原文取自Patrick Keating的《THE DYNAMIC FRAME Camera Movement in Classical Hollywood》。本書(shū)在討論《日出》這部電影時(shí)，是以20s中期德國(guó)電影對(duì)美國(guó)電影的影響為背景，以及美國(guó)電影人把攝影機(jī)運(yùn)動(dòng)視為鬼把戲（trick shots）的態(tài)度：是滑稽喜劇的專(zhuān)長(zhǎng)而不符合嚴(yán)肅戲劇的高雅。在德國(guó)電影《最后一笑》《雜耍班》中，攝影機(jī)運(yùn)動(dòng)和角度讓美國(guó)電影人大為震驚，這些創(chuàng)新的貢獻(xiàn)不僅僅是技術(shù)上的，更深層的是從文化上的干預(yù)。移動(dòng)攝影機(jī)不再是一個(gè)滑稽的把戲，而是成為藝術(shù)雄心的一種表達(dá)。靜態(tài)戲劇和動(dòng)態(tài)喜劇之間的對(duì)立也被打破。

以下為原文：

Sunrise

A great deal was riding on Sunrise—not just Fox’s investment but also Hollywood’s ever-evolving identity as an industry both American and international. Would Murnau assimilate to the American style, devising unusual angles to add “kick” to the story? Or would the German director continue to explore the semisubjective realm with a style that had inspired critics to reach for comparisons to Cezanne and Picasso? Murnau had promised to make a ?lm with American virtues: speed, pep, initiative. The ?nished ?lm belies this promise: Sunrise is slow and serious, with characters notably lacking in drive. The story is about a rural couple, simply called the Man and the Wife (George O’Brien and Janet Gaynor). The evil Woman from the City (Margaret Livingston) convinces the Man to kill his wife in a staged boating accident. He cannot go through with the murder, and, overcome with guilt, he follows his wife to the city, where he slowly regains her trust. Whereas many Hollywood ?lms emphasize external action, the con?ict here is almost entirely internal: the Man must rediscover his love for his wife, and the Wife must recognize that his conversion is sincere. This minimal plot leaves ample room for emotional expression.

To tell this tale, Murnau used almost every cinematic device available, from set design and acting to lighting and camera movement. As in The Last Laugh, Murnau explored the ambiguous territory of the semisubjective. In one celebrated seTuence, the Man walks through the marshes to visit with the Woman from the City. Cinematographers Rosher and Struss placed the camera on a platform suspended from tracks specially built into the studio’s ceiling, using motors to aid the shot’s operator, Struss, by lifting the camera platform up and down as it moved forward. 58 For all the shot’s technical bravado, its real interest lies in its shifts from external to internal and back again. The camera starts out by following the Man from behind and then tracks with him in pro?le after he makes a turn to go through some trees (?g. 1.7a–b). Here, the mode is external but attached—we observe the Man from the outside, but we discover the space as he discovers it. When the Man approaches the lens (?g. 1.7c), the camera pans to the left and dollies forward, pushing through some branches to discover the Woman from the City (?g. 1.7d). 59 For a brief moment, it appears that the ?lm has entered a subjective mode, representing what the Man sees through his own eyes. The Woman turns her head. Perhaps she will look directly at the camera, as if welcoming the Man’s arrivalbut, no, her gaze crosses past the lens, and the bored look on her face indicates that the Man has not yet arrived. First attached and then subjective, the mode becomes nonsubjective and nonattached, showing an event that the Man cannot see yet. A moment later the Woman looks o?screen again, this time recognizing that the Man is approaching. When he enters the screen from o?-left, it is a further perceptual surprise: the last time we saw him, he was o?-right. The Man and the Woman kiss, and the shot comes to an end. In a lecture in 1928, Struss described this shot in terms that re?ect its ambiguity. His statement, “Here we move with the man and his thoughts,” evoked a subjective interpretation of the image, but later he claimed, “We seem to be surreptitiously watching the love scenes,” as if the camera had adopted the perspective of an unseen observer. 60

1.7 In Sunrise, the camera follows the Man as he walks through the marsh; later, the camera appears to look through his eyes.

