生日禮物

這個有意思：

張愛玲甚至在一九八一年寫給宋氏夫婦的信中，用這樣的口脗來描述胡蘭成的死： 「《大成》與平鑫濤兩封信都在我生日那天寄到，同時得到七千多美元（其中兩千多是上半年的版稅）與胡蘭成的死訊，難免覺得是生日禮物」。

－〈舊信與記憶合成印象　宋以朗細訴心中張愛玲〉，《大公報》，2009年7月25日

《心外幽情》：影像與文字的交鋒與融合

During my stay in Brisbane (alright, now that I am back from Europe, but I still got memories from my Brisbane trip to unwrap), there was an exhibition on American Impressionist Paintings in the GOMA - Gallery of Modern Art-, with The Age of Innocence being a tide-in movie, screened a few times everyday. Tim got me into the screening house after a few talks with the people in GOMA and I was very excited to see one of my favourite films (and also one of the best adaptations ever, I reckon) on the big screen, for the first time. It was so touching to closely observe Scorsese's innovative use of quick cuts which created an impressionist visual experience with moving images (I am referring to the opera scene in particular); and his "trademark" long take with a brilliantly and meticulously designed mise-en-scene! But to save time for other plannings, we only watched the first 10 minutes...I know there will always be another chance, so I am not worried.

The "poster" is now hanging down from the ceiling above my (messy) desk.

Below is an article published in 2005 on the Film Critics Quarterly Journal, with a discussion focused on the adaptation, in particular the way Scorsese devised various kinds of film language to re-create the literary experience. (Tim, I am sorry it is only available in Chinese):

紐倫站在遠處，凝望女伯爵如石像般的背影，天空抹上日落的黃，海面閃著瓣瓣金光，如莫奈的畫。一切靜止無聲。他給自己一個機會：假如女伯爵在帆船駛過燈塔前轉身，他就走向她。她沒有回頭......

這大概是《心外幽情》（ The Age of Innocence, 1993 ）最令人難忘的場面。影片改編自伊迪絲‧華爾頓（ Edith Wharton ）的同名小說，原著於1921年取得普立茲新聞獎，對維多利亞時代的上流社會風俗、社交禮儀、建築美學、家居佈置、以至當時流行的文藝作品、科技發展，都有切實的刻劃，是一幅豐富的時代畫卷，馬田‧史高西斯（ Martin Scorsese ）亦成功地將華爾頓對細節的執著影像化。然而最突出的是原著平淡、冰冷、抽離而諷刺意味濃重的語言。史高西斯在訪問中自言企圖將讀小說帶來的印象呈現予觀眾(1)，要保留閱讀的印象，就不能放棄文字的魅力，也就是改編的過程不能只遵從情節的發展，更需抓緊原作的文學意蘊。

語言的威力在原著中尤其突出，影片因此運用大量精選自原著的旁白，對照畫面影像（這當然並不意味將原文一字一句照搬，事實上，編劇在移植的過程已對原著的文句做過修飾），史高西斯未因有文字的「輔助」而馬虎處理影像；相反，他窮盡電影語言的維度與文字相對照，既以影像特點重現語言效果，又憑語言魅力豐富畫面內涵，水乳交融。當旁白 Joanne Woodward 以冷寂的語調介紹華爾頓筆下一年塵封三百六十四天的波弗舞廳，場景便如鬼屋般自銀幕浮現，水晶燈被厚布纏繞，沉悶的陽光在無人午後輕撫室內灰塵，然後光線漸沒，水晶燈現出燭光，共舞的男女像幽靈般淡入。旁白語言填補了影像欲帶出的荒謬感，影像也同時增添了文字未能活現的糜爛。又如紐倫與薇新婚後，薇委婉地令紐倫放棄邀請法國人共膳的念頭，旁白說道：「在一陣震顫中，他意識到將來很多問題將會以同樣方法解決」(2)，畫面邊緣的黑暗自左和右向中間推移，彷彿一扇門自此閉上，他想保留的那點點自我不再可見，視覺上與文字上的不同表達方式在並列下互相配合，滋潤了對方。巴贊（ André Bazin ）認為文字與影像的並置，既能突出兩者本質的相異性，聲音更能令事件得到渲染和擴展。 其實是，兩者也得到了渲染與擴展(3)。文學作品從改編的過程中得到新的生命，影像也通過文字獲取延伸的內涵。

紐倫放棄了私奔的念頭後，旁白細數其後在他書房內陸續上演的生命點滴，如同傾訴一個久遠的傳說、一段沒有起伏，無悲無喜的黯淡歲月。攝影機呼應著這種語調，在書房內游移推進，事件此起彼落，鏡頭往復環迴，沒有停止的跡像，也沒有衝出去的意圖，無始，無終，無意志，一如被逼屈服於規範之下的紐倫，任由生命如流水穿過自身，社會與命運對他的無形扼殺與封鎖漸現其形。這一幕，史高西斯的電影語言與旁白的節奏與內容渾然同步，影像與文學達到相互交融的境界。

