摇晃的城市，虚浮的建筑，或明或暗的灯光，漂浮的桌子，抽象化的人物，带着魔幻色彩与不真实感，构成了半梦半醒的人生。

想要传达的主题大概是人生如一梦，人生便是由迷离的梦与清醒构成的，人行于世，相逢即是有缘，我们的主角没有姓名，姓名又有何用，的确，在浮生一梦的状态下，姓名只是一个代号，而真正有意义的是人本身，我们跟着主角走过一个又一个真实或虚幻的场景，不断的做梦，清醒，做梦复又清醒，陷入奇妙的循环。

形式是表达思想的一种手段，动画化的人物，粗犷的线条，不加细修，大块粗糙的色彩，不甚精细的细节，与日常稳固相反的摇晃，不完美的效果反而是这部电影的完美，也是魅力所在。

跟着主角踏上梦的旅程，遇到奇怪的人和事，然后由梦中的危险情景一下子醒来，采取的是典型的由梦中清醒的模式。清醒片刻，不知何时就又进入一个又一个的梦境，梦境中出现最多的场景是与人交谈，交谈对象是哲学家，历史学家，人类学家，而这些人讲述的道理能够听懂却理解不了，让人云里雾里的。或者是非主角的两个人在谈话，设计的大多是人生、生命之类的大问题。一度以为是现实的时候，主角又从梦中清醒。

电影的后半部分与心理学家关于梦的解析有异曲同工之妙：梦与死亡的密切关系，梦境中的情境与现实生活中发生的尤其相似，梦境的联结等都让人思考。

让我冷汗涔涔的是关于解释如何从梦中清醒的那一部分，主角与人会面，谈到梦境中的开关是不起作用的，主角临走前，随手动了一下门边的开关，明亮的灯光不变，证实这是一个梦境。梦中有梦，无穷无尽，让我想到盗梦空间。

梦境曲折离奇，或关于自己，或关于他人，梦的频繁出现让人难以区分梦境与现实，如庄周梦蝶，不知是庄周在蝶的梦中，还是蝶在庄周的梦中。

人生如梦，太过匆匆，你我皆过客，若庄周，若蝶。

"Dream is destiny."

Rock out.

Rock and roll.

Go, strings. Begin.

Sara, will you try that, the thing you asked me about?

- Yeah. - Will you try it a little more subdued?

- Okay. - Vibrato. Just try it and see what you think.

But what I want--

I mean, I want it to sound rich and maybe almost a little wavy...

due to being slightly out of tune.

- Do you want it, um-- - I think it should be slightly detached.

That's what I was wondering.

Yeah, yeah, you got it.

Snazzy.

Okay, pick up to 20 please.

- Erik, this is a pickup to 20. - Okay.

1, 2, 3.

Hey, man, it's me. Um, I just got back into town.

I thought maybe I could bum a ride off you or something, but that's cool.

I could probably just take a cab, something like that. Um--

Yeah, I guess I'll hang out with you later, something like that.

Ahoy there, matey! You in for the long haul?

You need a little hitch in your get-along, a little lift on down the line?

Oh, um, yeah, actually, I was waiting for a cab or something, but if you want to--

All right. Don't miss the boat.

- Hey, thanks. - Not a problem.

Anchors aweigh!

So what do you think of my little vessel?

She's what we call "see-worthy." S-E-E. See with your eyes.

I feel like my transport should be an extension of my personality.

Voila. And this? This is like my little window to the world,

and every minute, it's a different show.

Now, I may not understand it. I may not even necessarily agree with it.

But I'll tell you what, I accept it and just sort of glide along.

You want to keep things on an even keel I guess is what I'm saying.

You want to go with the flow. The sea refuses no river.

The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving.

Saves on introductions and good-byes.

The ride does not require an explanation.

Just occupants. That's where you guys come in.

It's like you come onto this planet with a crayon box.

Now, you may get the 8-pack, you may get the 16-pack.

But it's all in what you do with the crayons,

the colors that you're given.

Don't worry about drawing within the lines or coloring outside the lines.

I say color outside the lines. Color right off he page.

Don't box me in. We're in motion to the ocean.

We are not landlocked, I'll tell ya that.

So where do you want out?

Uh, who, me? Am I first?

Um, I don't know. Really, anywhere is fine.

Well, just--just give me an address or something, okay?

Tell you what, go up three more streets,

take a right, go two more blocks,

drop this guy off on the next corner.

- Where's that? - I don't know either, but it's somewhere,

and it's gonna determine the course of the rest of your life.

All ashore that's going ashore.

Toot toot!

The reason why I refuse to take existentialism...

as just another French fashion or historical curiosity...

is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century.

I 'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately,

the sense of taking responsibility for who you are,

the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life.

Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair.

But I think the truth is just the opposite.

Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life.

But one thing that comes out from reading these guys...

is not a sense of anguish about life so much as...

a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it.

It's like your life is yours to create.

I've read the post modernists with some interest, even admiration.

But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling...

that something absolutely essential is getting left out.

The more that you talk about a person as a social construction...

or as a confluence of forces...

or as fragmented or marginalized,

what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses.

And when Sartre talks about responsibility,

he's not talking about something abstract.

He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about.

It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking.

Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences.

It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting.

Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference.

It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms.

Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example.

In short, I think the message here is...

that we should never simply write ourselves off...

and see ourselves as the victim of various forces.

It's always our decision who we are.

Creation seems to come out of imperfection.

I t seems to come out of a striving and a frustration.