Other shots extend this semisubjective approach. In The Last Laugh, Murnau had placed his camera on a rotating platform to create the e?ect of the world spinning around the porter. In Sunrise, Murnau designed an ingenious variation on this strategy, depicting the twists and turns of a trolley ride. The ?rst part of the seTuence was photographed on a trolley path built alongside Lake Arrowhead; the rest was shot on another constructed line that circled into Rochus Gliese’s enormous false-perspective city set on the Fox lot. 61 One shot shows the Wife huddling in the corner of the car. We can barely see her face, but the trolley veers right and then left, showing us tracks, a worker on a bicycle, a factory, and other images indicating that she is reaching the edge of the city (?g. 1.8a–b). The unpredictable swaying of the trolley expresses her emotional state—her terri?ed confusion about her husband’s newly revealed capacity for violence and betrayal. Meanwhile, Murnau uses the trolley’s movement to comment on the inevitability of modernity: these two peasants have no control over the trolley car, and they must stand by passively while the background changes from the countryside to the city, a change in landscape that will render their peasant lifestyle obsolete.

In her insightful analysis of the ?lm, Caitlin McGrath has situated Murnau’s shots within a longer tradition of camera movement stretching back to the cinema of attractions, as in Bitzer’s subway ?lm in 1904 (?g. 1.1). 62 Another proximate comparison is the trolley scene from girl Shy. There, the Boy treats the world as a series of obstacles to be overcome, commandeering a trolley car to get to his destination as Tuickly as possible. In Sunrise, the movement of the trolley does little to advance the goals of either character, who are merely passengers on a journey they cannot control. In one sense, girl Shy does a better job integrating story and shot: the action on the trolley serves to advance the protagonist’s goal. In another sense, Sunrise is the more fully integrated of the two. girl Shy brie?y abandons the Boy to deliver a gag about the drunkard’s confusion. Sunrise lingers on the passage of the trolley because its swaying motions serve to express the Wife’s state of mind. Every swerve is expressive.

1.8 The Wife stands Tuietly on the trolley as the landscape changes behind her.

The latter ?lm further develops its characterization of the modern city in a pair of seTuences showing the couple crossing the dangerous street. In the ?rst seTuence, the camera is on a dolly following the Wife (probably a stunt double) as she walks from the trolley to the curb; halfway through the shot, the Man grabs the Wife and walks with her the rest of the way. Several cars zip by in the foreground and background, just missing the couple—and the camera, which is crossing the street as well (?g. 1.9a–b). In the second seTuence, the Man and the Wife have reconciled, and they gaze into each other’s eyes as they cross the busy street again (?g. 1.10a). They are utterly oblivious to the tra?c, which dissolves away to become a pastoral meadow, as if this peasant couple has rediscovered the country in the heart of the city (?g. 1.10b). Whereas the ?rst seTuence unfolds in fast motion as if it were a slapstick stunt, the second seTuence is a composite, using a traveling-matte e?ect that combines three distinct layers in a single shot: a foreground layer with cars passing by closely; a background layer dissolving from the city to the country; and a middleground layer showing the lovers walking while the camera follows on a dolly. Each layer was shot separately, then printed onto a separate piece of ?lm. 63

1.9 The camera follows ?rst the Wife as she begins to cross the street and then the Man and the Wife as they scramble across it.

This moment of joy does not mean that the ?lm endorses the city and its values of consumerism, pleasure, and distraction. The urban citizens constantly remind the Man and the Wife that they are peasants; it is their acceptance of this identity that allows them to rea?rm their values. When they kiss in the middle of tra?c, their love provides an escape from the modern city, even as the tra?c bears down upon them. The visual contrast between the bumping dolly of the ?rst seTuence and the traveling matte of the second develops the thematic shift. When the camera follows the Wife and the Man as they scramble across the street, their movements are so erratic that the couple never stays in the center of the frame. There is instead an oscillation from right to left as the couple jogs back and forth to escape the tra?c. Later the traveling-matte e?ect locks the couple in the center of the frame, even though they are walking the whole time. The city around them buzzes with activity; the couple has become a symbol of stability.

