最开始被公映前那两个差评给忽悠了，竟然以为是一部庸脂俗粉粗制滥造之作。

抱着戏谑的心态观影，看完之后我完全得了失语症。

满腹感慨却提笔无字，电影中有太多内涵丰富的细节与描画人性的入木三分，思绪万千的我却找不到任何切入点可以引发哪怕一点点评论。

总有人给影片贴上断背山的标签。

诚然，在lgbt依旧被保守主流价值观视为异物的时代，所有同性之爱都会走上一条与断背山重合的宿命之路。很多影片的评论你都会发现，“这是xx版断背山”，前几年的上帝之国我记得好像是HE版断背山，这次又贴了个苏维埃版断背山。

所以有人觉得俗套。

当你以欣赏故事、娱乐感官的心态去观看别人的经历，再波澜壮阔、大起大落的人生，看多了也会觉得千篇一律。

如果你抱着感同身受的态度去体验那些人的悲欢离合，他们的痛苦，他们的泪水，他们的抗争，他们的失败，一切都是那么切肤的真实。他们的抉择如同一面残酷而真实的镜子，赤裸裸地折射出我们所有人灵魂的渺小和孤独。

与Sergey相识，与他情投意合，Roman一直都明白Sergey是自己的人生挚爱。但是，他所受的教育、根深蒂固的观念，当他面对冷酷的刑罚与前途尽毁的恐惧时，他退缩了，就如同平凡的你我一样。

与合适的女子结婚，生儿育女，享受着家庭温情的同时，却又割舍不下此生挚爱，所以，Roman又找回了与Sergey的温存，就如同平凡的你我一样。

短暂地幸福过后便是撕裂人生的痛苦。一边是妻儿的奉献、回报家庭的责任；一边是灵与肉完美契合的爱人，Roman无法在非黑即白的裂谷中找到平衡，就如同平凡的你我一样。

普通人或许会和稀泥似的永远周旋于二者之间吧？直到家庭的亲情被一次次的出轨消磨殆尽、直到情人的眼泪被一次次的背叛蚕食成剧毒的脓血，爱与亲情最终抵不过时间的灰飞烟灭，白月光最终沦为了恶心不堪的蚊子血。

可是Roman最终却选择了一条不平凡的归宿。他想把此生对Sergey的爱永远定格在最美好最纯粹的时代，他也不想看到妻儿失望鄙弃的目光，所以，Roman选择死在蓝天。

Roman至死都在爱着Sergey，他想去一个不再逼他做选择的地方，等待Sergey的到来。

——————————————————————————

评论中有人提到，本片的细节设计精巧到位，可以反复推敲，非常赞同。

太多例子，只给大家推荐3个我印象最深刻的。

1 因为字幕组是英文翻译，所以Roman孩子名字音译不准确。

Roman孩子的名字是谢廖沙Сережа，英译Serjozha

是俄文名谢尔盖(Сергей)的昵称。

Roman把自己儿子取名谢廖沙，用的是谢尔盖的小名。相爱之人既然不能厮守，那就在每日呼唤其昵称的幻想中寻找爱的影子吧。

或许Roman还有过更疯狂的幻想也说不定，他幻想谢廖沙是他和谢尔盖的孩子。

谢尔盖和谢廖沙这对名字组合，常见于俄罗斯家庭的父子。爸爸叫谢尔盖，孩子就叫谢廖沙。

婚前唯一一次与谢尔盖的交合，Roman的身体接受了谢尔盖的播种。Roman幻想着，这孩子或许就是谢尔盖的( ･᷄ὢ･᷅ )呢

2 影片1小时09分左右，当时Roman和路易莎已经成婚，和妻儿在一起已经成为了他生活的全部。他把对Sergey的思念深埋心底。

在那个没有数字存储设备的年代，即便把爱人的照片小心珍藏都有可能招来祸端。所以，Roman唯一再见Sergey的机会，就是把胶卷中Sergey的照片偷偷冲洗出来，只让照片现形几秒钟。几秒钟后，在妻子的呼唤中，Roman故意开门，让照片曝光，毁掉证据。

