巴里

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/barry-lyndon-1975

Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon," received indifferently in 1975, has grown in stature in the years since and is now widely regarded as one of the master's best. It is certainly in every frame a Kubrick film: technically awesome, emotionally distant, remorseless in its doubt of human goodness. Based on a novel published in 1844, it takes a form common in the 19th century novel, following the life of the hero from birth to death. The novel by Thackeray, called the first novel without a hero, observes a man without morals, character or judgment, unrepentant, unredeemed. Born in Ireland in modest circumstances, he rises through two armies and the British aristocracy with cold calculation.

"Barry Lyndon" is aggressive in its cool detachment. It defies us to care, it asks us to remain only observers of its stately elegance. Many of its developments take place off-screen, the narrator informing us what's about to happen, and we learn long before the film ends that its hero is doomed. This news doesn't much depress us, because Kubrick has directed Ryan O'Neal in the title role as if he were a still life. It's difficult to imagine such tumultuous events whirling around such a passive character. He loses a fortune, a wife or a leg with as little emotion as he might in losing a dog. Only the death of his son devastates him and that perhaps because he sees himself in the boy.

The casting choice of O'Neal is bold. Not a particularly charismatic actor, he is ideal for the role. Consider Albert Finney in "Tom Jones," for example, bursting with vitality. Finney could not possibly have played Lyndon. O'Neal easily seems self-pitying, narcissistic, on the verge of tears. As one terrible event after another occurs to him, he projects an eerie calm. Nor do his triumphs -- in gambling, con games, a fortunate marriage and even acquiring a title -- seem to bring him much joy. He is a man to whom things happen.

The other characters seem cast primarily for their faces and their presence, certainly not for their personalities. Look at the curling sneer of the lips of Leonard Rossiter, as Captain Quin, who ends Barry's youthful affair with a cousin by an advantageous offer of marriage. Study the face of Marisa Berenson, as Lady Lyndon. Is there any passion in her marriage? She loves their son as Barry does, but that seems to be their only feeling in common. When the time comes for her to sign an annuity check for the man who nearly destroyed her family, her pen pauses momentarily, then smoothly advances.

The film has the arrogance of genius. Never mind its budget or the perfectionism in its 300-day shooting schedule. How many directors would have had Kubrick's confidence in taking this ultimately inconsequential story of a man's rise and fall, and realizing it in a style that dictates our attitude toward it? We don't simply see Kubrick's movie, we see it in the frame of mind he insists on -- unless we're so closed to the notion of directorial styles that the whole thing just seems like a beautiful extravagance (which it is). There is no other way to see Barry than the way Kubrick sees him.

Kubrick's work has a sense of detachment and bloodlessness. The most "human" character in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) is the computer, and "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) is disturbing specifically in its objectivity about violence. The title of "Clockwork," from Anthony Burgess' novel, illustrates Kubrick's attitude to his material. He likes to take organic subjects and disassemble them as if they were mechanical. It's not just that he wants to know what makes us tick; he wants to demonstrate that we do all tick. After "Spartacus" (1960), he never again created a major character driven by idealism or emotion.

The events in "Barry Lyndon" could furnish a swashbuckling romance. He falls into a foolish adolescent love, has to leave his home suddenly after a duel, enlists almost accidentally in the British army, fights in Europe, deserts from not one but two armies, falls in with unscrupulous companions, marries a woman of wealth and beauty, and then destroys himself because he lacks the character to survive.

But Kubrick examines Barry's life with microscopic clarity. He has the confidence of the great 19th century novelists, authors who stood above their material and accepted without question their right to manipulate and interpret it with omniscience. Kubrick has appropriated Thackeray's attitude -- or Trollope's or George Eliot's. There isn't Dickens' humor or relish of human character. Barry Lyndon, falling in and out of love and success, may see no pattern in his own affairs, but the artist sees one for him, one of consistent selfish opportunism.

