲望，而非看/窺淫的快感欲望，是突破戀物結(jié)構(gòu)的一條路徑。

在“社會(huì)象形文字：對(duì)兩部道格拉斯·瑟克電影的反思”一章中，勞拉分析了1958年瑟克導(dǎo)演的電影《imitation of life（生命的模仿/春風(fēng)秋雨）》，通過馬克思主義的戀物分析（商品通過其精致外表引起戀物而掩蓋生產(chǎn)的勞動(dòng)過程），為這部電影開辟了另一條觀看路徑。

在此，我僅選取這篇論文中分析本片的部分進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)載，刪除了其它延伸以及對(duì)1934年克勞黛主演版本的分析。

正文：

[譯]鐘仁

《生命的模仿》不僅僅關(guān)涉表演和偽裝，而且也超越情節(jié)劇的凄婉情緒，引入種族、階級(jí)等在好萊塢電影中通常被禁忌的問題。這部電影予以真實(shí)的政治、社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)問題一種情節(jié)劇的、高度情感化的、夸張的體現(xiàn)。種族主義的壓抑和不寬容在日常生活中頻繁出現(xiàn)；日常生活是一個(gè)眾人體驗(yàn)而無人表達(dá)的沉默領(lǐng)域。整部電影在觀眾所看和角色所說之間存在著一定的距離。只有觀眾可以解釋這兩者之間的關(guān)系。在白人女性可以使用的裝飾技巧，一個(gè)虛假的保護(hù)性魅力光環(huán)，與對(duì)黑人女性實(shí)質(zhì)的揭露之間的張力建構(gòu)出一個(gè)關(guān)于種族的視覺話語，而這只在電影中才有可能。

《生命的模仿》講述了白人女演員羅拉·梅瑞狄斯lora merridith（拉娜·特納飾）和她的黑人侍女安妮annie（胡安妮塔·摩爾）的故事。拉娜特納通過盡其所能的表演，來扮演成為明星拉娜/羅拉的女演員羅拉·梅瑞狄斯。她的外表隨著成功越來越被風(fēng)格化，以致“明星地位”被更多的展現(xiàn)為對(duì)作為奇觀的外表的造型，而不是一種社會(huì)范疇。羅拉幾乎沒有進(jìn)行任何專業(yè)表演。她的服飾、化妝、頭發(fā)、珠寶等合力創(chuàng)造出一種為攝影機(jī)和銀幕建構(gòu)的形象，而她可能在故事中只是每天在家附近走走。隨著拉娜·特納對(duì)羅拉的扮演，羅拉顯現(xiàn)出一種形象：兩個(gè)明星角色，虛構(gòu)的和真實(shí)的，相互交融，又相互區(qū)別，以致留下的只有技巧本身。然而，羅拉并沒有通過自己的努力獲得奇觀地位。她的外表是由安妮的勞動(dòng)建構(gòu)的，與羅拉被崇拜的形象形成視覺對(duì)立。

故事開始時(shí)，羅拉正在掙扎著確認(rèn)自己的演員地位，和女兒蘇西在紐約過著貧困的生活。安妮的到來是羅拉日后成功的轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)。第一個(gè)場景就是安妮與送奶工打交道：

后來，羅拉設(shè)法靠巧言令色才進(jìn)入戲院經(jīng)紀(jì)人盧米斯的辦公室，得到“扮演”好萊塢明星的角色。盧米斯給她打電話時(shí)，她的表演獲得了積極的可信度，即使是短暫的。安妮回答道：

安妮對(duì)“仆人”這個(gè)角色的了解及一致的表演為羅拉通過做“演員”獲得成功提供了手段。隨著故事的發(fā)展，安妮的表演凝結(jié)為現(xiàn)實(shí)。她真實(shí)的幕后工作（做飯、清潔誒、照看孩子）把羅拉演繹成了幕前奇觀，其方式讓人想起了工人為市場進(jìn)行的商品生產(chǎn)。然而，她們階級(jí)關(guān)系的現(xiàn)實(shí)一直是禁忌，未曾被言說。

