美人计1946

Yet let us recall the final scene of Notorious (1946): Devlin elopes with the poisoned Alicia from Sebastian's house in full view of the latter's Nazi collaborators. What we have here is a homologous underlying structure of the three gazes, of the three subjective positions: the ignorant Other is here the members of the Nazi ring who do not know that Alicia is an American spy and that Sebastian knows it (the reason why he is slowly poisoning her with his mother's help); the actants are Devlin and Alicia-Devlin escorts her down the staircase, posing as her friend who will take her to the hospital, with Sebastian's agreement; the helpless opponents are Sebastian and his mother, reduced to the role of passive observers-although Devlin's act is directed against them, any public countermove of theirs would instantly reveal to the members of the Nazi gang present that Alicia is an American spy and that Sebastian knows it, whereby Sebastian would sign his death warrant. What makes this scene different from the three above-mentioned comic interludes is the character of the third agency, the ignorant big Other, the public which witnesses the duel of the actant and his opponent: the Other loses here its benevolent innocence and assumes features of a threatening paranoiac agency. Those who range Notorious among the few Hitchcock's films which display noir sensibility are therefore in the right: one of the features which characterize the noir universe is precisely this mutation in the status of the big Other.

引自

Enjoy Your Symptom!

评价人数不足

Slavoj Zizek / 2007 / Routledge

The very notion of the big Other (of the symbolic order) is founded on the special kind of double deception that becomes visible in a scene from the Marx brothers' Duck Soup, where Groucho defends his client before the court of law with the following argument in favor of his insanity: "This man looks like an idiot and acts like an idiot—but this should in no way deceive you: he IS an idiot!" The paradox of this proposition exemplifies perfectly the classical topos of the Lacanian theory concerning the difference between animal and human deception: man alone is capable of deceiving by means of truth itself. An animal can feign to be or to intend something other than what it really is or intends, but only man can lie by telling a truth that he expects to be taken for a lie. Only man can deceive by feigning to deceive. This is, of course, the logic of Freud's joke about two Polish Jews often cited by Lacan. One of these men asks the other in an offended tone: "Why are you telling me that you are going to Cracow,, so that I'll think you're going to Lemberg, when you are really going to Cracow?" This same logic structures the plot of a whole series of Hitchcock's films: the amorous couple is at first united by a pure accident or an external constraint, i.e., they find themselves in a situation in which they must pretend to be married or in love, until, finally, they fall in love for real. The paradox of such a situation could be adequately described by a paraphrase of Groucho's plea: "This couple looks like a couple in love and acts like a couple in love—but this should in no way deceive you: they ARE a couple in love!" We find perhaps the most refined version of this in Notorious, when Alicia and Devlin, American agents in the house of Sebastian, a rich Nazi supporter and Alicia's husband, furtively enter the wine cellar to explore the secret contents of the champagne bottles. There, they are surprised by the sudden arrival of Sebastian. To conceal the real purpose of their visit to the cellar, they embrace quickly, feigning a clandestine meeting of two lovers. The point is, of course, that they are effectively in love: they succeed in deceiving the husband (for the time being, at least), but what they offer him as a lure is truth itself. This kind of movement "from outside inward" is one of the key components of the intersubjective relations in Hitchcock's films: we effectively become something by pretending that we already are that. To grasp the dialectic of this movement, we have to take into account the crucial fact that this "outside" is never simply a "mask" we wear in public but is rather the symbolic order itself. By "pretending to be something," by "acting as if we were something," we assume a certain place in the intersubjective symbolic network, and it is this external place that defines our true position. If we remain convinced, deep within ourselves, that "we are not really that," if we preserve an intimate distance toward ''the social role we play," we doubly deceive ourselves. The final deception is that social appearance is deceitful, for in the social-symbolic reality things ultimately are precisely what they pretend to be. (More precisely, this holds only for those of Hitchcock's films designated by Lesley Brill as "romances," in opposition to the "ironic" films. The "romances" are ruled by the Pascalian logic whereby social play gradually changes into an authentic intersubjective relationship whereas the "ironic" films [Psycho, for example] depict a total blockade of communication, a psychotic split where the "mask" is effectively nothing but a mask, i.e., where the subject maintains the kind of distance from the symbolic order characteristic of psychoses.)

