深锁春光一院愁

对于女孩子来说，用手机或者电脑看看美剧韩剧什么的，算是当下网络时代的一种消遣，但是同样是看电视剧，放到上世纪五十年代的美国，换个播放器——电视机，可能就有另外一种象征——孤独的家庭主妇消磨时光、打发日子的“跳蛋”，讲出来有点羞耻，但是实质上基本一样。

1955年的《深锁春光一院愁》便是把这种表象下的“禁锢”描述的跌宕起伏、委婉动人，虽然是好莱坞的一部制片厂电影，但是却被向来有高逼格之称的“CC标准”收录，光凭这一点，我们就不能把它当做“晚八点爱情狗血片”来看待，尽管电影在故事层面上，讲述的就是一个地地道道的烂俗爱情故事，但是因为那么一点点“不同”，就让它成为了一部“女权主义”电影。

故事讲述的是富裕的中产阶级寡妇凯瑞，和她年轻园丁荣恩之间的一段忘年恋爱，虽然和诸多爱情故事一样，他们经历过双方朋友的检验、邻居们的流言蜚语和家人的指责，但是最终还是有情人终成眷属，来了个完美大结局。然而这个故事是因为美国人在讲述，如果换了其他国家，可能就有不同的结局了，在韩国的话，有可能是《熔炉》般的无力，在丹麦的话，可能是《狩猎》般的忌惮。

之所以把一部爱情电影和两个根本和爱情无关的欧亚国家电影做比较，原因在于，他们都是有关“偏见”。《熔炉》中是众人对于校长一味的信任，而不相信处于劣势的聋哑孩子；《狩猎》正好相反，小镇居民都深信小女孩的所言非虚，而男老师则是邪恶的化身；《深锁春光一院愁》便是富裕的中产阶级对于下层工人的偏见。

将一个“偏见”讲述的到位并不容易，更何况导演道格拉斯·塞克并不希望直接开罪中产阶级，所以在剧情的处理上，颇为委婉，比如女儿的“悔过”，医生的奉劝以及朋友莎拉的好意和理解，但是这种侧笔反而更为讽刺。莎拉的行为更像是中产阶级主妇间的虚与委蛇，女儿的“悔过”更多显露的是一种“事后诸葛”的弥补，但是内心却依旧保守，如果我们联想到她之前动辄拿出弗洛伊德的理论显示自己的开明，后期女儿的“懂事”只会增添她的虚伪和表里不一；而医生，或许只是导演为了推动凯瑞的行为所做的无奈设计吧！

实际上，这群中产阶级的“偏见”只是对于男主角荣恩，对于凯瑞来说并不是“偏见”，而是限制、禁锢和道德捆绑。其实对于荣恩来说，“偏见”并 不算什么，由于人设的性格，荣恩并不在乎别人的看法，但是作为一个丧偶并有两个成年的儿女来说，这种“偏见”便是一种舆论禁锢了。表面上，它很开放，不仅允许，而且鼓励凯瑞找个夕阳伴侣，但是，这种允许是有选择性的，她必须在中产阶级的社交圈中寻找，而且必须年龄相仿，所谓的“爱情”并不是凯瑞这个寡妇的权利，找个合适的体面人组成适当的男女关系才是她可以做的事情。（从开头她和老年的夏飞约会受到儿女的鼓励和支持时就能够看出。）

凯瑞本身也不是那种周围的人一吓，她就放弃真爱的女人，然而当她面临儿女受到流言蜚语，并被儿女“警告”必须和荣恩分开时，她不得不做出让步。社会伦理对于女性的禁锢最可怕的不是来自于外部的恐吓，而是女性自身已经被驯化，她“必须”考虑儿女，她“必须”承担母亲的责任，换句话说，她必须“做一个母亲该做的”，这个“该”便是女性终极的“命运悲剧”。

有一个异常讽刺的场面，当初凯瑞因为还有儿女相伴，所以放弃了自己的真爱，也被儿子“命令”，祖屋必须留下，但是当她决定放弃真爱之后，女儿隔年就会出嫁，儿子即将远去巴黎上学，之后去伊朗工作，还被儿子“通知”：“祖屋太大了，你一个人住也是浪费，回头就卖了吧！”这种前后的荒唐状况可谓是鞭辟入里，更为可笑的是，在一开头凯瑞就异常讨厌“电视机”（因为它代表了中年女人的空虚），但是最后即将离去的儿女却攒钱给她买了一台电视机，从最后电视机屏幕中的凯瑞镜像，我们知道，儿女其实是在给凯瑞的后半生生活送葬。