Perhaps Kubrick's buried theme in "Barry Lyndon" is even similar to his outlook in "2001: A Space Odyssey." Both films are about organisms striving to endure and prevail -- and never mind the reason. The earlier film was about the human race itself; this one is about a depraved minor example of it. Barry journeys without plan, sees what he desires, tries to acquire it and perhaps succeeds because he plays roles so well without being remotely dedicated to them. He looks the part of a lover, a soldier, a husband. But there is no there there.

There's a sense in both this film and "2001" that a superior force hovers above these struggles and controls them. In "2001," it was a never-clarified form of higher intelligence. In "Barry Lyndon," it's Kubrick himself, standing aloof from the action by two distancing devices: the narrator (Michael Hordern), who deliberately destroys suspense and tension by informing us of all key developments in advance, and the photography, which is a succession of meticulously, almost coldly, composed set images. It's notable that three of the film's four Oscars were awarded for cinematography (John Alcott), art direction (Ken Adam) and costumes (Ulla-Britt Soderlund and Milena Canonero). The many landscapes are often filmed in long shots; the fields, hills and clouds could be from a landscape by Gainsborough. The interior compositions could be by Joshua Reynolds.

This must be one of the most beautiful films ever made, and yet the beauty isn't in the service of emotion. Against magnificent settings, the characters play at intrigues and scandals. They cheat at cards and marriage, they fight ridiculous duels. This is a film with a backdrop of the Seven Years' War that engulfed Europe, and it hardly seems to think the war worth noticing, except as a series of challenges posed for Barry Lyndon. By placing such small characters on such a big stage, by forcing our detachment from them, Kubrick supplies a philosophical position just as clearly as if he'd put speeches in his characters' mouths.

The images proceed in elegant stages through the events, often accompanied by the inexorable funereal progression of Handel's "Sarabande." For such an eventful life, there is no attempt to speed the events along. Kubrick told the critic Michel Ciment he used the narrator because the novel had too much incident even for a three-hour film, but there isn't the slightest sense he's condensing.

Some people find "Barry Lyndon" a fascinating, if cold, exercise in masterful filmmaking; others find it a terrific bore. I have little sympathy for the second opinion; how can anyone be bored by such an audacious film? "Barry Lyndon" isn't a great entertainment in the usual way, but it's a great example of directorial vision: Kubrick saying he's going to make this material function as an illustration of the way he sees the world.

10分

看的我真的好想哭！讲述了巴里·林登的一生，角度极其客观、冷静，“上述人物的悲欢，发生在乔治三世时期，不论好坏、美丑或贫富，现已平等归土。”好似黄粱一梦。无论命运如何无常，我们终究不能不屈就；无论人生如何荒诞，我们终究不能不经历。每个镜头截图，都是一幅油画。

"Good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now."

