弱者與疑者

焚紙樓 评论 沉默 1 2017-03-12 18:44:38
GIFPlane
GIFPlane (我会弹琴会文艺爱游戏爱电影) 2017-03-14 09:24:13

我也认为吉次郎才是主角

零二
零二 (東山小姐) 2017-03-20 14:32:21

昨天在kubrick看了,之前無睇原著,單從這部戲來講,我覺得很失望。本來有很多細節可以渲染,比如為了傳教而扭曲教義,日本本土宗教與基督教的差異,這些僅僅是考淺野忠信的口說出帶過而已,還有以主人公的畫外音推動情節也讓人受不了。唯一覺得有趣的,真的只有吉次郎。

摸腿终结者
摸腿终结者 (不告而别才是最好的离别) 2017-03-23 08:57:55

这片就是屎

啊?
啊? (平安) 2017-03-23 23:08:40

讲得很透彻。我没有看过原著,只看了电影觉得这部作品的原著如果也是这样的话有什么可以值得称赞的。

probe
probe 2017-04-05 22:18:30

对基督教一知半解的我而言,楼主角度的确实打开了一扇认识的窗子

steven刁
steven刁 2017-04-20 21:31:45

非常好的角度,个人也觉得吉次郎的线有些浅薄而模糊。

文那个森
文那个森 (弃我去者,昨日之日不可留) 2017-06-19 17:47:39

????已经非常忠实还原远藤周作的沉默了,而且是吉次郎的戏份反而在电影版里得到了二次创作的机会,斯科塞斯的电影里吉次郎的变动我认为是超于原著的。

文那个森
文那个森 (弃我去者,昨日之日不可留) 2017-06-19 17:48:18

另外远藤周作的沉默不会比斯科塞斯的电影改编好

焚紙樓
焚紙樓 (台灣影評人) 2017-06-19 18:05:30
????已经非常忠实还原远藤周作的沉默了,而且是吉次郎的戏份反而在电影版里得到了二次创... ????已经非常忠实还原远藤周作的沉默了,而且是吉次郎的戏份反而在电影版里得到了二次创作的机会,斯科塞斯的电影里吉次郎的变动我认为是超于原著的。 ... 文那个森

「非常忠实还原」豈不與「二次创作的机会」矛盾了?矛盾之由,我在文章內已經說盡。

文那个森
文那个森 (弃我去者,昨日之日不可留) 2017-06-19 18:14:07
「非常忠实还原」豈不與「二次创作的机会」矛盾了?矛盾之由,我在文章內已經說盡。 「非常忠实还原」豈不與「二次创作的机会」矛盾了?矛盾之由,我在文章內已經說盡。 焚紙樓

忠实原著和二次改编并未矛盾(宏观情节没有变动),就吉次郎这个人物而言,斯科塞斯的电影里给其提供的是个人描述的空间以及少许的润色,况且原著里包括吉次郎在内的多数人物其实都是极为平面的

文那个森
文那个森 (弃我去者,昨日之日不可留) 2017-06-19 18:17:28

至于你提到的大量删减吉次郎戏份,岂不更是无稽之谈吗?

焚紙樓
焚紙樓 (台灣影評人) 2017-06-19 18:28:47
忠实原著和二次改编并未矛盾(宏观情节没有变动),就吉次郎这个人物而言,斯科塞斯的电影里给... 忠实原著和二次改编并未矛盾(宏观情节没有变动),就吉次郎这个人物而言,斯科塞斯的电影里给其提供的是个人描述的空间以及少许的润色,况且原著里包括吉次郎在内的多数人物其实都是极为平面的 ... 文那个森

你自己都說二次改編如此多了,又說小說版未必好過電影版,這不是等於承認電影跟小說差多了嗎,何必硬要湊個「忠實」呢.....