And this is where I think language came from.

I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation...

and have some sort of connection with one another.

And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival.

Like, you know, "water." We came up with a sound for that.

Or, "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came up with a sound for that.

But when it gets really interesting, I think,

is when we use that same system of symbols to communicate...

all the abstract and intangible things that we're experiencing.

What is, like, frustration? Or what is anger or love?

When I say "love,"

the sound comes out of my mouth...

and it hits the other person's ear,

travels through this Byzantine conduit in their brain,

you know, through their memories of love or lack of love,

and they register what I'm saying and say yes, they understand.

But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert.

They're just symbols. They're dead, you know?

And so much of our experience is intangible.

So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable.

And yet, you know, when we communicate with one another,

and we--

we feel that we have connected,

and we think that we're understood,

I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion.

And that feeling might be transient, but I think it's what we live for.

If wee looking at the highlights of human development,

you have to look at the evolution of the organism...

and then at the development of its interaction with the environment.

Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life...

perceived through the hominid...

coming to the evolution of mankind.

Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon man.

Now, interestingly, what youe looking at here are three strings:

biological, anthropological--

development of the cities, cultures--

and cultural, which is human expression.

Now, what youe seen here is the evolution of populations,

not so much the evolution of individuals.

And in addition, if you look at the time scales that's involved here--

two billion years for life,

six million years for the hominid,

years for mankind as we know it--

you're beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm.

And then when you get to agricultural,

when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution,

you're looking at years, years, years.

You're seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time.

What that means is that as we go through the new evolution,

it's gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself...

within our lifetime, within this generation.

The new evolution stems from information,

and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog.

The digital is artificial intelligence.

The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism.

And you knit the two together with neurobiology.

Before on the old evolutionary paradigm,

one would die and the other would grow and dominate.

But under the new paradigm, they would exist...

as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping.

Okay, independent from the external.

And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process,

emanating from the needs and the desires of the individual,

and not an external process, a passive process...

where the individual is just at the whim of the collective.

So, you produce a neo-human with a new individuality and a new consciousness.

But that's only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle...

because as the next cycle proceeds,

the input is now this new intelligence.

As intelligence piles on intelligence,

as ability piles on ability, the speed changes.

Until what? Until you reach a crescendo in a way...

could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human,

human and neo-human potential.

It could be something totally different.

It could be the amplification of the individual,

the multiplication of individual existences.

Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space.

And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution,

manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive.

That's the interesting part. The old evolution is cold.

It's sterile. It's efficient, okay?

And its manifestations are those social adaptations.

You're talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay?

Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis.

These would be subject to de-evolution.

The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty,

of justice, of freedom.

These will be the manifestations of the new evolution.

That is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice.

A self-destructive man feels completely alienated, utterly alone.

He's an outsider to the human community.

He thinks to himself, "I must be insane."

What he fails to realize is that society has, just as he does,

a vested interest in considerable losses and catastrophes.

These wars, famines, floods and quakes meet well-defined needs.

Man wants chaos.

In fact, he's gotta have it.

Depression, strife, riots, murder, all this dread.

We're irresistibly drawn to that almost orgiastic state...

created out of death and destruction.

It's in all of us. We revel in it.

Sure, the media tries to put a sad face on these things,

painting them up as great human tragedies.

But we all know the function of the media has never been...

to eliminate the evils of the world, no.

Their job is to persuade us to accept those evils and get used to living with them.

The powers that be want us to be passive observers.

Hey, you got a match?

And they haven't given us any other options...

outside the occasional, purely symbolic,

participatory act of voting.

You want the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left?

I feel that the time has come to project my own...

inadequacies and dissatisfactions...

into the sociopolitical and scientific schemes,

Let my own lack of a voice be heard.

I keep thinking about something you said.

- Something I said? - Yeah.

About how you often feel like you're observing your life...

from the perspective of an old woman about to die.

- You remember that? - Yeah. I still feel that way sometimes.

Like I'm looking back on my life.

Like my waking life is her memories.

Exactly.

I heard that Tim Leary said as he was dying...

that he was looking forward to the moment...

when his body was dead, but his brain was still alive.

They say that there's still to minutes of brain activity after everything is shut down.

And a second of dream consciousness, right,

well, that's infinitely longer than a waking second.

- You know what I'm saying? - Oh, yeah, definitely.

For example, I wake up and it's :

and then I go back to sleep and I have those long, intricate,

beautiful dreams that seem to last for hours,

and then I wake up and it's... : .

Exactly. So then to minutes of brain activity,

I mean, that could be your whole life.

I mean, you are that woman looking back over everything.

Okay, so what if I am? Then what would you be in all that?

Whatever I am right now.

I mean, yeah, maybe I only exist in your mind.

I'm still just as real as anything else.

Yeah.

- I've been thinking also about something you said. - What's that?

Just about reincarnation and where all the new souls come from over time.

Everybody always say that they've been the reincarnation...

of Cleopatra or Alexander the Great.

I always want to tell them they were probably some dumb fuck like everybody else.

I mean, it's impossible. Think about it.

The world population has doubled in the past years, right?

- So if you really believe in that ego thing of one eternal soul, - Mm-hmm.

then you only have a % chance of your soul being over .

And for it to be over years old, then it's only one out of six.

So what are you saying then? Reincarnation doesn't exist...

or that we're all young souls like where half of us are first-round humans?

No, no. What I'm trying to say is that somehow I believe...

reincarnation is just a--

a poetic expression of what collective memory really is.

