维特根斯坦

我很少看把电影看第二遍……但这部传记片实在是太有趣了。

对于大众来说为什么牛逼：
成本低，概念高。演员也都选得好
而导演Jarman也是很下功夫。当时几近失明的他，把维老他的人和他的思想都读透了。改写剧本时Jarman大胆想象，写成了这么一部轻松诙谐加自我调侃的同志哲人传记片。我就喜欢这种先锋的自我解读，而不是循规蹈矩走传统传记路线。


对于我个人来说为什么牛逼：
感情呈现的起乘转折的节奏把握得特别好。不乏感人的台词，尤其是结尾凯恩斯的那段独白比喻，听得心都融化了。
我和片中偏执地寻找『私人语言』维老有同感。时常在个人的孤独感中纠结与人交流时所遇到的困难。
他认为 解决这种孤独 尤其是哲人的孤独（brooding over its private experience） 的方式就是寻找公共语言
而完善这种语言的方式就是让所有人的逻辑体系都是理性的、一致的。
当有人对他做侮辱手势的时候，他开始意识到，人类的语言不可能完美。
他执着而天真 聪明而钻牛角尖 不爱都不行。

好吧其实是为了贴作业的，调研贾曼的两部电影
中心论点在第一段。。关于电影中的同志题材和场景设置

Derek Jarman’s Personal Narrative—Exploring Ludwig Wittgenstein and Michelangelo Caravaggio’s Brilliance and Queer Identities