在瑟克的《生命的模仿》中，階級(jí)的可見/不可見是由種族來決定的。羅拉對(duì)自己作為奇觀的投入使她不能看見或者解釋她周圍的世界。電影開場于一個(gè)燦爛的懺悔火曜日下午，發(fā)生在科尼島。當(dāng)攝影機(jī)對(duì)準(zhǔn)羅拉時(shí)，她沿著木板在奔跑，呼喚著她弄丟在人群中的女兒。她戴著墨鏡；攝影機(jī)仰拍她，好像她表演時(shí)在舞臺(tái)上一樣。用steve archer的話講，她是“悲痛中的母親”。同時(shí)，他也在給她拍照。當(dāng)她沿著臺(tái)階跑下去的時(shí)候，他升起攝影機(jī)；她沒有看他，本能地摘下眼鏡。后來在她幾乎撞上他時(shí)發(fā)生的對(duì)話強(qiáng)調(diào)了這點(diǎn)。他給她指出警察所在的地方，就在幾碼之外，她仍然看不見。但是安妮發(fā)現(xiàn)了蘇茜。

羅拉的墨鏡以及她看不見其他人，像隱喻一樣貫穿整部影片。她作為明星、作為商品的生活將她包圍，就好像舞臺(tái)或者場景的亮光使她看不見一樣。一方面，她作為演員的工作不斷地使她與女兒相分離，女兒的生活對(duì)她來說越來越模糊。另一個(gè)重要的方面，她的眼瞎針對(duì)的是種族問題以及夏娜·簡面臨的困境，夏娜·簡一有可能就設(shè)法以白人的身份“表演”。羅拉對(duì)夏娜·簡的回應(yīng)是：“難道你沒看出來嗎......它不會(huì)對(duì)我們有任何影響，因?yàn)槲覀兌紣勰??！钡喾?，安妮肯定知道這確實(shí)有影響。當(dāng)她看到夏娜所反抗的歧視、暴力和剝削的社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的時(shí)候，她不能找到詞語來形容。安妮對(duì)夏娜·簡的回應(yīng)是：“一切都會(huì)好起來的?！睆呐c羅拉的關(guān)系來看，安妮的作用是一個(gè)工人、不可見的勞動(dòng)力；從與夏娜·簡的關(guān)系來看，安妮過度顯眼。母親的膚色不斷地使夏娜·簡的表演退回到歧視的社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)中；如果不是因?yàn)樗哪赣H，她將能獲得一個(gè)和羅拉相同的表演信度。

對(duì)于夏娜·簡來說，種族問題不可避免也是一個(gè)階級(jí)問題；她試圖通過表演尋求逃避或者外在于問題的解決辦法。雖然羅拉作為明星的事業(yè)體面地建立在百老匯，而夏娜·簡是一個(gè)夜總會(huì)歌手或者合唱團(tuán)成員，但有一種夏娜·簡在“模仿”羅拉的感覺。雖然技巧性和偽裝在白人女人身上不僅可以被接受，而且還會(huì)引起人們的崇敬，但夏娜·簡被允許做的不是向她外表呈現(xiàn)的那樣去生活，而是被社會(huì)和家庭遣回一個(gè)不可見的、秘密的本質(zhì)。她只有通過否定和其母親的關(guān)系才能達(dá)到她理想的形象。電影提出的問題是，一個(gè)受外表和奇觀困擾的社會(huì)在涉及種族問題時(shí)為什么突然崇拜本質(zhì)？夏娜·簡追隨羅拉的道路走向偽裝，也成了演員。但是她明白，偽裝只有在她的黑人母親被消除、再次變得不為人見時(shí)，才發(fā)揮作用。獲得白種人特性就是獲得白人女性的表演，就是成為她曾目睹她母親埋沒自己去生產(chǎn)的那種產(chǎn)品。可以說，羅拉作為明星的生產(chǎn)不僅僅是繪在了安妮作為她仆人的表層，而且作為奇觀的白人特性概念將她女兒異化進(jìn)了那種奇觀女性的重新表演之中。在一種情況下，就夏娜·簡而言，種族之痕跡已經(jīng)被抹掉；在另一種情況下，就羅拉而言，它被包含在工人和商品之間的一種權(quán)力關(guān)系之中。