回到電影。我當然認為改編的多,但這層改編是失當的,小說的吉次郎是基督信仰不可避免的陰暗面,新版電影卻為了將陰暗面切割,而把吉次郎的戲也割了,意義的變動來自於對信義的差別,這是顯而易見。成就誰高誰低,可以見仁見智,不過我在文章中也寫得明白,我不認為一個好的基督主題電影該是一個傲慢的故事。

文那个森
文那个森 (弃我去者,昨日之日不可留) 2017-06-19 18:47:10
你自己都說二次改編如此多了,又說小說版未必好過電影版,這不是等於承認電影跟小說差多了嗎... 你自己都說二次改編如此多了,又說小說版未必好過電影版,這不是等於承認電影跟小說差多了嗎,何必硬要湊個「忠實」呢..... 回到電影。我當然認為改編的多,但這層改編是失當的,小說的吉次郎是基督信仰不可避免的陰暗面,新版電影卻為了將陰暗面切割,而把吉次郎的戲也割了,意義的變動來自於對信義的差別,這是顯而易見。成就誰高誰低,可以見仁見智,不過我在文章中也寫得明白,我不認為一個好的基督主題電影該是一個傲慢的故事。 ... 焚紙樓

你怎么老是喜欢用“等于承认”这种妄断之词啊,没看到我括号里的说明吗?忠实是基于宏观情节而言,也就是说电影除了改编上必然出现的情节微调以外,故事情节和原著是没有出入(除了结局的意味有改编),但是我认为的电影比小说好就好在改编部分,吉次郎的变动在小细节上已经将这个矛盾体刻画成了立体的了,当然再回归吉次郎角色本身(这也是我刚刚就说的),原作里的他的情节并没有被大量删减,这个叙述上看似咬文嚼字,但是你已经无形中误导读者了,最后小说里的吉次郎是一个没有神性的人物,他充当叙事线索的动机在小说里不就很明显了吗?

文那个森
文那个森 (弃我去者,昨日之日不可留) 2017-06-19 18:51:51

另外,以斯科塞斯为首的美国团队的翻拍是将远藤周作的原著集体意义化,远藤周作那部小说本质上已经很接近私小说的意义了,非常私人也并不见得真的触底到基督教更深远的意义(当然我对基督教的了解也是非常浅薄的),远藤周作的宗教存在思考是在《深河》出来的时候才具有无论是私人还是集体的意义的ps:无冒犯的意思,但是我无法对你(不知是刻意还是无意)将吉次郎放大的看法认同

焚紙樓
焚紙樓 (台灣影評人) 2017-06-19 20:40:34
另外,以斯科塞斯为首的美国团队的翻拍是将远藤周作的原著集体意义化,远藤周作那部小说本质... 另外,以斯科塞斯为首的美国团队的翻拍是将远藤周作的原著集体意义化,远藤周作那部小说本质上已经很接近私小说的意义了,非常私人也并不见得真的触底到基督教更深远的意义(当然我对基督教的了解也是非常浅薄的),远藤周作的宗教存在思考是在《深河》出来的时候才具有无论是私人还是集体的意义的ps:无冒犯的意思,但是我无法对你(不知是刻意还是无意)将吉次郎放大的看法认同 ... 文那个森

我也不敢說對基督教義甚熟,但肯定清楚,這部新版跟遠藤周作的信義出了落差,而遠藤在《天主教作家的問題》的解讀,顯然更為接近辯證--當然,也更接近故事中的日本國情--了些。把這些觀點用私小說去蓋過,卻覺得新版電影就可以稱為集體意義,這樣的歸類恐怕還更奇怪,難道馬丁在1980年代跟遠藤請示改編權,就代表集體了?那篠田正浩版恐怕還更集體,那是遠藤親自改的劇本。

說到篠田正浩版,我在文章也寫得頗白,用這個版本與小說與新版一起對照,便能輕易察覺為什麼吉次郎在新版的情節出入處造成意義的混淆。你說吉次郎沒有神性,這是對的,因為這個故事要是真的出現一個真正因信稱義的神性者,辯證性也等於是毀了,然而新版恰恰就是這麼做了--你如此強調充實改編,應該不會感覺不出來,結尾那個死前握十字架的新情節,是對原作多麼大的更動、對故事解讀多麼大的歧異嗎?改編重在質不在量,這樣的更動用「刪除」形容實在也沒甚麼好挑剔的吧,難道要睜眼說瞎話強調「忠實改編」一樣嬤?