引自

Looking Awry

8.8

Slavoj Žižek / 1991 / The MIT Press

What matters in Notorious is not the fact that there are some bottles of wine filled with sand ('ore'), but that the wine is in the cellar; that the cellar door is locked; that the key is in the husband's possession; that the husband is in love with his wife; that she herself is in love with another; and that the third party wishes to know what is in the cellar.

第二部分第五章

Everything You Always Wanted to Kno

评价人数不足

Zizek, Slavoj (EDT) / 1992 / Verso

用镜头表达情绪，赋予电影优雅的魅力。

以前看电影的时候，常常光顾着看剧情，看美人，镜头的存在感不是很高。这部片子让我特别注意到了镜头的存在。

作为一部悬疑片，电影中紧张的情绪如何传递给观众？这部电影，不是靠演员表演出着急忙慌的样子，用演员的情绪感染观众。而是通过镜头的剪辑，将环境的紧张气氛表现出来。

用镜头代替语言，去除了一堆可能破坏电影美感的东西，保留了电影的完整性与简练美，赋予其一种优雅的魅力。

优雅得甚至让人觉得有些情节不真实，比如说，里面有一个镜头是褒曼把偷来的钥匙扔到地上，再用脚踢到角落里，以她当时的姿势是不可能实现的，但那灵巧的一踢又把电影中紧张的情绪瞬间化解了。

拿里面的几个镜头举几个例子，看看导演是如何用镜头表现情绪的。

褒曼发现她的咖啡被下了慢性毒药后，镜头在下药的两个凶手之间切换，画面逐渐变得模糊，两凶手的样子幻化成两个扭曲的黑影，镜头开始晃动，画面也开始变形。褒曼意识到真相后的震惊与害怕，以及她慢性中毒后身体的虚弱，就这样在镜头中展现出来了。

有一幕是在楼梯上，艾利克斯想要阻止格兰特带褒曼去医院。但当时家里正在开会，他担心他的妻子是美国特工的事情被败露，被他的同伙们秘密处决掉。楼下是一起开会谋划“大事”的人。镜头突然转到其中一人的脸上，一张陌生严肃的脸突然占据了整个荧幕，让我产生一种不适感，这种不适感也让我体味到纳粹头子当时的紧张与进退两难。

这种感觉跟我们犯了错，怕被父母知道很相似。原本父母都是熟悉的样子，在事情要败露的时候，爸妈的一举一动似乎都有了不一样的意味。电影里那张陌生的脸，放在人群里的时候，不会特别去注意，当犯了错要受到惩罚时，则变得格外瞩目。

电影为了表现男女主相爱时的缠绵热烈，有一段时长近三分钟的长镜头，格兰特和褒曼一边亲吻着，一边谈论着晚餐，这期间他们始终拥抱着。这段长镜头传达了导演关于爱的理念——爱是不能被打扰的，即便是去接电话，或者是挪一个步子，也不愿与对方分开。

还有一幕经常被提及，就是褒曼在偷钥匙时，导演用了一个7秒的运动镜头，模仿褒曼的主观视角，镜头在钥匙和纳粹头子的身影之间移动，然后以一个快速加长的上推镜头把观众的目光拉到褒曼的目标上去——即偷到那把钥匙。镜头的快速移动增加了情节的紧张性，让我们也随着镜头速度的变化情绪起伏。

最后的结尾是艾利克斯慢慢地转过身向自己家走去，门渐渐关上。这里用了一段30秒的上摇镜头，景别由小变大，方向由正变向背，也给我们留下了无尽的悬念：艾利克斯是否会被同伙审判并处决？褒曼与格兰特是否能够成功逃脱联邦调查局和纳粹残党的追捕？