1.10 Later, a traveling matte shows the Man and the Wife in tra?c; the urban background dissolves into a pastoral scene.

Far from making a ?lm with speed, pep, and initiative, Murnau tells a story criticizing those very values. Instead of delivering the occasional nonnarrative “kick,” the moving camera expresses the characters’ emotions while commenting on the ephemeral delights and the disorienting emptiness of modern life. The director’s longtime booster Maurice Kann raved about the ?lm, seeing it as the ful?llment of The Last Laugh’s promising experiments with the representation of subjectivity: “Murnau has succeeded in boring his camera lens into the very brain of his players and shows you in picture form the thoughts that surge through their heads.” 64 Other critics commented on the ?lm’s internationalism—its hybrid mixture of European aesthetics with a Hollywood budget. Pare Lorentz—then a ?lm critic, later an esteemed documentarian—thought that the German–American mixture was a failure. He praised the “breathtaking photography” and the “perfect” ?rst ?fteen minutes, but he argued that the extended seTuence in the city contained too many gags, which had been added to entertain the “chocolate-sundae audience.” 65 European artistry had given way to slapstick trickery. Variety’s critic wrote more favorably that the ?lm was “made in this country, but produced after the best manner of the German school.” 66 Moving Picture World noticed the ?lm’s “continental ?avor,” while commenting wryly on the association between national style and cultural status: “Coming from abroad, this production would be hailed by critics as a triumph. Even with the American label they are forced to give it grudging praise.” 67 Whereas Lorentz denounced the ?lm for including too many concessions to the American audience, Variety and World positioned the ?lm as a fascinating hybrid, a European artwork made in Los Angeles.

In the end, Sunrise struggled at the box o?ce, and Murnau’s own career at Fox took a downward turn. 68 He experienced less support and more constraints on his remaining two ?lms for the studio: the lost ?lm Four Devils (1928) and the smaller-scale ?lm City Girl (1930), both designed as nondialogue pictures, and both turned into part-talkies with added seTuences not directed by Murnau. 69 But Murnau’s impact was undeniable. As Janet Bergstrom reports, “[A] sign of William Fox’s appreciation of the artistic Tuality of Murnau’s ?lms was that he encouraged his top directors to work in the same dark, visually expressive style.” 70 She lists several examples of Fox ?lms made in Murnau’s style, including 7th Heaven (1927) and Street Angel (1928) by Frank Borzage, Fazil (1928) by Howard Hawks, The Red Dance (1928) by Raoul Walsh, and Mother Machree (1928) and Four Sons (1928) by John Ford. Other examples from the studio might include East Side, West Side (1927) and Frozen -ustice (1929) by Allan Dwan as well as Paid to Love (1927) by Hawks and Hangman’s House (1928) by Ford.

Outside Fox Studios, there is evidence that the trend toward unusual angles started well before Sunrise was released. In The Eagle (1925), the camera, suspended from a bridge stretched between two dollies, moves backward across a table, appearing to pass through several solid objects along the way. Director Clarence Brown explained, “We had prop boys putting candelabra in place just before the camera picked them up.” 71 An article in Film Daily in 1925 reports that cinematographer J. Roy Hunt used a handheld gyroscopic camera, inspired by The Last Laugh, to photograph The Manicure *irl, a lost ?lm directed by Frank Tuttle. 72 The following year Maurice Kann spotted the in?uence of Variety in two other Famous Players–Lasky ?lms: Victor Fleming’s MantraS and William Wellman’s You Never Know Women. Kann even gave credit to the cinematographers: Jimmy (James Wong) Howe and Victor Milner, respectively. 73 Less fortunate was Michael Curtiz, the Hungarian-born director beginning his long career at Warner Bros. His American debut, The Third Degree (1926), earned a skeptical review from Gilbert Seldes, who worried that directors were abusing the innovations of Variety. 74 PhotoSlay also denounced Curtiz’s ?lm, noting that it was “?lled with German camera-angles that don’t mean a thing.” 75 Another fan magazine complained, “The German ?lms have caused our directors to become excited over the odd e?ects to be obtained by photographing scenes from unusual angles.” 76 An article in Motion Picture Classic declared that camera angles were “the bunk” and blamed the critics for heaping praise on European ?lms when they employed the same “trick photography” that Americans had been doing for years. 77 The critics gave voice to a widely shared worry. Hollywood studios had the resources to copy the latest techniTues, either by hiring European personnel or by imitating their manner; what they needed to do was prove that they could use those techniTues in a meaningful way.