在漆黑狭小的暗室里，Roman可以享受片刻的只属于自己和爱人的回忆。

偷偷冲洗出爱人的影像，仔细地凝视片刻。只在这片刻之间，贪婪地吸取从前美好的记忆。

片刻之后，在妻子的呼唤中，回归家庭的Roman故意打开门。照片被曝光，影像消失。只把瞬间的回忆刻进脑海。

影片的调色也和故事情节的发展环环相扣：

Roman的公寓，和Sergey在一起共度的快乐时光，采用淡黄的暖色调

柔和的暖色营造出油画的效果

同一间公寓，和Sergey天各一方的Roman，采用灰蓝的阴冷色调。

潮湿阴暗，即便有美丽的妻儿相伴，Roman的心也是寂寞的。

Roman死了，同一房间呈现出更加阴冷死寂的灰蓝色。

公寓以外的画面也一样。

爱情幻灭之后的冰冷色调

短暂的幸福，梦幻般的暖色光影，愿时光永驻此刻。就如同Sergey说的，我们的爱情只能存在于没有思想、没有时间的地方。就如同Roman祈求的那样，Later…later…再等片刻吧。

最后一个细节：

结尾，失去Roman的谢尔盖坐在剧院观看芭蕾舞剧浴火鸟。影片给出了一个看似是谢尔盖回忆的画面：

谢尔盖回忆当年，Roman第一次带自己来剧院看戏。

其实，我们也可以把这段回忆看成是谢尔盖最终的幻想和憧憬。

仔细看，Roman是面带微笑地离开谢尔盖的。他去了一个无人打扰的地方，就如同谢尔盖所说，一个超越了时间与空间的地方，去等待谢尔盖。

影片的最后一刻。

现实中在影片拍摄时，谢尔盖已经离世。我们可以把它看作是谢尔盖人生的最后一幕。

生命走到尽头的谢尔盖，明白了先于自己离世的Roman一直都在等待着自己。所以，他也笑了。

爱人从未离去，他一直都在等待。谢尔盖终于可以去找Roman了。

——————————————————————————

当然，所有断背山模式的结局都会产生无辜受害的妻子、甚至还有无辜的孩子。我们鞭笞同妻现象太久了，希望能早见成效：当lgbt群体可以自由地行走在阳光之下时，无辜受害的妻儿就不复存在了。

而且，具体个案还要密切结合实际环境。

评论里有人说Roman是个渣男，该死。我对这种不分青红皂白的指责实在气愤。在同性恋婚姻合法的地区，依然出于个人目的比如说为了遗产继承、职位晋升等等诱骗无辜女性同婚的基佬确实是渣男该死。

在同性婚姻尚未合法，但同性行为已经去罪化的地区，如果你坚持站在道德制高点上指责，同性恋应该一辈子不婚，宁可顶着社会歧视甚至是暴力威胁而公开出柜，也不应该连累无辜女性同婚，这也勉强说得过去。

但是，结合本故事的年代背景和社会现实状况，在Roman那个时代，同性恋尚未去罪化，先不说恋情曝光他和Sergey都会面临牢狱之灾，即便他一辈子不婚，身处于他的职位，有可能不受怀疑吗？如果说，Sergey的职位使他处于被放大镜观察的状况，那么，Roman所处的级别就是显微镜观察。和平凡的你我一样，Roman不得不为自己找一个安全的保护伞——婚姻和妻子。

而且，Roman在妻儿的保护伞之下，比那些真正殴妻虐子不务正业的渣男丈夫优秀千百倍了吧？尤其是他受人羡慕的职务。很多女性即便在爱情不足的情况下，也会优先考虑丈夫的事业前景。

如果还有人觉得，你怎么不辞职？你怎么不放弃分飞行员的职位？你为什么不接受Sergey的提议背叛祖国背叛家人飞去瑞典呢？你为什么不去选择坐牢而是自私地去骗婚？我只能说，等你哪天真的自己做到舍生取义杀身成仁，那时候你就有资格扮演圣人了。

还是那句话，有朝一日，当lgbt群体可以自由地行走在阳光之下时，无辜受害的妻儿就不复存在了。

Firebird is an epic Queer love story set in a tense Soviet Union. This unconventional film followed the romance of Sergey, played by Tom Prior, and Roman, played by Ukrainian hunk, Oleg Lobykin.

