2023.04.28
又一部約翰·韋恩主演的電影,但是韋恩在這部電影里主演卻不出彩,像個打醬油的,反而是他身邊的幾個“歪瓜裂棗”倒是神采奕奕,光鮮奪目。據(jù)說原劇本是在第一次世界大戰(zhàn)時撰寫的,這部電影把它放在了二戰(zhàn)初期的1940年,且同年拍攝上映,可謂沒有時間距離感。
1940年,停泊在西印度群島的英國船只SS格倫凱林號貨輪準(zhǔn)備去美國裝載軍火運到英國去,為了安撫船員,船長允許當(dāng)?shù)氐墓媚飩兩洗瑏碣u水果,結(jié)果她們私帶了很多朗姆酒,船員們喝多了酒后興奮起來,尋歡作樂,唱歌跳舞,接著打起群架來,還把一個船員捅傷,真是敬酒不吃吃罰酒,氣的船長取消了這個特許活動。
船員們得知船上裝載了大量的TNT炸藥后頓時炸了鍋,這可是當(dāng)時最強悍的烈性炸藥,這時船長召集大家開會,許諾船到倫敦后加薪25%,大家頓時一點意見都沒有了,真的是人為財死,鳥為食亡。不過還是有個叫史密斯的船員試圖逃跑,結(jié)果沒有逃出碼頭就被岸上的警察抓住送了回來。格倫凱林號遭遇大風(fēng)暴,亞克負(fù)了重傷,彌留之際流露出對生命的渴望,但是在大海中航行的船上,缺醫(yī)少藥,負(fù)傷就意味著死亡,最后亞克還是不治身亡,船長和全體船員按照慣例海葬了他。
一直不合群的史密斯引起了大家的猜測,尤其是打開窗戶偷偷把一個酒瓶子扔海里被人發(fā)現(xiàn),懷疑他是德國間諜在給德國潛艇發(fā)信號,眾人把他綁了起來,打開他那個神秘的黑盒子,里面是一疊信,德里斯科讀了兩封信就再也讀不下去了,這是一個叫伊麗莎白的妻子寫給丈夫的信,這個叫湯姆的丈夫有三個孩子和一個幸福的家,因丟了官職而離家出走,妻子的信中充滿悲傷和哀愁,更期待他活著歸來。但是史密斯終于沒能活著回家,他死于德國飛機的掃射,他妻子和兩個孩子來到碼頭接他,結(jié)果悲傷的離開。
歐里離開家在海上漂泊了十年,每次船靠岸他都和大多數(shù)船員一樣在酒吧里喝的酩酊大醉,直到把辛辛苦苦賺來的錢花光,再次上船賺辛苦錢,這次他拿到兩年的工錢后決定上岸后一滴酒不沾,直接回家投資買個農(nóng)場安頓下來。俗話說不怕賊偷就怕賊惦記,終于到了英國上岸的歐里左防右放,還是沒防住,在一個叫喬的酒吧被劫,遭人算計,差點被人擄走,幸虧兄弟們出手相救,才得以平安回家,但是德里斯克卻不幸代他被那艘船員們戲稱惡魔船的“阿米達(dá)”號擄走,最終在海上被德國潛艇的魚雷擊沉。
見多識廣的格倫凱林號船長料事如神,貨輪即將起航時候,花光了錢的船員們一個個的又灰溜溜的回到了船上,這就是大多數(shù)船員們的宿命,走不出去的怪圈,一輩子的悲慘命運。正像片尾所述“像歐里一樣的人來來回回,像德里斯科一樣的人生生死死,像亞克和史密斯一樣的人留下了回憶”。
In 1940, there are two John Ford pictures,THE GRAPES OF WRATH and THE LONG VOYAGE HOME, entering the Oscar race (with 7 and 6 nominations respectively including BEST PICTURE), the former won him the second of his unsurpassable record of 4 wins in BEST DIRECTOR category.
As of today, THE GRAPES OF WRATH has retained its renown as an irrefutable American classic, sourced from Nobel winner John Steinbeck’s seminal novel censuring the capitalistic exploitation to the have-nots, viz. the Depression-era displaced Oklahoman sharecroppers who are forced to leave their dust-ridden native lands to seek sustenance in the California, the land of honey and milk.
