苔丝1979

近幾年才接觸了波蘭斯基的舊作，看這部片時會一直讓我想到他十年前的《戰地琴人》，主要是女主角Nastassja Kinski在田裏辛苦勞動時，那一整片鏡頭下的景色，像是繪畫般地將十九世紀人們的身影定格，頗近似記憶中他為猶太人受難歷史定格的方式。雖然兩部片的情節都跟著一位主角的遭遇來進行，但感覺上並不是關於主角這個人，而是關於籠罩在他們身上的命運。

電影一開頭就以女主角一家血統的揭露為引子，引發了後續悲慘的命運。但這命運並不完全是外在力量的捉弄，更多是根源於角色的價值觀與信仰，但這些性格的本質也是整個社會宗教規範下所形成的。尤其男女主角一直執著在純潔與贖罪的心結上，即使最後兩人都受過苦而決定在一起，但宿命早已刻在他們的心中，談超越已經太遲。

從現代的眼光來看，男女主角一直做出錯誤的選擇或是太多無謂的堅持，這讓他們到最後做出不得不然無法回頭的決定。但在封閉的時空與心靈之下，他們或許並沒有其他的選擇，即使覺悟也總來得太晚。這電影就是看命運如何折磨人，以及更多的是人心如何折磨自已，而這一切都寫在血脈中，寫在人的本質裏。他們的受苦與掙扎在波蘭斯基疏離的鏡頭與美麗的攝影下顯得殘酷且動人，也和導演作品中一貫的世界觀相連。

无论如何，亚力克都是个好人。
他一开始就对这个来认亲的表妹，有一种格外的呵护：
给她摘草莓吃，给她戴上鲜花。

尽管他的长相不够善意。
但是如果一切美德都能靠长相判断，那么美德也太简单辨认了。

他让苔丝未婚先孕，他诚恳地向苔丝求婚。
尽管他的求婚在那个时代显得迟了。

但是在那种情况下，
他怎能不将自己俯身到底，俯身到爱呢：
夜晚柔和的月光，寂静的森林，各种虫类鸟类都愉快地睡着。
何况这之前的日子，他总在苔丝的附近将目光投向她？