文那个森
文那个森 (弃我去者,昨日之日不可留) 2017-06-19 21:03:13

集体意义当然是让小说私人化的探索更好地适应观众,但如果是因为吉次郎在电影中出现了神性的动机而去否定这部电影,那似乎就太偏袒和笃信原著的价值了,远藤周作的原著如果完全地照搬到大银幕上,接受人群的范围毫无疑问会更狭窄,这是出于商业上的考虑,你可以说改编是功利性的,我无从否认,但是这种功利性的改编里的远藤周作的原著里的讨论真的就输给了远藤周作?实际上我认为远藤周作的沉默无论对于读者还是作者本人都是模糊的,斯科塞斯的改编里正是因为创造了极多的神性情景才能完好地通过影像的方式传递出来(关于这个说法,我觉得只要考虑到影像和文本的空间容量就应该能理解),还有你所说的吉次郎改编被大量删减实际上应当是说吉次郎这个人物的改编出现了本质的改变,而不是内容上的删减,这一点叙述上就存在问题。

文那个森
文那个森 (弃我去者,昨日之日不可留) 2017-06-19 21:06:14

至于你所说的远藤周作亲自参与的日本电影版我没看过,就不将其列入比较范围

焚紙樓
焚紙樓 (台灣影評人) 2017-06-19 21:47:27
集体意义当然是让小说私人化的探索更好地适应观众,但如果是因为吉次郎在电影中出现了神性的... 集体意义当然是让小说私人化的探索更好地适应观众,但如果是因为吉次郎在电影中出现了神性的动机而去否定这部电影,那似乎就太偏袒和笃信原著的价值了,远藤周作的原著如果完全地照搬到大银幕上,接受人群的范围毫无疑问会更狭窄,这是出于商业上的考虑,你可以说改编是功利性的,我无从否认,但是这种功利性的改编里的远藤周作的原著里的讨论真的就输给了远藤周作?实际上我认为远藤周作的沉默无论对于读者还是作者本人都是模糊的,斯科塞斯的改编里正是因为创造了极多的神性情景才能完好地通过影像的方式传递出来(关于这个说法,我觉得只要考虑到影像和文本的空间容量就应该能理解),还有你所说的吉次郎改编被大量删减实际上应当是说吉次郎这个人物的改编出现了本质的改变,而不是内容上的删减,这一点叙述上就存在问题。 ... 文那个森

吉次郎在故事內容上的刪減,我想我在影評本文已經說得滿清楚了,就像閣下的所有質問其實都已經在本文中解答了一樣。我勉強重說一次要點:首先,這個電影的失敗不是出於功利,而是對基督教義的解讀有了誤差,"沉默"之所以為沉默,就在於故事眾人始終沒有找到一個真正確切的稱義證物,只能改以心證(羅德里奎茲聽見的雞啼、吉次郎眼中的硬幣)來自我稱義,費雷拉則是那個已經放棄在多神土地堅持一神稱義的人,上帝對他們這些弱者沉默了。這不是所謂的模糊,而是辯證必要的曖昧。

新版電影希望找到一個確切的答案,讓這些弱者有著來自自己以外的稱義根基,於是費雷拉堅毅了、羅德里奎茲抱著十字架死了,吉次郎則因為毫無悔意直接被剔除於故事之外。這點是很荒謬的,因為仔細看你所謂「忠實改編」的那些部分便會發現,這個結論完完全全與前面相違,信仰成了可以用唯心論逆推為上帝的強人之路,只要信徒夠強(或著說夠厚臉皮),上帝就自然承認了他們,這是強者的信仰法,然而基督教卻是出於弱者而生的教義。這正是新版最大的問題,在故事本質上成了違背原作也違背教義的勇者物語。