Their exodus is encapsulated by the Joads family, starting as a family of 12, they trundle a jalopy through various migrant camps, buffeted by hardship, maltreatment and bereavements. When they finally fetches up in a clean camp conspicuously organized by the ministry of agriculture, they cannot credit their luck. Ford and his scribe Nunnally Johnson dull the edge of Steinbeck’s stark depiction with a more sanguine prospect, a self-policing grassroots community can outfox the corrupted authority and downplay the “red scare” that is very prominent in the novel (anyone who dares to demand fair wage is gauged as a “red”?).
Viewed as a cracking poverty porn, THE GRAPES OF WRATH possesses that reassuring tact of resisting overplaying the story’s mawkish sentimentality, if your highest tolerance is famished kids begging for food, you’re in for an easy ride. Visually and sonically, it shows up Ford’s directorial sway and cinematographer Gregg Toland’s striking chiaroscuro ambience in the highest order, the murkiness of inequity revs up against the howling wind and shadow-scape.
Henry Fonda received his first Oscar nomination for his devoted portrayal of Tom Joad, the ex-con whose propensity for violence makes him an easy mark, and Fonda utilizes his four-squareness to max out great fortitude and curdled indignation, finally, his extraordinary application culminates in the crescendo where he speechifies Steinbeck’s hyperbolic manifesto of social justice with flying colors, the delivery’s virtuousness is so sweeping that even the most cynical mind could only be cowed by its eloquence and grandeur. By the same token, Jane Darwell, who plays the matronly Ma Joad, won an Oscar for her stirring, full-blown oratory that is often esteemed as the highest achievement of theatrics, her “we are the people” valediction is an irrefragable mood-boosting coda that hits the bull’s-eye.
But one must contend, a singularly exceptional John Carradine is left unsung as the lapsed preacher Jim Casy, a messianic figure who has to be sacrificed to illuminate the multitude, Carradine’s cragginess fascinatingly jars with Casy’s angelic innocuousness and selfless sagacity, he might have lost his faith, but the aureola of benediction never deserts him.
THE LONG VOYAGE HOME, whose soundstage artificiality does vitiate the plausibility of an open-sea voyage, concatenates four Eugene O’Neal’s seafaring plays into one feature by Dudley Nichols, and Toland’s groundbreaking prestidigitation of coaxing light and shade again is the main star here, creating a pre-film noir atmosphere of mist, ambiguity and desolation, often on a dime.
The story is a tetralogy roughly consisted of a roisterous comedy of brawl and exotic girls, a treacherous waterborne adventurer, a WWII paranoia thriller and a blokeish escapade onshore, as a result its prevailing tone fails to cohere, the film feels haphazard, episodic, most of its time unengaged. The comical part is a mess, Ford is ill at ease with frivolity, the studio-bound finitude (a waterlogged deck mostly) doesn’t broaden his imagination of nature’s elemental ferocity and all the commotion around a hidden German spy among the crew leans to preposterousness.
Luckily, at audience’s pleasure, the ship crew onboard makes do what is at their disposal: Barry Fitzgerald is a vividly fussy steward named Cocky, who looks so far from a sea dog, you might expect him to take a pratfall just by entering the forecastle; John Qualen as Axel, has the most maddening foreign accent but you may forgive him for his earnest (he also shines in a cameo in THE GRAPES OF WRATH, you can see his range); Ian Hunter is the loner harboring a secret disgrace, and Ward Bond is generously allotted a lengthy part when his Yank is in extremis.
A young Wayne unconvincingly plays a Swede named Olsen, looks wet behind the ears and only too naive to fall prey to skulduggery on the land (Natwick, a celluloid debutante, has a small but striking appearance as a reluctant decoy), he is humbled by a more world-savvy Driscoll (Mitchell), the leader of the gang, Mitchell excellently plays him with gusto and facility. But the film is a downer entombed in nostalgia and homesick (accentuated by Richard Hageman’s forlorn score) ever since the frothy gaiety is scuppered in the beginning, not least for the unexpected ending. Reckoned as the first Ford picture that deals with the ongoing WWII (though obliquely), THE LONG VOVAGE HOME’s pathos is rather different from the populist affirmation distilled from THE GRAPES OF WRATH, whereas the latter in a towering landmark in Ford’s estimable filmography, the former could only settle for a minor grade in juxtaposition.
referential entries: Ford’s HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY (1941, 7.3/10); THE QUIET MAN (1952, 7.4/10); René Clément’s THE DAMNED (1947, 7.3/10).