Set in the 1970's Cold War, Firebird is an incredibly stylish film. The visuals feel authentic and true to its setting. But surprisingly, there are bouts of action, adding more thrill to a story that is already anxiety inducing.

Another twist is that the film explores a love triangle between Roman, Sergey, and Roman's partner, Luisa- played by Diana Pozharskaya.

This part of the world has always been incredibly hostile to LGBT+ people. It is common to see an attempt to erase Queer people from the histories and identities of post-Soviet countries. From the 'LGBT free zones' in Poland; the Gay Propaganda Laws in Russia - to the toxic political discourse in Hungary - 'Firebird' is a symbol of Queer existence throughout history. It is a statement that Queer love is not a modern and Western construct, but it is imbedded in the fabric of humanity. And this piece of history- beautifully shown in the film- is a shining example that the#TheNewEastisQueer, and it always has been.

In this interview, the writer/lead actor, Tom Prior and director/writer Peeter Rebane talk about the true story of 'Firebird', its making, and what it was like to meet the real Sergey.

EAST: Where did you first meet each other?

TOM:I was doing some work in Los Angeles, and a film financier that I was meeting- by coincidence- mentioned that she heard about the story of Firebird- which was under a different name at the time- and promised to introduce me to Peeter. Then we basically connected and I read the script, and fell in love with it instantly. It was when the draft of the screenplay was at a very early stage, and that’s really where it began.

EAST: Peeter, when did you first discover the story?

PEETER:That was over 10 years ago. A friend of mine- who founded the ‘Black Nights Film Festival’ in Tallinn- she received the original story from a Russian journalist showing it around at the Berlinale, and she knew that I was looking for material for my first film. So I read it over a weekend at home, I literally cried and decided that I have to turn this into a film and then started writing for the first time ever.

EAST: ’The New East is Queer’ is a campaign to debunk the myth that Queer people don’t exist in Eastern Europe and Post-Soviet States. Yet here is a queer love story set in Soviet Russia. Were you conscious of this when deciding to make the movie? Did you feel a sense of duty to tell the story?

PEETER:Foremost, I was taken a back by the universal love story. I was also fascinated and really surprised when I read the original manuscript that such a relationship could have actually existed in the Soviet airforce. Then we went on to interview people who served in the Soviet military in the 1970’s and found out that many such relationships existed, and we were also fortunate enough to interview Sergey in Moscow. But at the same time I do feel also that it is important to share this story in light of the real horrors that are going on in Russia and especially in Chechnya today. It is important to remind people about the importance of love and how such relationships have existed throughout the ages.

TOM:For me its really important to share these messages. But we were very true when we said we made this film- not for political reasons- but for about love, love wins. Sergey’s character in the film is really about following his heart. There are terrible atrocities happening, but being able to make movies like this, we are effectively being that very change that we want to see in the world.

EAST: How was Roman cast?

PEETER:That was a really long process. We set a very clear intention to find the most authentic actors that are believable to the true story. So we did a world wide casting, and got 2,500 submissions for the role of Roman. For months we were casting in Europe and the UK, to Moscow. One day in Moscow, Oleg walked in the room and everyone was like: “That’s our Roman”.

EAST: How was it working with Oleg?

TOM:It was a really fascinating process as Peeter said. We just knew from the minute he walked in the room that it was right, this kind of presence. When you talk about casting in a film, you really are casting a person as you are a performer. He had this real presence and he was the nearest person that we felt was Roman, and so, our journey began. Because he is not a native speaker, at all, in fact he had a very small amount of English when we began the project. It has its challenges, and in some ways it actually helped, to a degree, because it meant that we couldn’t communicate as freely as we would, say in a modern day context in English- which serves the story in an amazing way. Because at the time there was no language around the subject matter. Today we are in a very liberal society where we can begin to scale that in a very easy and transparent way, but at the time there wasn’t that. So it bought a really interesting dynamic to the film. Working with Oleg was a real pleasure but it of course it had its challenges as well: cultural background differences, and things like that. But it was a really beautiful working relationship.

EAST: Tom, you were a writer as well as an actor in ‘Firebird’. How did this come about?

