春风秋雨1959

#BFI #Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 开始会觉得有些用力过猛和狗血，但是过了开始的半小时开始渐入佳境，现在看整个故事略显俗套，但是对于种族阶级，身份认同和女性主义还是很有表达的。

角色上几个女性设计的太出色了，没看过老版，不知道是否在34年版就有这种设计，甚至直接呈现对于黑人暴力，看的我瞠目结舌，虽然Anna的设计还是带有“工具性”，但是整体看Ann母女的故事线也已经很完整了，加之缺少的男性角色，影片甚至可以把双女主看做一个家庭，而整部电影抛开三角恋部分，其实没有很狗血。

视觉上，非常喜欢影片的室内运镜，尤其是运动镜头夹带镜子构图完成对于角色身份和内心两难的体现，还有构图上大量的前景遮挡也起到同样的帮助。还大量的使用低角度仰拍全景也很好的帮助了叙事。光影的运用也非常棒，尤其是对于角色塑造非常有帮助，眼部打光体现的坚毅，整体人物的阴影表现的无助等。

听觉上是不太喜欢的部分，整体看配乐的使用没有问题，爵士的“挣脱牢笼”后那“自由”，葬礼上震撼的唱诗，但还是有部分配乐非常的奇怪，最震撼的部分是暴力展现是那充满激情的配乐，感觉算是一种“放大暴力”的展现，但不知道这种叙述是否可以起到批判作用。

不喜欢的点，一是配乐，不过最主要的还是演员在很多台词和表演的表演痕迹太重，除了Anna这个角色，其他三个女性有时候的演绎会让人有种放到默片时期看刚刚好的感觉。还有就是影片虚焦的处理，也是让女主这个角色是去很多特性的原因，其实影片的焦段还有几处也感觉怪怪的，时长不在焦。

7.7

摄影很厉害 至少在那个年代就已经秒杀现在许多人了 构图、想法，色彩都是值得学习的

故事也很平实 没有虚头巴脑的情节 每个点都踩扎实 不像现在把观众当傻瓜

两个女孩等于在一个环境下成长 由于早期的经历使得她们终将不同 但正念的、懂得怜悯的人总是不一样的 还有就是“黑和白” 美国人永远绕不过去的话题 现在也是 以后也是

以前的手法 很多转折处过于渲染了 我觉得情绪是不该这样加的

好的故事就是不停地铺设、埋伏、设计 只等时机来到“Bong”！虽然这里的声音不大

很佩服白人女主的控制力 还有Steve 更不得了 这样爱这个女人 得不到就可以一直等 望眼欲穿 一直到她在事业上的欲望消失殆尽 黑人女主Anne是位了不起的人性 有宗教信仰的人是可以这样宽宏冷静的 我觉得她是已经站在云端俯视过大地的人了 两位女孩也都很好 一般我们都会对那个莎拉·简指指点点的 错了 她没有错 她只是为了自己想要的在不断地付出再付出 很多人只是在命运的安排下不停地兜兜转转却始终原地打转 可怜的人儿

“我想要和绵羊站在一起 而不是和山羊一道……”多么透彻的心灵

昨天看了部电影，中文译作《春风秋雨》，该电影《春风秋雨》是道格拉斯·塞克执导，拉娜·特纳、约翰·加文主演的剧情片，于1959年4月17日在美国上映。

该片以两对母女的情感故事为观众讲述了种族歧视、家庭教育与理想抱负等方面的内容。

一方面是女主人公因为追求理想而忽略了对女儿的爱，导致女儿从小便有恋父情节（这是我猜的），所以她后来爱上了母亲的男友（也就是男主史蒂夫），当然赛克并未对该剧情进行展开，否则还真不知道剧情会往什么走向发展。

其实女主之所以成功，无疑是因为她很理性地知道自己要什么，即便是突如其来的爱情摆在面前，但凡在理想的路上有任何一个可能没有结果的机会出现，她都会义无反顾地放弃爱情追求理想，甚至她同样也放弃了与女儿苏西成长的时光与陪伴，所以苏西才因此对其不满。