這樣理解嗎?篠田正浩版之所以有參考價值,正在於遠藤周作親自把故事情節大改,卻將吉次郎的戲份放的更重,是最容易看出這個故事想探索的本質的互文文本。任何看過原作與篠田正浩版的人,都不可能會認為吉次郎沒有神性是件平面的敘述,正好相反,吉次郎才是最像基督徒的那個人,反而是新版電影看不清楚這點。

文那个森
文那个森 (弃我去者,昨日之日不可留) 2017-06-19 22:10:31
吉次郎在故事內容上的刪減,我想我在影評本文已經說得滿清楚了,就像閣下的所有質問其實都已... 吉次郎在故事內容上的刪減,我想我在影評本文已經說得滿清楚了,就像閣下的所有質問其實都已經在本文中解答了一樣。我勉強重說一次要點:首先,這個電影的失敗不是出於功利,而是對基督教義的解讀有了誤差,"沉默"之所以為沉默,就在於故事眾人始終沒有找到一個真正確切的稱義證物,只能改以心證(羅德里奎茲聽見的雞啼、吉次郎眼中的硬幣)來自我稱義,費雷拉則是那個已經放棄在多神土地堅持一神稱義的人,上帝對他們這些弱者沉默了。這不是所謂的模糊,而是辯證必要的曖昧。 新版電影希望找到一個確切的答案,讓這些弱者有著來自自己以外的稱義根基,於是費雷拉堅毅了、羅德里奎茲抱著十字架死了,吉次郎則因為毫無悔意直接被剔除於故事之外。這點是很荒謬的,因為仔細看你所謂「忠實改編」的那些部分便會發現,這個結論完完全全與前面相違,信仰成了可以用唯心論逆推為上帝的強人之路,只要信徒夠強(或著說夠厚臉皮),上帝就自然承認了他們,這是強者的信仰法,然而基督教卻是出於弱者而生的教義。這正是新版最大的問題,在故事本質上成了違背原作也違背教義的勇者物語。 這樣理解嗎?篠田正浩版之所以有參考價值,正在於遠藤周作親自把故事情節大改,卻將吉次郎的戲份放的更重,是最容易看出這個故事想探索的本質的互文文本。任何看過原作與篠田正浩版的人,都不可能會認為吉次郎沒有神性是件平面的敘述,正好相反,吉次郎才是最像基督徒的那個人,反而是新版電影看不清楚這點。 ... 焚紙樓

你不需要解释这么多的,你的影评里提出的改编对原著的偏离我挺同意的,同时也解决了我对沉默这本书的疑问(远藤周作的创作的道德性),而我所说的可能比较繁复了点,我的中心是电影版视角上虽然远离了远藤周作的更为人道主义的、也许也是更为基督教教义性的一面,但斯科塞斯的电影并没有扭曲原著(虽然对传教士和吉次郎二者主次位置的调换导致叙述的上对强者和弱者的强调有了轻重的倒置),而我也在上面解释了我所说的“忠实原著”是基于宏观情节而言的,斯科塞斯的沉默具体情节还原的确是完整。

焚紙樓
焚紙樓 (台灣影評人) 2017-06-21 02:07:24
你不需要解释这么多的,你的影评里提出的改编对原著的偏离我挺同意的,同时也解决了我对沉默... 你不需要解释这么多的,你的影评里提出的改编对原著的偏离我挺同意的,同时也解决了我对沉默这本书的疑问(远藤周作的创作的道德性),而我所说的可能比较繁复了点,我的中心是电影版视角上虽然远离了远藤周作的更为人道主义的、也许也是更为基督教教义性的一面,但斯科塞斯的电影并没有扭曲原著(虽然对传教士和吉次郎二者主次位置的调换导致叙述的上对强者和弱者的强调有了轻重的倒置),而我也在上面解释了我所说的“忠实原著”是基于宏观情节而言的,斯科塞斯的沉默具体情节还原的确是完整。 ... 文那个森

是,所以我的影評也就以作為改編的自圓與否為要點了。畢竟這是有原作,而且馬汀又一再說明自己酷愛原作...

