旅客1974

我 被丢到坦桑尼亚的沙漠
车轮陷到沙子里
铁铲没有用
汽油还有很多
远处有骆驼


可我只想着你

Michelangelo Antonioni’s The Passenger is a feast for visually innovative takes on shots and cuts.
As opposed to traditional flashback techniques where the spectator is thrown into a different space and time as marked by a clear cut, here Antonioni gently moves the camera away from Locke, who is in the process of stealing Mr. Robertson’s identity, towards the balcony without any visual interruption. Following this smooth transition is a scene in which Locke is holding conversation with Mr. Robertson. Antonioni has intentionally misled his audience by way of suggesting that the two Lockes share the same spatial and temporal context.
Even though there are no visual hints of this transition in space and time, there is a discrepancy of sound and image when the camera starts to move away from Locke and his desk at around 19 minutes. A conversation has already started, and yet the camera lingers with Locke in the present. Clearly, he is alone in this room. We are led to believe, therefore, that what we hear must be non-diegetic, probably something that is happening in Locke’s mind as he works on the passport. Thus, although the visual elements are logically misleading, viewers would still be able to figure out that the two Lockes do not coexist in the same room. Intriguingly, Antonioni fools us again by showing us a recording device at around 22 minutes, implying that the conversation we hear is, in fact, diegetic. As sound and image gradually realign, we are reintroduced to the time and space in which present Locke lives. The Passenger is not a time-traveling film, but its transitions and subversions of linear visual narrative challenge audience expectations.
Another stylistic characteristic throughout the film is that Antonioni often embeds visual hints to suggest what is happening or about to happen in lieu of unnecessary conversations. For instance, when Locke discovers the corpse of Mr. Robertson at around the 14-minute mark, Locke comes uncomfortably close to Robertson and gazes at his face in a manner that could be described as erotic. The elongated action lasts for almost five seconds, during which it becomes apparent that Locke is already considering identity theft.
        Moreover, there are several scenes that explain the motivation of Locke’s identity exchange with Mr. Robertson without any conversational elements: Locke’s desperation when he finds his car stuck in the desert, his disappointment at local indifference, inhospitality—all of which hints at his own struggling career. Also, at around 26 minutes, his wife’s lack of emotion at the news of his supposed death suggests an unhappy marriage.
        Even Locke frequently expresses a strong preference for spectacle over dialogue. At the one hour and nine minutes mark, the girl asks Locke what he is escaping from, and instead of answering the question verbally, he beckons the girl to turn her back to the front seat and see for herself. Via tracking shot from a high-velocity car, we see trees lining the road, moving away, and as they leave the city behind, the idea of freeing oneself from the civilized context and leading a freer, more personal life is revealed.
        Aside from all the stylistic innovations, there is one specific shot that has always been hotly discussed and admired. The penultimate shot towards the end is probably the largest chunk of speechless expression in the whole film. It is a seven-minute long continuous shot that slowly and quietly push the story to its climax. Compare to the impact the shot produces, the way it is made is much more intriguing. The entire hotel is actually built specifically for the shot. To keep the camera steady, Antonioni used a track in the ceiling of the hotel, and then in the middle of the shot the track ends and passes the camera off to a hook that is hung by a crane. The bars on the window are built on hinges and are opened as the camera goes through. It closes again when the camera turn back toward the hotel in the end of the shot, creating a magical visual effect that makes the spectators see the whole scene through the vision of Locke’s soul as it leaves his body, making its way through the window bars and wonders back towards the end of the shot. It avoids the unnecessary Hollywood style of bloodshed and gunshot, yet revealed Locke’s death in a peaceful way just as the camera moves along peacefully.
        Film is an art form where “everything that we read, hear, think, and see” (as stated by Antonioni himself) at a particular moment turns into concrete images, and then the images are shaped into stories. The Passenger is a balancing act between the vagaries of art and narrative clarity, in which the former is realized through contradictions and discrepancies in visual and aural elements and the latter through the film’s laconism, its insistence on pure visual cinema.