《深锁春光一院愁》并不想让这种对于女性的压榨见针见血，而是试图用“曲笔”，讽刺性地表达了这一社会现状，可能在导演塞克看来，迎合地讲述痛苦比暴露地表达愤怒更有效吧！

本文首发“百度电影吧”公众号

转载或约稿请加豆邮

新妆宜面下朱楼，深锁春光一院愁。行到中庭数花朵，蜻蜓飞上玉搔头。

刘禹锡这首闺怨词的第二小句，被用作美国电影All That Heaven Allows的译名，尽管电影中的季节不是春天（这里大约是取美好的岁月、时光之意）。“新妆宜面”本是期待爱情的状态；而锁住女主人公的，是那庭院深深，和庭院内外的傲慢与偏见。

影片的情节初看极为老套甚至浮夸。一位上流社会富有的中年寡妇Cary，一位年轻英俊、朝气蓬勃的园丁Ron，两人的爱情遭到Cary子女、朋友的一致反对。面对世俗压力，Cary放弃了这段感情。直到关键时刻，Cary才终于决定听从自己的内心回到Ron身边……

然而道格拉斯·塞克在通俗的情节背后藏着更多的表达。

塞克式美学，有一种让人心凉的幻灭感。《深锁春光一院愁》中，Cary想放弃与Ron感情的导火索，是儿子的离家出走：“如果你要嫁给他，别指望我来看望你。”看似讲道理的女儿也认为母亲不该嫁给一个一无所有的园丁。Ron对Cary说的话其实点出了问题的本质：“他们不喜欢我，是因为我不像他们的爸爸。我不是成功的商人，不是国家的栋梁。”得知Cary解除婚约后，儿子回家了，说他即将出国，给母亲买了一台电视机——一个Cary之前就跟朋友谈论过并不感兴趣的物件。当儿子兴奋地向母亲诉说这台电视有多好的时候，他没有注意到的，是映在电视机中母亲悲怆忧愁的脸庞。这个镜头让人痛心，Cary的脸被死死框在那个年代的奢侈品——电视机里，如同囿于她所处的上流社会。儿子出国，女儿嫁人，儿子甚至要考虑卖掉母亲住的房子，这时身处大宅中的Cary，体会到一种深深的孤寂。

如同塞克在下一年拍摄的作品《苦雨恋春风》中那个“一入豪门深似海”的故事，塞克的镜头里看似表现的是上流社会豪华的住宅、华美的着装、永无尽头的宴会、奢侈的生活方式，但其中无比饱满的人物情感、层次分明的色彩、恰到好处的配乐却给人一种不真实的感觉。影片中，Cary最初坚持要让Ron见她的朋友们，带他去赴宴，希望她的“朋友们”能接纳他。宴会上人们衣冠楚楚，觥筹交错；而等待她的，却是含沙射影的嘲讽与旧日曾追随她不成的男人的调戏。Ron并不会因为换上一身西装就被接纳；两人最终离开了熙熙攘攘的人群。与周围的吵闹声不匹配的，是两人深深的失望与孤独，和观众可以解读得出的隔阂。来自德国的塞克，此时营造出其同胞布莱希特提出的间离效果。如同Ron是Cary朋友圈子的局外人，我们也成为了局外人，旁观影片中纷纷攘攘人群的精神世界。

无怪乎塞克的影片被认为带有某种辛辣的讽刺性。他将一群人拍得尽可能华美，目的却不是为了赞美。《苦雨恋春风》中的Lucy，《深锁春光一院愁》中的Cary，都是贵妇人的角色，只是处在人生的不同阶段。她们的本意没有错，要对自己的家庭负责任；但是各种因素却将不应有的重负压在她们身上。Lucy的丈夫因为生育问题终日酗酒，但是她仍对其富有耐心不离不弃，直到Lucy好不容易怀孕后却又怀疑孩子不是他的，一巴掌将她打流产；Cary的儿女赞成守寡的母亲嫁人，但却必须要嫁给他们认为社会地位与其相匹配的对象，否则便粗暴地加以反对，只顾自己的面子，丝毫不顾母亲的感受。某种程度上，她们的善良被“利用”了，成为了他人自私行为的牺牲品。而两人最终的结局，都是离开了原有的家。两部影片中洛克·哈德森都扮演了“拯救者”式的角色，他来自普通家庭、做着普通的工作，他让女主角离开旧生活，和他一起开始一段全新的征程。