史高西斯的策略是靈動多樣的，影像與文字也有風雲變色的交鋒。原著的敘述者徐疾有致，感情淡泊，旁白的語調亦保持冷眼旁觀的清醒與疏離，為影片定出一種韻律。影像倒是較原著與旁白更情緒化，彷彿不甘就此由它們凌駕，試圖在文字的陰影下找尋出路，以走偏鋒的方式來與之呼應：當紐約的上流社會以各自的理由拒絕女伯爵家人為她而設的晚宴，旁白淡然掠過勢態炎涼，正如華爾頓的筆觸不起波瀾，告訴觀眾那是紐約的作風，所有真正的意思由一連串約定俗成的符號傳達，「它們並不婉轉，亦無意含蓄」(4)；相對的電影語言卻拒絕抽離，史高西斯以激動的剪接挑戰沒有感情的敘事者，畫面上一張張寫上故作婉轉語的卡片，如骨牌傾瀉紛至沓來，逼得人透不過氣，隨後的女伯爵特寫鏡頭更驟然溶成血紅。影像一心要揭破在華麗佈置與優雅舉止覆蓋下的殘酷與暴力，這種強烈的對照正讓史高西斯在表現原著精神的同時註冊個人商標：虛偽言詞及矯飾嘴臉、還有將稍有個性的個人封殺在團體以外的心機，難道不比 Jake LaMotta 的拳頭與 Travis Bickle 的鎗口更具殺傷力，更叫人心寒？遙遙呼應了華爾頓對上流社會一干人等行徑的概括：「不沾血的殺戮」(5)。史高西斯在維多利亞時代的優雅與溫文中，發現了至高無上的文明暴力。

對筆者而言，紐倫到波士頓私會女伯爵是書中最動人的部份。互剖心曲的一刻來臨前，雖有千言萬語，卻任由沉默貫穿；有靠近的欲望，而始終保持距離。華爾頓將他們的愛提昇至靈魂相交的境界，因為已超越現世與肉身，沉默與距離成了最私密的交會，任何的語言或接觸，都會粉碎那種和諧。如果說史高西斯的影片有甚麼地方未令人滿意，那就是在這個場景，儘管無奈、苦澀，卻未能表現那種超乎現世的親密。

紐倫不止一次提到他記不清女伯爵的容貌，甚至無法回想他們之間的對話內容；而想像她的存在，任由思緒棲息在她佔據過的空間之中，對他來說比現實更為真切。張愛玲說林黛玉是「一種姿態，一個聲音」(6)，女伯爵對紐倫來說不也一樣？（當然，華爾頓對女伯爵的描寫斷然不是「通身沒有一點細節」）他們的愛變得抽象，女伯爵也成為了一個象徵：他想抵達的彼岸、他錯過了的一切。

為詮釋這個抽象的意念，史高西斯擺脫了文字的羈絆，排除旁白，純以影像提煉當中的韻味。在紐倫趕到路登的別墅會晤女伯爵一場，兩人共處小屋，壓抑的情感在狹窄小室內蘊釀漫延，紐倫望向窗外荒寂的林木，漸漸閉上眼睛，鏡頭轉而落在女伯爵身上，她驀地站起來，向紐倫靠近，以雙手環繞他的肩膊──這數個鏡頭光線質樸，角度平實──紐倫心頭一震，回過頭來，鏡頭隨著他的視線一轉，女伯爵正端坐在椅子裡，視線漫無焦點。觀眾這才回過神來：那一刻溫存只是紐倫的虛想。然而想像是那樣的真確，現實中的女伯爵，身後映照微弱幻光，反而顯得虛無、恍惚。

也因為此，紐倫最後選擇坐在女伯爵的窗下，靜靜沉浸在虛幻的滿足之中。史高西斯捨棄了小說的敘述：「在這裡，我感到更真切」(7)，不再一板一眼力求再現文字的世界──這個概念也確實未能直接地被再現。銀幕呈現一個原著沒有的意象：一撮刺眼的陽光從女伯爵窗上的玻璃反射下來，紐倫又看到了那個燈塔，奇怪，海面沒有泛金，取而代之的是實在的藍，一直背向他的女伯爵，終於回過頭來，並報以微笑。往事追憶、盼望、及想像在銀幕上渾然融為一體，配樂以外的任何聲音都會破壞那種和諧。史高西斯以旁白為影片的起點，而在這一幕終於借助文學的啟發超越了文學，以純粹的影像超越了文字。

註：
1. "'Passion and Restrain': Ian Christie Talks with Martin Scorsese," Film/Literature/Heritage: A Sight and Sound Reader, ed. Ginette Vincendeau, London: British Film Institute, 2001, p. 71.

