色彩

HD中字

主演:哈里·贾维斯,Makir Ahmed,乔治·索纳,Connor Catchpole,Billy Dumore,Katie Lambert,Lauren Tetteh,Conor Mannion,贾斯珀·莱文,Jack Smith,Frankie Clarence,Amin Ali,Nicholas Bejamin,Robert Poole,Daniel Homes,Juan Duenas,Salem Khazali,Kane Lincoln,哈里森·奥斯特菲尔德 Harrison Osterfield

类型:电影地区:英国语言:英语年份:2015

 量子

缺集或无法播,更换其他线路.

 无尽

缺集或无法播,更换其他线路.

 非凡

缺集或无法播,更换其他线路.

 剧照

色彩 剧照 NO.1色彩 剧照 NO.2色彩 剧照 NO.3色彩 剧照 NO.4色彩 剧照 NO.5色彩 剧照 NO.6色彩 剧照 NO.13色彩 剧照 NO.14色彩 剧照 NO.15色彩 剧照 NO.16色彩 剧照 NO.17色彩 剧照 NO.18色彩 剧照 NO.19色彩 剧照 NO.20

 长篇影评

 1 ) 对有些人来说也是梦魇

电影放到三分之二,我睡着了,以致不得不深夜把它从头至尾再看一遍。

这是值得的。这里头全是人生里讲不完的废话,而且它真的就敢用这样一种貌似无聊的宣教的方式讲了出来。也许为了老少咸宜,或者就干脆就是出于编织一个诡计的需要,它赋予自己以最绚烂的形式。但它仍然是一个诡计,对某些人而言,甚至是梦魇。

故事的结构,如同博尔赫斯著名的短篇《环形废墟》。博尔赫斯写道,一位逃亡的魔法师来到了一座庙宇的环行废墟中,他生存的意义就是做梦,为了在梦中塑造一个到达真实世界的“人”,一个将经历与他一样宿命的的幻影。唯一知道这塑造出来的人其实是幻影的,是世界上的火。某天,环行废墟再次遭到火焚。当魔法师走向大火时,火焰非但没有吞噬他的皮肉,反而抚慰他,于是,“他宽慰地,惭愧地,害怕地知道他也是一个幻影,另一个人梦中的幻影。”

《半梦半醒的人生》这部电影,说的则是一个稀里糊涂的年轻男子,在没完没了、如套盒般一个包容一个的梦中,与这样那样的人展开关于人生的哲学、生物学、政治学、符号学之类的探讨,间或参杂某囚徒在狱中的凶狠诅咒、某自杀者在街头的自焚、几男子在加油站中所遇怪事,以及一些童年印象的逝影倏忽,如此整整100分钟。这男子发觉自己无论如何都走不出这个梦魇。他迫切地想要醒来,可是,每次他都是那个无法控制电灯的开关的人——梦中遭遇的一个人物曾告诉他,要知道自己是不是在梦境中,只要看看是不是能够调整房间里的光源就可以了。我们这位可怜的梦境穿梭者,根本找不到梦的源头——也就是所谓现实中的那个他,于是只好倾听各色人等在他的梦里面,无穷尽和他谈论人生如梦的大道理。

确实是足够黑色幽默。这电影耍的是一个机智的阴谋。如果你还记得《爱在黎明破晓时》和《爱在日落余晖时》,你就会明白这是同一个导演(RICHARD LINKLATER)的惯用路数。在那被人戏称为“侃大山电影之最”的两部曲中,RICHARD LINKLATER让一对俊男美女在维也纳和巴黎的街道和河岸走来走去,相互诉说彼此对于人性、政治、文学、自我的感悟,用一种略带惆怅和忧伤的方式说尽了青春的梦想和中年的彷徨。现在,导演自己破了自己的纪录。他在一部以真人表演为水彩创作素材的动画片里到达了侃大山电影的最高境界,那就是:里头所有的人物都在没完没了地演说,连一个出租汽车司机都可以面对镜头大谈特谈自由的意义。

显然,100分钟的时间里,除了被前所未有的视觉效果震撼,你还必须经历一场脑力激荡。整个过程中,不要试图抓住每个善辩的人物的话语意义,因为你终究会发现,你根本就不可能对其中涉及的话题进行归纳和总结。他们似乎说了许多,说得足够深度足够真诚,然而他们又什么都没有说——梦境穿梭者在每一场深奥的言说中离开,发觉自己还是陷在另一场梦中;用脑过度的观众最后只能记住那个在梦里欲罢不能的倒霉蛋。

《半梦半醒的人生》以轻微的悲观主义色彩,展现了关于人之解释、人生之解释的无穷尽性。太多的意义被赋予到一场梦境的追溯中,最后却用以证明梦境的虚幻。看这样的电影是一个翻开心胸享受思维快乐的过程,但愿它不会为你带来痛苦。

PS.《爱在日落余晖时》的悬案在《半梦半醒的人生》中终于得到了解答。Jesse和Céline究竟上了床没有?上了,而且在床上还继续着他们机智的讨论。对于《爱在日落余晖时》的影迷来说,这是一个重大的消息,呵呵。

 2 ) Life is not a dream, be aware, be aware, and be aware.

