《深鎖春光一院愁》: 完成度非常高，臺(tái)詞設(shè)置精巧，畫(huà)面色彩鮮明。 這么憂傷動(dòng)人的劇情，帶來(lái)的艱難與抉擇堪比初三時(shí)看《羅馬假日》。看了一點(diǎn)后意識(shí)到啟發(fā)了托德海因斯的《遠(yuǎn)離天堂》。但遠(yuǎn)離天堂似乎才是現(xiàn)實(shí)，沒(méi)有happy ending. 中產(chǎn)階級(jí)婦女都愛(ài)園丁。洛克哈德森的臉簡(jiǎn)直了，完美得跟雕塑一樣。這張臉自高三起一直貼在我屋子，某期《看電影》雜志里的小海報(bào)。 和《蔚藍(lán)深?！芬粯樱t(yī)生都扮演知心大哥的角色:因?yàn)樘颖?，所以頭痛。你甚至比過(guò)去更加孤獨(dú)。你高尚的犧牲有什么意義呢。如果他真愛(ài)我，他會(huì)來(lái)找我的。不！你要是愛(ài)他，你該去找他！You are ready for a love affair,but not for love. 要是坐在電影院大銀幕前，定會(huì)在光影之中淚流滿(mǎn)面吧。 It won't be easy時(shí)甚至想起John and Yoko. 經(jīng)典臺(tái)詞: 有你在的地方就是家。你回家來(lái)了。 多少人都生活在平靜的絕望中。 She doesnt want to make her own mind,no girl does.She wants you to make up for her. ironic:1.女兒滿(mǎn)嘴弗洛伊德，研究社會(huì)學(xué)心理學(xué)，分析各種案例?？雌饋?lái)很先鋒很自由，說(shuō)寡婦不該被埋葬，這又不是古埃及，要活出自我，不在乎別人的想法。但到自己身上就行不通了。是個(gè)徹底的理論派。 羅恩是徹底的行動(dòng)派。這是羅恩的bible嗎。不，羅恩的bible就是活出自我。他從來(lái)不會(huì)讓不重要的東西變得重要?；畛稣嬲淖晕?。安全感源于自我，無(wú)法被帶走。VIP-very independent person. 2.電視機(jī)。孤獨(dú)的老女人最后的避難所。只要輕輕旋轉(zhuǎn)按鈕，戲劇，喜劇，生活，就在你的指縫中展開(kāi)。 關(guān)于什么是自私，什么是活出自我，究竟如何判定。自私不過(guò)是忠于內(nèi)心的另一種表達(dá)方式。 兒女、羅恩哪個(gè)不自私呢。上一秒他們還說(shuō)你自私，下一秒你無(wú)私了，你的無(wú)私就恰恰被他們的自私所利用。 鹿 很多事情答案很簡(jiǎn)單，但你要用很久才可以想明白。那不是一夜就能figure out的。

有許多追求者的寡婦Cary，卻被英俊的園丁Ron吸引，他請(qǐng)她去他的樹(shù)林、小屋看，他過(guò)的是出世的生活。Ron的朋友Alida告訴Cary，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)脫離名利社會(huì)的真理并不簡(jiǎn)單。Ron想結(jié)婚，結(jié)果Cary反對(duì)，她太傳統(tǒng)，而拖著就被Commère的Mona看見(jiàn)，她愛(ài)上身份低賤的園丁，甚至是在丈夫死前就開(kāi)始，而高地位的追求者卻失敗的流言四起，兒女只支持她和高地位的人再婚。她讓兒女看，女兒并不太同意，認(rèn)為她的傳統(tǒng)不能接受他，而兒子說(shuō)她背棄了她丈夫的光榮傳統(tǒng)，直接再也不來(lái)。好友Sara建議她帶Ron去晚會(huì)讓大家改變意見(jiàn)，只是得到嘲笑以及追求者的挑釁。女兒因?yàn)檫@事和男友吵架痛哭，為了兒女和名譽(yù)她只能斷絕關(guān)系，卻日日頭疼，Ron也諸事不順。而兒女仍然繁忙，兒即將出國(guó)，女馬上結(jié)婚，兒子甚至說(shuō)要賣(mài)了祖宅，忘了他當(dāng)年說(shuō)這房子的光榮傳統(tǒng)要守護(hù)的借口。兒子送的大禮，就是她那不需要獨(dú)自打發(fā)寂寞用的電視機(jī)，與那種出世生活完全抵觸。醫(yī)生告訴她治愈頭疼方法只有直面現(xiàn)實(shí)，嫁給她。她卻害怕太晚，他或許早已愛(ài)上其他人，如之前聚會(huì)看見(jiàn)和他碰見(jiàn)熱情的瑪麗安。但她碰見(jiàn)Alida，告訴她瑪麗安嫁給別人。她想去找他，卻最終不敢，返回，他在雪地中太興奮呼喊她墜懸崖。腦震蕩，Alida告知后她去照顧他，想起來(lái)他只為他打點(diǎn)的老磨坊，終于他蘇醒。

