劳拉·蒙特斯

巴洛克式的古典主义的繁重，在一个不甘于向命运妥协的悲剧人物身上，隐喻出欧洲的落寞之感，最后共鸣于悲观的存在主义。
讲究的场面调度，深焦摄影，宽银幕在单幅的画面上叙事信息量和视觉信息量都有提升，从最外在提升了影片的节奏感。巴洛克的繁复和形式的美感从内而外流露。
但是如此高的资金投入，所回馈的视觉饕鬄盛宴，我认为还欠缺更多。
在剧作上，劳拉蒙特斯这个人物具不具有可塑造的必要性，典型性。人物鲜明与否。在塑造人物，由人物产生的悲剧共鸣中，对环境的塑造有没有到位。劳拉蒙特斯个人认为不是一个典型性的人物，从人物的剧作塑造上特别一般，因为父亲的战死家庭没落，母亲淫荡，和母亲中意的副官结婚，婚后追寻芭蕾舞，其中有若干个情人，得到了权利的巅峰，最后没落于美国的大马戏团。在剧作的环境场景塑造上，人物缺乏内涵，人物内在的实质空洞，人物缺乏环境的推动力，人物缺乏内在的戏剧性，人物经历太过于俗气。
古典主义，有古典主义叙事的狭隘，若拍摄时注重人物的表现，注重一定的渲染，这个电影也许走的更远，至少，我觉得劳拉梦特斯和安娜卡列尼娜，战争与和平那种电影里的人物缺乏大气。
视觉上的冲击力做的还是蛮不错的。单幅画面达到叙事能量的最大是很好的教学材料。对称的美感，布景和色调对叙事的推动......

To speak the unspeakable --

1. On history and movement:
“Life for me is . . . a movement,” says the movie’s Lola. “My life is whirling in my head,” she frets. Few would have been surprised if Ophuls—the bard of pictorial motion, whose camera doesn’t simply permit us to see but rather, like an enthusiastic friend, pulls us into the whirl of life—had made those statements about himself. Yet his Lola is far removed from history’s spitfire dervish. If Lola Montès is a film infatuated with motion, its heroine is often a study in motion denied. This is nothing like a conventional movie biography. It is, instead, a profound meditation on the presumptions and limitations of all biography. So much has been written about the director’s virtuosity that relatively little is said about his scrupulous treatment of truth, power, gender, compromise, the selling of the self.

2. On objectification:
Carol, however, turned out to be a blessing, though admittedly this is a minority view. Her stony beauty encouraged Ophuls to objectify Lola in a way that would not have been possible with a more expressive actor. This is a film that is often intent on keeping its emotional distance. In transforming the immodestly blonde Carol into a corseted brunette, Ophuls created an image surprisingly close to portraits of the real Lola, while emphasizing the cryptic nature of sexual allure. Had he been able to hire Gina Lollobrigida, he might have given us the spider dance Lola; with Danielle Darrieux, Jeanne Moreau, or Ingrid Bergman, he might have given us a contemplative, flirtatious, commanding Lola. With Carol, he presents Lola as a prisoner of sex, and draws a cinematic line—a tracking shot, of course—between the waxen object of our curiosity and her unknowable interior life.

The real Montez gave lectures, receiving a higher fee than Dickens during their respective American tours. But she never appeared in a circus or toured as a sideshow act, unlike other notorious figures, from Robert Ford to Evelyn Nesbit to the fallen stars of today’s talk show confessionals. No, the circus is Ophuls’s inspired tour de force, its skull-like claustrophobia heightened by the absence of a single shot to place it in the larger world. We enter the big top at the start, and exit when the camera forces us backward, away from the arena, at which point a curtain shuts us out. There is no outside, no reality beyond the tent and Lola’s memory.

3. On prostitution and capitalism:
The business of prostitution hovers over this film, but Ophuls makes a clear distinction between prostituting one’s body (in Ophulsian theology, a venial sin at most) and selling one’s soul (a mortal sin at least). Ophuls loves Lola, and whatever the real Lola was, his Lola is not a whore, not even a courtesan. True, she will get a palace from her Bavarian king, but the film depicts theirs as a genuine love match. Elsewhere, sex is a means of escape or an escapade in pleasure. Money does not change hands. Not until she descends, in the ringmaster’s phrase, “from kingdom to carnival,” sacrificing sexual independence and the possibility of love (however fleeting) for the commerce of show business, does she put herself on the market.