在豆瓣上溜达一圈,觉得应该有人好好说的说的本片,无奈只能由我这个懒人暂且充当一下这个角色了,咳咳。【欢迎潜下去的比我还懒的人来批评指导扔板砖】

这部电影一下抓住了我,我承认,是有很多主观色彩在里面的,对梦的研究,量子物理,自由论,关于生活,存在,还有人与人的交流方式,都是我非常感兴趣也是一直在关注的问题。所以看到这部电影真的非常想跪在地上,捧着盘,仰头45度,瀑布泪,还要在脑袋顶上打个光的。

所以与其说这是一部电影,更像是一种交流,像涉及语言起源话题的那个女的说的那样,人类有各种各样的交流模式,而这部电影就是其中之一,是导演在世纪交界之处希望传到一个强有力的信号,而如果你能接受到信号的话,就不会觉得这是满头雾水的对白了,而是,你也是对话之中积极的参与者。

首先,关于梦。

一段时间,我总是再做同一个梦,梦见自己在飞,我可以控制气流,轻轻向下踩一下,就会上升,可以控制高度,控制速度,控制降落,一切,就像真的在飞一样。 一直对佛洛依德梦的解释很感兴趣,得知这叫醒梦,也就是电影里多次提到的lucid dream,这是梦一种比较高级的状态,在这种梦的状态之中,梦者是对自己的梦有掌控能力的,可以思考,可以判断,可以行动,并不一定是飞翔,飞翔是一种少有的状态,可以仅仅就像是电影里那样就是进入一个又一个日常生活的情节之中,但是对自己的梦有部分掌控能力,并且这种能力可以主观上得以训练,控制梦的能力也就更强,我一直在对自己做这些有趣实验,也确实有不少收获。

而关于梦与现实,一直以来都是一个很有意思的话题。我们是在梦中还是在现实中,怎样才能确定我们不是从一个梦中醒来,却进入了另一个梦中,怎样才能区分梦境与现实?这个话题又可以被我非常主观的解释为——怎样才能有真正的存在感? 我看过两个对这个话题最有意思的探讨;一个是米兰昆德拉,他既提出了问题,也解决了问题,提问和答案还都是一样的,那就是——生活,永远在别处。另外一个就是这部电影啦,很巧妙的是,导演的提问和回答也都在题目里了,那就是Waking Life.

但其实这部电影的剧情不仅仅是一个个梦那么简单,若是真的要很客观的从电影内部的心理学角度来分析的话,我偏向于整部电影都是男主角死亡之前的思想停留,跟stay的剧情框架是一致的。关于人死前的的意识存在的问题,片中也有简短介绍,简单说来就是当人的机体已经死亡之后,大脑还会有5分钟左右的生存时间,而这短短的几分钟,在思维的过程中可以是几个月,甚至几年的时间线,而大脑这段时间的运作其实于梦非常类似,都是潜意识的记忆空间的思维活动,能够反映出最基本的心理和渴望。

本片也正是如此,其中几处暗示有,1.电影刚开始男主角搭车后被撞,2.Jesse 和Céline在床上讨论人死前的意识停留,以及3.最后男主角发现自己无法从一个有一个梦中醒来,推断自己可能已经死了。这些都应合理的推理为,(加上我的部分主观推测),男主角车祸身亡,但是由于他壮年夭折,对生活抱有诸多疑问亟待解决,(好吧,这两句是搞笑用的)所以潜意识里渴望能够得到一个答案,于是在幻觉世界里产生了大量此类话题的对白,其中夹杂着一些生前的记忆碎片,和临死一瞬间的回忆。

在对具体内容展开之前,我想先提醒大家,有没有注意到不知道在电影哪分钟里男主角的一句台词,(好吧,我是非常不负责任的影评者,大概是跟那个地下道里遇见的女人的对话里),他说,他进入了很多对话之中,这些对话似乎都是在讨论一个主题。。。

当当当当~一个华丽的切入点。

所有这些不同的话题,你说他涉及了物理学也好,生物进化学也好,哲学,心理学,甚至法学,政治,民主,自由,等等似乎触类旁通,但其实仅仅是一个话题,导演只想跟我们说明一件事情,但这件事情之所以导演没有那么直白的用语言的形式明确表达出来,而仅仅是暗示,是因为,对于不同观影主题来说,会有不同的理解与看法,而仅仅明确提出这个主题,就会把这个主题的范围大大狭隘化了。(貌似我现在就在大大狭隘这个主体,呃。。。)

如果让我总结的话,我会说,整个话题都是关于Life的,(我无法直接翻译这个词,因为译成,生命,生活,生存都不够妥当)也就是电影名字的后半部分。(关于前半部分,我会稍后说明)

如果要剖析每一段对话的话,这个影评就会有一个很难看的长度了,(这是我非常不希望发生的)因为导演在这么一部短短的电影中想表达的东西太多了,所以我就抓我认为的重点来说了。

整个电影最核心的一个人物,是在大桥上高呼:Life is not a dream! be aware, and be aware,and be aware! 的那位仁兄,并且据推断这个人物的形象很有可能就是导演本身。 其中关于认知和life他说,他并不完全赞同某某的观点(原谅我忘记那哥们叫什么了,并且很无知的不知道他是谁),而说,Life understood is life lived.(这也就正是本片的一个中心思想吧,啊,回到小学语文课的感觉真好啊)。

无论拥有怎样的人生,混混沌沌都是可耻的,就算是在清醒的”现实“状态之中,毫无知觉的渡日,如在半睡半醒之中,(所谓waking,电影名字的前半部分) 那又与真正睡梦相差几何呢?但是这世界上有多少人是在这种所谓的半梦半醒的状态之中的呢?