当苔丝准备离开时，他赞美苔丝的美丽，觉得苔丝不应该留在闭塞的乡间。
当苔丝被克莱尔抛下时，他又千方百计的帮她，并娶了她。

然而女人的爱并不因为好而到来。
苔丝深爱着克莱尔。甚至克莱尔因为无法容忍她有未婚先孕的经历而抛下她时。她也爱着他,而无视亚力克在她身旁布满的善意。

的确，女人的爱并不因为好而到来，
但是，如果爱太远，她也是等不急的。

在长时间得不到克莱尔的回音后，苔丝和亚力克在一起了。
可是，一旦女人的爱到来了，她也就和爱在一起了：
她杀死了无辜的亚力克，
她和克莱尔过着逃亡生活。

当她在冰冷的岩石上睡着，
当警察在她周围等着逮捕她，
她已经爱过了。

Tess, the Victim of the Dark Age
Tess, the heroine, is depicted as a victim of the society. Being a beautiful, innocent, honest, and hard-working country girl, she is easily taken in and abused by the hypocritical bourgeoisie, constantly suppressed by the social conventions and moral values of the day, and eventually executed by the unfair legal system of the society. In my opinion, Tess’s tragedy reflects that the moral value and the society of the day is unfair. There is no equality between men and women.
The subtitle of the novel is ‘a pure woman’. That made a great dispute at that time. The criticles thought that Tess, who had lost chastity before marriage, is guilty and she is also a murderer that must be punished. They held that such a woman can’t be called pure woman. But in the point of today’s legal system of the society, Tess is innoncent. She’s a victim who has been seduced. She is the one who should be paid for.
Tess has a variety of merits. She is beautiful, but she never uses her beauty as a tool to exchange the things she needed. She has a noble pride, and is never feel shameful towards her poor family--‘Durbeyfield’. Even she scorn to recognize the wealthy fake relatives. She is responsible. When the family is too poor to keep the living, Tess become the bread winner of the whole family and do her best to support the family. She is sincere. She insists that she should follow her own feeling to marry a man she loves in deed. Why can’t we say such a woman is indeed ‘a pure woman’? The phrase‘A pure woman’ raise by the author just satirizes the unfair moral value and the veiw towards women’s virginity in the society at that time.
In the movie, there is an evil, Alec who is the direct trouble maker of Tess. He is thoroughly sensual, violent and headstrong, and determined on getting his own way at all costs. Tess’s resistance to the fulfillment of his desires is puny when compared to his cunning maneuvers and ultimately fails. I think that Alec never seeks Tess out as a loving, equal partner. He reveals his feelings of superiority initially on the ride in the Chase, when he exclaims, ‘what am I, to be repulsed so by a mere chit like you?’ Clearly he assumes a cultural right, by virtue of class and gender, to possess Tess’s body. Later, after he has proposed to Tess, he reveals his motive to be not love but a desire for power when he states, ‘I was your master once! I will be your master again.’ In a word, Alec is just the symbol of the society that uses his wealth and power to gain everything he wants and realizes all his desire.
Compared with Alec, I think Angel is more loathsome. Born to a life of the mind, Angel Clare values ‘intellectual liberty’ more than parental love. That he has reacted strongly against the heavily clerical family tradition by abandoning orthodox Christianity, and is opinionated of ‘the honor and glory of man.’
But all these advanced ideas can’t make Angel out of the earthly society. On their wedding night, Angel and Tess vow to tell one another their faults. Angel admits that he had a short affair with a stranger in London, while Tess admits about Alec D’Urbervile. After telling Angel her story, Tess begs for forgiveness as what she is done to Angel. But he claims that forgiveness is irrelevant, for she was one person and is now another woman in the same shape.
Angel’s reflection reveals that in the society of male chauvinism, men and women will never be treated equally. Men can indulge themselves without the condemnation of the morality, but women’s losing chastity is unendurable. Angel is the very hypocrite in the traditional moral society. His love to Tess is far away from the love Tess gives him. I think that Angel doesn’t really love Tess. He just loves her ‘purity’. The putity is the one in the unfair traditional moral value.
In fact, Tess herself also gets into the idea of the traditional society gradually. At first, when Tess leaves Alec and becomes pregnant, she see-saws between a tendency to be involved in disaster, and the human impulse to delight, which is very strong in her. With the harvest on in Marlott, the ‘spirit’ of life, of youth reasserts and overcoming her sense of mortification and shame through a long period of seclusion, she acquires courage to face life and to look ‘people calmly in the face’ even with her baby in her arms. The baptism and the burial of her infant ‘sorrow’ are symbolic of great moral strength and freedom of spirit that she can now display.
Then, when Tess falls in love with Angel. Her love to Angel makes her accept the value of the temporal society gradually. Love and responsibility are Tess’s leading characteristics. But still young and inexperienced, she idealizes Angel and accepts what he says and does without question. Tess is terror stricken and looks at herself as a guilty woman posing as an innocent one. Accepting Angel as the sole dispenser of her punishment, and abdicating all the rights of a married woman, she meekly submits to his plan of their separation.
Finally, Tess is taken up by the value in the society of male chauvinism, and becomes a really character of tragedy.
Tess’s fate is not only personal, but a social one. A woman with Tess’s experience is doomed to be a tragedy. The reason is that this is a society of male chauvinism. Even in today’s society, it is still unequal between men and women. Men are often given privilege in some occasions, such as interveiw and so on. Most of the rural families prefer having a boy rather than girl. The phenomenon that women are looked down by the society still exist. Women haven’t the same rights as much as men do. We cannot do anything about it.

看手！

公子羽

忘记在哪儿看的故事了，只记得这样一个片段——主人公看画的时候，他的父亲告诉他：“看画要注意看手，从画里的手，你能看到绘者的手”。

不知道这位父亲如果看电影的话会注意什么地方，我记得《苔丝》里有一场，也是关于手的戏，那是安杰尔和苔丝成婚的片段。阴差阳错，苔丝没能把她“失身”于亚历克的事告知安杰尔，因此主婚母狮询问他们是否愿意结为夫妻，如果不愿可即刻毁约。苔丝的内心显然极端紧张。可导演却没有让她表现得慌张盲目、举止失措。而是将镜头轻轻地给了苔丝的目光所及——那是一双拿着圣经正在微颤着的牧师的双手——牧师的手在微颤，显然是一种老年人的常见病。但在这里却恰到好处地折射了苔丝外表平静，心里紧绷的临界状态。