Douglas Sirk once said: “This is the dialectic—there is a very short distance between high art and trash, and trash that contains an element of craziness is by this very quality nearer to art.” When All That Heaven Allows was released by Universal Pictures in 1955, it was just another critically unnoticed Hollywood genre product, designed to appeal to the trashy “women’s weepie” audience. Now, in retrospect, it is considered to be closer to the art side of Sirk’s dialectic, and one of his key films. But this is part of a wider process of critical reevaluation in which his entire body of work has been rediscovered and reappraised by successive generations of filmmakers and historians.

No one seeing the film at the time of its release would have imagined its director to be an elegant, extremely erudite European whose career started in the theater of Weimar Germany and who was an early director of Bertolt Brecht’s The Threepenny Opera. After a short but successful career at UFA studios in the vacuum left by the massive emigration of Jewish talent after the Nazis came to power in 1933, Sirk made his way to Hollywood, directing his first film there in 1942. Following an unsuccessful attempt to return to Germany in 1949–50, he signed a contract with Universal. His movie career then culminated with his highest-profile films, the melodramas of 1952–58. By 1959, he was Universal’s most successful director. At that very moment, he left moviemaking and America. Until his death in 1987, he and his wife, Hilde, lived in Lugano, Switzerland.

All That Heaven Allows marks the final turning point in Sirk’s strange and varied career. On the back of Magnificent Obsession’s success the previous year, Universal gave him a budget and freedom that enabled his mature style to blossom. All That Heaven Allows contains all the elements of characteristically Sirkian composition: light, shade, color, and camera angles combine with his trademark use of mirrors to break up the surface of the screen. Here are all the components of the “melodramatic” style on which Sirk’s critical reputation is based and that has made him the favorite of later generations of filmmakers, from Rainer Werner Fassbinder to Quentin Tarantino, from John Waters to Pedro Almodóvar.

But at the time, Universal was just anxious to repeat its successful pairing of Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson in a romance between an older woman and an extremely handsome younger man. Wyman was still a big star but, by then, past her prime. Recently divorced from Ronald Reagan, and aware that her future lay with the soap-opera audience, she was pleased to be teamed with Hudson again. At the time, he was the new Hollywood heartthrob, who, although “out of the closet” in his personal life, had to be continually shut back in publicly and professionally by an anxious studio.

The All That Heaven Allows version of the May-September romance formula has Wyman playing Cary Scott, a well-to-do widow with two college-age children and a dull social life at the country club. The emptiness at the heart of her existence is filled when she meets Ron Kirby, the young gardener–turned–tree farmer who prunes the trees that line her all-American suburban yard—and then comes back to court her. This simple love story is disrupted by the vicious snobbery of her children and high-society acquaintances. Early in the film, Cary is at her dressing table, preparing for an evening with the Stoningham “elite.” To one side stands a vase containing the branches Ron cut for her earlier, so that Cary’s awakening interest in him carries over from the previous sequence. In a beautifully composed shot, the children first appear reflected in the mirror, coming between Cary and the vase, and then, as the camera pulls away, she is taken back into the room and toward the children. This one shot tells the story of the dilemma that Cary will face for the rest of the film and is typical of Sirk’s emblematic, economical use of cinema. His stars’ performances mesh well with this style. He gives them the screen space appropriate for their status, but the sexual charge between Cary and Ron is articulated through looks and gestures, and the roller-coaster highs and lows of their love are displaced onto the things that surround them.

