尤里西斯的凝视

Because it is a noble epic set amid the ruins of the Russian empire and the genocide of what was Yugoslavia, there is a temptation to give ``Ulysses' Gaze'' the benefit of the doubt: To praise it for its vision, its daring, its courage, its great length. But I would not be able to look you in the eye if you went to see it, because how could I deny that it is a numbing bore? A director must be very sure of his greatness to inflict an experience like this on the audience, and Theo Angelopoulos was so sure that when he only won the Special Jury Prize at the 1995 Cannes Film Festival, he made his displeasure obvious on the stage. He thought he should have won the Palme d'Or, which went instead to ``Underground,'' by Emir Kusturica, which also was three hours long and also set in the wreckage of Yugoslavia, but had at least the virtue of not being almost unendurable.

``Ulysses' Gaze'' stars Harvey Keitel as a Greek movie director named ``A,'' who returns to his roots 35 years after leaving for America. He seeks, he says, some rare old film footage: The first film ever shot in the Balkans. His odyssey (for so we must describe any journey in a movie with ``Ulysses'' in the title) takes him by taxi from Greece to the Albanian border, and then by boat to the cities of Skopje to Bucharest to Sarajevo. (``Is this Sarajevo?'' he asks at one point. If you have to ask, you're in the wrong place.) Along the way there are flashbacks to 1945 and 1946, when as a friend in Belgrade tells him, ``We fell asleep in one world and were rudely awakened in another.'' You might be tempted to wonder why old film footage would be so important to ``A'' that he would risk his life traveling unprotected through a war zone to find it. Since Angelopoulos in fact directed this movie about such a man, and filmed it in the very same war zones, he would probably not be the man to ask.

The initial ``A'' undoubtedly stands for Angelopoulos, but why he chose Harvey Keitel to portray him is a mystery. Keitel is a great spontaneous actor, able to think on his feet and move around quickly in dialect, and here he acts as if someone has injected him with crazy glue. He's slow, measured, portentous, tedious, and his dialogue sounds like readings from an editorial translated imperfectly through several languages.

There are several women in the movie (the credits call them ``Ulysses' Wives''), and they find themselves powerfully attracted to ``A,'' a mystery only partly explained by the fact that they are all played by the same actress, Maia Morgenstern. They see him, he sees them, and soon the two of them are looking greatly pained. I was reminded of Armando Bo's anguished 1960s Argentinian soft-core sex films, which starred his wife Isabel Sarli, whose agony was terrible to behold and could only be slaked in the arms of a man. ``A'' and the women make love in this movie as if trying to apply unguent inside each other's clothes.

There are some remarkable images. They are spaced throughout the film at roughly 20 minute intervals. One shows a thin line of police separating demonstrators with torches, and other people with umbrellas. When the torch-bearers press forward, the umbrellas undulate backward, in a scene reminiscent of the umbrella scene in Hitchcock's ``Foreign Correspondent.'' Similar crowds with umbrellas stand in squares, and in fields, and along the banks of rivers. One wonders if the umbrellas are important to the shots, or if the extras demanded them.

Another big image involves a huge statue of Lenin, which has been disassembled and placed aboard a barge. (For shipment. . . where? Where is there a demand for used Lenin statues these days?) The vast stone head looks forward, and Lenin's giant finger points the way, as ``A'' travels on the same barge. The image is so powerful that even its banality cannot diminish it.

The closing passages of the film have an immediacy; they're set in the middle of a war zone, and characters important to ``A'' are endangered. But one can easily think of much better films also shot under wartime conditions, particularly ``Circle of Deceit,'' shot by Volker Schlondorff during the fighting in Beirut, or Milcho Manchevski's ``Before the Rain,'' shot near the fighting in Yugoslavia.

What's left after ``Ulysses' Gaze'' is the impression of a film made by a director so impressed with the gravity and importance of his theme that he wants to weed out any moviegoers seeking interest, grace, humor or involvement. One cannot easily imagine anyone else speaking up at a dinner table where he presides.

It is an old fact about the cinema--known perhaps even to those pioneers who made the ancient footage ``A'' is seeking--that a film does not exist unless there is an audience between the projector and the screen. A director, having chosen to work in a mass medium, has a certain duty to that audience. I do not ask that he make it laugh or cry, or even that he entertain it, but he must at least not insult its good will by giving it so little to repay its patience. What arrogance and self-importance this film reveals.