There was this article by this biochemist that I read not long ago,

and he was talking about how when a member of a species is born,

it has a billion years of memory to draw on.

And this is where we inherit our instincts.

I like that. It's like there's, um,

this whole telepathic thing going on that wee all a part of,

whether wee conscious of it or not.

That would explain why there's all these, you know,

seemingly spontaneous, worldwide, innovative leaps in science, in the arts.

You know, like the same results poppin' up everywhere independent of each other.

Some guy on a computer, he figures something out,

and then almost simultaneously, a bunch of other people all over the world...

- figure out the same thing. - Mm-hmm.

They did this study. They isolated a group of people over time,

and they monitored their abilities at crossword puzzles...

in relation to the general population.

And then they secretly gave them a day-old crossword,

one that had already been answered by thousands of other people.

Their scores went up dramatically, like percent.

So it's like once the answers are out there,

you know, people can pick up on 'em.

It's like we're all telepathically sharing our experiences.

I'll get you motherfuckers if it's the last thing I do.

Oh, you're gonna pay for what you did to me.

For every second I spend in this hellhole,

I'll see you spend a year in living hell!

Oh, you fucks are gonna beg me to let you die.

No, no, not yet.

I want you cocksuckers to suffer.

Oh, I'll fix your fuckin' asses, all right.

Maybe a long needle in your eardrum.

A hot cigar in your eye.

Nothin' fancy.

Some molten lead up the ass.

Ooh!

Or better still,

some of that old Apache shit.

Cut your eyelids off. Yeah.

I'll just listen to you fucks screamin'.

Oh, what sweet music that'll be.

Yeah. We'll do it in the hospital.

With doctors and nurses so you pricks don't die on me too quick.

You know the best part?

The best part is you dick-smokin' faggots will have your eyelids cut off,

so youl have to watch me do it to you, yeah.

You'll see me bring that cigar closer and closer...

to your wide-open eyeball...

till you're almost out of your mind.

But not quite...

'cause I want it to last a long, long time.

I want you to know that it's me,

that I'm the one that's doin' it to you.

Me!

And that sissy psychiatrist?

What unmitigated ignorance!

That old drunken fart of a judge!

What a pompous ass!

Judge not lestye be judged!

All of you pukes are gonna die the day I get out of this shithole!

I guarantee youl regret the day you met me!

In a way, in our contemporary world view,

It's easy to think that science has come to take the place of God.

But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever.

Take the problem of free will.

This problem's been around for a long time,

since before Aristotle in B.C.

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas,

these guys all worried about how we can be free...

if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do.

Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws,

and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world.

Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy,

they enable incredible technological achievements.

But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too.

We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules.

We're mostly water,

and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to basic physical laws.

So it starts to look like whether it's God setting things up in advance...

and knowing everything you're gonna do...

or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything.

There's not a lot of room left for freedom.

So now you might be tempted to just ignore the question,

ignore the mystery of free will.

Say, "Oh, well, it's just an historical anecdote. It's sophomoric.

It's a question with no answer. Just forget about it."

But the question keeps staring you right in the face.

You think about individuality, for example, who you are.

Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make.

Or take responsibility. You can only be held responsible,

you can only be found guilty or admired or respected...

for things you did of your own free will.

The question keeps coming back, and we don't really have a solution to it.

It starts to look like all your decisions are really just a charade.

Think about how it happens. There's some electrical activity in your brain.

Your neurons fire. They send a signal down into your nervous system.

It passes along down into your muscle fibers.

They twitch. You might, say, reach out your arm.

Looks like it's a free action on your part,

but every one of those-- every part of that process...

is actually governed by physical law:

chemical laws, electrical laws and so on.

So now it just looks like the Big Bang set up the initial conditions,

and the whole rest of our history,

the whole rest of human history and even before,

is really just sort of the playing out of subatomic particles...

according to these basic fundamental physical laws.

We think wee special. We think we have some kind of special dignity,

but that now comes under threat.

I mean, that's really challenged by this picture.

So you might be saying, "Well, wait a minute. What about quantum mechanics?

"I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that.

"It's really a probabilistic theory.

There's room. It's loose. It's not deterministic."

And that's gonna enable us to understand free will.

But if you look at the details, it's not really gonna help...

because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles,

and their behavior is apparently a bit random.

They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that it's unpredictable...

and we can't understand it based on anything that came before.

It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework.

But is that gonna help with freedom?

Should our freedom just be a matter of probabilities,

just some random swerving in a chaotic system?

That just seems like it's worse. I'd rather be a gear...

in a big deterministic, physical machine...

than just some random swerving.

So we can't just ignore the problem.

We have to find room in our contemporary world view for persons,

with all that that it entails; not just bodies, but persons.

And that means trying to solve the problem of freedom,

finding room for choice and responsibility...

and trying to understand individuality.

You can't fight city hall, death and taxes.

Don't talk about politics or religion.

This is all the equivalent of enemy propaganda rolling across the picket line.

" Lay down, G.I. Lay down, G.I."

We saw it all through the th Century.

And now in the st Century, it's time to stand up and realize...

that we should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze.

We should not submit to dehumanization.

I don't know about you, but I'm concerned with what's happening in this world.

I'm concerned with the structure.

I'm concerned with the systems of control,

those that control my life and those that seek to control it even more!

I want freedom! That's what I want!

And that's what you should want!

