罗杰影评之 闪灵 （中英对照版）

刚刚google了一下，老实说想找到完整板质量好的Roger Ebert中译版影评还真不太简单。以下则是一篇老先生评价The Shining的中译影评。究竟翻译的如何见仁见智，大家不妨一看:)我也会把英文版本放在下面作为对照参考。 ******************************************************** “密室”之谜--谈库布里克的恐怖电影《闪灵》 文/译/金宇 文/[美]罗杰·伊伯特 　 来源：译文 斯坦利·库布里克的阴冷骇人之作——《闪灵》，给我们观众出了不少难题：究竟谁是可靠的观察者？我们该相信谁对发生的一切所持的看法？在影片开场的面试一段戏中，虽然人物间的对话模式与《2001太空漫游》中空间站上的那段寒暄颇为相似，但片中人物都还让人感觉可信。影片中我们会看到杰克·托伦斯（杰克·尼科尔森饰），他打算和妻儿在这个与世隔绝的环境中单独度过整个冬天。他将成为冰封的“眺望旅馆”的看管员。雇主告诫他，先前有个看管员谋杀了自己的妻子和两个女儿，然后自杀，但杰克向他保证：“你可以放心，乌尔曼先生，这种事不会发生在我身上的。就我妻子而言，我敢肯定她会对这件事非常着魔，她可是个公认的鬼故事和恐怖电影迷。 有人用这种方式谈论真实发生的悲剧吗？他的妻子真的会着迷吗？他是否把这件事讲给她听了？当杰克、妻子温迪（谢利·杜瓦尔饰）和儿子丹尼搬入这家空敞的旅馆时，员工们正为冬季停业做准备；主厨迪克·哈勒兰（斯卡曼·克罗瑟斯饰）领他们四处看了一下，并特别强调了食品储藏室（“这里的食物够你们几个吃上一年，而且任何两顿饭的菜都不会重复”）。之后偌大的宾馆就只剩下他们三人，一个日复一日的场景也出现了：杰克坐在大厅里的一台打字机前，没完没了地敲打着键盘；而温迪和丹尼的日常生活就是吃早餐麦片、摆弄玩具和长时间地看电视。这三人完全不像是和和美美的一家。 丹尼：他可靠吗？他有一个自己虚构出来的朋友，名叫托尼，说话声就像是丹尼压低嗓音发出来似的。哈勒兰在离开杰克一家之前的一次简短对话中，警告丹尼不要进入惨剧发生的237号房间，此外，他还对丹尼说，他们都拥有一种叫“闪灵”的超能力，可以读知对方的思想，并能看到过去和未来。丹尼告诉迪克，托尼不想让他和别人讨论这些事情。谁是托尼？“一个生活在我口中的小男孩。” 托尼似乎是丹尼用以转移超能感应的手段，这些感应包括他看到血流从旅馆紧闭的电梯门边喷涌而出的惊人一幕。丹尼还看到两个穿着相仿的小女孩，尽管我们知道，这两名被害儿童的年龄有两岁之差，但古怪的是，他们俩都显得很老。如果说丹尼是可靠的目击者，那么他所目睹的一切不过是自己眼中特殊幻象，可能无法与宾馆内真实发生的事相互对应。 那么就只剩下温迪了。影片大部分时间她都表现出了一种剥离了情感的平淡，谢利·杜瓦尔在阿特曼执导的影片《三女性》也同样传达出了这种意味。她陪伴丹尼，与他玩耍，还试着去给杰克打气，结果杰克突然态度恶劣地警告她，不要打扰他的工作。晚些时候，她发现了杰克“工作”的真相，这也恰恰是整部影片令人震惊的揭密镜头之一。我相信，在那一刻，她是真实可信的，还有在影片接近尾声时，她将变得凶残暴力的杰克关入食品贮藏室，那时的她也同样可信。但《闪灵》（1980）中有一处删节让人们开始对温迪的这种可信度产生怀疑。在影片结尾部分，一个酷寒的夜晚，杰克紧追丹尼进入了旅馆空地的迷宫。他的儿子得以逃脱，但是杰克——之前就被棒球棒击伤——跌跌撞撞，摔倒在地，次日，画面上的他已经死了，面部凝固着诡异的笑。他眉毛低垂，眼睛自下而上的看着我们，一种库布里克在他的作品中反复采用的角度。影评人蒂姆·德克斯称，删节的部分就在这里：“一个长达两分钟的解释性收场，在该片的首映礼之后不久就被删掉了。这是一个医院的场景，温迪和眺望旅馆的经理谈话；她从经理那里得知，搜查人员无法找到她丈夫的尸体。” 如果杰克确实被冻死在迷宫中，他的尸体当然会被找到——很快找到，而不会事隔很久，因为迪克·哈勒兰在旅馆的时候就向护林员发出警报，说宾馆出现了险情。如果杰克的尸体确实无从寻觅，那它究竟是怎么回事？是不是尸体根本就不在迷宫中？难道它被吸入了过去？这是否可以解释，片尾杰克出现在1921年拍摄的那张旅馆派对的合影中？杰克对妻儿的残暴追杀会不会完全出自温迪的幻想，或是丹尼的，或是他们两个人的？ 一个似乎自始至终都较为可信的观察者就是迪克·哈勒兰，但在隆冬时节他返回被冰雪封闭的旅馆后不久就被杰克要了性命，我们也丧失了从他的视角进行观察的可能。接下来就出现了一个密室之谜：在冰雪隔绝的旅馆内，三人陷入了种种疯狂和超自然恐惧的状况之中，我们无法倚赖其中任何人来提供对当时所发生一切的客观视角。就是这种难以捉摸的开放性风格，让库布里克的电影以奇特的方式触动着我们不安的神经。 没错，想要阐释片中一些幻象情节并非毫无可能。当杰克认为自己看到了除他们三个之外的其他人时，他的面前总有一面镜子；他也许不过在自言自语罢了。当丹尼到小女孩和汹涌的血流，这只不过将过去发生的惨剧呈现出来的一种方式。当温迪认为自己的丈夫疯了，她也许没错，尽管她所看到的一切可能被丹尼的超自然感应歪曲了，不要忘记丹尼几年前遭到自己父亲的虐待，并受到了极大创伤。但你有没有想过，假如影片这三个人根本就不存在，这一切该做何解释？ 库布里克将那段尾声删掉是明智之举。它的存在会让整影片魅力大减。出于某种考虑，让观众相信托伦斯一家三口确确实实在那个旅馆度过了那个冬天是必要的，不论影片中发生了什么，或者观众认发生了什么。 读过斯蒂芬·金的小说《闪灵》的观众提到，库布里克舍去了原著中许多剧情元素，剩余部分经过动后为其所用。库布里克是在讲述一个涉及到鬼魂的故事（片中出现的两个小女孩、从前的旅馆看管员和一个酒保），但这不是一个“鬼故事”，因为除了杰克和丹尼经历的那些幻象之外，片中也许根本就不存在鬼魂。 这部电影并非关于鬼魂，而是关于疯狂和它所释放出的能量，这能量在预设的封闭环境中有了放大的效果。杰克酗酒成性，虐待孩子，虽然他自称五个月以来滴酒未沾，但他绝不是“正在戒酒的酗酒者”。当想象自己在和一个虚构出来的酒保一起饮酒的时候，他的表现就好像自己真的醉了。假想的酒水将他的酒精恶魔释放出来，片中一处，杰克眼前产生的情一幕在瞬息间变得如梦魇般恐怖。哈勒兰感觉到丹尼拥有超自然能力，我们相信这一判断是正确的，但丹尼显然无法驾驭这些力量，我们看到他延承了父亲的疯狂和被害女童的故事，并将此融入惟恐再遭杰克虐待的恐惧中去。温迪被暴怒的丈夫吓坏了，她也许也陷入了这种超自然所产生的幻觉。他们人都脱离了现实。没错，我们可以相信片中的一些事件：杰克的手稿、杰克被锁在食品贮藏室内、杰克从食品贮藏室逃脱以及那句著名的台词“强尼来了！”——他一边喊着，一边用斧头猛砍阻隔他抓到妻儿的那扇门。但纵观整部影片，我们法胸有成竹地道出真实发生的一切，准确描述它们如何发生，或说出究竟为何发生。 库布里克实现影片中的这种不确定性的同时，也让演员本身承受着精神上的焦躁不安。在拍摄一个斯卡曼·克罗瑟斯上场的镜头时，据称库布里克重拍了一百六十遍之多。这算不算是“完美主义”呢，或者这其实是一个意志力游戏，让演员相信自己和一个疯子——他们的导演——一同被困旅馆中？库布里克是否感觉到，他们的不安沮丧会悄悄融入饰演的角色中去？ “你有什么体会，我是说和库布里克共事？”在这部影片拍摄完毕十年之后的一次谈话中，我问杜瓦尔。 “简直没法忍受，”她说，“必须日复一日的艰苦拍摄，杰克·尼科尔森的角色必须始终保持发狂愤怒的状态。在拍摄期后九个月中，每周有五到六天时间，我扮演的角色都必须每天十二小时不停哭泣。我在那里待了一年零一个月。可是在所有的工作结束后，几乎没有人来评论我在片中的表现，甚至只字不提，好像就是这样的。评论都是关于库布里克的，就好像我不在那里似的。” 就好像她不在那里似的。 ****************************************************** The Shining (1980) BY ROGER EBERT / June 18, 2006 Stanley Kubrick's cold and frightening "The Shining" challenges us to decide: Who is the reliable observer? Whose idea of events can we trust? In the opening scene at a job interview, the characters seem reliable enough, although the dialogue has a formality that echoes the small talk on the space station in "2001." We meet Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), a man who plans to live for the winter in solitude and isolation with his wife and son. He will be the caretaker of the snowbound Overlook Hotel. His employer warns that a former caretaker murdered his wife and two daughters, and committed suicide, but Jack reassures him: "You can rest assured, Mr. Ullman, that's not gonna happen with me. And as far as my wife is concerned, I'm sure she'll be absolutely fascinated when I tell her about it. She's a confirmed ghost story and horror film addict." Do people talk this way about real tragedies? Will his wife be absolutely fascinated? Does he ever tell her about it? Jack, wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) move into the vast hotel just as workers are shutting it down for the winter; the chef, Dick Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) gives them a tour, with emphasis on the food storage locker ("You folks can eat up here a whole year and never have the same menu twice"). Then they're alone, and a routine begins: Jack sits at a typewriter in the great hall, pounding relentlessly at his typewriter, while Wendy and Danny put together a version of everyday life that includes breakfast cereal, toys and a lot of TV. There is no sense that the three function together as a loving family. Danny: Is he reliable? He has an imaginary friend named Tony, who speaks in a lower register of Danny's voice. In a brief conversation before the family is left alone, Hallorann warns Danny to stay clear of Room 237, where the violence took place, and he tells Danny they share the "shining," the psychic gift of reading minds and seeing the past and future. Danny tells Dick that Tony doesn't want him to discuss such things. Who is Tony? "A little boy who lives in my mouth." Tony seems to be Danny's device for channeling psychic input, including a shocking vision of blood spilling from around the closed doors of the hotel elevators. Danny also sees two little girls dressed in matching outfits; although we know there was a two-year age difference in the murdered children, both girls look curiously old. If Danny is a reliable witness, he is witness to specialized visions of his own that may not correspond to what is actually happening in the hotel. That leaves Wendy, who for most of the movie has that matter-of-fact banality that Shelley Duvall also conveyed in Altman's "3 Women." She is a companion and playmate for Danny, and tries to cheer Jack until he tells her, suddenly and obscenely, to stop interrupting his work. Much later, she discovers the reality of that work, in one of the movie's shocking revelations. She is reliable at that moment, I believe, and again toward the end when she bolts Jack into the food locker after he turns violent. But there is a deleted scene from "The Shining" (1980) that casts Wendy's reliability in a curious light. Near the end of the film, on a frigid night, Jack chases Danny into the labyrinth on the hotel grounds. His son escapes, and Jack, already wounded by a baseball bat, staggers, falls and is seen the next day, dead, his face frozen into a ghastly grin. He is looking up at us from under lowered brows, in an angle Kubrick uses again and again in his work. Here is