罪与错

很多人都犯了罪，但是上帝并未惩罚这些人，这些人还在好好的过现在的生活。人生无常，选择的过程中，你可能已经变成了另一个陌生的自己。虽然又罪却也能假装心安理得的活下去。

我们一生中都要不断面对，痛苦的抉择，道德的抉择，有的选择意义重大，大部分都是鸡毛蒜皮的小事，但是，我们做什么样的选择，就决定了我们是什么样的人，我们实际上是我们所做选择的总和。
世事难料，生活也有诸多不平之事，在上帝造物的时候，仿佛没有考虑到人类幸福这件事。只有靠我们自己，每个人爱的能力不同，才会赋予这个无情的宇宙以意义。
但是，大部分人，都有能力继续生活下去，甚至从小事中寻找到快乐，比如，从家人，工作，还有从对未来一代的希望中找到快乐，希望他们可以更加理解生活。

没仔细排版，见谅。

I remember my father telling me, “The eyes of God are on us always.”
The man who remembers is Judah Rosenthal, a respected ophthal-mologist and community leader. As Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemean-orsopens, he is being honored at a banquet. He lives on three acres in Connecticut, drives a Jaguar, built a new wing on the hospital. During the course of the movie he will be responsible for the murder of a woman who loves him.

She dies not because of his passion but for his convenience. In this
darkest and most cynical Allen comedy—yes, comedy—he not only gets away with murder but even finds it possible, after a few months, to view the experience in a positive light. If the eyes of God are on him always, what does that say about God?

Woody Allen has made more than forty movies; the best are Annie
Hall(1976), Hannah and Her Sisters(1987), Crimes and Misdemeanors(1989), and Match Point, which premiered at Cannes 2005. The new film resembles Crimes and Misdemeanors in the way it involves a man who commits murder to cover up an affair, but Match Pointis more firmly a film noir, and Crimes is frankly a complaint against God for turning a blind eye on evil.

Judah, played by Martin Landau as a man of probity and vast self-importance, is, or thinks he is, a moral man. That has not prevented him from having an affair for two years with Dolores (Anjelica Huston), a flight attendant with whom he has walked on the beach and discussed marriage.

But Judah will never divorce his wife, Miriam (Claire Bloom), to marry Dolores. Nor is he capable of confessing his sin to Miriam: “Miriam won’t forgive me,” he tells a rabbi. “She’ll be broken. She idealizes me.” That the conversation with the rabbi is imaginary takes away nothing from its ruth-lessness. What Judah is arguing is that Dolores must die because if Miriam found out about the affair it would—what? Destroy Miriam? Dolores? No, it would destroy his image and stature in the eyes of his wife and his community, and he thinks that is worth killing for.

To be sure, Judah backs into murder. Dolores has been acting dan-gerously. She sent a letter to Miriam that Judah only barely intercepted. She called from a gas station ten minutes down the road, threatening to come to his house and tell Miriam “what she needs to know.” Judah discusses his problem with his brother Jack ( Jerry Orbach), who has connections with the Mafia. “They’ll handle it,” Jack tells him. Handle? “I can’t believe I’m talking about a human being,” Judah says. “She’s not just an insect to be stepped on. . . .”
Yet he steps on her. Dolores knows about certain “financial impro-prieties” that Judah has committed; funds from one place were useful in another. Threatened with exposure on both fronts, Judah makes a call to Jack, and Jack calls back: “It’s taken care of.” Now listen to Judah: “I can’t speak. I’m in shock. God have mercy on us, Jack.” How about a little mercy for Dolores? Judah has mastered the art of ameliorating his crime by being shocked at it. Yes, he had Dolores killed—but if he feels terrible about it, doesn’t that prove he’s not an entirely bad man?

The movie intercuts this tragic story with a comedy, also about adul-tery. The technique is Shakespearean: the crimes of kings are mirrored for comic effect in the foibles of the lower orders. Allen plays Cliff Stern, a maker of documentaries of stultifying boredom; in one, an old man in thick glasses discusses metaphysics. Cliff is married to Wendy ( Joanna Gleason).

She has two brothers: Ben (Sam Waterston), the rabbi, who is going blind and is being treated by Judah, and Lester (Alan Alda), the creator of incred-ibly successful TV sitcoms.