如果真的要去计数的话,得到的只可能是一个残酷的数字。地铁上多少面无表情的朝九晚五上班族,多少自觉欣慰穿着“白领”奔波的灵魂,早已忘了自己年轻时的初衷与梦想,多少大学校园里荒废时光的“新世纪接班人”。还有多少高考考场里渴望着自己理想的院校的孩子。等等,你以为这就是有目的,有意识的行为么?

哦,不, 我们早就在社会中被摆弄了。整体的社会价值观就是,一个孩子,应该接受教育,应该在学校取得好的成绩,应该上一个一说名字大家都能知道的大学,应该在大学毕业之后找到一份收入可观的工作,等等等等。

虽然不可否认这可以是一种正确的人生轨迹,但是我们的人生,还是我们清醒的状态下(非梦的状态下)的选择么?这是我们的自由意志么?我们有选择的权利和自由么?还是这是我们从小就被社会灌输的一种所谓正确的生活观?或者说是在潜在的社会观念下的束缚下的非自由状态?

这就应了电影里另一位仁兄,谈及自由问题的时候问道:有没有真正的自由可言? 连我们的思考都是在尊崇所有人一致的思考程序,无非不是大脑中几个电流蹦出的火花,那我们又怎样才能摆脱这些本身就赋予在我们身上的枷锁,获得真正的自由呢?

当然这种绝对的消极主义是不可取的,谁都知道大家微观的思维过程是一致的,但是主观意识却占有更主要的比重。毕竟苹果砸在有的人的脑袋上,能够发现万有引力,砸在我的脑袋上就肯定不行。毕竟有的人脑袋里就能突然显现出E=mc^2,在有的人脑袋里就只能是狭隘的金钱占有欲,嫉妒,贪婪与懒惰。

但是过分乐观也是不可取的,这种潜在的社会枷锁在一定程度上虽然束缚了自由意志,但却不能否认的保障了一定的社会秩序。换句话说,在现在的这个时代,这种有点扭曲有点病态的社会状态还是可以被接受的,借用马克思的话就是:还迎合现在所谓的生产力。只是有一部分人会在这样的生活状态中感到极端的孤独,有的人会觉得矛盾,有的人会与整个社会格格不入,但是随着时间消逝,这一部分人中又有一部分人学会了接受和迎合,慢慢走近了社会的大圈子里,真正的问题仅存在于少数自以为文艺的青年中。

这部分人活在未来的时代当中,就像梵高毕加索不能被自己的年代赏识,就像艾米丽狄耿森的诗在自己的时代活不下去,就像一直在黑暗中踽踽独行的鲁迅,把时间狠狠往前推,就像公元前就在渴望理想国的柏拉图,像渴望完美仁君的孔孟,还有完全脱世的老庄。

在自己的年代中,都是那样的格格不入。

是时代的问题,不久的将来或是很久之后的将来,当这种问题变成社会普遍问题的时候,就意味着,革命又将到来。你可以说我像尼采一样唯心,一样疯狂,但是这种你认为可取也可以认为不可取的意识本身的价值是不可估量的。

最后再回到电影当中,再回到梦的话题上来。

我也想站在桥上高喊:Life is not a dream, be aware, be aware, and be aware! 也许鲁迅也好,导演也好,我也好,都仅仅是想站起来,高声吼一下,就算能够唤醒一个“半睡半醒”中的人也好啊。

其实无论是昆德拉也好,本片导演也好,答案都是一样的—— 真正重要的不是区分到底是在睡梦中还是清醒着,重要的是能够自由思考,确定自己认为有价值有意义的事情,为之追求,不被周围意志所动摇,并且能够时刻清晰的意识到自己的行为还在自己原始的轨道上。这样,就算现在所经历的状态仅仅是一个梦,也不枉此行了。

Life understood is life lived! 我再加上一句,让它逻辑上更完整,Dream understood is dream dreamed!

PS 电影还有一个很厉害的地方就是,对白那么多!!!开头30分钟,男主角基本上没说过话。。。。。

 3 ) 离开把手,我就会飘起来

       有些道理就是很难传播——因为人们只传递自己认同的东西。有些道理就是不大可能被大多数人认同,于是,即便它再有道理,再怎么有用,也不是很容易传播。
       所以这个电影也被埋没,因为它涉及的观点太多太泛乱,每个人滔滔不绝,像拿着一大桶水对着男主角泼洒着他们的论点,但论据却很少,这样的谈话很难让局外的人产生认同感。大多数人只不过看着整部电影里多数是不太感兴趣的对白,看完就完全忘记,继续他们半梦半醒的人生。
       但是抛开观点不算,电影的表现手法真的打动了我。导演的这个想法是开创性的,真希望会有新的作品能向这个电影致敬,这个手法真的值得再用。

 4 ) 为什么有人会认为烧脑

不管打高分低分,是不是想太多了?
神作的道理就在
你飘飘荡荡跟着它走
智商才变高
老想着判断它、描述它、概括它、类比它
就把自己想成白痴了

很佩服那些看睡了然后醒了起来重看还能写一堆的观众
真有专业精神
但很怀疑他们写下的与这部片有什么关系
他们写下的
很适合用来描述
采用同样素材
却拍得水平远逊的影片

如有些观众质疑的:
如果能够这么打碎了来说
就没必要拍成一部片了

神就神在它是一部片
有没有想过:是什么把这些东西黏在一起?