NOTES

58. Richard Koszarski discusses this shot in “The Cinematographer,” in New York to Hollywood: The PhotograShy of Karl Struss, ed. Barbara McCandless, Bonnie Yochelson, and Richard Koszarski (Fort Worth, TX: Amon Carter Museum, 1995), 177.

59. Struss claimed that the suspended dolly had a “wedge shaped thing” on the front to push the foliage out of the way (interview in Scott Eyman, Five American CinematograShers [Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1987], 9).

60. Karl Struss, “Dramatic Cinematography,” Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers 12, no. 34 (October 1928): 318. 61. Susan Harvith and John Harvith, Karl Struss: Man with a Camera (Blooms?eld Hills, MI: Cranbrook Academy of Art, 1976), 15.

62. Caitlin McGrath, “Captivating Motion: Late–Silent Film SeTuences of Perception in the Modern Urban Environment,” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2010, 222.

63. For more information on this shot, see Murnau, Borzage, and Fox, DVD box set.

64. Maurice Kann, “Sunrise and Movietone,” Film Daily, September 25, 1927, 4.

65. Pare Lorentz, “The Stillborn Art” (1928), in Lorentz on Film: Movies, 19271941 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986), 25.

66. “Rush.,” “Sunrise,” Variety, September 28, 1927, 21.

67. “Sunrise,” Moving Picture World 88, no. 5 (October 1, 1927): 312.

68. Donald Crafton reports that Sunrise “sank like a stone” in New York after a strong opening. Its run at the Cathay Circle Theatre in Los Angeles was more successful (The Talkies: American Cinema’s Transition to Sound, 192–1931 [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997], 525–527).

69. Janet Bergstrom carefully details the making of both ?lms in “Murnau in America: Chronicle of Lost Films,” Film History 14, nos. 3–4 (2002): 430–460.

70. Bergstrom, William Fox Presents F. W. Murnau and Frank Borzage, 10.

71. Clarence Brown, Tuoted in Brownlow, The Parade’s *one By … , 146. A decade later, the director repeated the trick in Anna Karenina (1935).

72. “The Gyroscopic Camera and Future Production Possibilities,” Film Daily, June 7, 1925, 5.

73. Maurice Kann, “Fred Thomson,” Film Daily, July 14, 1926, 1, and Maurice Kann, “More Pictures,” Film Daily, July 15, 1926, 1. Elsewhere, a fan commented on the fact that You Never Know Women copied its angles from Variety (Richard Roland, “What the Foreigners Have Done for Us,” PicturePlay Magazine 26, no. 1 [March 1927]: 12). Largely conventional, MantraS (1926) featured one spectacular montage showing a dynamic trip from the country to the city.

74. Gilbert Seldes, “Camera Angles,” New ReSublic 50, no. 640 (March 9, 1927): 72–73.

75. “The Shadow Stage,” PhotoSlay 31, no. 4 (March 1927): 94.

76. Ken Chamberlain, “Camera Angles,” Motion Picture 23, no. 3 (April 1927):

25. The tone of the article is mocking, accompanied by four cartoons depicting four bizarre techniTues.

77. Harold R. Hall, “Camera Angles—the Bunk,” Motion Picture Classic 24, no. 6 (February 1927): 18, 79.

茂瑙，德國(guó)表現(xiàn)主義大師，20年代拍攝《諾斯費(fèi)拉圖》，與編劇卡爾梅育合作拍攝室內(nèi)劇《最卑賤的人》，海外放映后廣受好評(píng)，也因此被好萊塢發(fā)掘。本片是茂瑙與?？怂购炗喓霞s后拍攝的第一部影片，據(jù)《世界電影史》評(píng)述，是該公司1927年成本最高的影片——上映后卻獲利平平。