但是塞克的讽刺不是恶毒的，而是充满着关怀与希望。与其说他在批判上流社会的精神面貌，抑或世俗偏见对女性造成的伤害，倒不如说他在反思如何走出困境。阶级偏见、性别偏见要消除谈何容易，正因此，有人说《深锁春光一院愁》的结局过于理想化。但我以为，这正说明了塞克的乐观态度和他对人性、对爱的信任。影片中，女儿最终向母亲道歉，这是一种和解。塞克的目的，并不在说明上流社会的一切都是恶的；他描绘的，是有时表面的浮华遮蔽了人们的双眼，而事实上传统的阶级与性别偏见不应成为精神富足与幸福的障碍。

影片从金色的深秋到银白的冬季，色彩十分迷人。在我看来主人公的着装也富有暗示。Cary和Ron感情在正轨的时候，Ron穿的都是红色的衣服（准确说是红黑格子）；两人面临压力处于分手边缘的时候，他的衣着颜色明显变深变暗。等到又有转机（圣诞相遇），他又穿上了红衣。另外，Cary女儿回来告诉母亲她要结婚的时候，穿的是一条红裙，与黑色着装满怀心事的憔悴母亲形成了鲜明对比，让人想起Cary影片开头阶段穿的红色礼服——那时她还没有经历这一切，尚且神采奕奕。从亮色到暗色，隐喻着因为爱情遭受的世俗偏见带给Cary的折磨。

影片结尾，Cary守护在昏迷的Ron床前。Ron醒来，说你回家了？Cary说是的，亲爱的，我回家了。落地窗外，是白色的雪与凝视他们的鹿。电视锁住了心，窗子却打开心看向外面的世界。

“我回家了”，她终于让Ron的家成为她的归宿；她说的是“回来”，这是内心、爱情、精神意义上的“回来”；这个结尾，我愿将其视作塞克的明亮希望。

（原写于2016年7月，作了一些修改与整理。）

《深锁春光一院愁》: 完成度非常高，台词设置精巧，画面色彩鲜明。 这么忧伤动人的剧情，带来的艰难与抉择堪比初三时看《罗马假日》。看了一点后意识到启发了托德海因斯的《远离天堂》。但远离天堂似乎才是现实，没有happy ending. 中产阶级妇女都爱园丁。洛克哈德森的脸简直了，完美得跟雕塑一样。这张脸自高三起一直贴在我屋子，某期《看电影》杂志里的小海报。 和《蔚蓝深海》一样，医生都扮演知心大哥的角色:因为逃避，所以头痛。你甚至比过去更加孤独。你高尚的牺牲有什么意义呢。如果他真爱我，他会来找我的。不！你要是爱他，你该去找他！You are ready for a love affair,but not for love. 要是坐在电影院大银幕前，定会在光影之中泪流满面吧。 It won't be easy时甚至想起John and Yoko. 经典台词: 有你在的地方就是家。你回家来了。 多少人都生活在平静的绝望中。 She doesnt want to make her own mind,no girl does.She wants you to make up for her. ironic:1.女儿满嘴弗洛伊德，研究社会学心理学，分析各种案例。看起来很先锋很自由，说寡妇不该被埋葬，这又不是古埃及，要活出自我，不在乎别人的想法。但到自己身上就行不通了。是个彻底的理论派。 罗恩是彻底的行动派。这是罗恩的bible吗。不，罗恩的bible就是活出自我。他从来不会让不重要的东西变得重要。活出真正的自我。安全感源于自我，无法被带走。VIP-very independent person. 2.电视机。孤独的老女人最后的避难所。只要轻轻旋转按钮，戏剧，喜剧，生活，就在你的指缝中展开。 关于什么是自私，什么是活出自我，究竟如何判定。自私不过是忠于内心的另一种表达方式。 儿女、罗恩哪个不自私呢。上一秒他们还说你自私，下一秒你无私了，你的无私就恰恰被他们的自私所利用。 鹿 很多事情答案很简单，但你要用很久才可以想明白。那不是一夜就能figure out的。

Douglas Sirk once said: “This is the dialectic—there is a very short distance between high art and trash, and trash that contains an element of craziness is by this very quality nearer to art.” When All That Heaven Allows was released by Universal Pictures in 1955, it was just another critically unnoticed Hollywood genre product, designed to appeal to the trashy “women’s weepie” audience. Now, in retrospect, it is considered to be closer to the art side of Sirk’s dialectic, and one of his key films. But this is part of a wider process of critical reevaluation in which his entire body of work has been rediscovered and reappraised by successive generations of filmmakers and historians.