 5 ) 半梦半醒

不好意思,我看本片的时候也半梦半醒……大量的对白,恍惚又不太连续的画面……当然,和看片时的精神状态可能也有关。并不是说影片不好看,至少不是不好。只不过确实有点催眠的效果……很切合影片主题……
我想先说一下它的动画效果(是的,这是一部动画片)。第一眼觉得,哇靠这画得真像啊。然后我马上就警觉了,这不能吧,肯定是拍真人再去做效果的吧。但是它又时不时加进一些变形、迷幻等效果。于是我一直关注着画面,直到July Delpy(“Celine”)和Ethan Hawke(“Jesse”)出现,发现了脸熟的——这也“画”得太像了,一定是真人拍的……
然后我又重新将时间轴拉回前面,关注对白内容。
插说一下,“Celilne”和“Jesse”是来自《Before Sunrise》和《Before Sunset》的角色——严格地说,拍本片时还没有《Before Sunset》——但是情景上似乎在其后,因为此二人上床了,醒来依然在继续着不休而无甚边际的对白。
(少量截图见http://www.douban.com/photos/album/14766171/。)
“人的肉体死去6到12分钟内,大脑仍在活动。而梦境意识下的时间比醒时几乎长无限多。”
“我醒来,10:12。又睡。做了一个长长的复杂的貌似好几小时的梦。然后再次醒来,发现才10:13。”
“就是如此。所以6到12分钟的大脑活动,简直可以就是你的一生了。”
……
“过去40年间,全球人口翻了一倍,如果你真的相信自负的灵魂永恒论,那你的灵魂也不过50%的几率超过40岁。如果要达到150岁,那就只有1/6。”
“你想说啥?轮回不存在?还是我们都是帮年轻的灵魂?或者我们中有一半是轮头一回的人类?”
……
说到我将时间轴重新拉回前面。这片本身对话就多,又深奥、有时晦涩,一不留神顾着看画面,你就根本不理解它在讲什么。原来就不大好懂的影片……
我不大肯定我明白了它想表达的东西。但是很多地方的谈话确实很有意思。主要好几段关于梦境和现实的,正如同前面提到的,这是本片的主题。这种既像实拍又是动画的画面风格本身就是表现梦境的上佳手法,看起来不是真的,又绝对像真的……
片中主角不断地醒来,又不断地发现其实还在梦中。这样的情节乍一听挺恐怖的,但影片中并非如此,而是有趣有深意得多。尤其结合若干段对话中关于梦的阐述,你对这一次又一次的“假醒”会有自己的猜想和看法。片名《Waking Life》也很值得思考。
http://syc0129.blogbus.com/logs/36883702.html

 6 ) 整理(未完待续)

船车司机

So what do you think of my little vessel?

She's what we call "see-worthy." S-E-E. See with your eyes

I feel like my transport should be an extension of my personality.

Voila. And this? This is like my little window to the world, and every minute, it's a different show.

Now, I may not understand it. I may not even necessarily agree with it.

But I'll tell you what, I accept it and just sort of glide along. You want to keep things on an even keel I guess is what I'm saying. You want to go with the flow. The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. Saves on introductions and good-byes. The ride does not require an explanation. Just occupants. That's where you guys come in. It's like you come onto this planet with a crayon box.

Now, you may get the 8 pack, you may get the 16 pack. But it's all in what you do with the crayons,the colors that you're given. Don't worry about drawing within the lines or coloring outside the lines.

I say color outside the lines. Color right off the page. Don't box me in. We're in motion to the ocean. We are not landlocked, I'll tell ya that.

存在主义

The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I 'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, the sense of taking responsibility for who you are,the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair. But I think the truth is just the opposite.

Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life.

But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create. I've read the post modernists with some interest, even admiration.

But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction or as a confluence of forces or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility,he's not talking about something abstract.

He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking. Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences. It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting. Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms. Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example.

In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as the victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are.

语言、感受与精神交流

Creation seems to come out of imperfection. It seems to come out of a striving and a frustration. And this is where I think language came from. I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation and have some sort of connection with one another. And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival. Like, you know, "water." We came up with a sound for that. Or, "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came up with a sound for that. But when it gets really interesting, I think,is when we use that same system of symbols to communicate all the abstract and intangible things that we're experiencing. What is, like, frustration? Or what is anger or love? When I say "love,"the sound comes out of my mouth and it hits the other person's ear, travels through this Byzantine conduit in their brain,you know, through their memories of love or lack of love,and they register what I'm saying and say yes, they understand. But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert. They're just symbols. They're dead, you know? And so much of our experience is intangible. So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable. And yet, you know, when we communicate with one another, and we feel that we have connected,and we think that we're understood, I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion.