As one of the best-known British queer directors, Derek Jarman produced several unique biopics of talented men tortured by their repressed homosexuality. Notably, Jarman started his career in feature film by working with Ken Russell, a director who reinvented the artist biopic by “introducing startling fantasy sequences and ostentatious camera movements.” Jarman continued Russell’s revolt against conventional realist representation of historical figures. Also using biopics as a form of documentation, Jarman has sought to reenact experience and thereby reconstruct affective relations. He identifies with brilliant queer men who are often too radical for their times. By portraying queer figures, Jarman interprets art and philosophy as well as repressed emotions and loneliness of queer men. Even during the conservative periods, Jarman’s nuanced films carried many provocative themes that were not only political but also highly personal. Caravaggio (1986) and Wittgenstein (1993) exemplify these aspects of Jarman’s individualistic, subjective approach. Jarman admits to strongly identifying with Wittgenstein: “I have much of Ludwig in me. Not in my work, but in my life.” Jarman has also stated in interviews that his artistic dilemmas are similar to those experienced by Caravaggio. This research paper attempts to capture the richness of Jarman's personal relationship with these two figures by discussing both films’ use of mise-en-scene and their thematic concern with queer identity.
Jarman engages with the lives of Wittgenstein and Caravaggio by referencing and paying homage to their work on a theoretical level. A painter and former set designer, Jarman emphasizes the use of mise-en-scene as substitute for literal narrative. In Jarman's films, staging and visual imagery are the most important qualities, while “narrative takes second place". While the lack of emphasis on logical narrative granted him more space to experiment, viewers with little knowledge of the characters are often confused. Jarman concentrates on constructing the plot around Caravaggio's paintings rather than his life and times. Critics have pointed out the absence of a clear narrative in Caravaggio. The characters and their relations to Caravaggio are unclear and sometimes misleading. Many supporting characters do not have presence in the plot that was fully distinct from their respective paintings. Yet Jarman believed he had to establish a unique perspective in order to capture Caravaggio’s dramatic “Hollywood template” life in a 90-minute film without resorting to clichés. Narrative ambiguity allows Jarman to “recreate many details of [his] life and, bridging the gap of centuries and cultures, to exchange a camera with a brush.” He interweaves the paintings with the plot with a painstakingly reworked script that involved 16 rewrites, as well as magnificent tableaux vivant production sets. Jarman focuses on Caravaggio’s emotions, sexuality, dreams and events surrounding the creation of his paintings, redefining the genre of the artist biopic. The paintings drive the narrative, and the consciousness depicted is not that of independently conceived characters but that of the artist himself, Jarman-Caravaggio.
As a lifelong painter, Jarman appreciates the narrative power of mise-en-scene and highlights it in the set designs for both films. Jarman is fascinated by Caravaggio’s use of chiaroscuro to create the illusion of depth. He praised Caravaggio for inventing cinematic light and the noir style shadowed backgrounds. Jarman pays homage to this technique through tightly controlled lighting effects. The tone and shade of the walls and skin color convey more about the scene than the script. In most scenes, Jarman meticulously replicates Caravaggio’s light sources, which usually come from the left and therefore elicits stronger responses from the viewers. Jarman attempts to show that the chiaroscuro is effective to capture intense emotions not only on canvas but also in film. He pays homage to Caravaggio by employing light and emphasizes the timelessness of classic art techniques.
While Jarman painted cinema like the artist Caravaggio, he also philosophized it, as expressed in the mise-en-scene of Wittgenstein. Jarman portrays Wittgenstein’s general estrangement from a painfully foreign world as a result of both his abstract philosophy and his difficulties accepting his sexuality. Jarman shows a world that appears absurd from Wittgenstein’s perspective: the highly stylized acting and flamboyant costumes of other characters contrast with Wittgenstein’s naturalistic acting and gray tweed jacket. Wittgenstein questions himself throughout the film: “How can I be a logician before I am a human being? The most important thing is to settle accounts with myself!” He travels across Europe, fighting in the Great War, teaching in a rural school, and escaping to Ireland or Norway to familiarize himself with the strange world, yet its meaning is still “problematic.” Wittgenstein, troubled by his sexuality, also wished to live an ethical life guided by strict logic. Yet this longing for perfection is disrupted by the messiness of life and the fickleness of passions.
Jarman places symbolic visuals in the biopic, which remind sophisticated audiences of “Wittgenstein’s epigrammatic style” of writing. Lady Ottoline paints Bertrand Russell on canvas as a red monochrome. When he wrote the script, Jarman also tried to understand Wittgenstein’s personal life by reading his books. Remarks on Colour provided him with cinematic context to relate to Wittgenstein’s ideas: “Remarks on Colour was a path for me back to the Tractatus [Logico-Philosophicus].” Furthermore, Jarman’s schematic use of color contrasts between the repression of private feelings and the expression of straightforward colors. "The black annihilates the decorative and concentrates so my characters shine in it like red dwarfs—and green giants. Yellow lines and blue stars”, Jarman references the schematic use of colors in Wittgenstein poetically. Jarman later wrote an entire book—Chroma— to show how colors are solely products of human interaction. In Wittgenstein’s words: “I think that it is worthless and of no use whatsoever for the understanding of painting to speak of the characteristics of the individual colours.” Through referencing Wittgenstein’s ideas on colors in the mise-en-scene as well as script text, Jarman pays homage to the philosopher. Jarman also successfully uses film medium to explore abstract theories and overcomes limitations of language.
