我的朋友叫哈维

最早是被老张安利的《哈维》，终于找到资源看了，拖到现在把影评给码了。

黑白电影永远不会让你失望！看黑白电影其实一定程度上就像读纸质书一样，挺享受的。

先大致讲一讲剧情吧！感觉这部电影相对小众，也不太存在剧透之后就没意思了这样的问题。埃尔伍德待人接物非常和善，但人们认为他就是个疯子，因为他一直认为他有一个朋友，是一只叫哈维的一米九的大兔子。埃尔伍德不管做什么都和哈维在一起。他在自我介绍完之后总要再将对方介绍给哈维——很多人便因此断定他疯了。他和自己的姐姐还有侄女生活在一起，大家都觉得埃尔伍德是个疯子，要把他送进疯人院。因此也引发出了一系列富有戏剧性的桥段。

其实哈维在影片里只以实体形象出现了一次—在埃尔伍德拿回来的他和哈维的画像上。其他时候基本上都是靠詹姆斯•斯图尔特的无实物表演来完成的。从影片一开始，斯图尔特就用他的演技让观众感受到了哈维的存在。

整部影片最矛盾的地方，就是性情温和、待人接物礼貌友善的埃尔伍德，表现出来的作为一个有教养的绅士和他"疯子"身份之间的巨大矛盾。就像影片结尾时的出租车司机的那段话一样，"疯子"们在接受治疗之前，会和他谈笑，他们有时还会停下车欣赏"落霞与孤鹜齐飞"的盛景；但是"治疗"改变了他们，回程时，他们开始抱怨，开始急躁，他们变成了一个"完全的正常人"。我想，即使我们用今天的眼光去看埃尔伍德，大部分人也会觉得他是个很好的人——至少在他向你介绍哈维之前。

非常有趣的是，这部影片还有一个译名叫做《迷离世界》。整个故事带来的那种忍俊不禁和耐人寻味的感觉，也许很好的诠释了这个片名。

关于"哈维"，也能有很多的理解和解读。哈维可能的确是真实存在的，也可能是埃尔伍德虚构的，还可能影射的是每个人的虚拟朋友，甚至可能代表对某一部分人的精神慰藉。不过有一点是确定的

——我们每个人都需要哈维！

很久之前看过，从那以后就记得了，这只叫哈维的大兔子。那时候觉得电影讲的是孤独，也像大多数人一样纠结于哈维到底是不是真的。其实现在看来，这竟然是一部兼具对精神治疗反思与社会人际交往的现实意义的影片。

影片一开始，邮差送信过来，说“it's a beautiful day,isn't it?”edwood回答说“oh ,everyday is a beautiful day.”看到这里，想必人人都会觉得elwood是一个十分正常，甚至于比普通人更乐观的人。然而，导演并没有给观众留太多的时间，直接了当的在下一个镜头里，就交代了elwood有一位虚拟的朋友。然后随着故事的发展，elwood似乎总是与哈维形影不离。无论是酒馆，还是家里，还是精神病院，elwood似乎总迫不及待的向别人介绍自己的朋友。elwood带有明显的酗酒的症状，虽然影片中没有明显的展示，但是很明显的是，elwood总是去酒馆闲坐，要两杯马提尼，而且无论遇到什么人，总是热情好客的邀请所有人到家里做客。这两点都足以说明elwood的精神状况至少存在一些问题。

但影片淡化了这一点内容，它要谈的是比这个更深刻的东西。就是，我们该如何对待精神病人。把一切归咎于童年？还是说把他们关在精神病院？又或者如影片最终所展示的那样，承认他的存在，肯定他的价值？（这一点其实是有其时代背景的，就是50/60年代精神病人住院化兴起的大背景，直到后来80年代又兴起了去医院化的运动）

影片里elwood治愈了姐姐的神经质，促进了医生和护士之间的相互了解，让院长在治疗椅上坦露心扉（这一段让人印象极为深刻，院长躺在治疗椅上，自由联想，变成了病人；而elwood则坐在了办公椅上成成为了医生）。这当然是一种理想化的处理。但每个人都是一面镜子，即使那些你看起来不正常的人。

所以哈维到底真实存在与否呢？这取决于你的看法，如果你认为elwood是个精神病人，他自然不存在；如果你认为elwood是个你一般人特别的人，他自然也就存在。哈维存在与否并不重要，存在或不存在都只是你的想法而已。

“My mom told me‘in this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant', well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant.” This bread of life is from Elwood P. Dowd (Stewart), an extremely courteous middle-aged bachelor inHenry Koster’s HARVEY, an economical but gleeful comedy pivots around a looney tunes idea, courtesy to the titular Harvey, a pooka only visible to Elwood in the form of a6' 3½”tall rabbit. Living with his sister Veta Louise (Hull) and her spinster daughter Myrtle Mae (Horne) in their family residence,Elwood again unwittingly sabotages a social gathering arranged by Veta Louise to find a suitor for Myrtle Mae by introducing everyone present to the invisible rabbit friend. Enough is enough, Veta Louise finally decides to put Elwood in a sanatorium headed by Dr. Chumley (Kellaway, circumspectly vacillating between authoritative and ingenuous), and a series of comedy of errors crops up apace one after another, with the amiable Elwood blithely incognizant of the hullabaloo, staying in character, keeping dishing out his calling card to whomever he meets and inviting them to dinner, en passant, match-making the bickering Dr. Sanderson (Drake) and nurse Miss Kelly (Dow) and spreading wisdom in the disguise of fanciful notions, eventually, it is quite irrelevant whether or not he is anold soak who is off his trolley, everyone needs a pooka (or a spiritual animal) for guidance. James Stewart is nominated for an Oscar for magnificently amplifying Elwood's honest-to-goodness geniality and it is a tremendously heart-warming performance because guilelessness, more often than not, inclines to be contrived or over-acted in the hands of seasoned players, but not Mr. Stewart, whose self-deprecating demeanor adds a rather charismatic affinity to the character, it only generates solace to be awash by his pleasantries, as it is the theme of the story, to remind us that altruistic kindness is not a given but an often neglected merit, especially in an increasingly restive, skeptical world as we reside today. The film won an Oscar for the rara avisJosephine Hull, a stupendous stage actress whose film works is only handful, she is such a gas as the balmy and hapless Veta Louise, often kitted up with a whirlpool of line-delivery which she showers upon audience with a comical flourish without diminishing the effect of exigency, and safely secures the payoff when Veta Louise changes her mind in the nick of time to keep the status quo. By and large, the film appears less organic in second-guessing, e.g. the pairing of Myrtle Mae with a boorish Marvin Wilson (White) is cavalier and slightly distasteful, but to honor the precious well-intention behind this shaggy-dog story and its minutely apt arrangement of the-rabbit-in-the-room (aka. Harvey’s apparitional presence), the film deserves its own place in the treasure trove of Hollywood’s finest, not least for its eccentric wrinkle and two extraordinarily pleasurable performances.

referential points: Koster’s MY COUSIN RACHEL (1952, 6.3/10); Frank Capra’s MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939, 8.7/10), ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944, 7.3/10).