It's up to each and every one of us to turn loose and just shovel the greed,

the hatred, the envy and, yes, the insecurities...

because that is the central mode of control-- make us feel pathetic, small...

so we'll willingly give up our sovereignty, our liberty, our destiny.

We have got to realize that we're being conditioned on a mass scale.

Start challenging this corporate slave state!

The st Century is gonna be a new century,

not the century of slavery, not the century of lies and issues of no significance...

and classism and statism and all the rest of the modes of control!

It's gonna be the age of humankind...

standing up for something pure and something right!

What a bunch of garbage-- liberal Democrat, conservative Republican.

It's all there to control you. Two sides of the same coin.

Two management teams bidding for control!

The C.E.O. job of Slavery, Incorporated!

The truth is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of lies!

I'm sick of it, and I'm not gonna take a bite out of it! Do you got me?

Resistance is not futile. We're gonna win this thing.

Humankind is too good! We're not a bunch of underachievers!

We're gonna stand up and we're gonna be human beings!

We're gonna get fired up about the real things, the things that matter:

creativity and the dynamic human spirit that refuses to submit!

Well, that's it! That's all I got to say! It's in your court.

The quest is to be liberated from the negative,

which is really our own will to nothingness.

And once having said yes to the instant,

the affirmation is contagious.

It bursts into a chain of affirmations that knows no limit.

To say yes to one instant...

is to say yes to all of existence.

The main character is what you might call "the mind."

It's mastery, it's capacity to represent.

Throughout history, attempts have been made...

to contain those experiences which happen at the edge of the limit...

where the mind is vulnerable.

But I think we are in a very significant moment in history.

Those moments, those what you might call liminal,

Limit, frontier, edge zone experiences...

are actually now becoming the norm.

These multiplicities and distinctions and differences...

that have given great difficulty to the old mind...

are actually through entering into their very essence,

tasting and feeling their uniqueness.

One might make a breakthrough to that common something...

that holds them together.

And so the main character is, to this new mind,

greater, greater mind.

A mind that yet is to be.

And when we are obviously entered into that mode,

you can see a radical subjectivity,

radical attunement to individuality, uniqueness to that which the mind is,

opens itself to a vast objectivity.

So the story is the story of the cosmos now.

The moment is not just a passing, empty nothing yet.

And this is in the way in which these secret passages happen.

Yes, it's empty with such fullness...

that the great moment, the great life of the universe...

is pulsating in it.

And each one, each object, each place, each act...

Leaves a mark.

And that story is singular.

But, in fact, it's story after story.

Time just dissolves into quick-moving particles that are swirling away.

Either I'm moving fast or time is. Never both simultaneously.

It's such a strange paradox. I mean, while, technically,

I 'm closer to the end of my life than I've ever been,

I actually feel more than ever that I have all the time in the world.

When I was younger, there was a desperation, a desire for certainty,

&nb

本来就从早到晚累了一天，看完Waking Life更是连脑子都累晕了。

冲着Ethan Hawke 和 Julie Delpy 才一直找这部电影，一买回来就迫不及待要看，没想到是动画片，更没想到是我非常不喜欢的风格的动画片，忍着看了几眼，实在看不下去，而且根本就看不到Ethan Hawke 和Julie Delpy 的影子，当时那个失望哦。今天突然很不甘心又重拾起来，因为豆瓣上的评价都是很好的，没理由那么难看呀。结果基本上是用快进在看，看到对白有点意思才停下来，因为动画画面晃来晃去的基本上都差不多，之所以晃因为表现的是梦境，说实话看久了头都会晕。结果是有意思的对白越来越多，后来就都能慢慢的看了。看完之后觉得很惊讶，没想到拍过那么浪漫的Before Sunrise和Before Sunset的导演会拍出这样严肃的电影，而且是用动画。明明说的是一个人的醒不过来的梦境，却又每一句话都在说现实。

其中说到一个人如何能在梦中知道自己是在做梦，可以抓住几个迹象，比如去关一盏灯，一直关不上，又比如自己在飞，再比如一直看不清钟表上的时间，当然这迹象大概都会因人而异。这阵子正读南怀谨讲的圆觉经，说到人要在梦中知道自己在做梦是非常难的。又说“一般人所讲人生如梦，那是在痛苦烦恼时偶尔的感叹而已，并没有真把人生当做是梦。”而电影里则说：dreams are real only as long as they last.
Can't you say the same thing about life?



这是一部如果能坚持看完就一定会想很多的电影，而且也不会因为画面难看就给它打低分。除非在看的时候昏昏欲睡以致真的睡着。最后总算在花絮里看到一段真人出演版，感觉像赚到了。其实Ethan Hawke 和 Julie Delpy 演的那一段还是很意思的，虽然很短，录全文如下：

(A couple are in bed talking -- Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke)

I keep thinking about something you said.

Something I said?

Yeah. About how you often feel like you're observing your life from the perspective of an old woman about to die. You remember that?

Yeah. I still feel that way sometimes. Like I'm looking back on my life. Like my waking life is her memories.

Exactly. I heard that Tim Leary said as he was dying that he was looking forward to the moment when his body was dead but his brain was still alive. You know they say that there's still six to twelve minutes of brain activity after everything else is shutdown. And a second of dream consciousness, right, well, that's infinitely longer than a waking second. You know what I'm saying?

Oh, yeah, definitely. For example, I wake up and it is 10:12, and then I go back to sleep and I have those long, intricate, beautiful dreams that seem to last for hours, and then I wake up and it's ... 10:13.