《苔丝》这个不动声色的细节，我觉得是波兰斯基电影语言最精辟的展示之一。或换做小说段落，肯定需要大量心理描写，而电影里一双颤抖的手却完全取得了此地无声胜有声的效果，也为苔丝的命运给出了势同危卵的暗示。波兰斯基的电影里似乎总有这样手的特写，夺得奥斯卡的《钢琴师》，海报上就是黑暗里一双倒悬的弹着钢琴的手，那是怎样苍白瘦削的手?血脉在薄薄的皮肤下若隐若现,细瘦的手指徐徐撩开黑白琴键尘封的旋律,它让人想到人的命运其实就是一个手势而已，张爱玲说那叫做“苍凉”，电影《角斗士》中古罗马的贵族则干脆一言不发，只用拇指的方向决定。

关于“手”，希区柯克在拍《美人计》中一段吻戏时给格兰特和英格丽.褒曼说戏，他讲了这么一个事情：“我在很多很多年前，从布隆搭火车到巴黎，那时路边有幢古老的红砖厂房，墙脚边，有一对少年男女，男孩正临墙撒尿，女孩则紧握他的手，不肯放开。她不时低头去看他，是不是尿完了，四处张望，然后又低头去看他。整个过程，她一直不松手，恋爱就要这样，绝对不能受到干扰，就算内急也不能例外。”——“一直不松手”这个场景的频频闪现，犹如希区柯克电影中一道道眼神。在1941年的《深闺疑云》中，有一段加里格兰特为妻子送牛奶的镜头。通过布光，手中的牛奶额外引人注目。端盘子的手似乎要把盘子捏碎一样，另一只手却始终放松地垂着，好像随时都可以用来谋杀。一紧一驰中，这个场景居然成为了经典。《迷魂记》一开始，我们就看到一根杆子，然后是一只手的出现。《精神病患者》中，盗取公款的女郎在浴池中试图阻挡利刃的手。以及旅馆主人母亲卧室中的雕像之手——希区柯克的电影对“手”有着异乎寻常的兴趣，手也就成了他电影里最重要的道具之一，每次出现都能很好地制造出疑云密布的效果，给人以紧张压抑的暗示。

经过大起大落的时代变革，“手”的痕迹毕竟还是擦不去的，它往往是一种意会，一种语言，乃至一种灵魂。手是人的第二面部，就像经济学家凯恩斯，一辈子最爱相手，看人不看别的，只看手！手！手！而演员的手，也是应该是会演戏的，比如《无间道》里，刘德华坐在轮椅上，手指轻轻地敲打着，似诉似泣。比如《色戒》中，易先生的手在处决王佳芝的文件上签下他的名字，颤颤地。就像周润发在《和平饭店》中面对群起的暴徒，像孤身做战的国王一样，甩着久未动过杀戒的手，骨节咔咔作响……听听大导演霍华德·霍克斯评价格兰特的演技，只轻轻说了一句“他脱衣服穿衣服就像谈情说爱一样抒情”。用“手”演戏，也体现了人类情感的变化曲线，在《情人》里，梁家辉坐在车里装作若无其事，渴望胆怯的手,却一点点向着那个少女的所在。《花样年华》中同样有这样的安排，回家的车里，梁朝伟试探着去捉张曼玉的手。似乎马上碰到，她的手却立刻敏感地轻轻抬起，然后迅即逃离……假如说过往的情怀更多是一种目光的触碰与用手来谈恋爱的话，现在这样的场景大概都已凋零到无迹可寻，或许没有其他原因，只因为节奏太慢罢，是以连古装片都要誓直接嘴对嘴地做干柴烈火般轰轰烈烈过瘾状了，和《小城之春》描绘的风貌一对比，怎能不让人失笑——安稳含蓄克制内敛的贵族爱情日渐败落，地位被肉欲横陈天旋地转的快餐式新恋爱取代。爱情那种弥足珍贵的节约气质，那种在空气里才有的心有灵犀，曾经这一点点遮遮掩掩的柏拉图场景，早已被扒得精光，如今完全滑落到了动辄赤膊上阵的“李逵”水准。

——不过，由此我倒得出一个结论，看一个导演的好与坏要看哪儿呢？答案是：看手！那么，看一个演员表演的好与坏要看哪儿呢？答案是：看手！