Jarman engages with Wittgenstein and Caravaggio not only on a theoretical level but also reads into their personal struggles with homosexuality. Similar to abstract theories, Jarman’s Wittgenstein believed that homosexuality is an area that restricts language as a mode of expression. “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent,” Wittgenstein once wrote. In Jarman’s dialogue and cinematography, Wittgenstein's struggles to come to terms with his own philosophical ideas were inseparable from his attitude towards his sexuality. In one scene, three cyclists dressed in anachronistic jumpsuits abuse him with homophobic slurs and the insulting V-sign. Wittgenstein is flabbergasted and realizes there is no “logical structure” in the V-sign – the main argument of his first book. He plans to commit suicide but then rethinks his entire philosophy of language, completing his magnum opus Philosophical Investigations. Wittgenstein is confused by the logic of a curse, but Jarman sets the scene to suggest that Wittgenstein is confounded by homophobia. Jarman explains that Wittgenstein found a black hole in the logic, “for [the picture of Queer] there was no language.” Later, Bertrand Russell is infuriated after Wittgenstein convinces his student Johnny to work and drives him away from philosophy. Russell criticizes Wittgenstein for idealizing the common folk and “infecting too many young men” with his thought experiments. Jarman hints at Wittgenstein’s homosexual relationships with students through these double entendres. Wittgenstein's euphemisms, too, reflect his embarrassment concerning these relationships: He has “known” Johnny three times. Following this scene, Jarman places the mentally tormented Wittgenstein in a suspended cage. Wittgenstein ponders upon his relationships with his university and exclaims painfully: “Philosophy is the sickness of the mind. I mustn’t infect too many young men… living in a world where such a love is illegal and trying to live openly and honestly is a complete contradiction.” John Maynard Keynes, also clearly homosexual in the film, consoles Wittgenstein: “If you’d just allow yourself to be a little more sinful, you’d stand a chance of salvation.” Both Wittgenstein’s sexuality and philosophy alienates him from the real world. Jarman portrays a Wittgenstein who finds it difficult to distinguish between his philosophy and sexual passions.
Similarly, Jarman regards Caravaggio as the most homosexual of painters, based on his paintings rather than his biography. Jarman notes that Caravaggio paints his own face staring from the back of the crowd in The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew. He hypothesizes that “[Caravaggio] gazes wistfully at the hero slaying the saint. It is a look no one can understand unless he has stood till 5 a.m. in a gay bar hoping to be fucked by that hero. The gaze of the passive homosexual at the object of his desire, he waits to be chosen, he cannot make the choice”. Jarman reads Caravaggio's paintings for insights into his psychology and romantic relationships, and places these readings into his film. Caravaggio suffers creative drought while painting The Martyrdom. He encounters the attractive, masculine yet poor Ranuccio and selects him as a model. Ranuccio, the object of desire, inspires Caravaggio to finish the painting. Caravaggio showers him with gold coins in a suggestive fashion and also delivers one of the coins mouth to mouth. At the final stage, Caravaggio gazes intensely at Ranuccio still posed as the Martyr, forming a tableau vivant of the painting. His role as the artist desiring for Caravaggio and man yearning for St. Matthew in the painting is blurred. Caravaggio says in a voiceover, “I will seek him, whom my soul loves. I sought him, but found him not.” Jarman depicts Caravaggio as having romantic yet passive sentiments for the undesirable and shows this through ingenious mise-en-scene.
Elsewhere, Jarman portrays Caravaggio’s passivity as a product of the hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic establishment’s homophobia. He reads in the same painting “pernicious self-hatred [homosexuals] fostered among themselves… which is the key to Caravaggio’s life and destruction—it’s written all over the painting.” Jarman also identifies many of Caravaggio’s paintings as claustrophobic. Believing that there is a connection between Caravaggio’s style and his state of mind, Jarman films all of the scenes in studio with claustrophobic environments to suggest Caravaggio’s suffocation in a homophobic society. There is only one exterior scene in Caravaggio, in which Ranuccio and Lena are engaging in heterosexual foreplay. The restriction of space is emphasized as Caravaggio recounts the open spaces of the ocean or grasslands on his deathbed, yet the film includes not a single shot of the sky.
In Wittgenstein, Jarman further restricts the mise-en-scene space and uses nothing but a black background. Yet Wittgenstein does not experience the engulfing black as simply a form of claustrophobia. By using the black drape, Jarman was not only able to film the documentary on a minimal budget, but could also suggest that “the historicising attitude to biopic is totally irrelevant.” Jarman, who sought to make a philosophical film, said that “to redefine film, like language, needs a leap—in this case, the black drapes [defy] the narrative without junking it”. Time, space, and color are happening, juxtaposing an eternal and persistent void. Wittgenstein’s biographer Ray Monk lauded this approach in a review, saying that the black background embodies Wittgenstein’s “ahistorical, existential style of philosophizing and creates the entirely apposite impression that this is a story that is happening, not in any particular place, but rather in somebody’s—Wittgenstein’s—mind.” Eventually, on his deathbed, as Wittgenstein accepts his queer desires in an imperfect world, the child version of him rises out of the black drapes and flies up to the sky (a backdrop) on aeronautic wings. Wittgenstein leaves the alienating world that has been portrayed thus far in the film.
Jarmanesque props are also an important mise-en-scene element. Jarman references Leonardo da Vinci’s engineering drawings by giving Wittgenstein kite wings and having him hold lawn sprinklers in his hands. The sprinklers' jets of water resemble the spinning propellers of a plane. Jarman’s anachronistic choice of props was inspired by the props in Caravaggio’s paintings. In Penitent Magdelane, only the pearls and bottle of perfume indicate that the subject is Mary Magdalene. Her identity is otherwise unclear because the model is a prostitute dressed in 16th century clothing. Caravaggio’s mix of historical and contemporary objects suggests a connection between the historical subject and the viewer. Like the props in Caravaggio’s paintings, those in Jarman’s films suggest that history exists within the present and is embodied by contemporary models and objects. In one scene of Caravaggio, the aristocratic banker pompously fiddles with an electronic calculator that shows the timeless relationship between art and commerce. The vicious art critic attacks Caravaggio’s paintings and sexuality using a typewriter, perhaps referring to contemporary Tories that attacked Jarman personally in Sunday Times. The pope jeers at Caravaggio with a modern term “you little bugger” when he claims that art only helps the status quo. Through anachronistic props, Jarman shows the timelessness of artists’ tension with the establishment.
Jarman engages with Caravaggio and Wittgenstein’s theoretical ideas as well as personal dilemmas to show that they are not only brilliant but also troubled by their queer sexuality. Equipped with mise-en-scene elements such as lighting techniques, schematic colors and anachronistic props incorporated in his meticulously written script, Jarman directed nuanced films such as Wittegenstein and Caravaggio that explore many provocative themes during conservative eras. As an artist, Jarman feels responsible to show those details and nuances that cannot yet be fitted into a theoretically coherent framework, where the “attrition between private and public worlds” is felt strongest. Jarman used cinema “to express his beliefs, his dreams, his emotions, his ideologies, his needs. That is the difference between the artist and the technician who both make films.” Combining extraordinary vision, intellect and effort, he effectively conveyed his personal and theoretical readings of the two figures’ queer identities in Caravaggio and Wittgenstein.
 