Yeah, exactly. So then six to twelve minutes of brain activity, I mean, that could be your whole life. I mean, you are that woman looking back over everything.

Okay, so what if I am? Then what would you be in all that?

Whatever I am right now. I mean, yeah, maybe I only exist in your mind. I'm still just as real as anything else.

Yeah. I've been thinking also about something you said.

What's that?

Just about reincarnation and where all the new souls come from over time. Everybody always say that they've been the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Alexander the Great. I always want to tell them they were probably some dumb fuck like everybody else. I mean, it's impossible. Think about it. The world population has doubled in the past 40 years, right? So if you really believe in that ego thing of one eternal soul, then you have only 50% chance of your soul being over 40. And for it to be over 150 years old, then it's only one out of six.

Right, so what are you saying? That reincarnation doesn't exist, or that we're all young souls like where half of us are first round humans?

No, no. What I'm trying to say is that somehow I believe reincarnation is just a - a poetic expression of what collective memory really is. There was this article by this biochemist that I read not long ago, and he was talking about how when a member of our species is born, it has a billion years of memory to draw on. And this is where we inherit our instincts.

I like that. It's like there's this whole telepathic thing going on that we're all a part of, whether we're conscious of it or not. That would explain why there are all these, you know, seemingly spontaneous, worldwide, innovative leaps in science, in the arts. You know, like the same results poppin' up everywhere independent of each other. Some guy on a computer, he figures something out, and then almost simultaneously a bunch of other people all over the world figure out the same thing. They did this study. They isolated a group of people over time, and they monitored their abilities at crossword puzzles, right, in relation to the general population. And they secretly gave them a day-old crossword, one that had already been answered by thousands of other people, right. And their scores went up dramatically, like 20 percent. So it's like once the answers are out there, people can pick up on 'em. It's like we're all telepathically sharing our experiences.

不管打高分低分，是不是想太多了？
神作的道理就在
你飘飘荡荡跟着它走
智商才变高
老想着判断它、描述它、概括它、类比它
就把自己想成白痴了

很佩服那些看睡了然后醒了起来重看还能写一堆的观众
真有专业精神
但很怀疑他们写下的与这部片有什么关系
他们写下的
很适合用来描述
采用同样素材
却拍得水平远逊的影片

如有些观众质疑的：
如果能够这么打碎了来说
就没必要拍成一部片了

神就神在它是一部片
有没有想过：是什么把这些东西黏在一起？

《半梦半醒的人生》的29段谈话与自白 by idletalk


《半梦半醒的人生》Waking Life——这是一部2001年拍摄的动画片。导演兼编剧理查德林克莱特用DV在奥斯汀拍摄了这部影片，然后使用“interpolated翻拍”程序将图像转换，使得实景增加了程序化的外观看上去象是动画片。就是这样一部看起来不像是动画片的动画片，在当年也没引起什么反响；我却反复看5遍，因为在我看来这可能是21世纪前期最为伟大的影片。

影片的故事非常的简单，主人公一个大学生，他来到了一个超现实的幻境中。他身处的这座城市好象是奥斯汀，但日常生活的规律和秩序似乎完全被打破了。
他从一个地方游荡到另一个地方，不断遇到稀奇古怪的人。最有意思的是他遇见的这些人都在谈论一些宏大高深的话题：从量子论到语言的起源，从存在主义到人的转世再生，从自由意志的荒谬到电影作为一种叙事工具，他陷入一场接着一场的对话中。
他极力想知道自己究竟处在梦境中，还是处于清醒中。但最终他只是发现自己不断苏醒，又不断重新坠入梦境中。他无法摆脱这接二连三地涌现的梦，开始逐渐理解梦的含义，并试着控制梦和周围的环境，分辨苏醒的人生与梦中人生的区别……

大量对话也正是林克莱特作品的一个标志性元素。不同于伍迪艾伦纽约知识分子神经质式的喋喋不休，也不同于埃里克侯麦法国中产阶级长篇大论的交谈，林克莱特呈现的是美国年轻人鲜活而具有时代特色的语言。而且他的不少影片还不是几个人的谈话，而是规模庞大。不过相对于过去的作品，此片中的对话要显得“知识分子气”浓重得多，那些晦涩抽象的哲学命题对观众可绝对是个考验。

在这些繁杂的谈话中我把它切割成了29个片段，并努力以自己的理解诠释其内容。虽然它的丰富我只看到了一角。但时间会证明它的伟大值得我去这样做。

1、船型车司机———任何的事物你都可以不赞同，但重要的是他存在的事实。随大流是大多数人的共性，可最终你会发现你必须去找到自己的非共性所在。

2、大学教授————排除集体共性的过程中，并不一定能找到自我的个性，问题的重点乃在于思考的过程。

3、金发女子————语言所具有的不可沟通性，言语在每个人的心中有着不同的深层含义，也即联系物和凭借物的不同导致人类即使使用的是同一种语言，也存在永远无法沟通的盲点。

4、黑白发男子————望远镜似的人类进化过程（物质——精神）。不同智慧间质与量的转化（毁灭——重生）

5、自焚的男子————人类自毁性与人类社会自毁性存在着共通点。（个人的自杀、病痛和人类社会的战争、自然灾害）。媒体对社会丑恶面的频繁揭露，并无法消灭它，只能迫使人们对其麻木并接受。