Ophuls had nothing against whores; he treats them with humor and respect in La ronde and Le plaisir. He was, however, impatient with soulless capitalism, as in his early Dutch film Comedy of Money, in which a singing ringmaster explicates corruption in the market. By 1955, Ophuls had endured his own experience with ballyhoo in Hollywood, and it is tempting to see Lola as a fragile artiste at the mercy of the machinations of callous producers.

4. On feminist autonomy and power:
By beginning the flashback sequences with Liszt, the film establishes Lola as an adventuress with celebrity connections while showing that, far from being on the make, she possesses a mature sense of love’s labors and the tussle for power that is the price of emancipation—an issue played out repeatedly as she flees her mother, her husband, and Bavarian mobs. The ringmaster will later tell her: “Talent doesn’t interest me . . . only power and efficiency.”

For Ophuls’s purposes, the student shows that Lola dispenses her favors freely and inspires fierce loyalty, representing to the fraternal revolutionaries “love, freedom, everything [the conservatives] detest!”

Ophuls will not let us see Lola dance—neither her unsuccessful audition (her maid remarks, “As always, they didn’t like the bolero”) nor her royal performance (we see the king tapping his fingers in time); nor do we get to see her illustrious breasts (we get extended business about finding a needle and thread to sew up her ripped bodice). But Lola is no longer a waxen figure! The Lola who on the Riviera dashed to confront her lover’s wife now predominates, as she gallops to meet the king, and charms him with a single step of a Spanish fandango—no more than a pose, really.

5. On success and worthiness:
The sixth and final movement is itself a circus trick. Lola, a ghost of her former self, must perform the climax of her act, which we learn she has been doing for an astonishing four months—astonishing because even a top acrobat in the best of health would have trouble diving from a high-wire platform onto an object no larger than a mattress. This, we are told, she has done show after show without a net. Lola is dizzy, wavering, colorless; she has no more chance of surviving her fall than Scottie does his in the preamble to Vertigo. But, of course, she does survive, promptly resurrected as a captive in the menagerie, selling kisses for a dollar, pimped out to the end. Yet can anyone doubt that Lola remains triumphant, an object of veneration for all trusting suckers everywhere, including Max Ophuls, who believed that character is a kind of talent? His camera tracks back for a hundred glorious seconds before he allows the curtain to be drawn, leaving Lola in peace, or at least enjoying the bliss of celebrity homage, until, once more, we hit “Play” and return to the big top.

6. On the film itself:
It was as if Orson Welles had made a movie of Camille with Betty Grable in the lead, but with all the intricate flashbacks, visual pyrotechnics and distancing ironies of Citizen Kane.

影片主要内容有两段：一段是少女萝拉拒绝嫁给年老的伯爵，让她父亲的副官娶她，但婚后她的丈夫追逐别的女人，她毅然离开他，开始了独立自由的生活。另一段是萝拉到巴伐利亚去演出，被国王爱上，与国王在一起的一段生活。后来萝拉为了国王的王权安全，毅然离开巴伐利亚。萝拉是那个时代不甘被命运摆布的女子，但最后却不得不在马戏团里像一只动物一样被人驱使赚钱。影片结尾，萝拉被关在笼子里，让观众排队去抚摸和亲手，马戏团对观众每人收取1块钱。她遭受的耻辱令人感同身受。

短评写不下，就来写篇不长的长评吧。

上海影城前排看开头马戏简直鸡皮疙瘩停不下来，琳琅满目目不暇接，刚开始还试图琢磨，想抓住那些颜色，服饰，人群的动线，水晶灯的动线，解说词... 后来放弃了，就跟着晕跟着转就完了...