鸡眼莱。
鸡眼莱。 (西蒙!!!!!!!啊啊啊啊啊啊) 2017-07-22 02:06:18

因信称义 - Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (NIV)
中文的翻译或许容易产生歧义,但在英文中更加显而易见,基督教所讲的人所得救的根本在于"by grace"和"gift of God",本质上完全是神所赐的恩典,与人的努力甚至是“信靠的意志力”毫无关系。之所以说它是弱者的宗教,是因为在圣经里面,每一个人都是弱者,没有一个人是靠着自己的“强”而得救的,甚至是后人所敬仰的使徒们,甚至连彼得也三次不认主。最后神父意识到了自己其实才是那个弱者,而神的恩典使得他可以去面对自己的软弱。在我看来这个片子是温和并且充满怜悯的,虽然对于每一个信徒来说都是一种似乎曾经切身体验过的黑暗和挣扎。所以换而言之我也觉得若非信徒,或者若非对基督教足够了解的人,难以看懂里面关于信仰的挣扎,还有关于神的恩典和怜悯。相反可能看见的只是一种东方式的思辨。
此外看过原著后觉得吉次郎的戏份完全没被删减>.>简直是剧情担当.其实个人认为无论小说或是电影的一个非常核心的问题是,到底犹大卖主的时候,主在哪里。对于这个问题他们的回答是,主甚至早在那之前就已经原谅他了,主与他在一起。这也许有很大的争议性,但赞同或是不赞同也好,我认为它所要讲的更多的是一种充满怜悯的恩典,而并非一个关于弱者与疑者的思辨共融,虽然它也许也是它所探讨的问题之一。

lz可以多了解一点新教神学,也可以去看看马丁斯科塞斯关于这部片子的采访。

"For me,it comes down to the question of grace. Grace is something that
happens throughout life. It comes at unexpected moments. Now,
I’m saying that as someone who has never been through war, or
torture, or occupation. I’ve never been tested in that way. Of course,
there were those people who were tested, like Jacques Lusseyran,
the blind French resistance leader who was sent to Buchenwald
and kept the spirit of resistance alive for his fellow prisoners—in
fact, we’ve been trying for many years to make a film based on his
memoir, …And There Was Light. There’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Elie
Wiesel and Primo Levi were able to find a way to helping others.
I’m not saying that their examples provide some kind of definitive
answer to the question of where God was when so many millions
of people were systematically slaughtered. But they existed, they
performed acts of tremendous courage and compassion, and we
remember them as lights in the darkness.
You can’t see through someone else’s experience, only your own.
So, it might seem paradoxical, but I related to the novel by Endo,
who was Japanese, in a way that I never have to Bernanos. There’s
something so hard, so unrelentingly harsh in Bernanos. Whereas
in Endo, tenderness and compassion are always there. Always. Even
when the characters don’t know that tenderness and compassion are
there, we do.
Who is God for you? Is he the object of punishment and perplexity
or source of joy and harmony? Pope Francis speaks of God as Mercy.
He wants to get rid of and repudiate any image of God as a torturer….
Can God ever be a torturer?
This brings me back to Bernanos, by way of Robert Bresson and
his adaptation of Diary of a Country Priest. I saw the film for the
first time in the mid-60s. I was in my early 20s, and I was growing
up, moving beyond the idea of Catholicism that I’d held as a child.
Like many children, I was overwhelmed and deeply impressed by the
severe side of God as he was presented to us—the God that punishes
you when you do something bad, the God of storms and lightning.
This is what Joyce was dealing with in A Portrait of the Artist as a
Young Man, which also had a profound effect on me at that time.
It was an extremely dramatic moment in the country, of course.
Vietnam was escalating, and it had just been declared a «holy war.»
So for me and for many others, there was a lot of confusion and
doubt and sadness that was just there, part of the reality of day to day
life. It was at that time that I saw Bresson’s film of Diary of a Country
Priest, and it gave me hope. Every character in that picture, with the
possible exception of the older priest, is suffering. Every character
is feeling punished and most of them are inflicting punishment
on each other. And at one point, the priest has an exchange with
one of his parishioners, and he says to her: «God is not a torturer.
He just wants us to be merciful with ourselves.» And that opened
something up for me. That was the key. Because even though we
feel that God is punishing and torturing us, if we’re able to give
ourselves the time and space to reflect on it, we realize that we’re the
ones doing the torturing, and we’re the ones we have to be merciful
with. I got to meet Bresson once in Paris, and I told him just what
the picture meant to me.
After I made Raging Bull, I came to realize that this was what
we had made looked at—this was what the film was about. We
didn’t go into that picture with a theme in mind, we just tried to
make a film about someone that led a kind of life that we knew,
in a world that we knew. Jake is punishing everyone around him,
but the one he’s really punishing is himself. So at the end, when he
looks in the mirror, he sees that he has to be merciful with himself.
Or, to put it another way, he has to accept himself, and live with
himself. And then, maybe it will become easier for him to live with
other people, and to receive their goodness.
When I was young, I was extraordinarily lucky, because I had
a remarkable priest, Father Principe. I learned so much from him,
and that includes mercy with oneself and with others. Of course, he
sometimes played the role of the stern moral instructor—His example
was something else again. This man was a real guide. He could talk
tough, but he never actually forced you to do anything—he guided
you. Advised you. Cajoled you. He had such extraordinary love. "