6、交欢中的男女————人类记忆与经验在一代一代的遗传着。途径并非来自言语和书籍，而是DNA中的深层存在。

7、监狱中的男子————用复仇的幻想来填补时间。（许许多多的人都在用欲望实践的梦想来填补日常生活的时间）

8、戴眼镜的中年男子————人类的自由很大程度建立在物理规则上。但同时又存在一些不规则的元素来动摇原始的物理规则。可恰恰在某种意义上，不规则的元素也可能是物理规则中的一环。（上帝的决定——人类的自由意志——其中的界限）问题在于外延与内延的边界在哪？

9、宣传车上的男子————突破即定的规则，世界便是即定规则的框架，政治则是即定规则的核心动力。革命的问题不在于是否毁灭，而在于毁灭之后建立什么？

10、戴眼镜的老者————如若中心为“无”，既是空。对任何一个存在说是，既是对所有的存在说是。

11、黑人男子————现有的分类是对知识最大的束缚。我们必须将其解脱重整，使之聚合。在知识的共同领域寻求新知。

12、咖啡厅里的两位女子————人体的细胞在七年的过程里会全部更新。新我的产生，迫使我们肯定不同于旧我，但在认知上我们还是保持着自己与旧我的认同。问题在于延续性。人不可能缺乏延续性的不断的与自我重新认同。

13、播电影的猴子————人在困苦中可以获得的唯一有益知识是：任何事情都有可能发生，有困苦也必有欢乐。

14、白发老者————人类的痛苦有两种，或物质过于缺乏，或物质过于丰富。但在精神层面，人类却一直没有进步，问题在于人类的特性：恐惧和懒惰。

15、写作的男子————伟大的小说不在于其的故事，或者表现形式，而在于人、思想、时间。

16、留大胡子的胖子————梦境与现实，虚幻或真实之间的转化，有时非常简单。特别是当表现物为暴力时，

17、长发男子————梦是自我认同的一种过程，在一定意义上，它与现实没有根本区别。

18、弹琴的男子————梦的意义在于超越自我的存在形式。你可以是任何的一种存在形式，不一定是人类，甚至不一定是物体。

19、穿皮衣的长发男子————有些人醒着也在做梦，因为他们没有梦的意识，他们并不想在梦中得到思想的解放，他们的梦是现实的延续，也就是说是对物质渴望的梦想。

20、卷发男子————沉默……沉默……在这出看来喋喋不休的电影中此时出现了一个沉默看着你的男子。这种手法让我想起国画里的“留白”。人生是需要静默的，那时便是反观自身的时刻。

21、留着“雷鬼”头的四人帮————行动在很多时候只是理念自然而然的放映，但并不能因此就界定它具有明确的目的性。

22、背着背包的男子————梦在于自我感性的存在，寻找一切新的可能性。像旅行一般，向往所有的未知。

23、白衣男子————太阳底下无新事？不。梦具有发掘“新事”的可能性。

24、红发女子————交谈在很多时候只是人类远离孤独与表达礼貌的手段。而交流思想往往却居于其次。

25、爆炸头男子————记忆比忘却需要更大的力量，所以梦中的事情我们便经常遗忘。这与现实何其的相似。

26、光头男子————梦中的自己始终还是无法摆脱现实的投射，所以更多的时候梦中的本体也只不过是现实占优势的复制品。当然，个体存在着差异，但这种差异到底在多大程度上影响着我们？

