罪与错

观后感，非影评。

1.中国的思维惯式是：性本善还是性本恶？ 西方思维则是存在与本质谁先谁后，存在主义所秉持的是存在先于本质，所谓“性本如何”根本就是伪命题。就像片中男主的亲戚说， Do you not find human impulses basically decent? May姑姑回答，there's basically nothing. 你就是先存在， 一片空白，你的选择才确定你的本质，你并不是一出生就有“美德” ，也不是像基督教思想一直灌输给人类的那样一生下来就是罪人。但又是什么决定了“选择”呢？似乎又回到“本质”上来了，不过外界因素，或者命运，它们的作用也被考量了进来。

2. 如果因为害怕上帝的惩罚而遵守其规则，这便不是自发、真正的道德了。伦理道德准则本质上解决不了任何问题。杀人是罪，那么杀人未遂且无人知道呢？仅仅有杀人的念头而未付诸行动呢？一个人每天会产生多少罪恶的想法呢？影片的编剧伍迪艾伦本人如果从未有杀人的设想，怎么写得出来杀人犯的心理活动？艺术家可能为了表现罪恶而去体验罪恶，变成罪人，也可能在艺术作品中纾解自己罪恶的心事，将其隔离在现实生活、行为领域之外。

3.伍迪艾伦饰演的男主不就是俄狄浦斯吗——他总是自视甚高，谁都瞧不上，觉着自己周边的人尤其是Lester俗不可耐 ，最后经过四个月后被女神“背叛”这一“突转—发现”，才真正意识到自己才是loser，心情跌到低谷。最后俄狄浦斯是自戳双目了，好了，正好又回到贯穿全片的灵魂——眼睛——上帝符号系统来了（误

4.当人们在谈论上帝时，根本谈论的不是同一个事物。语言是思想的边界，上帝已经变成一个语义多到眼花缭乱而因此一文不值的词了。再者，你对上帝有超验的信念，但试问如果你不是在犹太教/基督教浓厚的氛围中长大，你的词语库中从来没出现过上帝这个词，你还会信上帝吗？ 如果即便如此你仍对某个最高价值持超验式的信仰，那个价值凭什么叫做上帝，不叫别的名字？

5.对罪与错的两种典型和极端态度：一种是根本不知道什么是错，换言之，自认为什么都知道，所以认为有权肆意犯罪乃至杀人，毫不自责，就像《鼠疫》中有段话所阐释的那样，又或者汉娜阿伦特平庸之恶的理念，又或《白痴》中提到的一个垂涎同伴的一块表的农民——他先向上帝祈祷一番，之后像宰牲口一样将其杀害，就为了得到那块表，又或者片中医生的弟弟以及落网的连环杀手。另一种是忏悔不止，自我折磨，乃至变成圣愚，又或是对自己要求严格的强者，在软弱的时刻被罪责啮噬，被宗教趁虚而入，被驯化为羔羊一般的庸人，例如帕斯卡。大多数人不会完全不受良心谴责，但也不会被自责折磨到精神崩溃 ，无论如何，一如片中所说的，时间能把悲剧变成喜剧。

6.回想片中发生的一切，对资产阶级道德秩序的倚重是令片中片男主走上犯罪道路的第一步——一个德高望重的眼科医生，一个奋斗半辈子终于成为高级资产阶级的中年男人，是断然不可被一桩出轨丑闻毁于一旦名誉扫地的。 资产阶级道德秩序的作用本应是防止犯罪，然而在现实中却屡屡引发更大的罪。 就像尼采在《论道德的统治》这篇中所说的，“为了使道德获得统治地位，人们必须彻底放弃道德的行为。”“没有伪装他们就永远也达不到他们所说的完美。为了那个需要牺牲品的目标，就必须抛弃道德与真理。”“一位伟大的道德论者必然是杰出的戏子。如果有一天他的伪装突然变成了自然（他的理想就是将他的存在与行动巧妙地区分开来），那就十分危险了。他必须戴着一个美丽的面具来行动。这个华美的外表就是他崇高而远大的理想，他的神圣的理想！事实上众人皆说道德论者是以上帝本人为榜样的。上帝是迄今为止最大的、行动上的非道德论者，尽管如此他却懂得保持他的模样——善良的上帝……"

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.

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。

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