   坐火车去昆明，坐的晚上的车。过道里也挤满了人，夜间行车，免不了人困马乏。呼进的空气不知在多少人的肺叶里黏糊糊地兜过，又湿又浑。我的座位在吸烟区旁边。吸烟区在两车厢之间，绿皮车密合得不紧，车外的冷气漏进来，把水汽凝在头顶的铁皮上。火车中气不足，一噤一噤出着虚汗。几个人挤在下面，皱着川字眉紧吸几口烟屁股。
    抽烟的人互不相识，这偶然间挤在一处，隔着悠悠上升的烟尘唠两句闲话，相对笑着摇着头，燃起一柱烟时间的友谊。一根烟吸完了，把话头掐灭了走人。
    我因为想着心事，就不睡觉。就听了些吸烟人谈的话。他们有从丽江和西双版纳旅游回来的人，还有几个从大理巍山县出来，路过昆明去印度的法国人。都是常年在外的旅行者，青海、西藏、尼泊尔，想环游地球，或者把中国的角落走遍了。他们也都不大，跟我差不多岁数，相互吹着牛逼。因为有了共同话题，烟就一支一支地燃，话说得长了，烟支楞在肘边很久也不抽一口。烟叶瑟缩着被红色吞噬，把空气扯出了褶子。不能飞升的叶子滞留在原地，灰白着死掉，在空中就散了架，悄悄地粉身碎骨。
    这时候我想成为这些旅行者。
    我想成为各种各样的人——也许除了我自己，我想成为所有人——哈，可这句话本身就是说谎。我并不是想“成为所有人”，我只是想摆脱我自己罢了。