言矮吾
言矮吾 (转了一圈儿.) 2017-09-06 22:52:19
因信称义 - Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and thi... 因信称义 - Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (NIV) 中文的翻译或许容易产生歧义,但在英文中更加显而易见,基督教所讲的人所得救的根本在于"by grace"和"gift of God",本质上完全是神所赐的恩典,与人的努力甚至是“信靠的意志力”毫无关系。之所以说它是弱者的宗教,是因为在圣经里面,每一个人都是弱者,没有一个人是靠着自己的“强”而得救的,甚至是后人所敬仰的使徒们,甚至连彼得也三次不认主。最后神父意识到了自己其实才是那个弱者,而神的恩典使得他可以去面对自己的软弱。在我看来这个片子是温和并且充满怜悯的,虽然对于每一个信徒来说都是一种似乎曾经切身体验过的黑暗和挣扎。所以换而言之我也觉得若非信徒,或者若非对基督教足够了解的人,难以看懂里面关于信仰的挣扎,还有关于神的恩典和怜悯。相反可能看见的只是一种东方式的思辨。 此外看过原著后觉得吉次郎的戏份完全没被删减>.>简直是剧情担当.其实个人认为无论小说或是电影的一个非常核心的问题是,到底犹大卖主的时候,主在哪里。对于这个问题他们的回答是,主甚至早在那之前就已经原谅他了,主与他在一起。这也许有很大的争议性,但赞同或是不赞同也好,我认为它所要讲的更多的是一种充满怜悯的恩典,而并非一个关于弱者与疑者的思辨共融,虽然它也许也是它所探讨的问题之一。 lz可以多了解一点新教神学,也可以去看看马丁斯科塞斯关于这部片子的采访。 "For me,it comes down to the question of grace. Grace is something that happens throughout life. It comes at unexpected moments. Now, I’m saying that as someone who has never been through war, or torture, or occupation. I’ve never been tested in that way. Of course, there were those people who were tested, like Jacques Lusseyran, the blind French resistance leader who was sent to Buchenwald and kept the spirit of resistance alive for his fellow prisoners—in fact, we’ve been trying for many years to make a film based on his memoir, …And There Was Light. There’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi were able to find a way to helping others. I’m not saying that their examples provide some kind of definitive answer to the question of where God was when so many millions of people were systematically slaughtered. But they existed, they performed acts of tremendous courage and compassion, and we remember them as lights in the darkness. You can’t see through someone else’s experience, only your own. So, it might seem paradoxical, but I related to the novel by Endo, who was Japanese, in a way that I never have to Bernanos. There’s something so hard, so unrelentingly harsh in Bernanos. Whereas in Endo, tenderness and compassion are always there. Always. Even when the characters don’t know that tenderness and compassion are there, we do. Who is God for you? Is he the object of punishment and perplexity or source of joy and harmony? Pope Francis speaks of God as Mercy. He wants to get rid of and repudiate any image of God as a torturer…. Can God ever be a torturer? This brings me back to Bernanos, by way of Robert Bresson and his adaptation of Diary of a Country Priest. I saw the film for the first time in the mid-60s. I was in my early 20s, and I was growing up, moving beyond the idea of Catholicism that I’d held as a child. Like many children, I was overwhelmed and deeply impressed by the severe side of God as he was presented to us—the God that punishes you when you do something bad, the God of storms and lightning. This is what Joyce was dealing with in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, which also had a profound effect on me at that time. It was an extremely dramatic moment in the country, of course. Vietnam was escalating, and it had just been declared a «holy war.» So for me and for many others, there was a lot of confusion and doubt and sadness that was just there, part of the reality of day to day life. It was at that time that I saw Bresson’s film of Diary of a Country Priest, and it gave me hope. Every character in that picture, with the possible exception of the older priest, is suffering. Every character is feeling punished and most of them are inflicting punishment on each other. And at one point, the priest has an exchange with one of his parishioners, and he says to her: «God is not a torturer. He just wants us to be merciful with ourselves.» And that opened something up for me. That was the key. Because even though we feel that God is punishing and torturing us, if we’re able to give ourselves the time and space to reflect on it, we realize that we’re the ones doing the torturing, and we’re the ones we have to be merciful with. I got to meet Bresson once in Paris, and I told him just what the picture meant to me. After I made Raging Bull, I came to realize that this was what we had made looked at—this was what the film was about. We didn’t go into that picture with a theme in mind, we just tried to make a film about someone that led a kind of life that we knew, in a world that we knew. Jake is punishing everyone around him, but the one he’s really punishing is himself. So at the end, when he looks in the mirror, he sees that he has to be merciful with himself. Or, to put it another way, he has to accept himself, and live with himself. And then, maybe it will become easier for him to live with other people, and to receive their goodness. When I was young, I was extraordinarily lucky, because I had a remarkable priest, Father Principe. I learned so much from him, and that includes mercy with oneself and with others. Of course, he sometimes played the role of the stern moral instructor—His example was something else again. This man was a real guide. He could talk tough, but he never actually forced you to do anything—he guided you. Advised you. Cajoled you. He had such extraordinary love. " ... 鸡眼莱。