And that feeling might be transient, but I think it's what we live for.

进化

If we are looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism and then at the development of its interaction with the environment. Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life perceived through the hominid coming to the evolution of mankind. Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon man. Now, interestingly, what you are looking at here are three strings: biological, anthropological, development of the cities, cultures and cultural, which is human expression. Now, what you are seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time scales that's involved here two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it, you're beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm. And then when you get to agricultural, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you're looking at 10,000 years, 400 years, 150 years. You're seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time. What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it's gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself within our lifetime, within this generation. The new evolution stems from information, and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog.

The digital is artificial intelligence.

The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism. And you knit the two together with neurobiology. Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping. Okay, independent from the external. And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and the desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that's only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle, because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until you reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual,the multiplication of individual existences.

Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space. And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution, manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive. That's the interesting part. The old evolution is cold. It's sterile. It's efficient, okay? And its manifestations are those social adaptations. You're talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay? Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis. These would be subject to de-evolution. The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty, of justice, of freedom. These will be the manifestations of the new evolution. That is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice.

自燃者

A self-destructive man feels completely alienated, utterly alone. He's an outsider to the human community. He thinks to himself, "I must be insane." What he fails to realize is that society has, just as he does, a vested interest in considerable losses and catastrophes. These wars, famines, floods and quakes meet well-defined needs. Man wants chaos. In fact, he's gotta have it. Depression, strife, riots, murder, all this dread. We're irresistibly drawn to that almost orgiastic state created out of death and destruction. It's in all of us. We revel in it. Sure, the media tries to put a sad face on these things, painting them up as great human tragedies. But we all know the function of the media has never been to eliminate the evils of the world, no. Their job is to persuade us to accept those evils and get used to living with them. The powers that be want us to be passive observers. Hey, you got a match? And they haven't given us any other options outside the occasional, purely symbolic, participatory act of voting. You want the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left? I feel that the time has come to project my own inadequacies and dissatisfactions into the sociopolitical and scientific schemes.

Let my own lack of a voice be heard.

死后的6-12min

I keep thinking about something you said. - Something I said?

- Yeah. About how you often feel like you're observing your life from the perspective of an old woman about to die. - You remember that?

- Yeah. I still feel that way sometimes. Like I'm looking back on my life. Like my waking life is her memories.

Exactly. I heard that Tim Leary said as he was dying that he was looking forward to the moment when his body was dead, but his brain was still alive. They say that there's still 6 to 12 minutes of brain activity after everything is shut down. And a second of dream consciousness, right, well, that's infinitely longer than a waking second. - You know what I'm saying?

- Oh, yeah, definitely. For example, I wake up and it's 10:12, and then I go back to sleep and I have those long, intricate, beautiful dreams that seem to last for hours, and then I wake up and it's 10:13. Exactly. So then 6 to 1 2 minutes of brain activity,I mean, that could be your whole life. I mean, you are that woman looking back over everything. Okay, so what if I am? Then what would you be in all that? Whatever I am right now. I mean, yeah, maybe I only exist in your mind. I'm still just as real as anything else. Yeah.

灵魂转世

- I've been thinking also about something you said.

- What's that?

Just about reincarnation and where all the new souls come from over time. Everybody always say that they've been the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Alexander the Great.

I always want to tell them they were probably some dumb fuck like everybody else. I mean, it's impossible. Think about it. The world population has doubled in the past 40 years, right? - So if you really believe in that ego thing of one eternal soul, then you only have a 50% chance of your soul being over 40. And for it to be over 150 years old, then it's only one out of six. So what are you saying then? Reincarnation doesn't exist or that we're all young souls like where half of us are first-round humans? No, no. What I'm trying to say is that somehow I believe reincarnation is just a poetic expression of what collective memory really is. There was this article by this biochemist that I read not long ago, and he was talking about how when a member of a species is born, it has a billion years of memory to draw on. And this is where we inherit our instincts. I like that. It's like there's, um, this whole telepathic thing going on that we are all a part of, whether we are conscious of it or not.

That would explain why there's all these, you know, seemingly spontaneous, worldwide, innovative leaps in science, in the arts.

You know, like the same results poppin' up everywhere independent of each other. Some guy on a computer, he figures something out, and then almost simultaneously, a bunch of other people all over the world figure out the same thing.

They did this study. They isolated a group of people over time, and they monitored their abilities at crossword puzzles in relation to the general population. And then they secretly gave them a day-old crossword, one that had already been answered by thousands of other people. Their scores went up dramatically, like 20 percent. So it's like once the answers are out there, you know, people can pick up on them. It's like we're all telepathically sharing our experiences.

囚犯

I'll get you motherfuckers if it's the last thing I do.

Oh, you're gonna pay for what you did to me. For every second I spend in this hellhole, I'll see you spend a year in living hell!

Oh, you fucks are gonna beg me to let you die. No, no, not yet. I want you cocksuckers to suffer. Oh, I'll fix your fuckin' asses, all right. Maybe a long needle in your eardrum. A hot cigar in your eye. Nothing fancy. Some molten lead up the ass.

Ooh! Or better still, some of that old Apache shit. Cut your eyelids off. Yeah. I'll just listen to you fucks screaming.