TOM:When Peeter and I met- and fell in love with the story- at that time we didn’t have the financing in place to make the film. So we made a teaser for the film, and the scenes that we selected for the teaser. I made some suggestions about how we might improve the script a bit, and the lines and the nature of the lines. I have a real sensitivity to being able to produce texts or language of how people actually speak- as oppose to how people one would think people speak- this is something I am quite sensitive to. So I made these few suggestions on how we might improve the script and that ended up several pages of notes and ended up as several weeks of work, which ended up being overall significant rewrites and redrafts and restructures- and doing lots and lots more research. Then by that point, the script was completely a different animal to what I first came to. So we took the strong elements of that and then imbedded in a lot more research.

EAST: Thats an interesting point. After stalking your Instagram its quite clear that you are a spiritual person and quite centred. Did these qualities help you in your writing or acting?

TOM:Most definitely. For me this project has been quite extraordinary, in the sense of the level of depth that I have been able to get to. Writing the content, for sure, is a whole other level as a performer. Then also meeting the real Sergey, we interviewed him in Moscow, we also very tragically went to his funeral. He passed away in the time that we were developing the story, and it was a very surreal moment for me, to be at the funeral of a person whose life you have extended in the literary form, and who you will play in real life. So there were very strong moments during the time filming that there was this awareness that Sergey was with us, or certainly the energy. For me, having a real level of emergence within the project meant that the emotion came easily, or the stream of conscienceless, lets say. It was very profound and beautiful for the opportunity to do that as a performer.

EAST: And when you met Sergey Fetisov, what were your impressions of him, and did these impressions influence the way you played or wrote about him?

TOM:Very much so. It was an honour to meet him, and he was so very full of heart. He was a very heart-led man. You could tell that he had such a sunny persona, and despite having had a lot of trials and tribulations in love, he was bold and happy. So I bought that level of following your heart, and that bounciness to the performance- where I could - without making it seem to out of context at the same time.

EAST: And for you Peeter, how was it meeting Sergey Fetisov, and did this impact the way you directed the film?

PEETER:As Tom said, he was an amazingly warm and heartfelt person, considering what he had gone through in his life, and how these experiences had made him loving and not hating. I think he definitely informed how we developed the character, and it was an amazing treasure trove speaking to him about actual details, like: what were their favourite pieces of music; what were their favourite foods; which music they would play to each other; which books would they read; which theatre plays they went to see. It all kind of built a world, and helped us to be very authentic in directing and staging the film.

EAST: Peeter, being from Estonia, was there anything about your heritage and personal identity that you bought to the project?

PEETER:Definitely, when I was a very young boy I still recall the Soviet occupation, and our summer house was actually the airforce base where this story takes place. I have this distinct memory of my friend being on this bicycle and these two MiG’s (Mikoyan-Gurevich) flying overhead at maybe 150 feet, and us literally falling off the bicycles because the noise was so deafening. So I have a very strong personal connection, besides having grown up with this feeling of shame about ones sexuality, having to hide your true identity, and the surrounding environment lacking understanding and being ignorant. So, a lot of parallels for me.

EAST: How much history is in the story?

PEETER:I think its, well I don’t dare to say 100%, but I think its 99% historically correct. The events happening, the small details of the airforce base, the setting, we really made our upmost to make a film that looks and feels like the 1970’s could have looked and felt like.

EAST: And there seems to be a big military presence in the film.

PEETER:From the directing perspective, we had amazing consultants. We had a retired airforce base, a retired Soviet airforce base commander, flight pilot, a person who worked in the command centre, who directed all the flights. We had a lot of people who literally went through the script, went through the dialogues, who were on the set with us, telling us to do it like this, or do it this way. We put trust in not making a Hollywood version of what someone envisages, but in thorough research.

TOM: The intricacy of the details is very particular, I mean, even when it comes to the radio announcements, and things like that, and the calling in’s to the planes and the lights from the command centre and everything- its all very accurate. We did the best research to our knowledge, to make sure that it was as real as possible, and the same really with the job titles, the job roles. The military consultants in particular were very useful and an intrinsic part of the training for the performance: the way we would walk; the hand salutes; all this military realism that actually happened, and making sure that the attention to detail- our costume department were really great around that also. So, the military aspects of the film, even this accident, there was an accident sequence within the film as well, which was in the original story, and I was absolutely adamant we had to put it into the film, to give it this military flare, instead of having it simply as a backdrop, but actually as an action sequence, this was really paramount and important to me, to ground it into the real world.