学习了,不过好像过于专注在"信徒"或信教人士的观点上了.
17世纪欧洲应该开始启蒙运动了吧?没看过原著,只看得电影,两者都是近代的关系,难道就没有那么点儿"讽刺"的意思吗?继续接受吉次郎的忏悔,到结尾那小十字架,一下子突兀到"看山还是山"的层次,非常勉强的东方啊.

应付账款
应付账款 2018-06-24 18:13:06

写的好棒! 感谢!吉次郎绝对是很有意味的人物。即便在电影里戏份变少,普通观众没看过原作,也会觉得这个人物难以忘怀。

emilyyang
emilyyang 2019-05-09 11:48:29
因信称义 - Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and thi... 因信称义 - Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (NIV) 中文的翻译或许容易产生歧义,但在英文中更加显而易见,基督教所讲的人所得救的根本在于"by grace"和"gift of God",本质上完全是神所赐的恩典,与人的努力甚至是“信靠的意志力”毫无关系。之所以说它是弱者的宗教,是因为在圣经里面,每一个人都是弱者,没有一个人是靠着自己的“强”而得救的,甚至是后人所敬仰的使徒们,甚至连彼得也三次不认主。最后神父意识到了自己其实才是那个弱者,而神的恩典使得他可以去面对自己的软弱。在我看来这个片子是温和并且充满怜悯的,虽然对于每一个信徒来说都是一种似乎曾经切身体验过的黑暗和挣扎。所以换而言之我也觉得若非信徒,或者若非对基督教足够了解的人,难以看懂里面关于信仰的挣扎,还有关于神的恩典和怜悯。相反可能看见的只是一种东方式的思辨。 此外看过原著后觉得吉次郎的戏份完全没被删减>.>简直是剧情担当.其实个人认为无论小说或是电影的一个非常核心的问题是,到底犹大卖主的时候,主在哪里。对于这个问题他们的回答是,主甚至早在那之前就已经原谅他了,主与他在一起。这也许有很大的争议性,但赞同或是不赞同也好,我认为它所要讲的更多的是一种充满怜悯的恩典,而并非一个关于弱者与疑者的思辨共融,虽然它也许也是它所探讨的问题之一。 lz可以多了解一点新教神学,也可以去看看马丁斯科塞斯关于这部片子的采访。 "For me,it comes down to the question of grace. Grace is something that happens throughout life. It comes at unexpected moments. Now, I’m saying that as someone who has never been through war, or torture, or occupation. I’ve never been tested in that way. Of course, there were those people who were tested, like Jacques Lusseyran, the blind French resistance leader who was sent to Buchenwald and kept the spirit of resistance alive for his fellow prisoners—in fact, we’ve been trying for many years to make a film based on his memoir, …And There Was Light. There’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi were able to find a way to helping others. I’m not saying that their examples provide some kind of definitive answer to the question of where God was when so many millions of people were systematically slaughtered. But they existed, they performed acts of tremendous courage and compassion, and we remember them as lights in the darkness. You can’t see through someone else’s experience, only your own. So, it might seem paradoxical, but I related to the novel by Endo, who was Japanese, in a way that I never have to Bernanos. There’s something so hard, so unrelentingly harsh in Bernanos. Whereas in Endo, tenderness and compassion are always there. Always. Even when the characters don’t know that tenderness and compassion are there, we do. Who is God for you? Is he the object of punishment and perplexity or source of joy and harmony? Pope Francis speaks of God as Mercy. He wants to get rid of and repudiate any image of God as a torturer…. Can God ever be a torturer? This brings me back to Bernanos, by way of Robert Bresson and his adaptation of Diary of a Country Priest. I saw the film for the first