Oh, what sweet music that'll be. Yeah. We'll do it in the hospital. With doctors and nurses so you pricks don't die on me too quick. You know the best part? The best part is you dick-smoking faggots will have your eyelids cut off,so you'll have to watch me do it to you, yeah. You'll see me bring that cigar closer and closer to your wide-open eyeball till you're almost out of your mind. But not quite,cause I want it to last a long, long time. I want you to know that it's me, that I'm the one that's doing it to you.Me! And that sissy psychiatrist?What unmitigated ignorance! That old drunken fart of a judge!What a pompous ass! Judge not, lest ye be judged! All of you pukes are gonna die the day I get out of this shithole! I guarantee you'll regret the day you met me!

科学之后,如何自由

In a way, in our contemporary world view, it's easy to think that science has come to take the place of God. But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever. Take the problem of free will. This problem's been around for a long time, since before Aristotle in 350 B.C. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, these guys all worried about how we can be free if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do. Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws, and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world. Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy, they enable incredible technological achievements. But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too. We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules. We're mostly water, and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to basic physical laws. So it starts to look like whether it's God setting things up in advance and knowing everything you're gonna do, or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything. There's not a lot of room left for freedom. So now you might be tempted to just ignore the question, ignore the mystery of free will. Say, "Oh, well, it's just an historical anecdote. It's sophomoric. It's a question with no answer. Just forget about it." But the question keeps staring you right in the face. You think about individuality, for example, who you are. Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make. Or take responsibility. You can only be held responsible, you can only be found guilty or admired or respected for things you did of your own free will. The question keeps coming back, and we don't really have a solution to it. It starts to look like all your decisions are really just a charade. Think about how it happens. There's some electrical activity in your brain. Your neurons fire. They send a signal down into your nervous system. It passes along down into your muscle fibers. They twitch. You might, say, reach out your arm. Looks like it's a free action on your part,but every one of those- every part of that process is actually governed by physical law:chemical laws, electrical laws and so on. So now it just looks like the Big Bang set up the initial conditions, and the whole rest of our history, the whole rest of human history and even before, is really just sort of the playing out of subatomic particles, according to these basic fundamental physical laws. We think we are special. We think we have some kind of special dignity,but that now comes under threat. I mean, that's really challenged by this picture. So you might be saying, "Well, wait a minute. What about quantum mechanics? "I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that. "It's really a probabilistic theory. There's room. It's loose. It's not deterministic." And that's gonna enable us to understand free will. But if you look at the details, it's not really gonna help, because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is apparently a bit random.

They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that it's unpredictable, and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework. But is that gonna help with freedom? Should our freedom just be a matter of probabilities, just some random swerving in a chaotic system? That just seems like it's worse. I'd rather be a gear in a big deterministic, physical machine than just some random swerving. So we can't just ignore the problem.

We have to find room in our contemporary world view for persons,with all that that it entails; not just bodies, but persons. And that means trying to solve the problem of freedom, finding room for choice and responsibility and trying to understand individuality.

反抗者

You can't fight city hall, death and taxes. Don't talk about politics or religion. This is all the equivalent of enemy propaganda rolling across the picket line. " Lay down, G.I. Lay down, G.I." We saw it all through the 20th Century. And now in the 21st Century, it's time to stand up and realize that we should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not submit to dehumanization. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned with what's happening in this world. I'm concerned with the structure. I'm concerned with the systems of control, those that control my life and those that seek to control it even more! I want freedom! That's what I want! And that's what you should want! It's up to each and every one of us to turn loose and just shovel the greed, the hatred, the envy and, yes, the insecurities, because that is the central mode of control-- make us feel pathetic, small, so we'll willingly give up our sovereignty, our liberty, our destiny. We have got to realize that we're being conditioned on a mass scale. Start challenging this corporate slave state! The 21st Century is gonna be a new century, not the century of slavery, not the century of lies and issues of no significance and classism and statism and all the rest of the modes of control! It's gonna be the age of humankind standing up for something pure and something right!

What a bunch of garbage-- liberal Democrat, conservative Republican. It's all there to control you. Two sides of the same coin. Two management teams bidding for control! The C.E.O. job of Slavery, Incorporated! The truth is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of lies! I'm sick of it, and I'm not gonna take a bite out of it! Do you got me? Resistance is not futile. We're gonna win this thing. Humankind is too good! We're not a bunch of underachievers! We're gonna stand up and we're gonna be human beings! We're gonna get fired up about the real things, the things that matter: creativity and the dynamic human spirit that refuses to submit! Well, that's it! That's all I got to say! It's in your court.

The quest is to be liberated from the negative, which is really our own will to nothingness. And once having said yes to the instant, the affirmation is contagious. It bursts into a chain of affirmations that knows no limit. To say yes to one instant is to say yes to all of existence.

mind

The main character is what you might call "the mind."

It's mastery, it's capacity to represent.

Throughout history, attempts have been made to contain those experiences which happen at the edge of the limit where the mind is vulnerable.

But I think we are in a very significant moment in history.

Those moments, those what you might call liminal, limit, frontier, edge zone experiences are actually now becoming the norm.