Objects play their own significant part in expressing the emotions blocked by convention in small-town, middle-class 1950s America. Sirk creates a cinema in which the screen itself speaks more articulately than the protagonists, tongue-tied as they are by the codes of their fictional setting, the powers of censorship in Hollywood at the time, and the norms of the family melodrama genre. Out of these constraints, Sirk builds his film, while also using a typically melodramatic score to punctuate points and to accompany the tones and textures of the actors’ voices.

Years after their initial dismissal (and sometimes derision) by reviewers, Sirk’s successful string of big-budget soapers (and the director himself) have acquired a rich and complex critical afterlife, as different aspects and facets of the films have been reclaimed by successive phases of film criticism. For the auteurists and structuralists of the 1960s, Sirk’s mastery of cinematic language transcended the working conditions of the Hollywood studio system; feminists reclaimed him as a director of melodrama, with his women protagonists and dramas of interiority, domestic space, and sexual desire; gay critics today see a camp subtext in his films with Hudson, in which ambiguous situations can be read as double entendre.

The gap between the contemporary perception of All That Heaven Allows and that of the later critics is closed by Sirk himself, who once explained the conditions of work at the studio: “At least I was allowed to work on the material—so that I restructured to some extent some of the rather impossible scripts of the films I had to direct. Of course, I had to go by the rules, avoid experiments, stick to family fare, have ‘happy endings,’ and so on. Universal didn’t interfere with either my camera work or my cutting—which meant a lot to me.” Although All That Heaven Allows does, on the face of it, have a happy ending, its “happiness” is twisted with more than a touch of Sirkian irony. This piece originally appeared in the Criterion Collection’s 2001 DVD edition of All That Heaven Allows.

Jun 10, 2014

摘自CC官網(wǎng)：//www.criterion.com/current/posts/96-all-that-heaven-allows-an-articulate-screen

對(duì)于女孩子來(lái)說(shuō)，用手機(jī)或者電腦看看美劇韓劇什么的，算是當(dāng)下網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代的一種消遣，但是同樣是看電視劇，放到上世紀(jì)五十年代的美國(guó)，換個(gè)播放器——電視機(jī)，可能就有另外一種象征——孤獨(dú)的家庭主婦消磨時(shí)光、打發(fā)日子的“跳蛋”，講出來(lái)有點(diǎn)羞恥，但是實(shí)質(zhì)上基本一樣。

1955年的《深鎖春光一院愁》便是把這種表象下的“禁錮”描述的跌宕起伏、委婉動(dòng)人，雖然是好萊塢的一部制片廠電影，但是卻被向來(lái)有高逼格之稱(chēng)的“CC標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”收錄，光憑這一點(diǎn)，我們就不能把它當(dāng)做“晚八點(diǎn)愛(ài)情狗血片”來(lái)看待，盡管電影在故事層面上，講述的就是一個(gè)地地道道的爛俗愛(ài)情故事，但是因?yàn)槟敲匆稽c(diǎn)點(diǎn)“不同”，就讓它成為了一部“女權(quán)主義”電影。

故事講述的是富裕的中產(chǎn)階級(jí)寡婦凱瑞，和她年輕園丁榮恩之間的一段忘年戀愛(ài)，雖然和諸多愛(ài)情故事一樣，他們經(jīng)歷過(guò)雙方朋友的檢驗(yàn)、鄰居們的流言蜚語(yǔ)和家人的指責(zé)，但是最終還是有情人終成眷屬，來(lái)了個(gè)完美大結(jié)局。然而這個(gè)故事是因?yàn)槊绹?guó)人在講述，如果換了其他國(guó)家，可能就有不同的結(jié)局了，在韓國(guó)的話，有可能是《熔爐》般的無(wú)力，在丹麥的話，可能是《狩獵》般的忌憚。

之所以把一部愛(ài)情電影和兩個(gè)根本和愛(ài)情無(wú)關(guān)的歐亞國(guó)家電影做比較，原因在于，他們都是有關(guān)“偏見(jiàn)”?！度蹱t》中是眾人對(duì)于校長(zhǎng)一味的信任，而不相信處于劣勢(shì)的聾啞孩子；《狩獵》正好相反，小鎮(zhèn)居民都深信小女孩的所言非虛，而男老師則是邪惡的化身；《深鎖春光一院愁》便是富裕的中產(chǎn)階級(jí)對(duì)于下層工人的偏見(jiàn)。