time in the mid-60s. I was in my early 20s, and I was growing up, moving beyond the idea of Catholicism that I’d held as a child. Like many children, I was overwhelmed and deeply impressed by the severe side of God as he was presented to us—the God that punishes you when you do something bad, the God of storms and lightning. This is what Joyce was dealing with in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, which also had a profound effect on me at that time. It was an extremely dramatic moment in the country, of course. Vietnam was escalating, and it had just been declared a «holy war.» So for me and for many others, there was a lot of confusion and doubt and sadness that was just there, part of the reality of day to day life. It was at that time that I saw Bresson’s film of Diary of a Country Priest, and it gave me hope. Every character in that picture, with the possible exception of the older priest, is suffering. Every character is feeling punished and most of them are inflicting punishment on each other. And at one point, the priest has an exchange with one of his parishioners, and he says to her: «God is not a torturer. He just wants us to be merciful with ourselves.» And that opened something up for me. That was the key. Because even though we feel that God is punishing and torturing us, if we’re able to give ourselves the time and space to reflect on it, we realize that we’re the ones doing the torturing, and we’re the ones we have to be merciful with. I got to meet Bresson once in Paris, and I told him just what the picture meant to me. After I made Raging Bull, I came to realize that this was what we had made looked at—this was what the film was about. We didn’t go into that picture with a theme in mind, we just tried to make a film about someone that led a kind of life that we knew, in a world that we knew. Jake is punishing everyone around him, but the one he’s really punishing is himself. So at the end, when he looks in the mirror, he sees that he has to be merciful with himself. Or, to put it another way, he has to accept himself, and live with himself. And then, maybe it will become easier for him to live with other people, and to receive their goodness. When I was young, I was extraordinarily lucky, because I had a remarkable priest, Father Principe. I learned so much from him, and that includes mercy with oneself and with others. Of course, he sometimes played the role of the stern moral instructor—His example was something else again. This man was a real guide. He could talk tough, but he never actually forced you to do anything—he guided you. Advised you. Cajoled you. He had such extraordinary love. " ... 鸡眼莱。

这个写的还蛮好的。。。