在最后分別的場景中，安妮和夏娜·簡兩人都必須扮演角色，安妮扮演“媽咪”而夏娜·簡扮演“琳達(dá)小姐”。早些時(shí)候，當(dāng)她伺候“羅拉小姐和她的朋友們”時(shí)，夏娜·簡表現(xiàn)了她對(duì)飾演“有色人種”的理解。她夸張的模仿說出了關(guān)于種族關(guān)系以及隱藏在羅拉和安妮關(guān)系背后的種族關(guān)系的真相。在這個(gè)場景之后的對(duì)抗中，羅拉被描繪成白人，不是在一種中性的意義上，而是作為一個(gè)有色人種。她刻意打造的外表在視覺上主要呈現(xiàn)為金發(fā)、灰白化妝、藍(lán)眼睛白色禮服和珠寶。對(duì)偽裝的此等夸張，借助對(duì)種族呈現(xiàn)的夸張，把女性呈現(xiàn)為奇觀，呈現(xiàn)為銀幕的奇觀。白人女性的連續(xù)影像占據(jù)銀幕中央，熠熠生輝，似乎在起著“盲點(diǎn)”的作用，抹掉講述不可言說問題的任何可能性，即構(gòu)成美國種族的那些問題。安妮最后通過死亡獲得了她的呈現(xiàn)。這樣，當(dāng)她占據(jù)奇觀的中央時(shí)，她為葬禮隊(duì)列設(shè)計(jì)的場面調(diào)度突然變成白色的光芒。然而，在最后的具有深刻悲觀意味的諷刺里，夏娜·簡被接回到一個(gè)新組建的家庭：羅拉、史蒂夫和蘇茜在豪華轎車?yán)飺肀Ｏ哪取ず喭ㄟ^她母親的死亡獲得了白人特性。

相比1934年的版本，電影將偽裝和奇觀等問題應(yīng)用到其自身的制作系統(tǒng)。關(guān)于商品和勞動(dòng)的隱喻更有指向性。羅拉代表的是商品；安妮隱喻性地代表商品的奇觀性所遮蓋的勞動(dòng)過程。當(dāng)隱喻將商品女性化時(shí)，它就用美國社會(huì)中對(duì)種族的壓抑，濃縮（弗洛伊德意義上的）資本主義制度下勞動(dòng)力的不可見。

羅拉并不是使觀眾著迷的形象。她很善于表演自反性，但作為一個(gè)移情點(diǎn)，卻缺乏自覺。也許在電影中只有夏娜·簡處于理解的位置上，知曉積累隱喻的全部力量。羅拉的技巧與夏娜·簡很不相同。夏娜·簡被她周圍社會(huì)中的種族主義推入表演。她被告知她并不是她看起來的模樣；她無權(quán)呈現(xiàn)她的外表，呈現(xiàn)“白人特性”這種社會(huì)地位：它是成為不是“不同”的護(hù)照。

Classic Hollywood Melodrama. Landmark film regarding race relations. A hollow success about career over marriage. A sad story about a girl passing for white.

莎拉·簡既是一個(gè)受害者，同時(shí)也是一個(gè)“英雄”。不像她的母親默默接受自己的命運(yùn)和社會(huì)地位，莎拉·簡憑借自己的膚色抓住任何機(jī)會(huì)去挑戰(zhàn)這種不平等的地位，想方設(shè)法融入白人主流社會(huì)。

種族題材把這部電影與其他好萊塢Melodrama區(qū)分開來。背景反映了20世紀(jì)50年代社會(huì)對(duì)黑人的態(tài)度和偏見；它描繪了一些人如何根據(jù)膚色來定義黑人。

這一現(xiàn)象影響深遠(yuǎn)，例如已故的邁克爾·杰克遜被質(zhì)疑“漂白”皮膚。我們有改變自己“命運(yùn)”的權(quán)利嗎？如果有，那么到何種程度？ 放棄自己的身份去追求“更有價(jià)值”的東西？社會(huì)主流價(jià)值觀與個(gè)人價(jià)值取向之間的鴻溝是巨大的，好在個(gè)體尚有自主選擇的權(quán)利。

7.7

攝影很厲害 至少在那個(gè)年代就已經(jīng)秒殺現(xiàn)在許多人了 構(gòu)圖、想法，色彩都是值得學(xué)習(xí)的

故事也很平實(shí) 沒有虛頭巴腦的情節(jié) 每個(gè)點(diǎn)都踩扎實(shí) 不像現(xiàn)在把觀眾當(dāng)傻瓜

兩個(gè)女孩等于在一個(gè)環(huán)境下成長 由于早期的經(jīng)歷使得她們終將不同 但正念的、懂得憐憫的人總是不一樣的 還有就是“黑和白” 美國人永遠(yuǎn)繞不過去的話題 現(xiàn)在也是 以后也是

以前的手法 很多轉(zhuǎn)折處過于渲染了 我覺得情緒是不該這樣加的

好的故事就是不停地鋪設(shè)、埋伏、設(shè)計(jì) 只等時(shí)機(jī)來到“Bong”！雖然這里的聲音不大

很佩服白人女主的控制力 還有Steve 更不得了 這樣愛這個(gè)女人 得不到就可以一直等 望眼欲穿 一直到她在事業(yè)上的欲望消失殆盡 黑人女主Anne是位了不起的人性 有宗教信仰的人是可以這樣寬宏冷靜的 我覺得她是已經(jīng)站在云端俯視過大地的人了 兩位女孩也都很好 一般我們都會(huì)對(duì)那個(gè)莎拉·簡指指點(diǎn)點(diǎn)的 錯(cuò)了 她沒有錯(cuò) 她只是為了自己想要的在不斷地付出再付出 很多人只是在命運(yùn)的安排下不停地兜兜轉(zhuǎn)轉(zhuǎn)卻始終原地打轉(zhuǎn) 可憐的人兒