冷峻的黑底白字，观众接收长达近三个小时的《乱世儿女》后，最终得到导演库伯力克下的结语。

无论是贫是富、功过与否还是美丑，都将随着时代的推移，幻化成风，这些琐事都不再重要了。



人人谈起史丹利库伯力克（Stanley Kubrick，1928-1999）这位不愿与好莱坞妥协的鬼才导演，

大多数的影迷最先必定提起永恒的科幻经典《2001太空漫游》，惊悚类型翘楚《鬼店》，

或者是《奇爱博士》、《发条橘子》、《金甲部队》，还有「前」汤姆克鲁斯夫妇主演的《大开眼戒》等等。

奇怪的是，诞生于1975年的《乱世儿女》却时常被世人遗忘。


很难想像，库伯力克在完成惊世骇俗的《发条橘子》之后，居然转换路数，

耗费四年拍摄一部古色古香、美轮美奂的历史古装大戏，实让众人跌破眼镜。这充分证明库伯力克的才气和独到之处。

侯孝贤直说要有所突破，但仍显得力不从心；高达（Jean Luc-Godard）爷爷还是沉溺在他专属的影像探索，

作为一名电影导演，库伯力克不拘泥、依恋于同种题材，游走在各种类型电影之间，来去自如，每一部都有出乎意料的惊人表现；

同时他是个汲汲追求完美的导演，对于镜头与构图十分重视，也曾达到让演员take近百次的疯狂记录。

端看《乱世儿女》的精细雕琢程度，更可体会那种几近偏执狂的创作精神。



《乱世儿女》改篇自英国作家William Makepeace Thackeray发表于1844年的小说《The Luck of Barry Lyndon》。

故事背景设定在18世纪中叶的欧洲，英法两国七年战争正如火如荼展开，一位爱尔兰青年雷蒙巴瑞，

如何幸运地由无名小卒前往从军、晋身至英国上流社会，用手段获得爵位，和有财产、身份的林登夫人结婚，改名「巴瑞林登」；

最后却因耗尽钱财、负债累累，儿子布莱恩摔马身亡，遭林登夫人前夫之子－布林登的背叛，

最终身败名裂、黯然回乡，不知所终。



库伯力克以巨型的史诗篇幅，娓娓道来大时代之下的命运无常，对于人性亦有所深刻的描绘。

据传导演原先是打算拍萨克雷的另一名著《浮华世界》（Vanity Fair: A Novel without a Hero），

在搜集资料时，读到他这本当时默默无名的小说，结果爱不释手，决意要将它搬上大萤幕。

而他曾尝试筹拍《拿破仑传》时的服装与场景档案，也适时派上用场。

巴瑞林登的一生，因为库伯力克的坚持再度成为世人的焦点。

 

整部电影的结构分为两篇章节，一刀两断，标志的库氏印记。

每次必出现的旁白犹如台湾老戏院里头的辩士，

如神般的全知观点，平铺直叙、无音扬顿挫地侃侃而谈，不带感情，静待观众细细体会。

有人说，一部电影若用到大量旁白是下下之策；但是《乱世儿女》的旁白与影像是相辅相成、无法切割，缺一不可。

不知侯导的《戏梦人生》是否有受到影响，不过《戏梦》有李天禄现身说书，更增添与历史对话的魅力。



饰演巴瑞林登、因《爱的故事》走红的小生雷恩欧尼尔（Ryan O'Neal），没有库氏其他作品男主角的惊奇演技，

除了儿子小布莱恩丧命时的真情流露令人动容外，脸部神情略显呆板，容易使人过目即忘，怪不得会被称为最没有库氏风格的男主角。

林登夫人玛丽莎贝瑞森（Marisa Berenson），绝世美人一名，在悠悠烛光照映下，美艳动人；

里昂费塔利（Leon Vitali）演出布林登的青少年时期，也因为这部片的关系，日后他成为库柏力克的专属助理，直到导演过世为止。

整部片还有不少《发条橘子》的班底演员参与演出，有兴趣不妨看看能不能找出这些熟面孔。


 