These multiplicities and distinctions and differences that have given great difficulty to the old mind are actually through entering into their very essence, tasting and feeling their uniqueness.

One might make a breakthrough to that common something that holds them together.

And so the main character is, to this new mind, greater, greater mind.

A mind that yet is to be.

And when we are obviously entered into that mode, you can see a radical subjectivity, radical attunement to individuality, uniqueness to that which the mind is, opens itself to a vast objectivity.

So the story is the story of the cosmos now.

The moment is not just a passing, empty nothing yet.

And this is in the way in which these secret passages happen.

Yes, it's empty with such fullness that the great moment, the great life of the universe is pulsating in it.

And each one, each object, each place, each act leaves a mark.

And that story is singular.

But, in fact, it's story after story.

Time just dissolves into quick-moving particles that are swirling away.

Either I'm moving fast or time is. Never both simultaneously.

It's such a strange paradox. I mean, while, technically, I 'm closer to the end of my life than I've ever been, I actually feel more than ever that I have all the time in the world. When I was younger, there was a desperation, a desire for certainty, like there was an end to the path, and I had to get there. I know what you mean because I can remember thinking, "Oh, someday, like in my mid-thirties maybe, everything's going to just somehow jell and settle, just end." It was like there was this plateau, and it was waiting for me, and I was climbing up it, and when I got to the top, all growth and change would stop. Even exhilaration. But that hasn't happened like that, thank goodness. I think that what we don't take into account when we are young is our endless curiosity. That's what's so great about being human. - You know that thing Benedict Anderson says about identity?

- No. Well, he's talking about like, say, a baby picture. So you pick up this picture, this two-dimensional image, and you say, "That's me." Well, to connect this baby in this weird little image with yourself living and breathing in the present, you have to make up a story like, "This was me when I was a year old, and later I had long hair, and then we moved to Riverdale, and now here I am." So it takes a story that's actually a fiction to make you and the baby in the picture identical to create your identity. And the funny thing is, our cells are completely regenerating every seven years. We've already become completely different people several times over,and yet we always remain quintessentially ourselves.

Our critique began as all critiques begin:with doubt.

Doubt became our narrative.

Ours was a quest for a new story, our own.

And we grasp toward this new history driven by the suspicion that ordinary language couldn't tell it.

Our past appeared frozen in the distance, and our every gesture and accent signified the negation of the old world and the reach for a new one.

The way we lived created a new situation, one of exuberance and friendship, that of a subversive microsociety in the heart of a society which ignored it.

Art was not the goal but the occasion and the method for locating our specific rhythm and buried possibilities of our time.

The discovery of a true communication was what it was about, or at least the quest for such a communication.

The adventure of finding it and losing it.

We the unappeased, the unaccepting continued looking, filling in the silences with our own wishes, fears and fantasies.

Driven forward by the fact that no matter how empty the world seemed, no matter how degraded and used up the world appeared to us, we knew that anything was still possible.

And, given the right circumstances, a new world was just as likely as an old one.

There are two kinds of sufferers in this world: those who suffer from a lack of life and those who suffer from an overabundance of life.

I've always found myself in the second category.

When you come to think of it, almost all human behavior and activity is not essentially any different from animal behavior.

The most advanced technologies and craftsmanship bring us, at best, up to the super-chimpanzee level.

Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human.

The realm of the real spirit, the true artist, the saint, the philosopher, is rarely achieved.

Why so few?

Why is world history and evolution not stories of progress, but rather this endless and futile addition of zeroes?

No greater values have developed.

Hell, the Greeks 3,000 years ago were just as advanced as we are.

So what are these barriers that keep people from reaching anywhere near their real potential?

The answer to that can be found in another question, and that's this: Which is the most universal human characteristic - fear or laziness?

What are you writing?

A novel.

What's the story?

There's no story.

It's just people, gestures, moments, bits of rapture, fleeting emotions.

 短评

感觉这是林克莱特的精神呓语,生活中总是会有各种困惑、各种稀奇古怪的想法,难得的是林克莱特将它具象出来了。信息量好大,每次低头咬一口西瓜都错过很多内容---足见话唠程度---

5分钟前
  • 帕拉
  • 推荐

I keeps waking up while watching this

6分钟前
  • 冥想高潮
  • 还行

说实话,最初我对这部电影没太多好感,虽然这种真人拍摄转制动画的方式我一直挺喜欢的,但一轮接一轮的梦,一轮接一轮的大道理,就算再有意思的话题也会让人心生烦闷的。但到了最后,还是打脸喜欢上了,尤其是PKD一出来,想表达的主题突然立体了,也好理解了,亲切了。

7分钟前
  • 瓜。相信这个世界很变态。
  • 推荐

大概根据实际影像处理的动画,看不下去

9分钟前
  • boks
  • 还行

林克莱特你真会玩儿,这你都能拍。基本上可以当成初级哲学的动画解说,人存在吗,现实存在吗,你怎么知道自己不是身处梦中。跟上片中人物的思考速度应该不是难事,那样就会发现我们以为理所当然的东西其实都很难站得住脚。