问题还没有解决，一切留待观众去想象。

镜头是电影里的语言。

大概只有对生活有了细致入微的观察感悟，并抓住骨干对其进行合理的夸张放大，才能用镜头将那些看不见摸不着的情绪，准确传神地表达出来。

这让我对希区柯克更加佩服一分，跟风膜拜一下，嘻嘻。

有图片版：//www.toutiao.com/i6491909722390659598/ 一生拍过53部影片的阿尔弗雷德·希区柯克（Alfred Hitchcock），对金发女郎尤为迷恋。据传这源于希区小的时候，家附近发生过一桩金发女郎谋杀事件。他坦言自己迷恋金发女郎的原因：“金发美女最适合被谋杀！想像一下，鲜红的血从她雪白的肌肤上流下来，衬着闪亮的金发是多么美啊！” 但也不是随便一个金发美人他都能看上眼，他说碧姬·芭铎（Brigitte Bardot）是“一只被端上圣诞晚宴的火鸡”，说特蕾莎·怀特（Teresa Wright）是“毫无性感味道的未成年少女”。筹备《西北偏北》（North by Northwest）时，加里·格兰特（Cary Grant）强烈推荐正和他热恋中的索菲亚·罗兰（Sophia Loren）出任女主角，被希区一口回绝：“罗兰小姐不是合适的金发女郎。” 那么，什么样的金发美人才能得到希区的青睐呢？根据希区本人自述，他选择金发女郎的标准有三个： 1.拥有超凡的美貌和青春 2.不应超过中等身高 3.容易指导和加以雕琢 希区生命中最重要的金发女郎主要有三位：英格丽·褒曼（Ingrid Bergman）、格蕾丝·凯利（Grace Kelly）和蒂比•海德莉（Tippi Hedren）。 说起来，英格丽·鲍曼算不上典型的“希女郎”，个头高，骨架大，“拥有超凡的美貌和青春”倒是百分百符合。褒曼的美浑然天成，光彩夺目，然而让希区柯克最倾心的，是褒曼身上高贵冷漠与世俗热情相结合的气质。事实上，外表高贵冷艳的褒曼，私下里豪爽奔放，性伴侣众多。 希区柯克与褒曼合作的第一部影片是《爱德华大夫》（Spellbound）。褒曼当时已随着《卡萨布兰卡》（Casablanca）、《战地钟声》（For Whom the Bell Tolls）而大红大紫，且凭借《煤气灯下》（Gaslight）中的精湛表演拿下了平生第一个奥斯卡最佳女主角奖。 她本不想接这部片子，第一，是不相信这个爱情故事，其二，最主要的，当时有很多希区柯克在片场不好相处的传闻（主要是“演员就是牲口”的言论）。但迫于和制片人大卫·O·塞尔兹尼克（David O. Selznick）的合同，只好勉强答应下来。 然而电影开拍了，褒曼发现根本不是那么一回事。那个以折磨演员为乐的希区，到了褒曼身边，马上变成一个温和体贴的胖子。“他会很有耐心的坐着听提出说不同的意见，无论是工作中还是生活上的，他是个我可以倾诉一切的人。” 在片场，希区柯克对褒曼以外的所有人都十分冷淡，当时还是新人的格利高里·派克（Gregory Peck）更是得不到希区的一丁点好脸色。希区把所有的兴趣和注意力都倾注到这位美人身上，甚至和妻子奥玛的关系一度紧张。 在影片拍摄现场，希区故意放弃了拍女明星惯用的低亮度照明法，反而用强光把褒曼的脸蛋清晰地放到银幕中央，他的解释是：“褒曼完全不需要灯光的帮助（掩盖）”。 众所周知，希区柯克对金发女郎的爱并不仅仅停留在精神层面，坊间多有传言，希区柯克曾向女演员提出肉体上的要求。褒曼曾对她的朋友回忆：“跟希区柯克拍戏是一件可怕的事情，因为他经常跑进更衣室做一些挑逗的动作。”然而褒曼是个个性强硬的姑娘，老司机希区的淫威根本不会在她身上奏效。 于是，希区只有继续对褒曼的精神迷恋。在他们合作的下一部电影《美人计》中，他特意选择加里·格兰特为男主角，格兰特高大俊朗的外形简直就是希区柯克的相反面。 希区柯克设计了一场前所未有的吻戏，挑战《海斯法典》对“接吻不得超过3秒钟”的规定。他们一边接吻，一边说着话，还起身做事，共持续了三分钟。后来希区柯克接受采访时，直言不讳地承认，格兰特就是他的替身，他想吻褒曼的想法通过格兰特实现了。 《风流夜合花》（Under Capricorn，也译作《历劫佳人》）是他们合作的最后一部影片，其间褒曼结识了意大利名导罗伯托·罗西里尼（Roberto Rossellini），很快陷入爱河，抛弃各自的家庭走到了一起。这是好莱坞40年代末最大的一场娱乐事件和丑闻，也让胖子导演伤透了心。希区柯克认为褒曼背叛了他，不只是因为他喜欢与褒曼合作，更因为她离开他找了另一个导演。