德语部分的法语字体也太大了吧... 国王要针线和看耳朵很有喜剧效果也让人深思，要个小小的针线竟这么费事？耳朵出问题不是一天两天了，只有真正关心他的劳拉带他去看医生？结果医生在那儿不停地赞美：oh！您的耳朵是那么美妙绝伦！

因劳拉引起的示威，国王一开始镇定得很：持续时间短的话是暴动，持续时间长的话就是革命...几分钟后就匆匆从后门上了马车离开，连告别都顾不上。

劳拉对营救她的学生说：你们是哪个派别跟我有什么关系？对于他的表白和劝解跟随天意，她说，不要违抗天意，也不要误解天意... 你这么英俊的脸庞都不能让我再感到希望，一定是有什么东西碎了... 她泪流满面。是什么碎了呢？

她还说，我经历过很多事情，你要听我说，试图理解... 这话不也是对观众说的吗？你要看奥菲尔斯说什么，怎么说，试图理解，我这么告诉自己。

不认为爱情故事是主要的，劳拉马不停蹄的一生，辗转欧洲各国。她没有屈服于母亲安排的年迈银行家，和音乐家李斯特曾有一段深厚的感情，后来好心分手。之后爱上了一位国王，却背负骂名，不得善终，成为巴伐利亚的杨贵妃。最后投身马戏团，宛如幻梦的娱乐行业，到美国去演自己，正襟危坐地兜售所谓的堕落史，去伸手要那些1 dollar。而曾经，剧院的水晶灯都因为献给她的掌声而颤抖... 她的结局和战后的欧洲命运何其相似，她的奥德赛也浓缩着欧洲历史和文化的众多切面，说她是某种意义上的欧洲化身也不为过。

看奥菲尔斯的初衷其实是好奇一个德国导演在战后会拍什么，近一年连续看了意大利，俄国，法国影展，交叉对比相近年代，点连成线，线连成面。最好奇的就是德国，德国导演那时候在干嘛呢？现在明白了，奥菲尔斯的这部遗作是他作为一位欧洲导演而不仅仅是德国导演，在战后的一种回望吧。

片中劳拉对古典主义表示轻蔑：古典？！那些都过时了！在当时因为本片摄影和叙事结构过于前卫而不被观众接受的奥菲尔斯，现在看来怕是也成了古典吧...

劳拉颠沛流离的人生轨迹和奥菲尔斯辗转欧洲各国后来去往好莱坞也惊人得相似。最终作品的呈现同样难逃被误解的命运，这巧合真令人唏嘘。

奥菲尔斯曾在访谈中说，“所有在《劳》中美好的东西，都是因为我不曾拍过彩色片和宽银幕影片──当我看向摄影机观影器时，我宛如新生，我做的一切，就是事物向我呈现的那个样子”。他还说，《劳》让他想去讲一些为了驾驭它们而可能必需要与其斗争的故事，即使自己可能錯了，但他为朝着想走的步伐前进而高兴，且不惜任何代价。他说，人们不相信他，沒有人会让他再拍一部像这样的影片了。当想到人们不仅不尊重自己的作品，甚至根本看不懂就选择抵制，这让他感到不可思议... “负责本片的制作公司不想要这部片，他们根本没搞懂过它”。

最后的马戏，心惊胆战地看着她往上爬，到达巅峰，似乎只是为了纵身一跃。表演是这样，她的人生也是，她一遍又一遍地演自己，疲惫到演不下去，但是尊严依旧，蔑视依旧。所以当她听到要不要撤掉安全网？Are you ready？她坚定地轻声说：ready. 当她坐在笼子里接受那些one dollar的时候，她坐得那么端正而坦然。

每每放假独自在家，我就爱看老电影，几十年未变，很奇怪，大约那时的电影让我觉得更像电影，有着无与伦比的优雅。

奥菲斯也是一位被低估的伟大导演，他去好莱坞拍了【巫山云】，回到欧洲实践，适度的夹带私货。奥菲斯喜欢被侮辱与被损害的女人的故事，【劳拉·蒙特斯】是他的遗作，结构上外层的马戏表演——在团主（居然是波罗的演员）的讲述中，插入一段段往事。

玛蒂妮·卡洛面孔美艳，可惜有点五短身材，演少女时代的劳拉实在有点丫头教，但和李斯特与奥地利国王的浪漫史的戏份则摄人心魄。很多影人的代表作好像都是他们一生的缩影，最爱的鲍勃·弗斯的【浮生若梦】好像冥冥中给自己完成的自传；玛蒂妮·卡洛一生多次婚姻，又依赖酒精和药品，也如劳拉·蒙特斯一般早早结束了生命。