但《日出》的影響無(wú)疑是深遠(yuǎn)的，不僅使得約翰·福特等人深受鼓舞，也將德國(guó)電影的獨(dú)特風(fēng)格引入好萊塢。盡管經(jīng)典電影史讀本往往會(huì)歸納出風(fēng)格和特征來(lái)區(qū)分各個(gè)國(guó)家的電影，以便進(jìn)行歷史分期，但不論是技巧或是技術(shù)，融合都顯得更為普遍，并且無(wú)可避免——打破范式又深入其中，甚至早于新浪潮導(dǎo)演對(duì)希區(qū)柯克的評(píng)價(jià)。以本片為范本，不僅可以發(fā)現(xiàn)德國(guó)表現(xiàn)主義的陰郁、構(gòu)圖，早期喜劇默片的肢體運(yùn)動(dòng)和表情設(shè)計(jì)，好萊塢情節(jié)劇的流暢剪輯、必不可少的大團(tuán)圓結(jié)局。這些特征相得益彰，讓這部默片顯得動(dòng)人至藝術(shù)，時(shí)至今日依舊如此，將默片的魅力最大化。

1、電影技巧

疊印，不斷在表現(xiàn)心理活動(dòng)的時(shí)刻出現(xiàn)，用絕對(duì)外化的畫(huà)面的方式使觀眾理解。收放自如剪切進(jìn)字幕中間，仿佛調(diào)節(jié)情緒的按鈕。其中值得一提的是夫妻進(jìn)城之后走出結(jié)婚禮堂——仿佛又結(jié)了一次婚，他們高興的像走入了幸福深處，花朵、遼闊、明媚，直到喇叭聲漸起，卻發(fā)現(xiàn)原來(lái)不自覺(jué)已經(jīng)闖入路口中央，這個(gè)段落的表現(xiàn)方式是在膠片上做文章，人物與背景貼合，再分離，幻想打破滑落進(jìn)現(xiàn)實(shí)，余韻卻已經(jīng)使我們都明白，丈夫已經(jīng)痛改前非，他們的心彼此相連。

景別交錯(cuò)，移動(dòng)攝影，為了突出人物淡化周?chē)h(huán)境，特寫(xiě)表情，雨夜那一段的光影交織，泰坦尼克號(hào)借尸還魂。

2、默片美感

每當(dāng)看到心動(dòng)的默片，我就會(huì)想起巴贊說(shuō)的“完整電影的神話”，曾經(jīng)在無(wú)聲向有聲時(shí)代邁進(jìn)時(shí)堅(jiān)不可摧的理論，而時(shí)光流轉(zhuǎn)，當(dāng)電影技術(shù)已經(jīng)摧枯拉朽，vr、120幀層出不窮且從不止步，回看1927年的默片，卻以他的“殘缺”使觀眾完全沉浸其中，重新回到20年代。不管怎樣，未來(lái)一直來(lái)，偶爾向過(guò)去投取一瞥，總依依不舍。

聲音：無(wú)人聲，聲音（音樂(lè)+音響）敘事，渲染氛圍、表現(xiàn)人物心理、故事遞進(jìn)。借鑒作曲思想展開(kāi)創(chuàng)作。臺(tái)詞幾乎是無(wú)必要的,影像自然地隨音樂(lè)流動(dòng)。符號(hào)并非視覺(jué)的,而是通過(guò)配樂(lè)給出。鐘聲作為某種"啟示"的元素暗示情節(jié)轉(zhuǎn)折,圓號(hào)則傳達(dá)呼喚的效果,不難發(fā)現(xiàn)茂瑙簡(jiǎn)直是按某種配器法的思路進(jìn)行構(gòu)思; 幾處配樂(lè)巧妙化用李斯特《前奏曲》、瓦格納《齊格弗里德牧歌》、施特勞斯《梯爾的惡作劇》等曲目,游樂(lè)場(chǎng)一段將對(duì)比強(qiáng)烈的多種聲源混于同一音軌,類(lèi)似于莫扎特《唐喬萬(wàn)尼》第二幕結(jié)尾的設(shè)計(jì),可謂十分大膽的聲音處理。