公众号：电影套盒（laodianyinghualang）

希区柯克电影里的房子结构很有意思，毕竟一切人物活动都要为电影服务，有本书The Wrong House就是从建筑角度讲希区柯克。《美人计》里，房子一楼是客厅，二楼是卧室，还有个地下小酒窖。这一下分出了三个小世界。

先说房子的主体部分和小酒窖。格兰特和褒曼在酒窖里寻找秘密的时候，舞会的香槟一点点被喝完，雷恩斯也因此准备下楼找酒。这一段的剪辑很精彩，酒窖这个密闭的环境天然地将格兰特与褒曼与外面的世界隔离开来，两人一心一意完成间谍任务，并不知道楼上发生了什么。直到雷恩斯下楼，空间上他靠近了两人，原本在两处空间的人物活动也有了交汇点。然而此时两组人物（雷恩斯和管家，格兰特和褒曼）仍有距离，也给了后者瞒天过海的机会。为了掩盖真实行动，两人装作是格兰特将褒曼诱骗到酒窖强吻她，成功将雷恩斯的注意力转移到爱情与性道德的问题上。这里雷恩斯的主观镜头很有意思，隔着门看向拥吻的两人，好像是剧院观众看戏一样。事实上两人的戏是真作假时假亦真，行动是临时构想的，感情却是真实的。雷恩斯打开门的那一瞬间，屏障也被冲破了。

再看房子的一楼和二楼。楼梯连接着两个楼层，也是两个世界。一楼是男主人从事纳粹活动的地方，二楼是相对私密的卧室。当发现自己的妻子是美国间谍的时候，男主人与母亲策划下毒并将她囚禁在卧室。片尾，格兰特从卧室救出褒曼以后，被雷恩斯发现并意图阻止。雷恩斯上楼，事实上也预示着他到了另一个世界——接下来，楼下其他纳粹分子听见动静纷纷走出会议室，为了掩盖自己娶了美国间谍的事实，他和母亲不得不选择站在妻子这一边。楼梯的存在一方面拖长了时间，镜头在四人和楼下的纳粹分子间切换，增加了紧张感；另一方面，从楼梯上看下去，俯拍使得楼下的纳粹分子看上去更有威胁感和压迫感。四人一同下楼，褒曼在逃离危险的卧室，雷恩斯却是一步步走向自己的厄运，楼梯成了命运的转折点。

最后，《美人计》中著名的从俯拍到褒曼手中的钥匙的段落，借助了开阔的一楼大厅。将褒曼置于画面中央的位置，暗示了此时她深受雷恩斯信任，是房子里真正的女主人。对比《蝴蝶梦》，琼·芳登更多地从画面一侧出现，暗示她处在相对被动的位置。

我现在的确切身感觉到，伟大的影片至少得看到第二遍才能有一些稍微深入的认识。希区柯克的电影，第一遍时我很难不把注意力全集中到惊险的情节上。看到第二遍，才会观察他怎么拍、为什么这么拍。所谓温故而知新，这就是大师作品的魅力。细节处皆是大学问，这个道理放在哪一行都是适用的。

（2017年的一篇笔记，略作修改与整理，重发出来。）