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(méi)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(zhǎng) 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(guó)人永遠(yuǎn)繞不過(guò)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(guò)于渲染了 我覺(jué)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(lái)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(ài)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(jué)得她是已經(jīng)站在云端俯視過(guò)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(jiǎn)指指點(diǎn)點(diǎn)的 錯(cuò)了 她沒(méi)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

#BFI #Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 開(kāi)始會(huì)覺(jué)得有些用力過(guò)猛和狗血，但是過(guò)了開(kāi)始的半小時(shí)開(kāi)始漸入佳境，現(xiàn)在看整個(gè)故事略顯俗套，但是對(duì)于種族階級(jí)，身份認(rèn)同和女性主義還是很有表達(dá)的。

角色上幾個(gè)女性設(shè)計(jì)的太出色了，沒(méi)看過(guò)老版，不知道是否在34年版就有這種設(shè)計(jì)，甚至直接呈現(xiàn)對(duì)于黑人暴力，看的我瞠目結(jié)舌，雖然Anna的設(shè)計(jì)還是帶有“工具性”，但是整體看Ann母女的故事線也已經(jīng)很完整了，加之缺少的男性角色，影片甚至可以把雙女主看做一個(gè)家庭，而整部電影拋開(kāi)三角戀部分，其實(shí)沒(méi)有很狗血。

視覺(jué)上，非常喜歡影片的室內(nèi)運(yùn)鏡，尤其是運(yùn)動(dòng)鏡頭夾帶鏡子構(gòu)圖完成對(duì)于角色身份和內(nèi)心兩難的體現(xiàn)，還有構(gòu)圖上大量的前景遮擋也起到同樣的幫助。還大量的使用低角度仰拍全景也很好的幫助了敘事。光影的運(yùn)用也非常棒，尤其是對(duì)于角色塑造非常有幫助，眼部打光體現(xiàn)的堅(jiān)毅，整體人物的陰影表現(xiàn)的無(wú)助等。

聽(tīng)覺(jué)上是不太喜歡的部分，整體看配樂(lè)的使用沒(méi)有問(wèn)題，爵士的“掙脫牢籠”后那“自由”，葬禮上震撼的唱詩(shī)，但還是有部分配樂(lè)非常的奇怪，最震撼的部分是暴力展現(xiàn)是那充滿激情的配樂(lè)，感覺(jué)算是一種“放大暴力”的展現(xiàn)，但不知道這種敘述是否可以起到批判作用。

不喜歡的點(diǎn)，一是配樂(lè)，不過(guò)最主要的還是演員在很多臺(tái)詞和表演的表演痕跡太重，除了Anna這個(gè)角色，其他三個(gè)女性有時(shí)候的演繹會(huì)讓人有種放到默片時(shí)期看剛剛好的感覺(jué)。還有就是影片虛焦的處理，也是讓女主這個(gè)角色是去很多特性的原因，其實(shí)影片的焦段還有幾處也感覺(jué)怪怪的，時(shí)長(zhǎng)不在焦。

昨天看了部電影，中文譯作《春風(fēng)秋雨》，該電影《春風(fēng)秋雨》是道格拉斯·塞克執(zhí)導(dǎo)，拉娜·特納、約翰·加文主演的劇情片，于1959年4月17日在美國(guó)上映。

該片以兩對(duì)母女的情感故事為觀眾講述了種族歧視、家庭教育與理想抱負(fù)等方面的內(nèi)容。

一方面是女主人公因?yàn)樽非罄硐攵雎粤藢?duì)女兒的愛(ài)，導(dǎo)致女兒從小便有戀父情節(jié)（這是我猜的），所以她后來(lái)愛(ài)上了母親的男友（也就是男主史蒂夫），當(dāng)然賽克并未對(duì)該劇情進(jìn)行展開(kāi)，否則還真不知道劇情會(huì)往什么走向發(fā)展。

其實(shí)女主之所以成功，無(wú)疑是因?yàn)樗芾硇缘刂雷约阂裁?，即便是突如其?lái)的愛(ài)情擺在面前，但凡在理想的路上有任何一個(gè)可能沒(méi)有結(jié)果的機(jī)會(huì)出現(xiàn)，她都會(huì)義無(wú)反顧地放棄愛(ài)情追求理想，甚至她同樣也放棄了與女兒蘇西成長(zhǎng)的時(shí)光與陪伴，所以蘇西才因此對(duì)其不滿。

但是好在故事的結(jié)尾，女兒的理解和相隔十年的愛(ài)情以及成功都統(tǒng)統(tǒng)倒向了她，因此她是幸運(yùn)的，當(dāng)然這也與她自己的才華和努力密不可分，只是感嘆有才華的人很多，但成功的卻是少之又少。