Cliff detests Lester. Consider the scene where we first see the two
men together; Lester is on the left flanked by his sister and another woman, holding court. Cliff is on the right, slightly more in the foreground, and half-turned away from the action and toward us. He seems barely able to prevent himself from turning to the camera and telling us directly what a jerk Lester is. The visual strategy is subtle but wonderful: Allen delivers a monologue using only body language.

Cliff is offered a job directing a documentary about Lester. “You
weren’t my first choice,” the Alda character cheerfully tells him. “I’m doing it as a favor to my sister.” While making the film, Cliff meets a production assistant named Halley (Mia Farrow) and falls for her. They have a little non-affair; Cliff is not made for big affairs, but for modest displays of erotic self-deprecation. He proposes marriage to her, despite the fact that he has barely kissed her and is obviously married to Wendy.

So now we have two married men discussing marriage with other
women. That Judah will not really marry Dolores destroys her (“I was at a low point when I met you!” she cries in raw emotion. “You turned every-thing around!”). That Cliff might actually marry Halley, or thinks he might, is fielded by her with tact: she announces a trip to London, thinks they ought to “have some time apart,” and returns engaged to—yes, Lester. Cliff is morally offended by her choice, despite the inarguable fact that Lester is single and available (and also rich and successful), and Cliff is married, poor, and has been fired from the documentary after a scene comparing Lester to Mussolini.

The Woody Allen scenes provide the kind of stand-up self-analysis
and kvetching that his characters are famous for. But what happens in the Martin Landau scenes are as calmly shocking as anything Allen has ever done. In that imaginary conversation with the rabbi, Judah refers to his brother’s offer to “take care” of Dolores. “God is a luxury I can’t afford,” he says. “Jack lives in the real world. You live in the kingdom of heaven.” After Judah learns that Dolores has been killed, he visits Dolores’s apartment, sees that she is indeed dead, and takes her address book and other papers that might link him with her.

“Four months later,” we’re told in a subtitle, the principal characters
are gathered at a wedding. Cliff wanders off, outraged at seeing Halley with the despised Lester. Why should a worthless parasite like Lester get the girl? Judah wanders in the same direction, and the two men have a curious conversation. It turns on the idea of a perfect murder. Judah describes “a murder plot” to Cliff. It is the murder he has gotten away with.

But how does it feel to be responsible for the death of another per-son? Can you live with yourself? “Suddenly it’s not an empty universe at all,” Judah tells Cliff. God occupies it, and has eyes, and sees. “The man is an inch away from confessing to the police.” Then suddenly one morning, he wakes up, the sun is shining, his life is good, and he has returned to “his protected world of wealth and privilege.” The moral of this story?

“We define ourselves by the choices we make,” Judah says. By choosing to have Dolores murdered, Judah has defined himself as a man of wealth and privilege, respected by society, “idolized” by his wife, and a murderer. He can live with that.

The implications of Crimes and Misdemeanorsare bleak and hope-less. The evil are rewarded, the blameless are punished, and the rabbi goes blind. To be sure, justice is done in the low-road plot: Cliff does not succeed in leaving his wife to marry a girl for whom he would be the worst possible partner, and the rich and triumphant Lester gets the girl and will possibly make her happy, or at least rich. But in the main story Dolores lies in her grave, and Judah finds that life goes on—for him, at least. For Martin Landau, the performance is a masterpiece of smooth, practiced diplomacy,
as he glides through life and leaves his problems behind. Landau is never more effective than when he is shocked and dismayed at his own behavior. It’s as if he’s regarding himself from outside, with a kind of fascination. He sees what he does, and does nothing to stop it. In his own world, he is the eyes of God.

We're all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions, moral choices. Some are on a grand scale, most of these choices are on lesser points. But we define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are, in fact, the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, Human happiness does not seem to be included in the design of creation. It is only we, with our capacity to love that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying and even try to find joy from simple things, like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.

When we fall in love, we are seeking to re-find all or some of the people to whom you were attached as children. On the other hand, we ask our beloved to correct all the wrongs that these early parents or siblings inflicted on us. So, love contains in it the contradiction, the attempts to return to the past and the attempt to undo the past.

I've gone out the window.

But we must always remember that when we are born we need a great deal of love in order to persuade us to say in life. Once we get that love it usually lasts us. But the universe is a pretty cold place. It is we who invest it with our feelings. And under certain conditions, we feel the thing isn’t worth it any more.