    也许，我喜欢安东尼奥尼的电影，也是因为这个。他电影里的人都或多或少的憎恨自己，有的憎恨自己犁过的岁月（《夜》），有的憎恨自己的犹豫不决（《蚀》），有的憎恨自己的无动于衷（《奇遇》）。他们恨冷冰冰的布尔乔亚，恨生活的乏味恨情人的变心，总之都是恨自己，恨自己被剥夺可能性的生活。他电影里的人经常在空荡的走廊里走——这种场合里前进的方向被束缚；他的主人公喜欢立在窗前长长地往远处看—— “远方”和“自己”之前隔着扇窗，他们无论如何成不了远方的“别人”。
    在《过客》里，他电影中的人终于做了一次别人。
    克尔凯郭尔说，厌倦自己——在上帝面前不要是其自身，是一种绝望：“一个在这类绝望中的人将奋力把自己投进生命，或者投入某个事业；他将成为一个不安定的精神，他的生命肯定要留下它的标记，一个不安的精神想要忘却的标记。”——洛克就是所谓“不安定的精神”。他是一个记者，深入北非调查反政府武装。这个人由尼科尔森来演太合适了，他慢吞吞的说话腔调，悠悠挑起的眉毛和懒散的法令纹，浑身上下都透着这个词——厌倦。洛克是个成功的记者，但是他不相信交流的可能性：“我们总是处在不变的状态下，把不同的境况和经验变成相同的概念，纳入自己的程序中……用这种方法去跟别人说话，去对待别人，是错的。”跟他同住旅馆的商人劳勃森认为，这种交流障碍是职业使然：“兴许原因是这样——你处理的是文字、影像，抽象的东西，而我处理的则是具体的商品，他们马上就能明白我的意思。”洛克想了想说：“嗯，也许吧。”——也许换一种身份，就可以逃开了。他也说，“如果能把旧有的一切全部忘掉，难道不是更好吗？”
    他有了机会。劳勃森突然死亡，因为两人长相相似，洛克决定与对方互换身份。有多年摸爬滚打的记者经验，这件事他处理起来很平静。这似乎是一次成功的逃离。 “我在逃避一切：我的妻子、房子、收养的孩子、成功的工作……除了戒不掉的坏习惯之外的一切。”突然间他摆脱了这一切，他的未来几乎充满了可能性，在巴塞罗那的缆车上，他向虚空伸开双臂，他自由了——他可以做直布罗陀的服务员，开罗的小说家，或者军火走私商。但其实只有最后一种可能性是现实的，因为劳勃森生前就是个军火走私商。
    事实却不是这样，作为死去的洛克，他的妻子和剧组正在筹拍他的纪录片；作为活着的“劳勃森”他要处理并不熟悉的军火交易，还要躲避剧组的跟踪。他过上朝不保夕的逃亡生活，一切变得一团糟。精疲力竭的他给女友讲了一个故事：“一个瞎子，他在快四十岁时做了手术重见光明。一开始时他恨高兴：脸、色彩、风景，然后一切开始变了，世界比他想象的要贫瘠得多，没有人告诉他那些肮脏，那些丑陋。失明时，他可以拄着拐杖过街，而重见光明后，他开始害怕了，开始活在黑暗中，再也不离开他的房间了。三年后他自杀了。”不久后，洛克自己在军火交易时死去了。
    谁能摆脱自己呢？《庄子》里南郭子綦“今者吾丧我”，只是丢掉了“我”的主观精神，消解了“我”，为了“齐物”而跟其他事物拉平了，并没有真正摆脱自己。徐而庵认为金圣叹可以随物赋形，不着自己痕迹，说 “圣叹无我与人相，与则辄如其人，如遇酒人则漫卿轰饮，遇诗人则摩诘沉吟，遇剑客则猿公舞跃，遇棋客则鸠摩布算……”好像神通广大的百变金刚的样子，可是谁又因为哭庙案而被诛了呢？就算是七十二变的猴哥，变成小庙子后猴子尾巴也藏不住啊。
    伍迪•艾伦拍过一个相似的电影《泽里格》。表现一个可以随意模仿他人的“变色龙”的困境。他跟安东尼奥尼的结论都是一样的——逃离自身是一件异想天开的事，是危险的。我们来到世界，彻彻底底只有一次，这是石头般沉重的悲哀。“噢，甜美的短歌，你真爱嘲弄我, / 因为我即便爬上了山丘，也无法如玫瑰般盛开。/ 只有玫瑰才能盛开如玫瑰。别的不能。那毋庸置疑。”
    ——因为我即便爬上了山丘，也无法如玫瑰般盛开——这诚然是悲哀的，但是，我确实曾经爬上过山丘吗？我有没有试着把“我”认认真真的活过一遍呢？但似乎这个问题是个伪问题：如果我认认真真的去爬那个山丘，我就没有时间去摆脱了；而如果我急于摆脱，我就放弃了继续的向山丘的爬行，就没有认认真真的活过，这个摆脱就是轻率的。你会说“摆脱”这个词用的太蛮横了，不留余地，应该用“改变”更好些，留一些空间用来暮然回首，更温柔，更有可行性。这样说不错，我总是倾向于一劳永逸的解决，觉得这样可以避免时间的煎熬，其实这是懦弱的想法，一劳永逸就是不敢面对困境。
    其实应该学学安东尼奥尼，他只对付困境。他的朋友说：“安东尼奥尼似乎只能生活在困境中，似乎只有这样才能激发他的想象力。如果没有困境，他便主动寻找它。”安东尼奥尼拍过爱情吗？几乎没有。他只拍过爱情的消逝，他略过波澜壮阔的重大事件，而去采集事件的余波和事件的被忘却，默默地延续它们，他书写的是海面以下一万米的漆黑，是沉寂的时间。安东尼奥尼认为，我们面对的大多正是这样停滞的时刻。他的责任就是把这些拍下来：“南极的冰山每年以2毫米的速度朝我们的方向移动。计算它们何时会碰到我们，就像期待一部电影里会发生的事情一样。”
    这样的电影他拍了近四十年。敢于直面惨淡的人生，这个嘴唇紧闭的老头有的是勇气。

         旅客是我最喜欢的电影之一，当初看完电影后非常喜欢结尾的吉他曲，但是在网上怎么也查不出这首乐曲的曲名和作者，只知道担任电影配乐的是Ivan Vandor ,但由于那时我在学古典吉他，所以我感觉这首曲子的风格实在不像是出自一个现代音乐人之手，而更像是19世纪中后期西班牙塔雷加时代的作品。
   过了一段时间我买了一本吉他谱，打算练习一些新的曲子，在弹其中一首“Canco Del Lladre”的时候突然发现正是那首片尾曲的旋律，惊喜不已。原来这是一首古老的加泰罗尼亚民谣，虽然旋律优美，但名字实在不怎么样，翻译过来叫“盗贼之歌”。现在的版本是由西班牙近代作曲家兼吉他演奏家Miquel Llobet Solés 整理改编而成。