    巧得很，同时下了六七部西奥•安哲罗普罗斯的电影，却按着拍摄的先后顺序连接看了《雾中风景》和《尤里西斯的凝视》，因此在看完之后，不可能不注意到这两部电影的相似之处。两部电影运用了很多相似的意像，却又焕发着不同的光彩——
    最应该指出的相似当然是主题。两部电影同样以“寻找”为主题， 所以“旅行”理所当然地成为“寻找”的形式。而寻找的目标，却多少有点不可言传，可以理解为一种“纯真”（《雾中风景》），一种“根源”（《尤里西斯的凝视》），因而两部电影的主人公都带着某种回归本源的“思乡病”（《尤里西斯的凝视》中说的“homesick”）。不同之处在于，在《雾中风景》里，导演侧重于个人，“父亲”成为两个孩子寻找目标的世俗化象征；而在更加侧重于历史的《尤里西斯的凝视》中，导演将“寻根”的目光投向了曾经统一的整个巴尔干半岛（西奥用同一个演员演三个地方的女人，诠释了这一联系），因此那三卷记胶片就变得格外重要——对于那段发生了却不被人铭记的历史，那三卷记录了却无法显影的胶片成了它恰如其分的象征。有趣之处还在于，导演将男主角设定为导演，而让他去寻找另一位拍摄者的胶片，在这里，个人与历史，历史与现实，充分紧密地联系起来。
    另一个引人注意之处在于两部电影中出现的被吊起的巨大雕像。不论是《雾中风景》里古代雕像的手臂，还是《尤里西斯的凝视》中的列宁，它们被吊起的镜头都带着超现实主义美感，充满寓意。而雕像题材的选择，则成为电影主题的重申——在我看来，手臂似乎指向古希腊，而列宁雕像意味着巴尔干的近现代史。
    “雾”在两部电影中都可以视作“生活”的象征。在《雾中风景》里，主人公正是致力于拨开生活的大雾，找到精神家园。这使得“雾”带上了一种哀而不怨的氛围。可是在《尤里西斯的凝视》里，只有大雾出现，被战争中断的生活才能继续，这时“雾”反而带上了一种欢乐的气氛。
    最后一点相似在于导演对暴行的处理。在导演凝视的镜头前，暴行被一些景物所遮挡（《雾中风景》里的卡车和《尤里西斯的凝视》里的雾），却反而显得格外残暴，让人心悸。
    说了这么多形式上的东西，究竟他们找到了什么？对此我不敢妄言。在《雾中风景》中，西奥温情地让两个孩子找到了那棵橄榄树，可是在《尤里西斯的凝视》里，那三卷胶片最后却仍然无法显影，那个男人眼含热泪说道：
    当我们一步步向梦境里靠近
　　在每个拥抱之间
　　在每个爱的呼唤之间
　　我会告诉你那旅程
　　用尽整晚的时间
　　连同所有即将到来的夜晚
　　在每个拥抱之间
　　在每个爱的呼唤之间
    将人的所有旅行
    这个没有结局的故事诉说下去

第一次開始接觸安哲羅洛普洛斯是十年前，就是尤里西斯生命之旅。一開始是被「尤里西斯」的名字所吸引，我們要怎麼在五天內或者是在影片的兩個小時之間了解一段生命旅程呢？初二時懷著很奇異又興奮（因為這部片當時是限制級）的情感混進了電影院，結果後來才知道售票窗口願意賣票給我的原因：高雄最好（當時是在漢神地下三樓，由於一直放映藝術片，票房不好，不到兩年就結束營業。）的電影院內，偌大的場地裡只有我和放映師兩個人。

和放映師兩個人看這部片真是個很奇妙的經驗，尤其是到了主角正在用手搖機放映他追尋已久的影片那一段。

看完這部片，我發瘋似的找尋所有安哲羅洛普洛斯的影子。但那時候沒有網路，沒有VCD，我們唯一可吸允的來源就是唱片影片行，我那時蒐集了所有他十年間放導的片子。

底下的心得是五年前寫的，那時候和第一次看這部片子的時間也相隔差不多五年左右。在這段期間，我們歷經了電影的許多改變：許多台灣電影委身在書局裡放映，而電視錄像劇卻在電影院公開首播；電視節目老想用影片拍攝，而電影卻快速轉向數位電子化；然後是戲劇類型拍得越來越像紀錄片，而紀錄片卻越來越虛構。

現在回想起來，許多改變是慢慢在我們生活中突起以致於習慣，但當所有人都以同樣的口吻與手勢高舉朝聖時，我們已經沒有太多的感動了。

------------------------------------------------------
Ulysses'Gaze是一部以追尋底片為主軸貫穿的電影。
首先，所謂的第一捲底片為什麼重要? 尤其是在這個戰爭兵荒馬亂的時候?