(粘自维基)

看过伍迪艾伦的电影可能有10部多了，随便说两句。
这部电影有两个故事，一个是伍迪艾伦自己出演的一个有些想法但没获得现实成功的电影制作人遇到喜欢的女导演之后的心动，一个事业有成的中老年男性在受到相处了2年的情人威胁后的内心纠葛和选择（备注：两个故事是交叉叙述的，不是先后叙述的）。
先说第二个吧，对于“善有善报”或者“内心受谴责”之类的话题似乎这部电影之后伍迪艾伦触及得并不多，直到“赛末点”，但客观来说，十几年之后的“赛末点”就是这部电影里第二个故事的延展和放大，只是它刻画得更加“细致”和更能让人有欲望，如在“赛末点”里人物心里变化的描写，相识和出轨的过程，斯嘉丽.约翰逊的性格与美貌，地道的英音，伦敦的种种街景等等。因此，看完更加“细致”的赛末点再来看这部电影的我，对于第二个故事并没有太多更深的印象，只是觉得伍迪艾伦真的很有才华，只是2013的“赛末点”估计他更愿意“讨好”观众吧。
关于第一个故事，伍迪艾伦在里面是个彻彻底底的loser。他有才华，有想法，给他一些条件应该可以成事，但片中的他却一事无成，甚至连自己的妻子都觉得他太不现实，他也知道这点，因此其实对那顿婚姻留恋并不多。他生活中最大的“寄托”就是那位女导演，一个还算可以理解和懂他的人，只是最后那个人也用最残忍的一种方式伤害了他（跟他几乎是最讨厌却不得不因为现实“低下头”给他拍片子的那个男的以情侣的形象出现在他面前。而在这之前，那位女导演告诉伍迪艾伦自己现在还没准备好，事业还在上升期，不想思考个人感情的问题，并且要被邀请去伦敦拍几部片子，伍迪艾伦才“不得不”放弃她的）。第一个故事里，细节太多（第二个故事里也有细节，只是看了“赛末点”再回来看这部，细节也都不细了，额...），随便举几个表现出那个女导演是伍迪艾伦生活最大的寄托：1. 他说他sister悲惨的遭遇，妻子直接说我明早有事，我先睡了；2. 他放下手上的事跟那位女导演看很老的音乐剧；3. 担心那位名人对女导演“图谋不轨”；4. 深夜打电话给女导演确认她没事却被告知凌晨12点的时候，名人还在女导演家而深感不安；5. 直言爱那位女导演，想和她结婚，在跟现任妻子这事上没有任何犹豫。也因为这些，影片末段当女导演和名人以情侣的身份出现在伍迪艾伦妻子家庭的聚会上时，伍迪艾伦才可以“惊”到那样的程度，不止因为上述说的那些细节，也因为当时那位女导演可是一起和他奚落过那位名人的。伍迪艾伦彻彻底底傻在那的那个镜头足足给了1分多钟（这对任何电影而言，都是奢侈的，更何况伍迪艾伦的片子一般也就95分钟左右），坦白说，我看得时候觉得，觉得特别心疼——我觉得伍迪艾伦“被彻彻底底地打败了”，用自己都不敢相信的方式“发现自己是彻彻底底的loser“. 然后之后的几分钟，值得影片结束前，伍迪艾伦的状态彻底没了，只是一个人坐在那里，不知道想些什么，甚至不知道怎么跟别人说起。看的时候，我总觉得那些镜头和那些细节或者留白什么的应该真实地发生在伍迪艾伦身上过，不然不可能拍出那么“痛彻心扉”的感觉。里面对伍迪艾伦的“伤害”真的太深了，包括影片后来那位名人和他妻子插科打诨反过来讽刺伍迪艾伦，他妻子不但不反驳还“极为认可”... 备注：伍迪艾伦最穷的时候，确实是每天在酒吧和人分享舞台表演舞台喜剧支撑生活的。

片中很多话语不只是黑色幽默或者自嘲，更有非常强烈的现实性，这是和一些其他伍迪艾伦电影不同的地方。这部电影印象最深的可能还是一些话吧，无论出自谁的口，挺深刻和哲理的。考虑到这部片子的编剧和导演都是伍迪艾伦，因此那些话语可能都是他相对这个世界说的吧。最后说一句，这部电影里伍迪艾伦的话少了不少（相对于他出演了的其它的电影），因为这部电影里的伍迪艾伦是对自己最不自信的。