“我想要和綿羊站在一起 而不是和山羊一道……”多么透徹的心靈

Double bill time! Two film versions of Fannie Hurst’s contentious weepie IMITATION OF LIFE, poignantly touches the raw nerve of the star-spangled, inveterate racial discrimination through a brace of mother-daughter dyads, one white, one black, but the latter is stigmatized with a more taxing streak.

John M. Stahl’s 1934 Black-and-White version (both versions are made from Universal pictures, incidentally) sticks to the milieu of the source novel, business-savvy white widow Bea Pullman (Colbert) takes in black housekeeper Delilah Johnson (Beavers), and capitalizes on Delilah’s secret family pancake recipe, she leapfrogs from a dead-end maple syrup peddler to a high-flying entrepreneur of pancake flour within a 10-year stretch, meanwhile vouchsafes a 20% interest to Delilah, whose modest make-up prefers maintaining the status quo to take care of Bea and her daughter Jessie (Hudson, a doe-eyed smart alec). Notwithstanding that the life of Delilah and her daughter Peola (Washington) is on the easy street by then, there is a catch here, Peola is a fair-skinned girl, who spurns her black parentage and tries every fiber to pass as a white girl, often her act is thwarted by Delilah’s presence and the tension aggravates through time, until a harrowing aftermath in the wake of Peola’s go-whole-hog severance, designated to turn on spectator’s waterworks.

There is a deep psychological causation in Peola’s plight, which might elicit different reactions, her identity limb is caused by the effacing of a skin-deep, visual distinction that makes her an outlier who doesn’t know where she belongs, is it entirely her fault to pursue the entitlement she isn’t bestowed? Certainly not, her outrageous hatred of being black is the fruit borne out of a sweepingly toxic, white supremacy-breeding environment that has no place for her ilk (especially for girls, whose main perspective is to marry well), like every marginalized individuals, she is punished for who she is and it is understandable during the pre-civil rights era (the novel was written in 1933), the story beats the drum for the thicker-than-blood maternal sacrifice and belated repentance in lieu of a more progressive message catering to today’s taste (for instance, what could have happened if Peola chooses to embrace his blackness for a change?).

In Stahl’s rendition, Peola’s selfish determination comes off more intrinsic because little contextualization is applied to lend her any amount of sympathy, although Fredi Washington (a real-life light-skinned black girl and the movie would virtually hamper her big screen career) has a fiery disposition brimming with indignation. Louise Beavers’ portrayal of Delilah, after watching her counterpart in Sirk’s remake, is at best serviceable, one gnawing fact is that Louise is too young for the role (she was only 31 years old), and her lack of conviction as a middle-aged, heartbroken mother is not helped by the fact that Fredi is only one year junior of her, regardless of their complexions, they do not register as a mother-daughter pair, period.

So, the 1934 movie leans more towards a posh star vehicle for Claudette Colbert, the sympathetic white Good Samaritan, fulfills her all-too-easy American dream by riding on a gravy train and soliciting free advice (the operative words are “bottle it!”, Ned Sparks has a wonderful time being all piqued and sarcastic as Bea’s business counselor) and spreads her gratitude without condescension, on paper, it seems a tough nut to crack, but Colbert holds court thoroughly and charms us with spectacular alacrity, especially when she is coupled with an impeccably debonair Warren William as her love interest Steve Archer, who equally effortlessly, albeit obliviously, excels in getting Jessie head over heels for him. But compared with the life-and-death separation between Delilah and Peola, their strife can be ironed out with a bantamweight sacrifice which only requires the man to cool his heel for some years, the irony is pungent, not to mention a particularly telltale scene of an ascending Bea and a descending Delilah on the spiral stairs simultaneously, genuine friendship can sprout out of two disparate souls, as long as it is the white matron who holds the upper hand.