Bibliography
Beristain, Gabriel. Caravaggio (DVD audio commentary). Dir. Derek Jarman. Cinevista, 1986. DVD. Zeitgeist Films. 2008.
Clark, James. "Jarman's Wittgenstein." Jim's Reviews. http://jclarkmedia.com/jarman/jarman10.html (accessed December 5, 2010).
Ellis, Jim. Derek Jarman's Angelic Conversations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.
Fox, Sharon. A perceptual basis for the lighting of Caravaggio's faces. Journal of Vision. August 1, 2004 vol. 4 no. 8 article 215. <http://www.journalofvision.org/content/4/8/215.abstract>
Jarman, Derek. Caravaggio. Thames and Hudson, London, 1986. 44.
Jarman, Derek. Dancing Ledge. Quartet Books, London, 1984.
Jarman, Derek. "This is Not a Film of Ludwig Wittgenstein." In Wittgenstein: the Terry Eagleton script, the Derek Jarman film. London: British Film Institute, 1993. 63-67.
Jarman, Derek, and Roger Wollen. Derek Jarman: a portrait. London: Thames And Hudson, 1996.
Monk, Ray. ‘Between Earth and Ice: Derek Jarman’s Film of the life of Wittgenstein’. In The Times Literary Supplement, 19 March 1993.
Nash, Mark. 'Innocence and of Experience,' Afterimage 12, Autumn 1985. 30.
Pencak, William. “Caravaggio and the Italian Renaissance” and “Wittgenstein: The Grey Flame and the Early Twentieth Century.” In The films of Derek Jarman. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 2002. 70-84, 108-119.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Remarks on Colour. Oxford: Blackwell, 1977.
Wymer, Rowland. Derek Jarman. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005.
 