12分钟前
  • 鬼腳七
  • 推荐

大型新媒介云吸毒,花60块飞99分钟,上天入地,叨念人生。

16分钟前
  • shininglove
  • 推荐

很多地方看不懂,所以就不便評分了。總的來說,這是一部非常非常深奧,可是又很睿智的電影,探究人生、我、夢還有生活等等。問題是,我們有必要對自己的人生進行如此的嚴肅的審視嗎?也許。只是我覺得每個人對自己的人生都有不同方式的挖掘,這是其中一個方向而已。我純粹是沖著J和C的結局而來。

19分钟前
  • StevenTong
  • 还行

每晚梦境灾难大片奇异考夫曼,一醒来过的跟劣质自我中心白水欧洲片似的,情愿活在关不掉开关的世界里。

22分钟前
  • 推荐

按车轨边青年的说法,lucid dream大概不算梦?但是像我现在,就已经很少做那些没法控制,完全沉溺的梦了。通常梦开始没多久就会被意识到是在做梦,直接导演剧情,甚至都不用学主人公找个开关来验证。按照弗洛伊德引用Vaschide的说法,大概就是,想睡觉的愿望被其他愿望(比如说观察和享受自己的梦境)取代, wish-fulfilment以另一种方式进行。片里萨满是把lucid dream看作珍惜想象力的一种方式,但应该还有一方面是恐惧吧,恐惧失去控制,被卷入无法左右的梦域和情绪(Melanie Klein也有类似观点)。另外一点,主角穿越各种场景的floating是弗洛伊德的典型梦境之一,除了性行为暗示(erections or emission),还是一种退到童稚状态的,无干扰的愉悦感

25分钟前
  • coie
  • 推荐

爱在系列隐藏的第1.5部。我也好想找人每天跟我神侃一些有的没的不着边际的话题啊,什么文学艺术科学哲学,大家每天一起瞎逼逼多开心啊,再不然每天聊八卦也好啊,昨天文章马伊琍,今天奶茶刘强东,明天单位狗男女。(ps.大头,这对你来说就是不知所云的话痨电影,请勿观赏)

28分钟前
  • 了不起的花轮君
  • 力荐

竟能听懂全部人所说的,并且还有机会嘲笑其中至少三分之一.这些并非极深的哲理,使用了演讲的方式来料理,虽然有时也跟不上他们的节奏,但其中深意却已为我们所理解:就是观念而已.关于自由意志、灵魂转生、量子理论、社会结构和进化论等的观点无触动,倒是自焚的人、开船车的人和监狱诅咒最得我心

31分钟前
  • 文泽尔
  • 力荐

“也许我们对时间的感知只是一种幻觉。事实上,我们的整个人生和历史只是一个永恒的瞬间”。又是Richard Linklater的标志性哲理对话性独立电影。我发觉在我看过的这三部他作品里面,他在国内最负盛名的那部《Before Sunrise》是最差的。也许是《Slacker》和《Waking Life》的对白太过深奥,一般人看不懂吧。这个人已经开始逐渐变成我最饭的独立导演。

36分钟前
  • 思阳
  • 力荐

大概世界上最沉闷的动画片,除了梦中梦的结构,剩下的全是“哲学课式”的对话。但是这片子倒是让我想起了刚上大学那会儿的情形,就像片中那个主人公一样,我每天都几乎一言不发地听别人讲一大堆理论(一套一套的,听起来都很有道理,但是仔细想一下,又好像什么也没讲),然后在夜里做各种奇怪的梦。

41分钟前
  • 远子
  • 推荐

喝杯浓茶,打起精神,继续再看。年度奇片,哲学教材 !7.3

45分钟前
  • 巴喆
  • 推荐

探戈搭配对话,片头说的演奏上slightly detached, a little wavy, slightly out of tune也正是影像的质地。电影用frame启发观众发现holy moment, boat司机说的那番话挺阿巴斯的,无论是从电影还是人生的角度。无尽的梦是死亡,还是,无梦的睡眠是死亡?片中的梦境神神叨叨得令人羡慕,个人经验是梦中一般不这么话痨,也不会在梦里看到自己,train yourself to recognize a dream还是挺难的

47分钟前
  • 吴邪
  • 推荐

我不明白为什么要选择CG动画的方式来处理这个题材,在我看来,片中大多数场景和画面甚至可以忽略掉,光听一下那些谈话就足够了。也许读读剧本更有感觉,不觉得画面起到了很大作用。这个题材用真人电影或者真人动画可能会更有感觉,那样才有超现实主义的味道。本片我猜是前期真人拍摄然后再CG重新绘图。

50分钟前
  • 私享史
  • 较差

扯淡的路上,林克莱特走得很远

55分钟前
  • 桃桃林林
  • 还行

我不该在困乏的时候看它……

60分钟前
  • 不流ᝰ
  • 力荐

非常特别的片子,将拍好的真人场景再由动画制作室改成动画。全片充满荒诞又不乏现实感的诗意,以及大量关于梦与现实、生活、存在主义、死亡、自由意志、社会规则、电影与文学、集体记忆的对白。虽然中间差点也“半梦半醒”了,但还是要强力推荐!爱思考人生、钟爱哲学的友友必看!

1小时前
  • 冰红深蓝
  • 力荐

真人拍摄,动画呈现,形式非常独特;哲学电影,梦的解析,内容非常深刻。

1小时前
  • 芦哲峰
  • 力荐