罪与罚（下）——
1
爱与性之类人生核心问题，关于人类存在意义的终极思考

艾伦电影《罪与错》（Crimes and Misdemeanors，1989)中有一句台词，“我的感情生活就是糟糕，记得上一次进入女性身体还是去参观自由女神像的时候。”（My love life is terrible. The last time I was inside a woman was when I visited the Statue of Liberty.）


类似“马里兰州诉帕特里克·马理”案中帕特里克·马理和金娜的非洲裔、拉丁裔在伍迪·艾伦的电影中基本难觅踪迹，除了偶尔出现过的几位爵士音乐家以外。艾伦电影中的主要角色清一色为白人，大都出自WASP（盎格鲁—撒克逊族裔的白人新教徒）和犹太人群体。
从职业来说，中上及更高收入的专业人士和艺术家占据着重要比例，其职业成就和财务状况跟帕特、金娜有些差异。他们不会住在低价公寓，一般都有条件选择纽约中央公园周边，尤其是上东区（Uppper East Side）。出入大都会艺术馆、古根海姆博物馆、俄罗斯茶室、Argosy书店以外，工作之余他们从未玩过电脑游戏，他们主要玩情感游戏，由此引发对人生终极问题的思考。


伍迪·艾伦的电影《罪与错》(Crimes and Misdemeanors, 1989)提供了观照犯罪与惩处的宗教及伦理视角。
杰出的眼科医生朱达一次旅行中认识了空嫂德洛丽丝，在不影响原有家庭的情况下两人比翼齐飞长达2年才出现问题。问题并不奇特，德洛丽丝要求对方放弃旧家庭、建立新家庭，但朱达无法满足愿望。很快，德洛丽丝进入逼宫状态，手段包括直接给原配写信（那个时候还没有微信）、一次次深夜到对方家门口要求约会等。朱达一再劝慰仍无济于事，德洛丽丝对通过财务手段解决纠纷的提议也毫无兴趣。她进而威胁朱达，要将他从事慈善事业时出现的挪用公款事宜公诸于众。朱达得出结论，“她已经无法跟随理性（She doesn’t listen to reason）。”

怎么办？艾伦给身处美国中上阶层的白领朱达安排了一个状况明显不同的兄弟杰克，杰克建议一次性彻底解决问题。与其说杰克象朱达的兄弟，还不如说象他的隐身，与高尚、体面相对的另一半。
朱达非常犹豫，他和德洛丽丝有过在夕阳中的沙滩上跑步之类的美好经历，也有过关于舒伯特和舒曼音乐格调如何不同的讨论，只是当她的想法超越现实可能性以后，可爱的程度才逐渐下降，一路跌落至水平线以下，变成可恨。
其实直到了断前的最后关头，德洛丽丝给朱达准备的生日礼物都还是舒伯特的黑胶唱片。相比之下，朱达妻子送了个跑步机。关心健康固然重要，只是其中包含着无休止的重复与单调。从朱达 的案例看，妻子与情人的区别仍然显现出人世间的一种常态：两者无法互相取代。

朱达问杰克，同时也是在问自己，“她不是只虫子，我们不能够就这么一脚踩上去。”但怜悯无法战胜恐惧，经由杰克安排，德洛丽丝只能彻底停止各种方式的骚扰。
她遭到谋杀的一组镜头没有台词，舒伯特的《弦乐四重奏作品第15号》作为背景铺在音轨上。事后朱达去案发现场即德洛丽丝的公寓收拾自己过去两年留在那里的物件，电影给了遗体一个特写，不是朱达希望她闭上的嘴巴，而是眼睛。眼睛是《罪与错》电影中最重要的象征物。朱达专攻眼科，他与德洛丽丝感情炙热的时候曾有过关于眼睛的对话。
德洛丽丝：“妈妈说过，我应该找个医生，因为我眼睛不太好，而你是个眼科医生！”
朱达：“啊哈。”
德洛丽丝：“眼睛是灵魂的窗口，你同意不同意这个说法？”
朱达：“嗯，我认为眼睛真是窗口，但不敢说我看到了灵魂。”
德洛丽丝：“妈妈告诉过我，我有灵魂。即使我不在人世了，灵魂还会在。如果你能看进眼睛深处，灵魂就在那里。”
德洛丽丝躺在公寓的地板上，朱达看着她的眼睛。她已经无需为人世间的烦恼所困，但双眼并未合上，朱达应该看不到其中灵魂的存在。他告诉弟弟杰克，“我看到她躺在那儿，一动也不动，盯着天花板。你仔细看进去，只有漆黑一团(black void)。”