27、售货员————人类的死亡与植物的枯死一样，都需要进行包裹。死亡是需要进行隐蔽的，因为大多数的人们不想看到这些。但这并不妨害到它们的存在。

28、束发的女子————人与人最终还是需要以某种联系作为纽带。但这种联系究竟应该是一种什么方式。现代人的联系的弱化是否可以用娱乐取代？

29打弹珠的男子————时间想让我们忘记上帝的存在。而永恒也因为时间的存在而变得可惧。但永恒之后还存在时间吗？

前言-预言（童年，种下的因，梦和现实的界限开始模糊） 前言-愿望（流星、愿望、超越平常体验的来自更大世界的不可逆的引力） 第一个梦-少年 第一个梦-旅途、列车上朦胧听到的音乐（被拉上了一轨列车，困惑的开始，脱离母体带来的不安全感，单向性的时间，自身的成长，少年。音乐是时间的具象，是人类对于时间最直观的感觉，某种创造随着低沉的古典乐一起走到终结，或开始了） 第一个梦-排练（梦是现实的演练，还是现实是梦的演练？戏剧感的爵士音乐，“do a bit slightly out of tune”） 第一个梦-现实（你到站了，被抛向彼处，毫无经验但有一些好奇，电话线仿佛脐带，联通了你和你当地的朋友，一个黑色眼影的姑娘穿着一身黑，坐在画面正中央，宛如命运女神，你回避了如此强烈的眼神，就像自己的秘密被看穿了。莫名其妙被好心人劝上车，但他开始像你倾售价值观：“少说些套话，行程是不需要旁白的”，而他做的恰好相反，呱啦呱啦说个不停都是些肤浅表面的东西，急于表明自身立场显得“独特”，就像他的车，就像大众传媒，虽然不会放过任何宣传自己的机会，但他懦弱伪善不敢做出任何实质有帮助的行为，一个一直沉默的乘客决定了你该下车了，“3streets 2blocks 1corner”，321，你该滚了。也许只是让司机闭嘴，去哪？他不会关心，就像一个只关心自己利益的政客。 【事实上，导演不仅把自己演进了电影，还把电影本身演了进去，Linklater 饰演的乘客就是导演，这整个难以醒来的梦的导演，演员（也就是观众，我们大家都是那个青涩的小伙子）是自愿参与的，只要你还在看，你就无法醒过来。】 第一个梦-命运（朦胧长大的青年的你，遭受现实重击。没有方向不会独立思考的那个“你”，死了，而且死的很没有尊严） ================================================= 第二个梦-梦（新灵魂吸取了教训，你来到了大学学习知识） 第二个自己-存在与责任（存在和责任都是物质层面的，都应该是实实在在的东西而不是概念，都应该被施行而不是做脑力体操。“做出选择，承担责任”，不要怨天尤人，“不要把自己看成众多因素的牺牲品”【体制、种族、父母、性别等等】，生活要靠自己去创造，这是你的责任，了解这一切也是青年的你的责任。） 第二个自己-创造、语言与感受（“创造来源于不完美”，语言可能起源于超越自我，想要与他人建立联系的欲望，重点不是单词的发音或拼写，这种符号系统，或者更深入一些，是“让不同的人达到同感”，仅仅物质上的满足是不够的，人类还渴望着被理解，还渴望着超越，你又对自身多了一层认识） 第二个自己-过场（主人公进入教室、敲门拜访、穿行不息得追逐着知识和不同的见解，学习着概念，积累着，他的眼神不再是迷惑着，变得在消化在思索，他开始有点小小的自信） 第二个自己-新人类（在过去，进化是“群体性”的、为了“生存”的、“竞争”的、“被动”的，而现在呢，我们可以观察到，进化的速度越来越快，爆炸性不可预测的方向，也越来越偏向个体自发的需求，在此形成的新人类又成为新的进化螺旋的开始，直至到达某种顶峰，甚至可能改写当下视为公理的规则，也将赋予我们更良好的品格。有些理想化，但谁知道未来呢？） 第二个自己-回到住所（构建出了一座属于自己的房子，重新获得了安全感，音乐响起，个人认知上了一个崭新的层次，超越了从前的自我，你现在不局限于你个人的体验了，可你还不知道即将面对的是什么） ================================================= 第三个自己-禁忌和死亡（飞翔只能持续一会儿，最终我们回到现实，触及到了不可避免的禁忌，一个老大哥开始唠叨一些过去你能感觉到却没有能力表达的“社会黑暗面”，死亡、国难财、财阀政治等等，这些似乎无法改变的事实，这些被固定的未来，就像即将来到的老大哥的死一样压在你的心头，老大哥践行了自己的反抗，他走了，但给社会给你都留下了一个问题。你不再是从前的自己，你发现自己的命运与他人息息相关，你已经是社会人了） 第三个自己-超验、共同遗产和本能（音乐响起，一对青年男女在性事完毕后，也许回忆起了高潮时那种世界大同的感觉，谈论起了濒死体验，而由谈论引发的猜想又导向自身，我还是“我”吗，也许更准确的问题是，我是“我的感知”吗？前世，转世，“somehow i mean reincarnation is just a poetic expression of well collective memories really is. ”，我们继承下来的不只是这一世的体验，甚至可以追溯到生命体能够记忆那时（细胞记忆？），这种数十亿年的趋利避害形成了一种天生的“本能”，这种“本能”是超验的，无论时间距离。很好，你发现，潜意识里、本能里，“你”不仅与“他人”息息相关，“你”就是一个“人”，整个人类群体似乎就是一整个生命体） 第三个自己-自由意志（我们真的比牢狱中的囚犯更自由吗？嘿，清秀的主人公认识到人类大同似乎又回到了学校，倾听着困扰着一个科学家（？）的哲♂学♂问题：刨去基本的经典物理规则、数十亿年的记忆所灌制的“本能”、文化家庭背景，我们还剩多少选择的自由？【以下有不熟悉的内容，总结下教授的发言】如果这些物理规则是如此不可违抗，那么我们所谓的历史，所谓的发展不就是必然的结果吗，一切就像规则的叠加 1+1+1 这样运作下去了，一切都是可以被计算的？经典物理不行的话那么量子力学呢，教授觉得如果我们的“自由”是基于一种完全无序的机制的话，那还不如第一种一眼看到头的未来呢（经典言论“上帝不掷骰子”）。有没有真正基于“我”当下觉知从而做出选择的不受以前经验也不受经典物理规律影响更不是一种抽风似的毫无逻辑关联做出选择的那种自由？这位科学家似乎想要证明这种可能性。） ================================================= 第四个自己-潜意识与主人格之争 不谈那么不自由的自由了，退一步，我们承认有这种主人格可以做出”自由“的选择，但是潜意识仍然在暗处伺机而动。哪个会占上风呢？ 现实中一位公放大喇叭发泄自己对于体制不满的中年男子似乎同样渴求着自由，情绪随着面部的充血也直线上升直至高潮，和性欲相通的本能似乎完全主导了他。 “从负面出发的问责，就只是我们对虚无自愿的顺从罢了。一旦你承认了那冲动，这种认同是会传染的，它毫无限制得繁殖着这种认同。如果你认同了某种冲动，那就准备迎接那所有的吧。”老人似乎永远不会让冲动主导局面，他应该有着严于律己的一生。 黑人说 ：“当下的主流反而就是从边缘、从深渊去探索那些触及核心的隐秘，接受自身的脆弱，品尝、感受那种独特，汲取其中的养分，你的主人格和潜意识间的分界模糊了，尝试去达到一种更大的和谐，而借助这种体验从而进一步打开个人和宇宙连接的大门，在此间你感觉到的每分每秒都不再是空虚无意义的了，在此，自我、协调与独一无二从最根源生出。你就是它，珍珠居住在蚌肉一般，你可以感觉到宇宙仿佛是一个生命，而时间就是它的心跳。”感觉已经入禅了，自然的高峰体验绝对是无比美妙的，思考分辨是不是主人格什么的都已经太慢了，你只能感知。） ================================================= 第五个自己-作为个人所经历的时间对人格的塑造 （小时候的我和现在的我根本没有啥共同性嘛～几乎每四年人体的细胞就全部更新了一遍，我和小时候的我还有啥相同？也许只有 DNA 和对自我的认同保存了下来。） 黑猩猩：我们做的不过是一件又一件重复的事情，甚至是重复“重复”这件事情，因为单调，因为数得清的选择 酒吧，无聊故事，“良好的武装是对暴行最好的防御”，无聊到死，你为什么不去死，结果死了两个。 广告歌曲中的歌词“Now i'm free to see the world” 第六个自己-梦，you're your own remixer，构建自己的宇宙 lucid-Louis，关灯，控制梦境 第七个自己-电影 holy mom ent 第七个自己-感觉 一个感觉总比时间快一步的人，一个活了两倍年龄的人 第七个自己-礼仪机制 发心，我们需要真实的情感，从心底涌发的，你不是一个其他，而是我想要和你交流的你，不是谁都行，只是你。 表演与生活 表演是什么？表演就是生活。你只能在事件上、或者表情或者什么别的表面上去模仿， 梦里的人物将自己想了解想知道想说的按做梦人的暗示说了出来，但这不对，做梦人已经知道了这些，那为什么还需要梦呢？为什么会做梦呢？梦又是什么？这里不需要什么科学的解释，这里的梦更多是自指的，而非身体上的一种机能或冲动，我想弄清这对于我有什么意义，而不是做出什么普适的解释， 参与者和观察者-永恒的矛盾 测不准 I would say that life understand is life lived.这也是一个自指，但这种永恒的矛盾能够得到解释吗，或者至少给出一个自洽的假说也行啊，爆炸头说了一个他的认识：“And as one realizes that one is a dream figure in another person's dream,that is self-awareness.”分明可以感觉到，在这种解释下，宇宙、自我、记忆、梦开始循环起来，谁是第一个造梦者已经不重要了，一切都在循环，而片中的小伙子确实是真实存在的，他就是导演脑中诞生的、真实的虚幻。 梦境会将你自己显示给你 as the pattern gets more intricate and subtle,being swept along is no longer enough. 而在此时，船长和那个政客就像两个先知 是你定义了你自己，就像你感知了你的梦境，时间是怎样作用在你的身上，梦已经对你说完了暂时要讲的，你得给它一个回应了。梦境就像你置身的音乐，你在其中，你能感知那音乐，但你却又不是那音乐，你是舞者，你随着那音乐起舞，或者你又“看穿”了音乐的动机，随着自身的节奏起舞，但无论如何，你得回应那音乐，而不是伫立在原地，一切虽然不像机器那么精确的反应，但那是氛围的调动，味觉的协调，虽然慢一些，但是，是整个的，不在任何别的地方别的时间，就在此时此刻，氛围，回应。 时间-幻觉-难以醒来的梦-死亡-预言-结局 在最后一段，导演把所有要素都推到了一起，导演将自己也塞进了这个梦中，作为全知的观察者，他告诉了他的造物一切的真相，幻觉，他也告诉了了他的观众相对的真相，电影。wake up, you know you should, it's easy. 小伙子回到了哪里呢，又会被谁捕捉进梦境还是开始了自己的造梦之旅呢？无从得知，但亲爱的观众们，你们该从梦中清醒了。 导演一开始就把影片的宗旨亮了出来，“重要的不是画笔的多少，而是那些颜色和线条，也不是套话，不是框架，不是系统，就是感受”。 所以，无论有没有看懂这部电影不重要，其中的乱七八糟的理论不重要，重要的还是你自己的生活，你自己的感受，这部电影有触动到你，这就够了。