將一個(gè)“偏見(jiàn)”講述的到位并不容易，更何況導(dǎo)演道格拉斯·塞克并不希望直接開(kāi)罪中產(chǎn)階級(jí)，所以在劇情的處理上，頗為委婉，比如女兒的“悔過(guò)”，醫(yī)生的奉勸以及朋友莎拉的好意和理解，但是這種側(cè)筆反而更為諷刺。莎拉的行為更像是中產(chǎn)階級(jí)主婦間的虛與委蛇，女兒的“悔過(guò)”更多顯露的是一種“事后諸葛”的彌補(bǔ)，但是內(nèi)心卻依舊保守，如果我們聯(lián)想到她之前動(dòng)輒拿出弗洛伊德的理論顯示自己的開(kāi)明，后期女兒的“懂事”只會(huì)增添她的虛偽和表里不一；而醫(yī)生，或許只是導(dǎo)演為了推動(dòng)凱瑞的行為所做的無(wú)奈設(shè)計(jì)吧！

實(shí)際上，這群中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的“偏見(jiàn)”只是對(duì)于男主角榮恩，對(duì)于凱瑞來(lái)說(shuō)并不是“偏見(jiàn)”，而是限制、禁錮和道德捆綁。其實(shí)對(duì)于榮恩來(lái)說(shuō)，“偏見(jiàn)”并 不算什么，由于人設(shè)的性格，榮恩并不在乎別人的看法，但是作為一個(gè)喪偶并有兩個(gè)成年的兒女來(lái)說(shuō)，這種“偏見(jiàn)”便是一種輿論禁錮了。表面上，它很開(kāi)放，不僅允許，而且鼓勵(lì)凱瑞找個(gè)夕陽(yáng)伴侶，但是，這種允許是有選擇性的，她必須在中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的社交圈中尋找，而且必須年齡相仿，所謂的“愛(ài)情”并不是凱瑞這個(gè)寡婦的權(quán)利，找個(gè)合適的體面人組成適當(dāng)?shù)哪信P(guān)系才是她可以做的事情。（從開(kāi)頭她和老年的夏飛約會(huì)受到兒女的鼓勵(lì)和支持時(shí)就能夠看出。）

凱瑞本身也不是那種周?chē)娜艘粐?，她就放棄真?ài)的女人，然而當(dāng)她面臨兒女受到流言蜚語(yǔ)，并被兒女“警告”必須和榮恩分開(kāi)時(shí)，她不得不做出讓步。社會(huì)倫理對(duì)于女性的禁錮最可怕的不是來(lái)自于外部的恐嚇，而是女性自身已經(jīng)被馴化，她“必須”考慮兒女，她“必須”承擔(dān)母親的責(zé)任，換句話說(shuō)，她必須“做一個(gè)母親該做的”，這個(gè)“該”便是女性終極的“命運(yùn)悲劇”。

有一個(gè)異常諷刺的場(chǎng)面，當(dāng)初凱瑞因?yàn)檫€有兒女相伴，所以放棄了自己的真愛(ài)，也被兒子“命令”，祖屋必須留下，但是當(dāng)她決定放棄真愛(ài)之后，女兒隔年就會(huì)出嫁，兒子即將遠(yuǎn)去巴黎上學(xué)，之后去伊朗工作，還被兒子“通知”：“祖屋太大了，你一個(gè)人住也是浪費(fèi)，回頭就賣(mài)了吧！”這種前后的荒唐狀況可謂是鞭辟入里，更為可笑的是，在一開(kāi)頭凱瑞就異常討厭“電視機(jī)”（因?yàn)樗砹酥心昱说目仗摚?，但是最后即將離去的兒女卻攢錢(qián)給她買(mǎi)了一臺(tái)電視機(jī)，從最后電視機(jī)屏幕中的凱瑞鏡像，我們知道，兒女其實(shí)是在給凱瑞的后半生生活送葬。

《深鎖春光一院愁》并不想讓這種對(duì)于女性的壓榨見(jiàn)針見(jiàn)血，而是試圖用“曲筆”，諷刺性地表達(dá)了這一社會(huì)現(xiàn)狀，可能在導(dǎo)演塞克看來(lái)，迎合地講述痛苦比暴露地表達(dá)憤怒更有效吧！

本文首發(fā)“百度電影吧”公眾號(hào)

轉(zhuǎn)載或約稿請(qǐng)加豆郵