EAST: Any personal highlights from onset?

Peeter:I think for me one of the most amazing shots was the last shot of the film. Without giving away too much, it lasts about 1.5 minutes, and the camera is going into Sergey, and technically it was huge challenge for our team to pull it off, but also performance wise, for Tom to act out all the different emotions, truthfully, being surrounded by 50 or 60 extras, and knowing that we can’t cut, and that this is all real time, one very long take.

TOM: Its a very unforgiving shot, lets put it that way. I’m very proud of that moment, and what came through. It was one of those moments that I was speaking out earlier, where there was this profound connection. I started experiencing some very curious things, emotionally. It was like being show the end of ones life, but I was experiencing it in the real time, which was quite curious. For me, the highlight and more significant highlights of the film was really my personal growth. That to me is a huge success. As a measure of success, it challenged me emotionally, physically, spiritually, and now its a sort of standing point, as a physical manifestation of what one can achieve when there are so many odds against you and challenges and time limiting factors, and all those kind of things. So yeah, we can have a whole other discussion of that for the highlights. But we were so blessed, to have such a wonderful committed and loyal team who were willing to go way above standard hours, the commitment was astounding.

EAST: Peeter, did you learn anything about yourself personally or professionally during this project?

PEETER:Absolutely, first of all it was my first full length feature. I have done documentaries, but that’s a whole different game. Learning all the nuances of directing on the set of the feature, and actually doing a pretty challenging script. We shot in the air, under the water, in the baltic sea, staged Hamlet in theatre, staged the full production of Firebird, including costumes and choreography, dancers and sets- a lot of very specific scenes. It was very challenging and I had a lot of personal growth during this process, over the last couple of years.

TOM: I think for me also, as I mentioned, the physical challenges, the stamina, keeping up your health, mental clarity and sharpness through longer days, and resilience through that. Some days there would be, 5, 6, 7, 8 costume changes, multiple different set environments, we would have to change them very quickly as well. I would be sitting on the train, where we would shoot the train sequences, and moving from one emotional state to another, within minutes, and the whole world of the character has changed and gone upside down in that time. So, to be able to tune in to that energy, that emotional change very quickly, was really amazing. And to also play a lead in a film, there is this overwhelming pressure that you can put on yourself, and to scale that, was for me, a real joy and a real challenge, at times. To stay centred, to stay focussed, and to know what we have got to do and what we are there to do, and yeah, this was a really beautiful example of change and growth, and long hours, knowing that you can do it, and you have got to get through it.

EAST: How relevantdo you think the story is for todays audience?

Tom:For me, the story is very relevant in terms of following your heart. We live in a world which is probably more divided than ever, with regards to health, with regards to beliefs and perceptions. It is a standing point for following your heart. Actually, if you choose to walk that path, its not necessarily going to be the easiest route, but its probably somewhat the most rewarding- in terms of being able to feel and develop as a person. The film is about following ones heart and ones desires against all the odds, and against the laws of the country and the environment in which somebody grows up in. I hope this is a standing point of inspiration to follow your heart, to love daringly, that would be my wish and hope for its relevance today.

EAST: Do you have any plans to show this to Eastern audiences?

Peeter:Absolutely, we will distribute the film across the world. We trust we will be at some festivals in the summer, also Autumn, late October- and end of the year we will have a wider distribution across the region. So, I guess we will see how the world is as we open, and depending on how much we will be in cinemas. But definitely, we will be on all major platforms across Europe.

'Firebird' premiered at the 2021 BFI Flare Festival on 17th March 2021 and is available to stream on the BFI Player until 28th March 2021.