Appendix
Appendix 1: Michelangelo Caravaggio’s The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew.
 
Appendix 2: Wittgenstein, the da Vinci design, and sprinklers. Wittgenstein

Appendix 3: Caravaggio’s Penitent Magdelane

豆瓣Appendix 4：写着两部片儿的起因

最近又有新的电影paper要写 8-10p 随便什么topic都行
我苦思冥想数日 从伍迪艾伦到wes anderson，从青年文化想到记者类电影，都因为各种原因被我自己一一否决。（太平庸 太日常 被说烂了 我已经知道太多有偏见的，etc）（选research电影难度在于，又要喜欢研究对象，又不能太喜欢——否则你没办法置身于高处去评判！！比如wes anderson……）

昨天随意浏览豆瓣电影的时候看到以前打5星的《维特根斯坦因》 正好里面很多我没理解的概念 同时觉得很牛逼 于是come up with the rough thesis：When Jarman narrates Ludwig Wittgenstein's life in the film, how does is the director incorporating the philosopher’s ideas on language?

随后让季先生帮我借了N本关于维叔叔和他理论的书……爽～～


今天去找老师的时候 他听到我选择这部电影时就笑出来了
“我为什么笑啊，其实我应该为你高兴才对嘛，只不过我是太久以前看的了（刚出的时候老师就看了……），所以觉得又惊又喜！”持续表达自己的惊讶，“What a surprising choice！You have an interest in philosophy？” 他没想到我对哲学还有兴趣

我解释了一番thesis，老师又问我为什么想处这个的 我说 因为一直觉得哲人的思想与他们的真实生活之间的联系很微妙。老师质问，什么是‘真实’？我说，想法与生活态度毕竟还是两回事。 他说，嗯确实，随即开始自言自语“电影能体现出image's immediacy”什么的，我也顺手记下来了

建议：1 don't try to become a master on wittgenstein's ideas. 很多人花一辈子都没整明白
2 focus on the text itself, don't be too absorbed with w's thoughts
说不定要拿这个作为主体，与《蓝》、《Jubilee》的风格做一些联系（“Jubilee is a very accessible film。你对朋克文化感兴趣吗？里面有所涉及”“嗯，有的”）（我居然说得这么淡定）
他也非常喜欢Jarman，把他与queer vision联系起来，因为同性恋男导们其实都一种独特的表达方式，虽然往往与同性恋这个主题不是很相关

“You are such an unusual student！在我看来，你对抽象的想法这么感兴趣，你以后应该很喜欢电影理论的。可惜啊～你不在我下学期的queer vision课上～我们要讨论帕索里尼啊～以及他对天主教的各种奇怪见解”
“帕索里尼，是拍索多玛的对吧？”
“对”
“嗯。。确实会很有意思呢。话说你看戏剧作品《马拉/萨德》了吗？”
“没有！我本应该去看的！悔恨啊！我消息太闭塞了；以后一定要找到获取这些信息的渠道！”
 

总之跟电影老师每次谈话都很欢乐很活跃～～虽然我们两个人都有点shy～

周六去柜子蹭电影，看了维特根斯坦。

这并不是部同性题材的影片，里面的gay元素非常弱化，大家可能都忍耐着其中无穷尽的哲学对话而满怀期待的等到了片子的结束音乐。负责播放的好看的男人起身说，今天的电影就放到这里了。大家都一愣一愣的坐在原位没有动静。好看的男人推推眼镜说，大家还在期待什么吗。下面哄笑，纷纷收拾走人了。

我更希望维特根斯坦是个虚构的人物，就像美国影片walk hard里塑造的那样。因为这个可怜的一头钻进哲学欲罢不能的男人的一生，似乎就是对欧洲经典哲学的批判。而他无可奈何的是罗素的学生，显然是在欧洲那个经典的时代留下痕迹的人了。我对西方哲学史的了解到笛卡儿就嘎然而止，所以以上和以下关于哲学的评论是我自以为是的觉得，并没有史实的证明。

维特根斯坦青年时热衷于用逻辑学来解释一切。他写了一本逻辑学的书，把宗教也融合进去。在我的理解里经典哲学就是追求绝对的理性，而阶梯就是逻辑。所以他是从经典哲学出发的正统的哲学家。但维特根斯坦是个过于认真的家伙。我曾经也是个认真的家伙。大学里去偷听过2次西方哲学史课程，第二次下课后，我去问讲课的老师，问他为什么会学哲学，把哲学放在生活中如何的位置。他说是因为兴趣，在生活中也是作为兴趣，思考那些问题就会很开心。所以之后我就再也没去偷听这个课。我那时觉得他不严肃。生活是严肃的话题，我觉得一个搞哲学的人应该让哲学来决定他的生活，以生活来验证他的哲学。而兴趣是太随性太肤浅的存在。维特根斯坦因为他的认真和天赋，过早的解决了哲学上的逻辑问题。我想他的逻辑学上的论述一定是错误的，但是哲学问题没有对和错，只有解决与困扰。维特根斯坦过早的跨过了哲学逻辑上的羁绊，而用逻辑来演算真理直到老死，才是经典哲学的范畴。维特根斯坦不小心走出经典的院墙的缘由在于他把哲学观的分歧归结到了交流的隔阂上。所以他的中年羁绊在了穷究语言学上面。后来他认识到了这种羁绊，觉得生活很苦，对他的漂亮男学生说，作为忠告，还是不要陷到里面的好。后来他们上了床。维特根斯坦一直生活在痛苦中，因为他是个认真的人，就像影片结尾借他的美丽男学生在他临终的床前说的那个比喻，他的才华和偏执使他成功建造了一个纯粹完美的理性世界，但他却没法在自己的世界里生存，因为太光滑了没有摩擦力，人只能生存在粗糙的有摩擦力的世界。他认识到这点后回到了粗糙的现实世界，但心思仍然在那个理性世界中。他的认真不能把哲学仅仅作为生活的一样乐趣，如同不能把自己的理性世界作为现实地球的月亮。两个地球无法顺畅的共同运行，就注定了维特根斯坦的自我纠葛的一生。老年维特根斯坦辞去了教授的职务，住在海边专心著作。但他写不出什么，然后生癌死掉了。