2. 原為 'With a chill, he knew that in future, many problems will be solved for him in this same way.'

3. 參考自巴贊著：〈《鄉村牧師的日記》與布烈松的風格化〉，《電影是甚麼？》，崔君衍譯，台北：遠流出版公司，1995，頁125-148。

4. 原為 'they were not subtle and were not meant to be.'

5. 原文為 '...taking life "without effusion of blood"', Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000, p 264.

6. 張愛玲：《紅樓夢魘》，香港：皇冠出版社（有限）公司，1998，頁22。

7. 原文為 'It's more real to me here than if I went up', Wharton, p 285.

related: 心外幽情

幻滅

因為連結的關係跑進 Orange's Review。下面關於莎岡的文章，有很豐富的資料，特別是 Part 3。我一直接觸的都是中、英文資料，不免有局限。

Françoise Sagan：Part 1
Françoise Sagan：Part 2
Françoise Sagan：Part 3

最近對很多人、事都有幻滅感，包括法國，包括法國人，包括莎岡。看熱鬧的人只看到表面，很容易熾熱的將某些行為歸類為「型」，假如看深一點複雜一點，我並不是說那便「不型」了，但，同時也可以是，「格衰」，我在巴黎便有不少這種見聞。從歐洲回來，現在最喜歡意大利，和意大利人。威尼斯很商業化，也浪漫得要命；羅馬有一個古文明的氣勢；意大利人熱情，快樂，開朗，看你看到你的眼睛裡去，他們對待「美」，是懷著一種欣賞的心情去靠近，而不是肆意妄為。

A cat is above all else...

A DRAMATIST




This mischievous Abyssinian cat is called memsahib, meaning Her Majesty in Indian

《少女香奈兒》浪漫嗎？

說起來不是不尷尬的。問我《少女香奈兒》好不好看，答：塔圖的小男孩扮相絕對標緻得過份，但正如我們的《梅蘭芳》跟梅老師本人的（創作）生涯幾乎毫無關係，看《少女香奈兒》也不見得會對香奈兒作為香奈兒（而不是作為一個浮浮沉沉小孤女）的了解加深多少。

《少女香奈兒》似一套扮法國片的蹇腳美國片（雖然它的導演是法國人），從第一個（我以為在看《簡愛》！）到最後一個鏡頭都是徹底荷里活格局，方方正正毫無驚喜；影片關心的亦不是香奈兒這個人，而是 Coco 與 Balsan 和 Boy 一段 Ménage À Trois ，管她叫 Coco Chanel 或者 AA BB 都一樣。要真的是 Ménage À Trois ，那是法國人的拿手好戲，倒也可以很好看，可惜《少女香奈兒》只是故作「浪漫」的三角關係。因此，改個 Coco Avant Chanel 的片名，並非就能瞞天過海（也掩蓋不了影片無頭無尾的毛病）。

說故作浪漫是因為它將一段並不高尚（ noble ）的愛情浪漫化：鏡頭非常依戀 Boy 先生那些放電眼神，天濛光在海邊看漁夫的場面，刻意求工的對白，甚至那戲劇化的死亡。好一個刻骨銘心的故事，魔力足以令觀眾對以下事實視而不見： Boy 先生是一個聲稱愛你但不會跟你結婚的男人，呀，是不會跟你結婚，但又會在結婚後偷偷出來跟你短聚的男人──對不起，我實在並不覺得這有甚麼浪漫。不要說甚麼階級／社會限制（電影早早安排 Coco 家姐與貴族苦刁刁的「越級婚姻」來為 Boy 開脫，以示 Boy 娶個富家女不娶 Coco 也無可厚非），愛一個人而「不能」跟她結婚，理由無非是虛偽和懦弱──當然（有些）女人喜歡相信男人有他的「苦衷」；不跟她結婚又不 honour 自己的選擇，繼續跟她維持一種模稜兩可的關係，就是自私兼不高尚。就是談情，電影也明顯放棄深究這段情的內裡，只津津有味地刻劃表面的浪漫。

倒是 Balsan 和 Coco 的感情來得真摯和踏實。 Balsan 這個 playboy 兼老粗給人的第一印象不會太好，卻有一份真率，也落落大方，他對 Coco 漸漸發展的疼愛與關懷，是在 Boy 身上完全找不到的。

我不敢說電影的 target audience 是對「戀愛」有（過份）甜美幻想的女觀眾，因為我不知道究竟有多少女觀眾真的看得「感動」──而影片要「打動」這批女觀眾的居心，卻是顯而易見。拿著這麼好的題材，卻服膺於荷里活品味，只能夠說是浪費。