这是真实故事改编，俗套这种字眼不适合落在这个作品上面。

成年人也有纯爱。

罗曼说自己没办法分裂自己，说不想让自己心爱的人受伤。所以，他往天空去。《小王子》的作家圣埃克苏佩里也是飞行员。那个年代飞机的安全性同现在的飞机，是无法比拟的。那种冒着生命危险，依旧要像鸟一样展翅高飞。为什么？天空与圣埃克苏佩里而言，就是一场叛逆。而对罗曼来说，天空是自由。是独属于真正自己的片刻宁静。

至少他们都曾有过一时半刻不违背内心的选择，这就够了。参考采访（豆友发的一篇影评）这部电影希望告诉我们，大胆的爱。

你的爱若坚定，则丝毫不比任何人逊色。谢尔盖，没有路易莎的身份。也没有和罗曼组成过家庭。但他愿意在罗曼来找他的时候，放下身边的一切，坐上那辆和罗曼一起去远方的火车。人生若是尽兴过，散场时也可以无憾。

最后路易莎的拥抱又代表什么呢？和解？同悲？你心里的答案我就不得而知了。

既然你都耐心翻到这里了～那我就再说几句吧

你在妄想去批评他人之前，首先做的比你所评价的对象好。不然会有人伤心的。

今年最喜欢的电影。

70年代的苏联已进入一种非常微妙的社会，虽然克格勃的监视无处不在，但全方位的松动是真的，年轻人可以像欧美青年一样穿着古巴领大谈西方哲学与戏剧，人们可以在婚宴上毫不违和地鼓动新人亲吻，军队的图书馆里也借得到莎士比亚的书，甚至二人在部队时的情感被上尉看得一清二楚也当做看不见……这些都给“欲断未断”的同性情感提供了潜在的机会。

二人独处洗胶卷时，军官对谢尔盖产生了好感，特别是听到他说“当你拍摄照片时，有一些东西就永远消失了，一个永不再现的时刻”，那一刻，可以称之为：“心动”。

他说“叫我罗曼”。他扶着有点微醺的谢尔盖，四目相对，很想抱一抱他，但显然此时还为时尚早。于是，他开始反复试探谢尔盖：在车上听到谢尔盖讲述和同年玩伴的故事，听到他们互相在信上署名“Valentine”时有那么一瞬的错愕，旋即又放松；在草坪上问他“你有女朋友吗？”，对方回答“No”时，心中似乎有了点信心。直到躲避边境警察的巡察时，他满怀希望地望向他，忍不住靠近、嘴唇相抵，谢尔盖先是惊讶，不过几秒也开始接纳并给予回应，双手相扣，迎接一场波罗的海的大雨——罗曼不知道的是，从接过那卷他送他的胶卷起，谢尔盖也已对自己动心：在车上偷偷瞄这位新来的年轻、英俊的上级，听他谦逊却不谦卑地回应同僚的质疑，也看到他不经意间瞥见自己的眼神；冲洗胶卷时，些许紧张地一边看自己的手被对方轻轻握着，一边听他在耳边像电流般说话。但是他还是想逃走——这样做的风险太大了，即便已明显从对方望向自己的眼神中看到了相同的气质与味道。

然而，除了克格勃外，这种艰难维持的情感在后期遭遇了更普世、也更软性的考验：来自妻子、家庭，以及内心的矛盾，等等。

婚后，罗曼的很多行为放在当代中国或其他任何社会，都会被贴上“渣男”标签，他可以在结婚当晚面对谢尔盖的靠近依旧止不住将嘴唇靠近，可以在四年后告诉妻子前往莫斯科进修实则只是想见见谢尔盖，可以塞给对方一张火车票说“我有一个礼拜的假期”言下之意即邀请对方与自己偷情，可以在三人过圣诞时拼命地察言观色不让自己妻子瞧出真相……一切都太熟悉了，似乎是所有已婚Gay都会做的事情。所以越到最后，他越是无法接受自己在路易莎和谢尔盖之间不断寻求平衡与周全，他前往阿富汗战场，直接原因是谢尔盖的离开且说“不要再来找我”，但根源还在于内心深处长年积累下来的悔意：“我害怕去伤害我爱的人，我害怕再分裂自己了，同时属于每一个人”。

同样之于谢尔盖，或许很多行为也会被人冠以“男小三”的称号：他可以一边在剧场说狄德罗的台词：“欺骗自己，同时也欺骗他人，这种活在欺骗中的人会慢慢地不去尊重任何人、任何事”，一边又忍不住跑去火车上与罗曼相见，并前往索契偷情。路易莎来莫斯科时，他可以一边怨恨罗曼把自己当做一个普通演员，甚至就差赶自己走，一边又去买圣诞树并且回到那个不属于他的家，假装只是个客人。而他相比罗曼唯一的光辉，或许是从未结婚，从未去伤害另一个女子，而是独自终老。