好看的播放电影的男人最后说，维特根斯坦的同性恋倾向和他的哲学理论应该有着密切的关系。我想这是柜子这次选播这部生涩的影片的原因吧。那我不认同一下吧。

挺喜欢放映时候的那个感觉，昏暗的幕布反光下，邻座的女孩的侧脸朦胧而优雅。
我想象了一下去搭她手的情景，她应该会抽手并怪异的瞪我，所以我压下了心中的冲动。
我又想象，在漆黑不能见的暗室，我去抚摸她白花花的大腿，她按住我游走的手，然后依偎在我怀里。
相比偷欢的禁忌的乐趣，相比勃然的生理的性致，也许未知才是最大的魔鬼。
我嘿嘿的笑。
回家漫步在威海路的马路中央，一蹦一跳。

这不是一部适合消闲娱乐的电影。一切场景仿佛发生在话剧的舞台上，只有打下的灯光、简单的布景和道具。许多演员都穿着色彩鲜艳夸张的衣服、化着只有舞台剧才化的那么浓的妆。比起一部电影来，它还更像许多话剧场景的串连。它甚至不能说像个传统的话剧，许多场景夹带了干巴巴的哲学讨论，另一些则极其平淡，仿佛不过是个情节过渡，那些看来可算在讲故事的片断则当真尽职尽责，它们把一个简单的故事讲清楚了——如此而已。无论哪一种，背景都是黑沉沉的，灯光往往只照亮了人物的半边脸，于是这些场景如同一些从鲜亮的世界中切下来的小碎屑。

“the world is everything that is the case”那个扮演少年维特根斯坦的小男孩扛着一面如此写道的蓝色大旗走过。我承认我看不懂这句话。字幕则说：“实际上，世界就是由这些发生过的事构成的。”

我之前一直煞费苦心，想找出点哲学意义而无果，到了这里才忽然精神一振。

实际上，世界就是由这些发生过的事构成的。对于我们来说，所谓地球围着太阳转，或太阳围着地球转，是怎样被看见的？他的学生说他明白了。但是我并没有明白。我以为自己多少明白了一点的是所谓的“语言游戏”——以下也许是我在胡说八道，跟维特根斯坦没有关系——所谓的存在、世界及其它什么东西是由语言建构的，没有语言就没有世界。而当别人不能理解你的语言时，也就意味着你的世界，这个世界，这个由你的语言建造的世界，只有你一个人。

维特根斯坦抱着美好的愿望到乡下去教书，最后却以揪着学生的耳朵大发雷霆而告终。听不懂吗？听不懂我在说什么吗？数学！逻辑！他迷恋上共产主义理论，兴冲冲地申请到俄苏去，做一个体力劳动者，办事处的俄国小姐却告知他，他可以选择一个大学教席，至于体力劳动者，“俄国最不缺的就是没有经验的体力劳动者。”“为什么我一定得教书？”维特根斯坦问，整个舞台黑洞洞的，只有他和这位办事员小姐还有办公桌椅，俄国小姐不耐烦地站起身来，脱口而出一大串的俄语，他愣了，她在说什么？她用她的语言在说什么？“下一位。”她突然说了一句他能听懂的话，可这是最后一句了。

“你明白我说的吗？”他问他的同性恋情人乔尼，追随他的学生之一。整部片子唯一一处像是传统电影的处理手法就在这里——镜头闪回他对着顽冥无知的学童绝望的吼叫。“哲学的核心是……被称为在烦恼个人经历的、孤独的人的一种灵魂的图式。……我们之所以是我们，是因为我们分享共同的语言，和生活方式。”……“你明白我说的吗？”他抓住乔尼的手臂，像是无助的，转向他。那英俊的青年人，望着和他同床共枕的、年长的老师，微笑了，点点头，更紧地抱住老师。

……世界就是由这些发生过的事构成的。一个常人看来成员都很奇怪的家庭，童年时受过的灌输性的教育，完全不同于想像、“简直像个妓院”的大学生活，乡村教师、军人、教授席位……少数朋友、学生、情人……如此活过的一个人，维特根斯坦，尽他整个生命所能，想把这些拼凑起来，想找到一个完美得像光滑的冰面一样的世界。

“哲学只是精神病的一种。”