但是好在故事的结尾，女儿的理解和相隔十年的爱情以及成功都统统倒向了她，因此她是幸运的，当然这也与她自己的才华和努力密不可分，只是感叹有才华的人很多，但成功的却是少之又少。

而另一个方面则是仆人母女的故事，据说两个配角均获得奥斯卡最佳配角提名，母亲被塑造成一个早已习惯并接受了自己是黑人的事实，也适应了周围的环境的形象，但是女儿沙拉·简不一样，她作为一个混血（父亲是白人），看起来完全就是白人的样貌，但仍然从小就饱受种族歧视的折磨，无论是在学校里还是恋爱中，她的身份像诅咒一般一直追随她。

她把这一切的不公都归结于母亲，所以形成了女儿想摆脱、母亲用尽全力想救赎的故事线，最后的结果是妈妈的妥协，她在生命的最后一刻找到了沙拉·简，只为再见女儿一面，但此时的沙拉·简并不知道母亲就要病逝。

母亲死后托女主为她办一场最隆重的婚礼，其实在我看来这才是整部剧的核心，四匹白马拉着鲜花布满的棺木，伴随着乐队演出骄傲并且高调地走在大街上，就好像她正在走向荣光一般，见状之人纷纷脱帽表示哀悼，无论是白人还是黑人。

看到这里我触动颇深，仿佛她在受尽了一辈子的歧视之后，在生命的尽头用死亡像种族歧视宣战，用这样的方式去和女儿和解，当沙拉·简不顾所有人的目光和阻拦跑向母亲的棺木时，我想她们已经和解并且她在那之后或许也释然了自己黑人混血的身份。

总的来说，在这部电影里赛克用极高的艺术手法把每一个角色之间的情感都描写得非常的细致，甚至是苏西对史蒂夫萌生的纯真的爱慕之情也表现得非常生动。

并且他在处理故事情节的过程中恰到好处地将自己所要传达的价值观和理念完整地诠释，但又在想象空间和理论空间上给观众留白，从美学和叙述的角度将社会、家庭以及个体的辩证关系发挥出了极高的艺术效果。

| 导演简介 |

道格拉斯·塞克（1897年4月26日-1987年2月14日）早年在慕尼黑大学（Munich University）学习法律，后进入汉堡大学（Hamburg University）学习哲学和艺术史，从学生时代就对戏剧发生兴趣。

● 1922年，他在德国魏玛（Weimar）剧院当舞台导演。

● 1934年他进入乌发公司（Ufa Studios），从此开始他的电影事业，整个三十年代他共拍摄电影12部。

● 1936年导演的《第九交响曲》Schlußakkord 赢得威尼斯电影节最佳音乐电影奖（Best Musical Film）。

● 1939年，塞克导演的影片《Boefje》获得戛纳电影节金棕榈奖提名。

● 1941年，塞克移居至美国，在历经十余年的波折之后他终于以家庭生活片导演”的身份在环球电影公司（Universal International Pictures）站住了脚。

在整个50年代，Sirk开始了他事业的繁荣时期，有多部重要作品问世。

《春风秋雨》便是塞克后期最重要的作品之一，2位女配角均获得奥斯卡提名，这时赛克无疑是环球公司最成功的导演。而当此正可大展宏图之机，他却选择离开美国和电影事业，与他的妻子Hilde移民瑞士，从事过短暂的教学工作，1987年病故。

Double bill time! Two film versions of Fannie Hurst’s contentious weepie IMITATION OF LIFE, poignantly touches the raw nerve of the star-spangled, inveterate racial discrimination through a brace of mother-daughter dyads, one white, one black, but the latter is stigmatized with a more taxing streak.