剪輯：出色的疊化、分割畫(huà)面、拼貼、扣像技術(shù)。用疊印效果介紹環(huán)境，表現(xiàn)人物心理、夢(mèng)境與回憶。默片固有的“快進(jìn)”風(fēng)格，為了凸顯“動(dòng)作”。字母的形式（用于敘事），例如在男主準(zhǔn)備殺女主時(shí)候的字母用了“流血”效果。

劇本（故事、角色塑造、結(jié)構(gòu)、對(duì)白、情感基調(diào)、主題）：有愛(ài)不會(huì)死，這是好萊塢始終為愛(ài)情故事定下的基調(diào)。主題不敢恭維，老實(shí)說(shuō)就算要我原諒曾經(jīng)要我一命的家伙，我也辦不到重新愛(ài)對(duì)方。夫妻雙方和解是發(fā)生在城市的，在他們臥室這樣的家庭空間中，城市女人也回到城市。這樣，《日出》捕捉到了一個(gè)美國(guó)人的矛盾:努力協(xié)調(diào)農(nóng)業(yè)到城市進(jìn)程的變化而引起的身份巨變。電影中巨大的變化說(shuō)明鄉(xiāng)村的自然價(jià)值是可以通過(guò)與城市的接觸而更新變化的，一個(gè)城市化和工業(yè)化進(jìn)程中的美國(guó)所面臨的威脅是可以化解的。現(xiàn)代進(jìn)程不會(huì)毀滅掉美國(guó)身份的價(jià)值，但是會(huì)考驗(yàn)并證明美國(guó)人的力量，保證美國(guó)從農(nóng)業(yè)社會(huì)到工業(yè)社會(huì)發(fā)展的經(jīng)驗(yàn)的連貫。

表演：選角非常合適，眼神不會(huì)說(shuō)謊。默片無(wú)臺(tái)詞，演員純靠肢體動(dòng)作和夸張的面部表情來(lái)表現(xiàn)情緒。

攝影（照明）：固定鏡頭偏多，有些許推和搖鏡頭。透視法（景深鏡頭），長(zhǎng)鏡頭（鏡頭時(shí)常+場(chǎng)面調(diào)度）。11分鐘時(shí)的推進(jìn)移動(dòng)長(zhǎng)鏡頭接連呈現(xiàn)3個(gè)視角。景別以中、近景為主，輔以特寫(xiě)鏡頭。照明自然，無(wú)特殊風(fēng)格。

美術(shù)（場(chǎng)景設(shè)計(jì)、選景、服裝）：白富美住處傾斜的桌子和游樂(lè)場(chǎng)的場(chǎng)景設(shè)計(jì)。最后溺水情節(jié)的場(chǎng)景設(shè)置很厲害。

導(dǎo)演（視角、風(fēng)格）：茂瑙代表作,影史最佳默片之一。好萊塢經(jīng)典通俗劇與德國(guó)表現(xiàn)主義的完美結(jié)合。這部影片則標(biāo)志著默片時(shí)代最高藝術(shù)水準(zhǔn)的文藝愛(ài)情片。聲音和臺(tái)詞都近乎失去了存在的意義：高潮處無(wú)需字幕卡亦可讓觀眾理解人物心理，對(duì)白則淪落為背景噪音。但也正是在這一年有聲片誕生了，歷史無(wú)情啊。