《乱世儿女》摄影技术上的突破，就是使用光圈Ｆ0.7的蔡斯镜头（据称是太空总署NASA拍摄月球暗面用的，已不多见），

并使用感光度高的底片拍摄，连室内也采用自然光，华丽异常的烛光场景令人叹为观止。

每位演员彷佛真的成了十八世纪油画里的人物，动静得宜，绚烂如梦，

再搭配上库伯力克精心挑选的古典音乐，韩德尔、舒伯特、莫札特及巴赫创作的旋律悦耳动听，莫不使观者沉醉其中，难以忘怀。

如果能透过大萤幕观赏，想必是趟美好的时空旅行。


再来，不时穿插的远景空镜头，美丽如画的山水风景，爱尔兰的乡村田园风光，静谧清幽的落叶林道，优美迷人；

而后半段有更多色调冰冷的城堡室内戏，与前段有着鲜明的对比，故事也更为阴暗、沉重。

最让我惊艳的，便是整部片散发著亚洲电影特有的诗意：

抒情似地寄景于情，长镜头的运用，摄影机如名旁观者般观望着芸芸众生，冷静、客观；

以及电影结束时留给观众的「余韵」……这部电影都做了完美的诠释。

只是大量缓慢的zoom镜头看久会有点腻，也许是《发条橘子》的遗毒未尽吧！不过还是看得很过瘾！


《乱世儿女》甫推出时，声势极大，时代杂志还为之做了封面专题报导。而其极为杰出的美术、摄影，

双双获得了1976年的奥斯卡奖，库伯力克自己也获得最佳导演和最佳影片的提名；

只是这两个奖项依旧无缘，全都颁给了另一部也是好评不断、杰克尼可逊主演的《飞越杜鹃窝》。

一向看「戏」为主的美国影评们则对本片好恶参半，多数嫌之沉闷、冗长，市场上的票房反应也不如预期。

尽管欧洲艺术圈给予热烈回响，但对这对这位美国出生、长居英国的电影导演是个不小的打击，

间接影响了他后来的创作走向－－挑选能在商业和艺术间取得平衡的题材，造就日后的《鬼店》、《金甲部队》，跟观众更靠近了。



事隔多年，回头来看《乱世儿女》，仍不嫌过时；

马丁史柯西斯对本片的艺术成就赞誉有佳，雷利史考特一鸣惊人的处女作《决斗的人》风格上深受影响。

巴瑞林登的传奇早已随时间洪流淡去，但这部库氏作品仍将持续影响后进电影人，

更多人会知道，我们曾经拥有过一位厉害的导演，曾经拍出过许多如此精采的电影－－

别忽略还有这部美到令人屏息的《乱世儿女》。

======

在看这部电影之前，先请教各位一个问题：那就是：谁有f0.7的镜头？即使是在工业发达的21世纪，这样的东西恐怕也无处寻觅吧。或许，全世界只有一块f0.7镜头──就是导演库布里克拍摄这部《乱世儿女》所用的那一块。

这块珍贵的镜头，据说是蔡司为美国航空航天局定制的产品，不知为什么流落到了库布里克手中。他将这块镜头稍加改装后，安装到了摄象机上。f0.7的巨大透光量，使得他在拍摄室内景物时可以完全使用烛光照明，而没有任何其它的人造光源。

有了这样的拍摄利器，这部电影无论是野外风景还是室内空间，构图用光都极其用心，就像是一幅幅流动的精美油画，随便拉出一幅，都能挂到墙上。但是值得注意的是，影片有意识的采用大量的“中心构图”，尤其在室内场景中，总是用柱子、门窗、桌椅等物品标明画面的中心点，而那里也正是即将展开的场景的中心，是摄影机想要引导观众关注的中心。从视觉心理上来说，只有在对称发生偏转或变动时，才会有活跃动态的感觉，这种静止镜头中的标准对称，只能产生沉闷的心理的感受。而这也正是库布里克想要传达的：一个死气沉沉的社会，等级森严，无所事事。

这部电影讲述的是18世纪的欧洲，当时英普同盟和法奥俄同盟正打得不可开交。一文不名的爱尔兰无赖、穷小子Barry，由于机缘巧合，结识了一个富有的寡妇，并藉此挤入了上流社会。但他为了追求贵族爵位而和勋爵决斗，最后被驱逐出英国。或许这部电影该译作《欧洲版鹿鼎记》更合适。

在这部电影中，主角Barry Lyndon的扮演者Ryan O'Neal很好的把握了小无赖自由自在，毫无道德压力的心情。他本人和这部电影也获得了最佳电影艺术学员奖，最佳艺术导演奖，不列颠最佳电影奖等一系列奖项。在这部超过3个小时的电影中，至少有二三十处值得记录为静态画面的场景。当然，如果你没有以上所说的f0.7镜头，还是试着打几快反光板吧。毕竟，f0.7听上去比神话还遥远。