而另一個(gè)方面則是仆人母女的故事，據(jù)說(shuō)兩個(gè)配角均獲得奧斯卡最佳配角提名，母親被塑造成一個(gè)早已習(xí)慣并接受了自己是黑人的事實(shí)，也適應(yīng)了周圍的環(huán)境的形象，但是女兒沙拉·簡(jiǎn)不一樣，她作為一個(gè)混血（父親是白人），看起來(lái)完全就是白人的樣貌，但仍然從小就飽受種族歧視的折磨，無(wú)論是在學(xué)校里還是戀愛(ài)中，她的身份像詛咒一般一直追隨她。

她把這一切的不公都?xì)w結(jié)于母親，所以形成了女兒想擺脫、母親用盡全力想救贖的故事線，最后的結(jié)果是媽媽的妥協(xié)，她在生命的最后一刻找到了沙拉·簡(jiǎn)，只為再見(jiàn)女兒一面，但此時(shí)的沙拉·簡(jiǎn)并不知道母親就要病逝。

母親死后托女主為她辦一場(chǎng)最隆重的婚禮，其實(shí)在我看來(lái)這才是整部劇的核心，四匹白馬拉著鮮花布滿的棺木，伴隨著樂(lè)隊(duì)演出驕傲并且高調(diào)地走在大街上，就好像她正在走向榮光一般，見(jiàn)狀之人紛紛脫帽表示哀悼，無(wú)論是白人還是黑人。

看到這里我觸動(dòng)頗深，仿佛她在受盡了一輩子的歧視之后，在生命的盡頭用死亡像種族歧視宣戰(zhàn)，用這樣的方式去和女兒和解，當(dāng)沙拉·簡(jiǎn)不顧所有人的目光和阻攔跑向母親的棺木時(shí)，我想她們已經(jīng)和解并且她在那之后或許也釋然了自己黑人混血的身份。

總的來(lái)說(shuō)，在這部電影里賽克用極高的藝術(shù)手法把每一個(gè)角色之間的情感都描寫得非常的細(xì)致，甚至是蘇西對(duì)史蒂夫萌生的純真的愛(ài)慕之情也表現(xiàn)得非常生動(dòng)。

并且他在處理故事情節(jié)的過(guò)程中恰到好處地將自己所要傳達(dá)的價(jià)值觀和理念完整地詮釋，但又在想象空間和理論空間上給觀眾留白，從美學(xué)和敘述的角度將社會(huì)、家庭以及個(gè)體的辯證關(guān)系發(fā)揮出了極高的藝術(shù)效果。

| 導(dǎo)演簡(jiǎn)介 |

道格拉斯·塞克（1897年4月26日-1987年2月14日）早年在慕尼黑大學(xué)（Munich University）學(xué)習(xí)法律，后進(jìn)入漢堡大學(xué)（Hamburg University）學(xué)習(xí)哲學(xué)和藝術(shù)史，從學(xué)生時(shí)代就對(duì)戲劇發(fā)生興趣。

● 1922年，他在德國(guó)魏瑪（Weimar）劇院當(dāng)舞臺(tái)導(dǎo)演。

● 1934年他進(jìn)入烏發(fā)公司（Ufa Studios），從此開(kāi)始他的電影事業(yè)，整個(gè)三十年代他共拍攝電影12部。

● 1936年導(dǎo)演的《第九交響曲》Schlu?akkord 贏得威尼斯電影節(jié)最佳音樂(lè)電影獎(jiǎng)（Best Musical Film）。

● 1939年，塞克導(dǎo)演的影片《Boefje》獲得戛納電影節(jié)金棕櫚獎(jiǎng)提名。

● 1941年，塞克移居至美國(guó)，在歷經(jīng)十余年的波折之后他終于以家庭生活片導(dǎo)演”的身份在環(huán)球電影公司（Universal International Pictures）站住了腳。

在整個(gè)50年代，Sirk開(kāi)始了他事業(yè)的繁榮時(shí)期，有多部重要作品問(wèn)世。

《春風(fēng)秋雨》便是塞克后期最重要的作品之一，2位女配角均獲得奧斯卡提名，這時(shí)賽克無(wú)疑是環(huán)球公司最成功的導(dǎo)演。而當(dāng)此正可大展宏圖之機(jī)，他卻選擇離開(kāi)美國(guó)和電影事業(yè)，與他的妻子Hilde移民瑞士，從事過(guò)短暫的教學(xué)工作，1987年病故。

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).

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(jiǎn)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(jiǎn)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(kāi)來(lái)。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(jiàn)；它描繪了一些人如何根據(jù)膚色來(lái)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。