記得曾經(jīng)看完格里菲斯的《黨同伐異》后，為影片的平行剪輯制造的效果感到驚嘆。也是從那時(shí)起，我認(rèn)識(shí)到早期的電影人對(duì)“用影像講故事”的探究遠(yuǎn)比我想象的要深刻。而這部《日出》則讓我看到了未來(lái)一百年中電影語(yǔ)言的基本規(guī)則。而無(wú)論后人對(duì)其做了多么精巧的改進(jìn)，也沒(méi)有該片電影語(yǔ)言的精髓。 在默片時(shí)代，因?yàn)闆](méi)有聲音。演員無(wú)法通過(guò)說(shuō)話轉(zhuǎn)達(dá)影片信息。為了保持整體的連貫性，字幕也是能省就省。這也使得導(dǎo)演必須通過(guò)鏡頭語(yǔ)言盡可能表達(dá)出更多的信息。哪怕在如今，同樣的信息用影像表現(xiàn)也要比用臺(tái)詞表達(dá)高級(jí)得多。而這部《日出》就很好的體現(xiàn)了默片時(shí)代依靠鏡頭說(shuō)話特點(diǎn)。 1.長(zhǎng)鏡頭與透視法 影片上映與1927年。那時(shí)候沒(méi)有斯坦尼康，攝影師想做到手持跟拍是很困難的，但在這部影片中，我們看到了長(zhǎng)鏡頭拍攝的雛形。

鏡頭的第一個(gè)畫(huà)面，一對(duì)老夫婦在畫(huà)面右下角的前景?；h笆外墻和與之相平行的道路形成線性透視，并提供了深景深。這時(shí)城市女從深景中的房門(mén)向鏡頭走來(lái)，當(dāng)她進(jìn)入到畫(huà)面中心時(shí)鏡頭左搖跟隨人物。當(dāng)人物要遠(yuǎn)離鏡頭時(shí)，攝影機(jī)開(kāi)始跟隨人物運(yùn)動(dòng)到男主角家門(mén)外，整個(gè)鏡頭結(jié)束。 雖然在電影初期一個(gè)鏡頭會(huì)拍攝很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間，似乎長(zhǎng)鏡頭并不是什么新鮮的手法。但這里我們說(shuō)的長(zhǎng)鏡頭不僅僅是鏡頭時(shí)間，而是帶有鏡頭運(yùn)動(dòng)和場(chǎng)面調(diào)度的一系列過(guò)程。在前半段的靜止畫(huà)面中，導(dǎo)演運(yùn)用透視原理和演員的調(diào)度達(dá)到了前景與背景之間的運(yùn)動(dòng)關(guān)系。而后半部分的跟拍則保持了鏡頭的連續(xù)性和觀眾的代入感。這是觀眾回想：這位女子半夜從家里出來(lái)鬼鬼祟祟的究竟是去哪？如果這里運(yùn)用三段鏡頭剪輯在一起，雖然能表達(dá)同樣的信息，但這種連續(xù)性和代入感卻被打破了。 2.分割畫(huà)面 一般來(lái)說(shuō)，運(yùn)用復(fù)格影像可以為觀眾帶來(lái)全知視角，同時(shí)展現(xiàn)幾個(gè)人物的動(dòng)作。但在這里導(dǎo)演運(yùn)動(dòng)萬(wàn)花筒式的分割畫(huà)面展現(xiàn)了城市的繁華，而萬(wàn)花筒式的畫(huà)面也和都市燈紅酒綠的形象形成對(duì)應(yīng)。

3.疊印效果 疊印效果可以表現(xiàn)人物的夢(mèng)境，想象或回憶。

男主角正在為是否殺死賢惠的妻子做心理斗爭(zhēng)。這時(shí)城市女的影像通過(guò)疊印巧妙的貼合在男主角的身上。通過(guò)這個(gè)效果形象的體現(xiàn)男主角在內(nèi)心斗爭(zhēng)時(shí)沒(méi)能經(jīng)受住小三的欲望誘惑，最終選擇殺死妻子。

這里則表現(xiàn)出夫妻倆的愛(ài)情，連天使都為他們送上祝福。 4.特寫(xiě) 特寫(xiě)鏡頭可以有效的突出畫(huà)面中的重要信息，增強(qiáng)畫(huà)面的沖擊性。在表現(xiàn)恐怖效果上成效顯著。