而這種"gaze"代表著一些臉孔和事件，他呈現出一個人和世界的交會－如果我們消失了影像的記憶會怎樣? 或者這樣說，當人沒有過去的重量的時候會是怎樣?

劇本吸引我的地方在於，他不是以戰爭的衝突面來描寫人生，裡面沒有任何戰爭鏡頭，有的只是轟炸聲、殘瓦、和路上奔跑的人。導演把戰爭和動亂當成一個大時代的背景以及電影的場幕，所有的人在這時候還是保有他們的生活基本狀態，也仍然有他們的理想與追尋，而其實大多數的戰爭電影忽略了這一點，即使身處在不同時代，其實每個人的小小日子仍然是生活主軸。

「你能夠找到這裡來，你不是很有信念、不然就是對生命已經徹底絕望。」記不記得那最後死掉的放映師這樣說。

電影裡所有的故事就只是他在不斷的尋找，只有許多邈不可及的象徵，穿插在這旅途之間的：這裡面有他的過去、他對家庭的記憶，還有一些不相干路上的人事物。他對家庭也是一種指涉性的記憶，他講出流浪的本質是不斷離開但同時不斷回溯過去，某種絕對精神性的晦暗。而其中一幕所有親人都聚在大廳裡，所有人都在跳舞歌誦，然後一個一個在旋轉與舞蹈中消失，在最是生離死別的悲哀時，人們越是大聲歌唱。

還有路上出現和他錯身的各個女人，發現了沒，她們都是同一個臉孔。這代表著一種熟悉的聯繫，在人流浪的時候，這種細微的聯繫讓人安穩的踩在世界上。

導演一直用一種旁觀的手法來達到凝視的效果，沒有處理任何的慢動作。在沒有背景音樂的時候，運鏡緩慢拉出時間流過，不管是畫面與色彩驚心動魄或者令人沉悶，卻都很真實。

真實的世界沒有背景音樂、而人都在走動，沒有痛苦還是歡娛的對照性的暗示。導演表達了一種「電影對照人生」的速度，而不是他者觀看時會被放大的「思想和事件的速度」。

還有，音樂在這部片其實很重要，雖然出現的相當少，配樂出現時用來快速處理時間與歷史的經過，其實整部片裡都是以同一基調旋律，帶出了九種變奏。Elini Karainrou的電影配樂一直都很經典。

最後是槍決了吧，主角原來以為找到了「熟悉的歸屬」，而開始對那個老放映師一家人也投入感情的時候，他們就死去。

他不是一開始就說了嗎－「我的終點，都是另一趟起程」，流浪的人注定沒有歸處，也不能有。

這部電影我看了兩次，都是看大銀幕，不敢一個人看tape，
第一次看的時候正好是離家流浪的那一年，在偌大的電影院裡淚流不止。
即使有時候緩慢的想睡，有時候卻又被片裡拍攝的單純的影像震躡，
很像是紀錄照片，只是用另一種方式把它們連貫起來，
我看的很有感覺，或許是因為能體會那種流浪的飄蕩。

最後那個計程車司機不是這樣對著整片的山說嗎 ?
－「我也是一個人，來，吃塊餅乾吧！」

Cheers,
to Theo Angelopoulos!

"And, if the soul is about to know itself, it must gaze into the soul."
正如开头引用的柏拉图的话语。人生就是不断地自我解剖，自我舍弃，再组装。

“巴尔干战争指的是1912年到1913年期间在南欧巴尔干半岛上前后发生的第一次巴尔干战争和第二次巴尔干战争。第一次巴尔干战争（1912年10月－1913年5月）的对战双方是巴尔干同盟诸国（希腊、保加利亚、黑山、塞尔维亚）与鄂图曼土耳其帝国。结果鄂图曼土耳其帝国战败，其在巴尔干半岛上的土地除伊斯坦布尔附近的一小块之外，全部割让给同盟四国，同时阿尔巴尼亚独立。其后由于战后利益分配上的问题，又很快爆发了第二次巴尔干战争（1913年6月－8月），这次的交战双方分别是希腊、塞尔维亚、罗马尼亚、土耳其和保加利亚。结果保加利亚战败，签订布加勒斯特条约，保加利亚割让了大片土地。