John M. Stahl’s 1934 Black-and-White version (both versions are made from Universal pictures, incidentally) sticks to the milieu of the source novel, business-savvy white widow Bea Pullman (Colbert) takes in black housekeeper Delilah Johnson (Beavers), and capitalizes on Delilah’s secret family pancake recipe, she leapfrogs from a dead-end maple syrup peddler to a high-flying entrepreneur of pancake flour within a 10-year stretch, meanwhile vouchsafes a 20% interest to Delilah, whose modest make-up prefers maintaining the status quo to take care of Bea and her daughter Jessie (Hudson, a doe-eyed smart alec). Notwithstanding that the life of Delilah and her daughter Peola (Washington) is on the easy street by then, there is a catch here, Peola is a fair-skinned girl, who spurns her black parentage and tries every fiber to pass as a white girl, often her act is thwarted by Delilah’s presence and the tension aggravates through time, until a harrowing aftermath in the wake of Peola’s go-whole-hog severance, designated to turn on spectator’s waterworks.

There is a deep psychological causation in Peola’s plight, which might elicit different reactions, her identity limb is caused by the effacing of a skin-deep, visual distinction that makes her an outlier who doesn’t know where she belongs, is it entirely her fault to pursue the entitlement she isn’t bestowed? Certainly not, her outrageous hatred of being black is the fruit borne out of a sweepingly toxic, white supremacy-breeding environment that has no place for her ilk (especially for girls, whose main perspective is to marry well), like every marginalized individuals, she is punished for who she is and it is understandable during the pre-civil rights era (the novel was written in 1933), the story beats the drum for the thicker-than-blood maternal sacrifice and belated repentance in lieu of a more progressive message catering to today’s taste (for instance, what could have happened if Peola chooses to embrace his blackness for a change?).

In Stahl’s rendition, Peola’s selfish determination comes off more intrinsic because little contextualization is applied to lend her any amount of sympathy, although Fredi Washington (a real-life light-skinned black girl and the movie would virtually hamper her big screen career) has a fiery disposition brimming with indignation. Louise Beavers’ portrayal of Delilah, after watching her counterpart in Sirk’s remake, is at best serviceable, one gnawing fact is that Louise is too young for the role (she was only 31 years old), and her lack of conviction as a middle-aged, heartbroken mother is not helped by the fact that Fredi is only one year junior of her, regardless of their complexions, they do not register as a mother-daughter pair, period.

So, the 1934 movie leans more towards a posh star vehicle for Claudette Colbert, the sympathetic white Good Samaritan, fulfills her all-too-easy American dream by riding on a gravy train and soliciting free advice (the operative words are “bottle it!”, Ned Sparks has a wonderful time being all piqued and sarcastic as Bea’s business counselor) and spreads her gratitude without condescension, on paper, it seems a tough nut to crack, but Colbert holds court thoroughly and charms us with spectacular alacrity, especially when she is coupled with an impeccably debonair Warren William as her love interest Steve Archer, who equally effortlessly, albeit obliviously, excels in getting Jessie head over heels for him. But compared with the life-and-death separation between Delilah and Peola, their strife can be ironed out with a bantamweight sacrifice which only requires the man to cool his heel for some years, the irony is pungent, not to mention a particularly telltale scene of an ascending Bea and a descending Delilah on the spiral stairs simultaneously, genuine friendship can sprout out of two disparate souls, as long as it is the white matron who holds the upper hand.

The auteur maudit Douglas Sirk bowed out the Tinseltown and returned to his homeland Germany after this remake in 1959, which becomes his swan song, in his glittery (diamonds are in the background of the opening credits) re-imagination, the capitalistic fairy-tale is wholly jettisoned, along with Steve’s quaint ichthyologist vocation, the story-line is transposed to the 50s, widow Lora Meredith (Turner, enterprisingly changing her high-end wardrobe as frequent as her character’s required moods) is a struggling Broadway actress and doesn’t need the help from her black help Annie Johnson (Moore) to attain her johnny-come-lately success in the cutting-edge, squalid showbiz, remarkably with her integrity intact all the same, rebuffing the advancement of the unscrupulous agent Allen Loomis (Alda) with a virtuous face does all the trick. When her on-and-off boyfriend Steve Archer (John Gavin, or is it Louis Jourdan? I see doubles!), a photographer-turned-businessman, gets her teenage daughter Susie (Sandra Dee, spirited with her wonderful faux-naïf earnestness) infatuated, she doesn’t have the luxury to play martyr and their conciliation has a more perceptive leaning that outstrips the original, and curiously mirrors Turner’s own turmoil, she was freshly underwent through a daughter-and-stepfather tragedy in real life.