男主角拿起了象征著謀殺的蘆葦

要掐死女主角的雙手

拔出的小刀

這三個(gè)鏡頭通過(guò)對(duì)蘆葦，雙手和小刀的特寫(xiě)，放大了男主角近乎變態(tài)的殺人動(dòng)機(jī)。哪怕是非常普通的蘆葦都借助特寫(xiě)鏡頭給觀眾驚悚的感覺(jué)，因?yàn)樗笳髦\殺。同時(shí)也提醒觀眾，這個(gè)重要道具會(huì)在之后起到重要作用。

鏡頭的不斷拉近，到最后的特寫(xiě)鏡頭，觀眾可以清晰的看到老婦人的淚光。通過(guò)這一系列鏡頭的放大，觀眾的情感也被放大，也表現(xiàn)出男主角逐漸得知妻子沒(méi)有死的過(guò)程。如果只用最后的特寫(xiě)鏡頭，情感表達(dá)會(huì)顯得突兀，不連貫。 5.觀點(diǎn)鏡頭

小三女被群民驚醒

透過(guò)窗戶(hù)一探究竟

躲在樹(shù)蔭里窺視救援結(jié)果

被眾人攙扶的男主角說(shuō)明妻子已死

這里比較巧妙的是小三女的主觀鏡頭。導(dǎo)演通過(guò)小三的窺視一方面展現(xiàn)村民營(yíng)救的過(guò)程，另一方面又將觀眾帶入到小三的視角中，通過(guò)她得知女主死亡的信息。這大大增加了觀眾對(duì)小三的憎恨和對(duì)夫妻未能團(tuán)圓的惋惜。 6.畫(huà)面留白制造懸念

蘆葦不斷散落

女主角飄過(guò)鏡頭

男主角發(fā)現(xiàn)了散落的蘆葦

堅(jiān)信妻子已經(jīng)死了

在最后的救援戲中，全村人劃船尋找女主。這時(shí)鏡頭切到飄在水中昏迷的女主角，蘆葦在不斷散落，提醒觀眾時(shí)間緊迫。人物劃出畫(huà)面，觀眾們都為女主角捏了一把汗，大家都期待著丈夫能找到妻子。這時(shí)丈夫發(fā)現(xiàn)了這捆蘆葦，配合著他絕望的面部特寫(xiě)。這讓觀眾沒(méi)有時(shí)間思考，本能的跟著男主角相信妻子已經(jīng)死了。當(dāng)然，我們都知道妻子沒(méi)有死，導(dǎo)演通過(guò)留白和剪輯欺騙了觀眾，制造了情節(jié)的起伏。 7.默片中的背景音 有意思的是，本片雖然是默片，但全片還是運(yùn)用了一些背景音。比如一直貫穿始終的教堂的鐘聲。在影片開(kāi)頭男主角決定殺死妻子的夜晚，他躺在床上望向妻子，霧氣籠罩下的教堂疊化出現(xiàn)，鐘聲第一次響起。這里的鐘聲象征著罪惡，也交代了夜晚的過(guò)去。

之后在船上丈夫企圖掐死妻子，妻子驚嚇萬(wàn)分苦苦求饒，此時(shí)丈夫經(jīng)不住良心的譴責(zé)丈夫用雙手捂住眼睛，鐘聲第二次響起。它代表著上帝對(duì)丈夫的警示，希望喚起他內(nèi)心的良知。丈夫快速把穿劃向?qū)Π?，鐘聲一直響著，每一聲都敲打在丈夫的良心深處，讓他無(wú)地自容又后悔莫及。

第三次教堂鐘聲把夫妻倆吸引到了教堂，里面正在舉行一場(chǎng)婚禮。此時(shí)神父告訴新郎要保護(hù)新娘不受到任何傷害。此時(shí)的丈夫流下了懺悔的眼淚。這里的鐘聲代表上帝對(duì)他的教育，引導(dǎo)他做回一個(gè)合格的丈夫。

兩人在鐘聲下走出教堂，代表著夫妻婚姻的重生。

影片的最后，一直為出現(xiàn)的太陽(yáng)終于升起，照耀在幸福的夫妻身上。預(yù)示著愛(ài)終究會(huì)戰(zhàn)勝邪惡，正義的陽(yáng)光終究會(huì)照耀在土地上！