＊　＊　＊

不過其實有一幕我看得很感動。

Coco 離去時，Balsan 扁著嘴說：「你不理我了」

Coco 說：「你可以來看我。」

然後兩人緊緊擁抱。萬般感覺盡在不言中，我覺得他兩個心靈相通。這也許是片中最法國的一刻。




純粹八掛：講。鏟。片：《少女香奈兒》港版海報三度變身事件
據我所知，並不只香港有這種情況

The Surrealists' Obsession With the Eye

Buñuel, An Andalusian Dog, 1929

"Upon my asking what the word urinate reminded her of, she replied: terminate, the eyes, with a razor, something red, the sun. And egg? A calf’s eye, because of the colour of the head (the calf’s head) and also because the white of the egg was the white of the eye, and the yolk the eyeball. The eye, she said, was egg-shaped."

Georges Bataille, Story of the Eye, 1928

I am amazed at this strict resemblance of the images and the text (which had not been directly pointed out by many). As for who was having an influence on who, I am not sure. But the surrealists all influence each other (and of course they all inherited a lot from Sir Freud...)

My Notes on Time Regained (the film)

It is certainly one of the most exquisite experiences on earth having finished reading In Search of Lost Time...

Raoul Ruiz is famous for his obsession with and his skill in representation of “remembrance of things past”, or “stream of consciousness” with his hypnotic, dreamlike cinematic images, and I started watching Time Regained with such expectation.

To say it is an adaptation of Proust’s literary work, I’d rather put it as a work inspired by it. There are certain Raoul Ruiz's own input and invention in it.

I appreciate the film’s being experimental in exhausting many kinds of film languages to capture the idea of “finding time again”, or “travelling through time”, its brilliant use of mise-en-scene (especially in those scenes where there is Marcel alone), slowly and rhythmically unfolding a deep melanchly in certain scenes, the beautifully exggerated lighting and high contrast cinematography that re-creates a dreamlike ambience, and its first-person narrative in disguise of a third-person narrative (or third-person in disguise of first-person) - because Marcel, the narrator, is always there - exactly corresponding to that of the Book’s.

But, as one can expect, much of the book's poetic beauty, sadness, and sense of disillusion is lost.

The major problem being it is an adaptation of only the last volume, with a vain attempt to (sometimes) explain (certain) things in brief. It is not feasible at all to depict the last volume alone, because it's true beauty could only be realized after you have experienced all the preceding volumes. BUT it would be another issue, if one aims more at visualizing certain moments than unfolding a story, which, sadly, does not seem to be what RR is doing.

I believe this film is intended only for those who have read the book – I have difficulty imagining people who never read the book being able to make sense out of this film, let alone grasping the significance of every scene and every single line being delivered. (Yet on the other hand, for those who have read the book, all these would seem too simplified, shallow, and out of place!)

This enclosed and no-so-care-to-explain-everything approach reminds me a little bit of Tian Zhuangzhuang’s The Go Master (《吳清源》). BUT the problem with Time Regained is exactly in the parts when it tries to explain (one and one's relationship, or what had happened in the previous volumes)! For example, the scene in which Marcel, as a child, meets the “lady in pink” in his uncle's place without yet realizing her to be the Odette who later plays a very important role in his life, was a key moment in the book, key only when it is recalled, and key being it brings Marcel to the realization that "the significance of an experience is not always immediately revealed"; but the scene only functions as a flashback (not to mention it is totally misleading: as if Odette knows Marcel being the little boy - she never does). Another scene being Marcel’s confrontation with Albertine which is awkward and never for one second succeeds in depicting the power struggle and the bizarre love-torture relationship between them. These two scenes may well left unshot!

Nonetheless, as a work inspired by the original work, it was a pleasure to re-experience some of the poetic moments in moving images – only those with Marcel alone.

Because Marcel is very Marcel (take a look at the screen captures below).

Whereas the rest of the cast, except Catherine Deneuve as Odette carrying her mysterious charm, is a little bit of a disaster: The gentle and caring Saint-Loup is too disappointingly ugly; Emmanuelle Beart is sensual and enchanting as always, but she is being too much herself than Gilberte and her acting is too modern for the role. Morel is way too ordinary-looking to be the homme fatale of the whole work. John Malkovich gave a fair performance as Charlus but he is still not the charming, elegant and at once sarcastic and loving Baron to me…And see how Albertine, the elusive little kitten, the sophisticated, sad, and mischievous kitten, and one who attracts and is attacted to women, is turned into a vulgar witch (should I be glad that she, Chiara Mastroianni, being really Deneuve's daughter, was not casted as Gilberte?)...

How cute that soaked-with-tear Marcel is...