The auteur maudit Douglas Sirk bowed out the Tinseltown and returned to his homeland Germany after this remake in 1959, which becomes his swan song, in his glittery (diamonds are in the background of the opening credits) re-imagination, the capitalistic fairy-tale is wholly jettisoned, along with Steve’s quaint ichthyologist vocation, the story-line is transposed to the 50s, widow Lora Meredith (Turner, enterprisingly changing her high-end wardrobe as frequent as her character’s required moods) is a struggling Broadway actress and doesn’t need the help from her black help Annie Johnson (Moore) to attain her johnny-come-lately success in the cutting-edge, squalid showbiz, remarkably with her integrity intact all the same, rebuffing the advancement of the unscrupulous agent Allen Loomis (Alda) with a virtuous face does all the trick. When her on-and-off boyfriend Steve Archer (John Gavin, or is it Louis Jourdan? I see doubles!), a photographer-turned-businessman, gets her teenage daughter Susie (Sandra Dee, spirited with her wonderful faux-na?f earnestness) infatuated, she doesn’t have the luxury to play martyr and their conciliation has a more perceptive leaning that outstrips the original, and curiously mirrors Turner’s own turmoil, she was freshly underwent through a daughter-and-stepfather tragedy in real life.

Of course, the scrumptiously soapy flee-and-catch go-arounds between Annie and her light-skinned daughter Sarah Jane (Kohner, a white girl passes as mix-raced) upstage anything else, this time, Sirk and his writers enrich Sarah Jane’s misery with enough gusto, including a startling violent outburst (in the hand of a cameo by none other than Troy Donahue, a soon-to-be celluloid heartthrob), hammering home the elephant-in-the-room behind Sarah Jane’s steely repudiation of her origin, and the two-hander between Juanita Moore and Susan Kohner, reaches its crescendo in their tearful valediction, amped up by Sarah Jane’s mouthed but unuttered “mama”, which veritably can leave the flintiest soul with misty eyes, if soapiness can be this good, just let it swamp this reviewer all over! Both actresses are Oscar nominated, but Moore can walk away with the plaudits as one of the best screen performances ever, and teaches Viola Davis a wise lesson about how to be dignified, agonized and restrained at the same time without the aid of undue theatrics.

Sirk also downplays the fawning-over, reduces the foot-rubbing to one casual scene, but majestically plays up the funeral procession, gospel belter Mahalia Jackson pulverizes us with a soul-shattering TROUBLE OF THE WORLD, all prompts audience to ponder why Annie/Delilah’s sole wish in this world is a fancy funeral, why are their lives so benighted that nothing else can fulfill their breathing days other than a pious devotion to the afterlife? The answer is clear as day, though. A final consensus: both films are worth their salts, and in Sirk’s case, an apposite lush jewel in his crown to conclude a luminous (if woefully shortened, Sirk was 62 then and would live another 27 years in retirement) career.

referential entries: Sirk’s ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS (1955, 8.4/10), WRITTEN ON THE WIND (1956, 8.0/10).

強(qiáng)調(diào)個(gè)人情感、道德倫理準(zhǔn)則的家庭情節(jié)劇變奏。針對(duì)女性觀眾而制作的經(jīng)典好萊塢類型之一，50年代的美國社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)型期，后派拉蒙法案時(shí)代，制片開始有意識(shí)地呈現(xiàn)現(xiàn)實(shí)社會(huì)中不光是女性獨(dú)立和自由的矛盾和想象性彌補(bǔ)，也有意識(shí)地融入了戰(zhàn)后消費(fèi)主義盛行下所突出的青少年問題、種族問題等。而該影片的亮點(diǎn)還在于影片中戲劇與現(xiàn)實(shí)的互文。女主角勞拉在銀幕上模仿著角色的生活，卻在現(xiàn)實(shí)當(dāng)中迷失了情感的真實(shí)指向，導(dǎo)致現(xiàn)實(shí)中家庭遭遇嚴(yán)重危機(jī)。而兩個(gè)女兒則是對(duì)勞拉的兩層模仿，勞拉女兒愛上了母親的愛人，女仆的女兒則期盼通過舍棄家庭來換取更高的社會(huì)地位和事業(yè)成就。對(duì)比起1934年版的《生活的模仿》，50年代的版本多了間離感和陌生感，勞拉和史蒂夫的十年愛情斷斷續(xù)續(xù)、毫無邏輯，很多細(xì)節(jié)沒有解釋和說明，除此之外，經(jīng)典好萊塢時(shí)期的閉環(huán)因果敘事結(jié)構(gòu)也在此被打破，看似結(jié)尾以安妮的葬禮為契機(jī)提供了一個(gè)大團(tuán)圓的美滿結(jié)局，實(shí)則是掩蓋了一個(gè)已然四分五裂的人際關(guān)系，問題都沒有得到想象性的解決。主流核心家庭的觀念在此時(shí)好萊塢銀幕上已經(jīng)遭到了挑戰(zhàn)。