No one seeing the film at the time of its release would have imagined its director to be an elegant, extremely erudite European whose career started in the theater of Weimar Germany and who was an early director of Bertolt Brecht’s The Threepenny Opera. After a short but successful career at UFA studios in the vacuum left by the massive emigration of Jewish talent after the Nazis came to power in 1933, Sirk made his way to Hollywood, directing his first film there in 1942. Following an unsuccessful attempt to return to Germany in 1949–50, he signed a contract with Universal. His movie career then culminated with his highest-profile films, the melodramas of 1952–58. By 1959, he was Universal’s most successful director. At that very moment, he left moviemaking and America. Until his death in 1987, he and his wife, Hilde, lived in Lugano, Switzerland.

All That Heaven Allows marks the final turning point in Sirk’s strange and varied career. On the back of Magnificent Obsession’s success the previous year, Universal gave him a budget and freedom that enabled his mature style to blossom. All That Heaven Allows contains all the elements of characteristically Sirkian composition: light, shade, color, and camera angles combine with his trademark use of mirrors to break up the surface of the screen. Here are all the components of the “melodramatic” style on which Sirk’s critical reputation is based and that has made him the favorite of later generations of filmmakers, from Rainer Werner Fassbinder to Quentin Tarantino, from John Waters to Pedro Almodóvar.

But at the time, Universal was just anxious to repeat its successful pairing of Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson in a romance between an older woman and an extremely handsome younger man. Wyman was still a big star but, by then, past her prime. Recently divorced from Ronald Reagan, and aware that her future lay with the soap-opera audience, she was pleased to be teamed with Hudson again. At the time, he was the new Hollywood heartthrob, who, although “out of the closet” in his personal life, had to be continually shut back in publicly and professionally by an anxious studio.

The All That Heaven Allows version of the May-September romance formula has Wyman playing Cary Scott, a well-to-do widow with two college-age children and a dull social life at the country club. The emptiness at the heart of her existence is filled when she meets Ron Kirby, the young gardener–turned–tree farmer who prunes the trees that line her all-American suburban yard—and then comes back to court her. This simple love story is disrupted by the vicious snobbery of her children and high-society acquaintances. Early in the film, Cary is at her dressing table, preparing for an evening with the Stoningham “elite.” To one side stands a vase containing the branches Ron cut for her earlier, so that Cary’s awakening interest in him carries over from the previous sequence. In a beautifully composed shot, the children first appear reflected in the mirror, coming between Cary and the vase, and then, as the camera pulls away, she is taken back into the room and toward the children. This one shot tells the story of the dilemma that Cary will face for the rest of the film and is typical of Sirk’s emblematic, economical use of cinema. His stars’ performances mesh well with this style. He gives them the screen space appropriate for their status, but the sexual charge between Cary and Ron is articulated through looks and gestures, and the roller-coaster highs and lows of their love are displaced onto the things that surround them.

Objects play their own significant part in expressing the emotions blocked by convention in small-town, middle-class 1950s America. Sirk creates a cinema in which the screen itself speaks more articulately than the protagonists, tongue-tied as they are by the codes of their fictional setting, the powers of censorship in Hollywood at the time, and the norms of the family melodrama genre. Out of these constraints, Sirk builds his film, while also using a typically melodramatic score to punctuate points and to accompany the tones and textures of the actors’ voices.

Years after their initial dismissal (and sometimes derision) by reviewers, Sirk’s successful string of big-budget soapers (and the director himself) have acquired a rich and complex critical afterlife, as different aspects and facets of the films have been reclaimed by successive phases of film criticism. For the auteurists and structuralists of the 1960s, Sirk’s mastery of cinematic language transcended the working conditions of the Hollywood studio system; feminists reclaimed him as a director of melodrama, with his women protagonists and dramas of interiority, domestic space, and sexual desire; gay critics today see a camp subtext in his films with Hudson, in which ambiguous situations can be read as double entendre.

The gap between the contemporary perception of All That Heaven Allows and that of the later critics is closed by Sirk himself, who once explained the conditions of work at the studio: “At least I was allowed to work on the material—so that I restructured to some extent some of the rather impossible scripts of the films I had to direct. Of course, I had to go by the rules, avoid experiments, stick to family fare, have ‘happy endings,’ and so on. Universal didn’t interfere with either my camera work or my cutting—which meant a lot to me.” Although All That Heaven Allows does, on the face of it, have a happy ending, its “happiness” is twisted with more than a touch of Sirkian irony. This piece originally appeared in the Criterion Collection’s 2001 DVD edition of All That Heaven Allows.

Jun 10, 2014

摘自CC官网：//www.criterion.com/current/posts/96-all-that-heaven-allows-an-articulate-screen