他被自己关进了笼子，他找不出答案，哲学吸引不了多少年轻人，漆黑的宇宙中，没有人能理解他的语言，他的世界——他为找到一个完美的世界而做的痛苦的努力。我想，他的世界是由发生在他身上的事建构的，是仅仅由那些五彩的碎屑拼凑成的，——而一个完美的理论是永不可得的。

有个年轻人创造了一个完美的世界，当他想在这个世界行走第一步时，却忘了光滑无疵的冰面没有摩擦力，年轻人刚迈一步，就向后摔倒在地，哭了起来。

这像个童话。可是我确乎觉得，有时童话才是世界的真相。

当这个年轻人变成了老人，他知道了这个世界是有着很多缺陷的，可是他仍然怀念内心那完美无暇的世界，于是他就在这两个世界之间徘徊，不能安顿下来。

这是当年老的维特根斯坦临终时，影片所讲述的一个故事。那之前，他仍想去苏联，可是他的朋友劝阻了他。“我们都喜爱你。”朋友最后总结说。维特根斯坦却选择离开人群隐居起来，最后得了绝症，他曾爱过的青年人找到他。“是你呀，”维特根斯坦说，“你终于来了。”……“我和您一起回剑桥去。”那青年望着他说，维特根斯坦把眼睛转向远处，然后，渐渐地，听到遥远的潮水涨落的声音。

我不了解维特根斯坦，甚至百度知道都没在我脑子里留下更有用的信息。但是这部电影，假如它还算可靠，令我深深觉得，维特根斯坦是一个孤独的人。他像我们每个人一样，被抛到一个荒唐奇异的世界上来，不可理解的事每天都在上演。他紧紧地抓住生命中那些他感到了的碎屑，用他的知识和智力，还有上帝给予他的时间，穷尽心血在全然的黑暗中寻找一片小小的亮光，好让他能够立在上面。最后，他在黑暗中死去了，留下我们观看这些碎片，亮光的痕迹，还有我们自己所拥有的未知，同样是从一个肮脏的全无定形的大地上捡拾起来的无名之物。我不敢说我“认识”或“知道”维特根斯坦，因为这个名字也不过是诸多语言游戏中的一小块石子。但我以为，我看到了一个孤独的人，在一个无穷尽的荒凉的宇宙中，他的努力何其渺小而可笑，甚至不能多少减少一点他的孤独；然而他是可敬的、可爱的以至高贵的，他有一颗真诚的心，他想用它来看到这个注定没有答案的世界。我想这也就是一个“人”本来该有的样子了。

PS
非要打个分，那就打个“推荐”吧，但是我们每个人的眼睛都是不一样的。所以你也会找到你的维特根斯坦的。

吐槽及其他请见
http://www.douban.com/note/37090335/

     听朋友说起人大教授余虹自杀的事，看到媒体象侦探似的反复追寻为何“一个学识渊博，正值学术研究壮年的人就以死了却一生”，终究没有找到确切的解释，有人甚至觉得于国家社会“这是一种不负责任的做法”。
 
     自杀，我以为除了生活极度压迫和科学家认为导致忧郁症的某种化学物质外，有些很难解释，象王国维、海明威...。自杀象埋在心里的一个种子，会发芽长大，直到把你笼罩湮灭。我想起刚看的电影《维特根斯坦》里最后说的一个故事（原文）：
     曾经有个年轻人，他想把世界简化到纯粹的逻辑里。因为他非常聪明，也确实做到了。他在完成时，回首看着、欣赏着。一个非常美丽，摒除了不完美和不确定的新世界，象闪耀的冰面无边无际的延伸到天边。那个聪明的年轻人环视他所创造的世界，决定探索它。可是当他向前迈出第一步，立即摔倒了。你看，他忘了摩擦力。冰面平坦光滑，洁净无瑕，但是人无法在上面行走。聪明的年轻人坐在那里不禁流下心碎的眼泪。
     当他成长为一个智慧的老人时，他开始理解粗糙和混沌并不是缺陷，世界就是因此而运转。他想奔跑舞蹈，顿时语言失去光泽，模糊不清；世界支离破碎，散落一地。智慧的老人知道这就是事物的本来面目。但在他的内心依然怀念着那纯净的世界，那里的一切闪耀着纯粹的光芒。虽然他甚至已经日渐喜欢那坑坑洼洼的地面，但无法让自己在那里安顿下来。现在他在地面和冰面之间徘徊，哪里都不是他的归宿。这是他所有悲痛的来由。
 