Of course, the scrumptiously soapy flee-and-catch go-arounds between Annie and her light-skinned daughter Sarah Jane (Kohner, a white girl passes as mix-raced) upstage anything else, this time, Sirk and his writers enrich Sarah Jane’s misery with enough gusto, including a startling violent outburst (in the hand of a cameo by none other than Troy Donahue, a soon-to-be celluloid heartthrob), hammering home the elephant-in-the-room behind Sarah Jane’s steely repudiation of her origin, and the two-hander between Juanita Moore and Susan Kohner, reaches its crescendo in their tearful valediction, amped up by Sarah Jane’s mouthed but unuttered “mama”, which veritably can leave the flintiest soul with misty eyes, if soapiness can be this good, just let it swamp this reviewer all over! Both actresses are Oscar nominated, but Moore can walk away with the plaudits as one of the best screen performances ever, and teaches Viola Davis a wise lesson about how to be dignified, agonized and restrained at the same time without the aid of undue theatrics.

Sirk also downplays the fawning-over, reduces the foot-rubbing to one casual scene, but majestically plays up the funeral procession, gospel belter Mahalia Jackson pulverizes us with a soul-shattering TROUBLE OF THE WORLD, all prompts audience to ponder why Annie/Delilah’s sole wish in this world is a fancy funeral, why are their lives so benighted that nothing else can fulfill their breathing days other than a pious devotion to the afterlife? The answer is clear as day, though. A final consensus: both films are worth their salts, and in Sirk’s case, an apposite lush jewel in his crown to conclude a luminous (if woefully shortened, Sirk was 62 then and would live another 27 years in retirement) career.

referential entries: Sirk’s ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS (1955, 8.4/10), WRITTEN ON THE WIND (1956, 8.0/10).

Classic Hollywood Melodrama. Landmark film regarding race relations. A hollow success about career over marriage. A sad story about a girl passing for white.

莎拉·简既是一个受害者，同时也是一个“英雄”。不像她的母亲默默接受自己的命运和社会地位，莎拉·简凭借自己的肤色抓住任何机会去挑战这种不平等的地位，想方设法融入白人主流社会。

种族题材把这部电影与其他好莱坞Melodrama区分开来。背景反映了20世纪50年代社会对黑人的态度和偏见；它描绘了一些人如何根据肤色来定义黑人。

这一现象影响深远，例如已故的迈克尔·杰克逊被质疑“漂白”皮肤。我们有改变自己“命运”的权利吗？如果有，那么到何种程度？ 放弃自己的身份去追求“更有价值”的东西？社会主流价值观与个人价值取向之间的鸿沟是巨大的，好在个体尚有自主选择的权利。

强调个人情感、道德伦理准则的家庭情节剧变奏。针对女性观众而制作的经典好莱坞类型之一，50年代的美国社会转型期，后派拉蒙法案时代，制片开始有意识地呈现现实社会中不光是女性独立和自由的矛盾和想象性弥补，也有意识地融入了战后消费主义盛行下所突出的青少年问题、种族问题等。而该影片的亮点还在于影片中戏剧与现实的互文。女主角劳拉在银幕上模仿着角色的生活，却在现实当中迷失了情感的真实指向，导致现实中家庭遭遇严重危机。而两个女儿则是对劳拉的两层模仿，劳拉女儿爱上了母亲的爱人，女仆的女儿则期盼通过舍弃家庭来换取更高的社会地位和事业成就。对比起1934年版的《生活的模仿》，50年代的版本多了间离感和陌生感，劳拉和史蒂夫的十年爱情断断续续、毫无逻辑，很多细节没有解释和说明，除此之外，经典好莱坞时期的闭环因果叙事结构也在此被打破，看似结尾以安妮的葬礼为契机提供了一个大团圆的美满结局，实则是掩盖了一个已然四分五裂的人际关系，问题都没有得到想象性的解决。主流核心家庭的观念在此时好莱坞银幕上已经遭到了挑战。