Title: The Grapes of Wrath
Year: 1940
Country: USA
Language: English
Genre: Drama
Director: John Ford
Screenwriter: Nunnally Johnson
based on the novel by John Steinbeck
Music: Alfred Newman
Cinematography: Gregg Toland
Editing: Robert L. Simpson
Cast:
Henry Fonda
Jane Darwell
John Carradine
Dorris Bowdon
Russell Simpson
Charley Grapewin
Zeffie Tilbury
O.Z. Whitehead
Eddie Quillan
Frank Sully
Darryl Hickman
Shirley Mills
Frank Darien
John Qualan
Grant Mitchell
Ward Bond
Roger Imhof
Rating: 8.2/10
Title: The Long Voyage Home
Year: 1940
Country: USA
Language: English, Spanish
Genre: Drama, War
Director: John Ford
Screenwriter: Dudley Nichols
based on four plays by Eugene O’Neal
Music: Richard Hageman
Cinematography: Gregg Toland
Editing: Sherman Todd
Cast:
John Wayne
Thomas Mitchell
Barry Fitzgerald
Ian Hunter
John Qualen
Wilfrid Lawson
Ward Bond
Mildred Natwick
Arthur Shields
Joe Sawyer
Douglas Walton
Carmen Morales
Rafaela Ottiano
Constantine Romanoff
Lee Shumway
Billy Bevan
Jack Pennock
Rating: 7.0/10
本片本具有成為阿基爾、恐懼的代價等杰出影片的潛力,可惜在每個領(lǐng)域的執(zhí)行都粗糙、單薄,封閉環(huán)境和單調(diào)生活對人物內(nèi)心的影響完全沒拍出來,生硬的對白和不可信的角色被塞在老套的故事里,最終成就了這部平庸之作。
結(jié)局才是點睛之筆,它深化了這個看似平庸的故事,讓我突然明白,這些船上的水手生活其實多么像如今發(fā)生在北上廣等大城市那些打工人的故事——像歐利一樣的人來來回回往返于故土和夢想之間,像德里斯科一樣的人生生死死掙扎在生存和死亡的邊緣,而大部分人像那些船員一樣留下了他們帶著血淚的記憶,一直循環(huán)往復(fù)那些機械化日常,真的可以算是一則偉大的寓言
這一部總的來說還是很有感觸的,幾個個性鮮明的船員因為一只船走到一起,卻有著完全不同的結(jié)局,戰(zhàn)爭中的人們生死真的就在一線之間,這個看似喧囂的故事實際上卻悲涼無比,結(jié)局更是讓人顫抖,約翰福特將這樣一個故事拍成這樣真的非常厲害。不過本片劇情還是弱了一點,8分電影
約翰·福特真正塑造了現(xiàn)代的《奧德賽》,這是一部鮮明而堅韌的電影,刻畫人類為尋求和平而永無休止地在世間徘徊的故事,用現(xiàn)在的話說,他們也是一群出于各種原因在公海謀生的游牧民族。尤金·奧尼爾的原始劇本是在第一次世界大戰(zhàn)期間撰寫的,屬于他的早期劇本。然而,福特把背景放置在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)初期,電影評論家和學(xué)者注意到格雷格·托蘭德(Gregg Toland)獨特的攝影技術(shù),這是黑色電影美學(xué)的先驅(qū),并暗示了他為奧森·威爾斯的電影《公民凱恩》(1941)所做的工作。德勒茲認(rèn)為這部電影是小形式的杰作,飛機的攻擊只通過聲音和甲板上的影子/彈孔來表示,而海浪從船的艏樓涌來則釋放了大海的暴力。