塞尔维亚经过这次战争，变得更加强大；这引起奥匈帝国的不安，两国间的敌视成为后来第一次世界大战的导火线。保加利亚由于被巴尔干邻国击败，因而转向复仇主义，第一次世界大战时加入同盟国（因塞尔维亚、希腊、罗马尼亚皆为协约国成员），寻求恢复大保加利亚的光荣。”

这就是影片的大背景，全片辗转整个巴尔干半岛。希腊、阿尔巴尼亚、马其顿、保加利亚、罗马尼亚、塞尔维亚、波黑。而这个gaze也正是对整个巴尔干半岛的继manakis兄弟后的又一次凝视。

对尤利西斯唯一的认识就是“意识流”，而本片也是看过的安哲的片子里最迷离的一部了，时而自己时而穿越过去时而进入他人的生活，但转接却恰到好处，充满着喜剧效果，特别是同年时代在罗马尼亚国内的那幕，一个长镜头从1945到1948到1950，眼睁睁地看着父亲的归来，叔叔的被捕，和没收委员会的到来，最后一张照片，随后家族分崩离析。满眼红色的罗马尼亚，士兵们歌唱着喀秋莎，踏上战场，人们举着革命必将胜利的横幅游行，而所谓资产阶级的家中，却是处于一片恐怖的氛围中。再到离开时肢解的列宁，长镜头的人们追逐着驳船划十字架，对的是什么，错了的又是什么？

边检时化身成了Yannakis，被流放的命运似乎竟是落在男主身上般感同身受。"The first thing God created was the journey. And then came doubt... and nostalgia..."

他们在讨论塞尔维亚人和阿尔巴尼亚人谁先来到巴尔干半岛。最后的结论却是都怪该死的黑格尔影响了马克思。想想鹳鸟的踟躇里作者的发文，“By which cues could we spark a new collective dream?”人类的历史就是这样前进，也因此，manakis兄弟的凝视才显得如此与众不同，一见倾心。

不过比起第一遍看更倾心的是一段影片没有交代，但却可以旁敲侧击推敲出来的男主的故事。

三十多年前的希腊，男主在军队中，每个星期六离开时，hoping for a sign in the eyes of the local girls. But they just laughed and passed on. There, they laugh and pass on. But not always.

-"Will you wait for me?"

-"Is it wrong not to love the city where you were born? But this place stifles me. Rain and mud in winter, dust in summer."

-"I'll be back to take you away from here. I can hear my train coming in."

-"Stay a little longer. Only a few minutes."

-"I can hear the train. I must hurry."

-“Tell me that you care, that you will come back. I will be waiting.”

从此似乎眼中的每一个人都变成了她的模样——可以参考《鹳鸟的踟躇》里的妹子所经历的。另一点，可以想见《鹳鸟》的男主随后会踏上的道理。重点不在谁负谁，重点在于男主们一个个瞎了。本片可以说是为了逃避那个她而一头扎入三卷胶片的坑，而《永恒》则是为了坑而放弃了一切。某种程度上来说，入坑相对来说是容易的，因为一旦认真便可以暂时地忘却一切。但终究要还的。

无论是IMDB上号称是在唱库尔德民歌的妹子让他穿上死去的丈夫的衣服，还是老头的女儿对他说好像很久以前就认识他。只能说都瞎了。或者说，选择不去看。而换句话说，男主何尝不是呢，他只是选择了蒙蔽双眼，但最后，那三卷胶片的含义，则是他终于敢于去正视他自己了。

“When I return, it will be with another man's clothes. Another man's name. My coming will be unexpected. If you look at me, unbelieving and say,'You are not here.' I will show you signs and you will believe me. I will tell you about the lemon tree in your garden. The cool window that lets in the moonlight. And then signs of the body. Signs of love. And as we climb, trembling to our old room, between one embrace and the next, between lovers' calls, I will tell you about the journey... all the night long. And then all the nights to come, between one embrace and the next, between lovers' calls. The whole human adventure. The story that never ends.”

一开始是"A way out"，但最后短暂的逃避解决不了任何问题，直面它，成为它。从这个角度上来看，倒是的确《鹳鸟》的内涵和篇幅明显相形见绌了。

-“I'm crying because I... Because I can't love you.”