罪与罚（下）——
1
爱与性之类人生核心问题，关于人类存在意义的终极思考
2
医生与牧师价值观反差之大直逼凤姐和江姐，
一系列质疑——由此造成无奈、无力、无所适从

伍迪·艾伦电影中道德完美的人物基本处于缺席状态，本牧师或许是最接近的一位，他对理解、忏悔、宽容的论述流畅自如，伍迪·艾伦最后却安排他失明。
艾伦这样解释，“有人会认为本比其他人对世界有更深刻的理解，但我的看法不同。我认为他对世界的理解其实更少，所以才让他失明。我觉得他的信仰是盲目的，如果要管用，其实需要你合上双眼，看不到现实。”(Woody Allen on Woody Allen, 2005年出版)


2017-03-13 05:20阅读：111

一直思考 两名男主 是什么关系 以为自己溜号 错过了哪段 然而结尾处 四个月后的婚礼中 两人最终同框 双故事线的叙事模式 最后有些重叠 的确有点意思

WA的剧 总会意外被某句台词逗笑 知识分子的幽默 我可能只能理解到最浅薄的那一层 不过也好 至少我也真正笑过

结尾处 法罗摘下眼镜 长发披肩 贡献本剧最美一幕

香槟和鱼子酱是我最喜欢的

没有鱼子酱 我有燕麦片 对心脏很好

新年伊始 突发奇想 第一篇豆瓣短评 献给WA

《罪与错》是一部讨论存在主义的现实主义电影，伍迪本人认为《罪与错》是小说电影：人物之间是独立的，故事之间也是独立的。同样的手法我们之前在《汉娜姐妹》中已经看过了，大姐二姐的故事和姐夫的故事同步分开进行。

存在主义是伍迪艾伦唯一关心的主题。电影一如既往地阐述了伍迪的虚无主义世界观，还有他看待这个世界的消极态度。在影片中，李维博士如此说道：“宇宙是个冰冷的地方，我们却为之付出真情。”这部电影讨论着死亡、人与宇宙还有道德的关系，是一部富含哲理的剧情片。伍迪本人是这样评论这部电影的：“我认为《罪与错》属于我比较满意的作品，以一种相对于轻松的方式探讨了我感兴趣的哲学主题。电影中既有欢快的时刻，也有紧张压抑的时刻，总的来说我觉得还不错。”

以轻松的方式讨论哲学主题。伍迪艾伦对于这部电影的点评真是一针见血。在我看来却不仅仅是这部电影。1987年《情怀九月天》，1988年《另一个女人》，1989年《罪与错》，这三年的三部电影全是这样“以轻松的方式讨论哲学主题”的电影。这三部电影拍得实在太轻松了，轻松得有些让人觉得无聊。尽管这是此时期伍迪艾伦喜欢呈现的电影方式，类似他的偶像英格玛·伯格曼的哲理、诗意的类型电影。但此时期伍迪的电影深度实在是太浅薄了，以致于无法发人深省成为经典。伍迪艾伦自己也说伯格曼的《第七封印》完美诠释了死亡这个主题，没有人能超越它，因为这已经是终极的、戏剧性的诠释方式。

此片的摄影师仍然是英格玛·伯格曼的御用摄影师斯文·尼科维斯特，电影中大量使用了伯格曼电影中表达细腻情感的特写镜头。此时期的伍迪艾伦的这些电影严肃得太像伯格曼了，同时又轻松得太不像伯格曼了。《罪与错》中医生指使杀手杀死自己的情人，显示出伍迪艾伦在”婚外恋”这一电影情节元素的一大突破。在以往伍迪的电影中，“婚外恋”的处理结果无非是与妻子、丈夫破镜重圆或主角与情妇、情夫携手冲破世俗。此次伍迪使用了戏剧性的“谋杀”剧情来升华主题。可惜《罪与错》还是显得太平淡了。直到《赛末点》，伍迪的婚外恋电影终于到达了戏剧性的巅峰。1989年的《罪与错》对于伍迪来说，还是太稚嫩的表达了。