马戏团演出的主线中，劳拉在第一二幕中几乎无需表演，只要身着华服坐在马车上即可，间或在后台换装时几声咳嗽，直至结尾的无保护高空秋千表演，奥菲斯用各种镜头暗示这应是一次告别演出，劳拉似乎也一心求死。而更悲哀的是，演出进行非常顺利，团主的鞭子已经暗示这一代名伶已成昨日黄花，现在与一般动物无异。演出结束后，笼中的劳拉继续被参观，那些只用付小钱就可以摸摸她手的男人们趋之若鹜。

初出茅庐的“朱尔”（奥斯卡·威内尔）饰演青年学生，在劳拉踏上奥地利时和她初遇，又在叛乱中再次邂逅并护送她离开。初遇时，在劳拉的马车里，劳拉有意向她施展着魅力，他下车后，走向自己的大营，才意识到自己的带子落在了劳拉的车上；镜头切到劳拉住进旅馆，此时的她佯装贵族，仍旧带着一众随从，却早已囊中羞涩只能入住最便宜的房间。

劳拉热衷于罗曼史却并不相信爱情，这不仅是她自以为自由选择的第一段婚姻带给她的结论，出走的娜拉在那个时代只能被现实生存裹挟，“逃走”的李斯特、被迫放弃她的奥地利国王，和那个膜拜她的学生都是过客···这种没有爱情的爱情故事也只有那个时代的欧洲导演拍的出来···

美轮美奂，色彩明艳而典雅，镜头讲究，极小的细节都一丝不苟，用闪回的方式讲述人物生平免去了平铺直叙的乏味。许多情节拍得不疾不徐十分耐看，比如和国王的初会，暴乱，马戏团的贩卖艳史……手法纯熟，功力深厚。且全片洋溢一种古典时代才有的格调与情怀。

遗憾的是我对卡洛的罗拉无甚感觉。不是不美，也不是演得不好，而是在我看来她长得实在是常规，这样的模样怎会符合“倾国倾城孽海花”的盛名？难道在欧洲人眼里，此类端庄到好像没啥特点的名媛才是贵族口味？.....我觉得爱娃加德纳的类型更神似，又或者爱娃妖艳了些，那玉婆那样的也符合......

总之这点导致我对影片建立不起真正念念难忘的观感，尽管彼得的角色非常出彩，而安东饰演的国王更让我眼前一亮，但麻木于女主魅力始终是致命的缺失~~

必须要重提的是，影片的场景真的很出色，包括马戏团的数场戏，设计得十分精致，绚丽，梦幻……值得一看。



《看电影》里说，此片作为马克斯的最后一部电影，透露出对日渐势微的欧洲无尽的惆怅伤怀，我这种肤浅的看客，要自发联想出这层含义实有难度。倒是劳拉这个角色对女性观众而言不乏打动。倾其一生追逐欲望的劳拉，身历无数危机关头，宁愿流落异国繁华落尽，也要婉拒嫁做人妇寻常度日，最后那纵身一跳真是百味杂陈，刨去其造孽的过往道德意义上的背逆，这份愿赌服输的泰然，这份始终不肯舍弃的内心的颠沛，何其自我，何其忠诚，何其彻底。

我偶尔会替一些作品可惜，在技术与内容之间，没有找寻到一个侧重点，使得作品就是有一些缺憾，比如这部！ 电影的镜头无与伦比，华丽的服饰和布景让电影显得无比高贵，整部作品其实都在服务于这一份高贵却自由的悲剧，但是作品整体而言，有种未尽兴的残缺。我不知道那个时代怎么看这样一个剧本，但这个时代的我看这个剧本却觉着还有很大的打磨空间，甚至可以让叙事像镜头一样精巧，但它没有，颇为可惜！ 提提镜头，电影有三次旋转运镜，第一次在7分钟以前，第二次在9分钟左右，第三次在39:30左右，头两次令我惊叹于它的精巧，简直妙不可言，这正如整部作品，精巧之下是平淡的瑕疵，整体来说，有些高开低走，无论叙事，还是技术层面... 影像95分 剧本80分 导演95分 我挺想给满分，但是我认为电影的瑕疵导演需要承担很大的责任 表演90分 表演有好，也有不足，整体而言，还有空间 创新90分 作品分90分 内容系数0.9 影史分81分