       整整一周，我把自己封闭在巴黎电影资料馆的小隔间里，几乎看了库布里克所有的电影，也看了几部jean cocteau和帕索里尼的。在看完《巴里 林登》之后，我决定写点什么。
       最初选择看库布里克的电影，是为了逃离古典主义。我从中学时代起就无比迷恋的古典主义(其中当然也包括中国的古典文化)，在我来到欧洲一年之后，渐渐让我感到疲倦。也许是更多的接触和了解，让我看到古典主义并不比现代主义更加的人性化。
       再回到这部电影，它想告诉我们什么呢？
       许多人就库布里克在场景，服饰上的追求极致大加赞扬，也有说这是疯子的做法。电影中油画一般华美典雅的画面，确实是电影的一大亮点。我想说的是，在欧洲用18世纪的城堡和服饰来还原历史场景到电影中，是值得称赞的认真态度，但并不是像大多数人想象的那么困难。欧洲人把这些珍贵文化保护的很好，在这里可以经常听到有人说“这座建筑不是很古老，也就19世纪的”。在我看来导演这样做并不仅仅是还原真实，而是用另一种方式再现那些博物馆里陈列着的精美油画，他想告诉我们，那些精美华丽背后真实的人生与命运。
       电影最想告诉我们的当然还是人性，让人唏嘘感叹又无奈的人性。电影里让我印象很深的一个场景是巴里顺利地利用妻子的贵族身份获得显赫地位之后，坐在一辆马车里，在她旁边肆意地抽着烟，听到她的制止，他不屑地看了她一眼，把嘴里的烟吹在她脸上。另一个是和继子伯灵顿决斗的时候，巴里心生善念，一枪打在了地上，后来镜头转向伯灵顿的脸，他先是发现自己没有死之后松了一口气，接着他意识到他有了开枪的机会，有了结束自己从童年就开始的噩梦般的人生的机会，也有了把这个出身低下，不择手段跻身上流社会的爱尔兰人踢出局的机会，于是他做出了决定，这个决定很坚决，但是并不十分容易，因为他知道自己很不光彩。这里让人感慨的除了伯灵顿对巴里深深的仇恨，还有他的蔑视，那也是整个阶层整个时代对出身卑微者的蔑视，正是这种蔑视决定了巴里凄凉的晚年，也正是这种蔑视决定了《红与黑》里面于连的死。巴里婚后的为所欲为和他母亲的飞扬跋扈，也和自身被人看不起有关系。伯灵顿这个人物就像是阶级观念的化身，在那个时代，他是比巴里更为强大的。
       我记得有一句话说“李白难为杜甫之沉郁，杜甫难为李白之飘逸”，曾经觉得很有道理。但当我们看到库布里克这个绝顶天才可以把科幻片，剧情片，恐怖片，战争片，悬念片，甚至古装片都能拍到极致，不能不感概，一切条条框框，不过是人为设定的。这也是这部电影想要告诉我们的吧？
       库布里克的电影最让我惊为天人的地方还不是这些。十八岁第一次知道这个导演的时候，并不敢看他的电影，因为那些直击灵魂深处的深刻让我生理到心理都非常不适。如果你很认真地看了库布里克的电影，你应该知道我说的是什么。我甚至想不到太合适的语言来形容存在于他电影里的让人极度震惊不安的东西。我可以举个例子：比如《发条橙》里面开头牛奶吧镜头的拉伸和重音鼓，比如《紧闭双眼》里神秘派对上宗教祭祀般的仪式和钢琴最边缘音部的配乐，还有《洛丽塔》里面一开头就被杀死的剧作家这个角色的存在，还有《2001太空漫游》里的黑色石板。我觉得这些东西才是库布里克真正区别于其他大师级导演的地方。
       时隔八年，终于可以以成熟的心智看他的电影，而不至于变成精神分裂。这跟个人成长和环境都有或多或少的关系吧。虽然法国人有很多地方让我非常厌烦，但是对于艺术格外尊重的态度，在任何其他国家都是少见的。
       电影资料馆的学习还在继续，库布里克的电影也没有全部看完。这是第一次写出对库布里克电影的理解，期待自己很快能有新的还者更深的理解。豆瓣让我学到很多东西，在这里写出此文，期待比我更懂电影的人能多多指点。