     我想余教授大概是厌倦了这种旅人的疲惫。英国历史家艾伦－布劳克在《西方人文主义传统》中写道：“要想超乎人的状态是一种危险的诱惑。人若能学会接受自己的实际面目，就会快活一些，好过一些。”维特根斯坦说：“我真的很想写一本完全由笑话组成的哲学书，可惜的是我缺乏幽默感。”
 
     我骨子里也没有什么幽默感，不过刚收到一个礼物：一条织了两年的围巾，可以抵御些许冰的冷吧。

Considered by some to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, Ludwig Wittgenstein played a central, if controversial, role in 20th-century analytic philosophy. He continues to influence current philosophical thought in topics as diverse as logic and language, perception and intention, ethics and religion, aesthetics and culture. Originally, there were two commonly recognized stages of Wittgenstein's thought—the early and the later—both of which were taken to be pivotal in their respective periods. In more recent scholarship, this division has been questioned: some interpreters have claimed a unity between all stages of his thought, while others talk of a more nuanced division, adding stages such as the middle Wittgenstein and the third Wittgenstein. Still, it is commonly acknowledged that the early Wittgenstein is epitomized in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. By showing the application of modern logic to metaphysics, via language, he provided new insights into the relations between world, thought and language and thereby into the nature of philosophy. It is the later Wittgenstein, mostly recognized in the Philosophical Investigations, who took the more revolutionary step in critiquing all of traditional philosophy including its climax in his own early work. The nature of his new philosophy is heralded as anti-systematic through and through, yet still conducive to genuine philosophical understanding of traditional problems.

在这部影片中贾曼利用舞台和电影的结合的方式，一种怪诞的戏剧氛围描述了著名分析哲学家、逻辑学家、语言学家维特根斯坦的一生和他的哲学观点。影片前半段简要叙述了维特根斯坦早期充满戏剧性的个人经历，而在维特根斯坦重返剑桥之后，电影主要截取了维特根斯坦前后哲学观点转换时期的生活为主要叙述事件，结合他同性倾向和卓然不群的性格，体现了他在现实之中不断追求形而上的理想的孤傲精神。维特根斯坦在早期《逻辑哲学论》中讲世界结构与命题结构归结于一种具有相同逻辑结构的图式，从而揭示人们通过语言命题认识世界的方式。之后，维特根斯坦又根据本体论的角度指出了语言的自我界限以及人的意志和对世界体验的神秘主义特性。然而，在对哲学问题进行了痛苦思考之后，维特根斯坦放弃了曾经“语言是世界图式”的主张，而提出了日常语言分析哲学的“语言-游戏”理论，并要求对语言的分析必须将语言置入特定的用法环境才能显示它的特定含义。联系日常语言分析，维特根斯坦通过纠正对语言的误解来消除哲学问题，他认为哲学困境的产生在于人们混淆的使用了不同性质的语言而造成的逻辑和意义上的误解。导演德吕克·贾曼在1993年拍摄了《维特根斯坦》和《蓝》，并随后死于艾滋病。

舞台背景和道具很简约的爆笑情景话剧，但是看似又没有舞台，真人版拼接的人物情景模拟效果加上精选的台词，喜剧效果十分浓厚，当然要在对维特根斯坦的故事有一定的背景知识的情况下才能感受到。此片导演把艰深的话题轻松简约而又相对通俗的在展现在观众面前，对于舞台虚拟消失化的处理，以及简单道具的应用很到位，真是一次伟大的创作。看来庄重贵族绅士的英国人有着一流的讲故事的能力，而这样的优点也体现在今天的BBC的纪录片里面。

里面有个十分可爱且帅气的小正太扮演的童年版的维特根斯坦，会时不时的以“画外音”的方式出现在故事的叙述过程中，有诙谐且点醒我们的效果。

维特根斯坦，在这个严肃的世界里，和谢耳朵一样可爱，但比谢耳朵更偏执却十足理性更具有真实感，当然很重要的原因是因为前者就是真实存在过的人吧。一个在思想上歇斯底里的凡人，一个竭力证明自己的存在的人，证明自己为何存在的人？而这个问题，是大部分人通过涌入人流的方式而终生不作考虑。直到将要逝去，他才对这个问题真正感到释然，我们之外没有疑惑，安心去吧。

只有天才才能容得下天才，傻子从来是看不起天才或者只知道膜拜天才。