21/8/19
奧斯卡6項提名影片,包括最佳影片,改編自尤金·奧尼爾的戲劇,約翰·韋恩和巴里·菲茨杰拉德主演??吹氖琴ICD送的DVD,一看是約翰·福特的作品,還是不好找的,果斷收了,不過居然沒中文字幕,這不科學(xué)。
結(jié)局也太悲慘了。這在國內(nèi)可能無法上映。
不得了不得了,分三天反復(fù)看才看完影片的四幕,拍慣了大場面的福特居然在各種小空間的調(diào)度也能把握的游刃有余。|影片以航海生活為背景,來煽起福特擅長的小人物詩歌與悲調(diào)。影片的攝影與造型是同樣出色的,歌舞戲、風(fēng)卷浪、無實物空襲頗為精彩?;蛟S因由潮濕的水汽,霧港,夜巷,高對比照明,影片同樣透出noir的視覺風(fēng)格(深焦的一種早期使用)。|似乎這是約翰·韋恩在福特系列中最慘的一個結(jié)局,依舊有著老白男冷冷的大叔幽默。2q
說福特二戰(zhàn)前的作品比二戰(zhàn)后溫和的肯定沒看過這一部,悲涼的幽默感。黃金時代的導(dǎo)演都想復(fù)刻奧德賽,只有福特抓住了二十世紀(jì)精神,而不是虛假空洞的黃金城美國夢,就在于福特擅長的群像,清晰地完成那套社會結(jié)構(gòu)論述。結(jié)尾對很多好萊塢影迷來說是當(dāng)頭潑下冷水,但我相信它是那個時代最佳電影結(jié)尾之一。浸在海里的報紙,易碎的主體性。攝影正是后一年《公民凱恩》的攝影格萊格托蘭德,肉眼可辨啊!
底層海員的悲苦、艱辛和危險,特別是最后被騙、被劫、被綁架……能感受到劇作的嚴(yán)整和力量。
福特是大形式大師,擅長使用綜合符號和二元結(jié)構(gòu),但他小形式的杰作也不少,主要使用線索,《the long voyage hone》屬于這種情況,飛機的攻擊只通過聲音來表現(xiàn),大海的憤怒由床前的甲板頭來表現(xiàn)。
三星半,盡管電影的影棚氣息極重,場景變換極少,依然透露著一種深邃的憂愁。很多偉大的思想往往都是最平凡的道理,這不是那些微信公眾號浮夸的文案所能夠帶來的,重劍無鋒,大巧不工。電影雖然拍攝于戰(zhàn)爭時期,講的也是二戰(zhàn),但是卻淡化了戰(zhàn)爭背景,而將鏡頭轉(zhuǎn)向每一個有著過往的小人物。像歐里一樣的人來來回回,如德里斯科一般的人生生死死“一個男人出航的時候,總要忘記他在陸地上的糾葛”
天涯路遠(yuǎn),歸路迢迢。人性各異,津筏為喻!
爛番茄上評價奇高
約翰·福特與約翰·韋恩的再一次合作,不同于其他作品上的風(fēng)格,這部電影似乎沒有太過明顯的主題與故事,幾個海上水手的生活與航行構(gòu)成了它的主線,背景很有意思,設(shè)置在“二戰(zhàn)”中為英國盟軍運輸戰(zhàn)略物資上。????電影之所以會如此“模糊”正與它拍攝于1940年有關(guān),那時的絕大部分電影都圍繞戰(zhàn)爭展開,多以鼓舞盟軍士氣的故事為主。在本片中,導(dǎo)演盡量弱化了戰(zhàn)爭的元素,也僅僅在開始和接近結(jié)尾處出現(xiàn)了炸藥和空襲。不可否認(rèn)的是,它依然是一部風(fēng)格明顯的作品,更多關(guān)注戰(zhàn)時平民們的生活和心理狀態(tài)。????約翰·韋恩則變得偏離以往的經(jīng)典形象,甚至看起來更顯年輕,戲份也不是很多,更多的鏡頭分配給了其他水手,可以說它描繪的是一幅眾生相。????????
這時的韋恩居然一臉稚嫩 完全沒有之后的老練成熟
沒有歸途
The lighting was revolutionary. Gregg Toland dared to use strong contrast. Fantastic.
海員群像。托蘭德。福特的被忽略的佳作
本著約翰福特這個導(dǎo)演去看,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)這個關(guān)于二戰(zhàn)背景的電影一點也不英雄。本著約翰韋恩的這個明星去看,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)電影里其他演員的演技遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過他。除了攝影以外,這是一部不像好萊塢的好萊塢電影。