有些道理就是很难传播——因为人们只传递自己认同的东西。有些道理就是不大可能被大多数人认同，于是，即便它再有道理，再怎么有用，也不是很容易传播。
所以这个电影也被埋没，因为它涉及的观点太多太泛乱，每个人滔滔不绝，像拿着一大桶水对着男主角泼洒着他们的论点，但论据却很少，这样的谈话很难让局外的人产生认同感。大多数人只不过看着整部电影里多数是不太感兴趣的对白，看完就完全忘记，继续他们半梦半醒的人生。
但是抛开观点不算，电影的表现手法真的打动了我。导演的这个想法是开创性的，真希望会有新的作品能向这个电影致敬，这个手法真的值得再用。

本片由导演兼编剧理查德•林克莱特采用DV真人拍摄，并用软件将其“动画化”。导演史蒂文•索德伯格亦在片中出现。青年学生维利•维金斯童年时曾从小伙伴那里得到这样一个预言：“梦即命运”。长大后，他在恍恍惚惚间来到了一座陌生的城市。维利走街串巷，经历各种各样的神奇体验，仿佛穿梭于不同的梦中。

电影运用了革命性的方法制造动画效果，试用了新颖的电影制作技术，真人拍摄转制成动画，并配以用大段独白或对白来表达哲理命题，如同一席抚慰性的话语，睿智、启迪、充满悬念又富于想象。影片色彩被简化，线条和色块像波浪一样蠕动，视觉明亮，形象鲜活。