二人都是过于矛盾的人，也都是不够干脆的人，站在局外人的角度，这种当断不断的情感处理方式让我很不喜欢，但他们有其他选择吗？或许从道德上讲，把这些关系捋捋清楚很简单，但要从情感的角度，把所有的思念和爱都狠狠割断，非当事人并不能轻易置喙。毕竟当谢尔盖在犹豫之后选择去火车上相见，望着对方，两个人都喜笑颜开时的眼神，除了“爱”，没有什么可解释。

可惜没有如果

第一次劫后余生

一切都来得那么迅猛，让人根本无法招架热恋带来的悸动。

第一次被迫疏离

回到营中，却因匿名举报信被少校“盘问审查”，两人关系被迫第一次疏离

第二次死里逃生

第二次被迫疏离

少校的“突击检查”，却让两人的关系再次迅速冷却。

第三次双向奔赴

边境巡逻敌兵、执行飞行任务的险象环生、Roman世俗生活的“圆满”，一步步推动了两人关系和感情的深入。

少校的一次再一次威胁、Roman妻儿的“回归”，一次次使两人关系面对思考和时间，恢复理智后，两人的感情却无处安放。

终语

如果浴火鸟在自由的天空得以重生，Roman和谢盖尔的关系是不是会再度“升华”到极致，“死生契阔”，让他们再也不会分离。

就让他们定格在人生第一次约会的剧场里，彼此一见倾心，互相陪伴

------分割线------

“因为经典故事里的角色

不是完全理智的

他们是鲜活的、呼吸的、有感受的生灵

他们细腻而脆弱

也会因为一些事

心潮澎湃

我希望你们能够捕捉住这份悸动

用心和灵魂去感受”

正是电影里这样令人起鸡皮疙瘩的一段旁白，也是我最爱的一段台词，成就了Roman和谢盖尔最美丽的“双向奔赴”，成就了彼此人生的高光时刻。

我看完之后有被剧情和画面震撼到，立马去官网看了下幕后导演故事，导演2011年看到了谢尔盖（电影主角原型）写的传记《关于罗曼的记忆》，读完非常喜欢然后决定写电影剧本作为自己的第一部电影作品，几年之后剧本完成，2014遇到了tom（饰演谢尔盖的演员），tom加入了剧本创作，2016年两人去俄罗斯和谢尔盖见面，又了解了大量的细节使剧本更加丰满，2017年演员确定开始排练，2021年在电影节上映。

电影的三角恋让我想起了之前看的《橘衫男子》，同样的军官和士兵，军官和女人结婚生子。

另外浴火鸟的取景摄像和画面调色都太厉害了，画面质感在同性片里面绝对超过了大部分的电影，改编自真实故事让电影里感情更加动容。

不得不说谢尔盖年轻的时候很帅，典型的俄罗斯长相，演员有些神似，不知道罗曼的原型是什么样子，应该和扮演他的演员一样英姿飒爽吧。

当你按下快门的时候，，在那一刻，一定有什么东西，永远消失了，一个永远不会再出现的时刻，如同幽灵一般逃离这个世界 把命运托付给自身，而非星辰——莎士比亚 你有足够的理性，不要屈服于酗酒，以及语言的杂乱，不要向肉欲屈服，也不要迷恋金钱，最重要的是，不要说谎，不要欺骗自己，对自己撒谎的人，只能听到自己的谎言，本质上，他无法分辨自己内心的真相，或是他身边的真相，如此便失去了对自己喝他人的尊重，没有尊严，也就不会再爱了。 你觉得为什么我们要用名著来教你，因为这些故事里的人物，并非理性的，他们是鲜活的，有呼吸的，有感受的人，他们因战栗而温柔 去说，去做，去思考，去生活，他们不是一回事。我再也无法分裂自己了，我也无法同时属于所有人 谢尔盖，我必须选择唯一一个我仍能感到自由的地方——天空，请不要等我了，忘了我吧，我会一直想着你的，无论未来如何，我永远都会在你身边