the deletion, reported by the critic Tim Dirks: "A two-minute explanatory epilogue was cut shortly after the film's premiere. It was a hospital scene with Wendy talking to the hotel manager; she is told that searchers were unable to locate her husband's body." If Jack did indeed freeze to death in the labyrinth, of course his body was found -- and sooner rather than later, since Dick Hallorann alerted the forest rangers to serious trouble at the hotel. If Jack's body was not found, what happened to it? Was it never there? Was it absorbed into the past, and does that explain Jack's presence in that final photograph of a group of hotel partygoers in 1921? Did Jack's violent pursuit of his wife and child exist entirely in Wendy's imagination, or Danny's, or theirs? The one observer who seems trustworthy at all times is Dick Hallorann, but his usefulness ends soon after his midwinter return to the hotel. That leaves us with a closed-room mystery: In a snowbound hotel, three people descend into versions of madness or psychic terror, and we cannot depend on any of them for an objective view of what happens. It is this elusive open-endedness that makes Kubrick's film so strangely disturbing. Yes, it is possible to understand some of the scenes of hallucination. When Jack thinks he is seeing other people, there is always a mirror present; he may be talking with himself. When Danny sees the little girls and the rivers of blood, he may be channeling the past tragedy. When Wendy thinks her husband has gone mad, she may be correct, even though her perception of what happens may be skewed by psychic input from her son, who was deeply scarred by his father's brutality a few years earlier. But what if there is no body at the end? Kubrick was wise to remove that epilogue. It pulled one rug too many out from under the story. At some level, it is necessary for us to believe the three members of the Torrance family are actually residents in the hotel during that winter, whatever happens or whatever they think happens. Those who have read Stephen King's original novel report that Kubrick dumped many plot elements and adapted the rest to his uses. Kubrick is telling a story with ghosts (the two girls, the former caretaker and a bartender), but it isn't a "ghost story," because the ghosts may not be present in any sense at all except as visions experienced by Jack or Danny. The movie is not about ghosts but about madness and the energies it sets loose in an isolated situation primed to magnify them. Jack is an alcoholic and child abuser who has reportedly not had a drink for five months but is anything but a "recovering alcoholic." When he imagines he drinks with the imaginary bartender, he is as drunk as if he were really drinking, and the imaginary booze triggers all his alcoholic demons, including an erotic vision that turns into a nightmare. We believe Hallorann when he senses Danny has psychic powers, but it's clear Danny is not their master; as he picks up his father's madness and the story of the murdered girls, he conflates it into his fears of another attack by Jack. Wendy, who is terrified by her enraged husband, perhaps also receives versions of this psychic output. They all lose reality together. Yes, there are events we believe: Jack's manuscript, Jack locked in the food storage room, Jack escaping, and the famous "Here's Johnny!" as he hatchets his way through the door. But there is no way, within the film, to be sure with any confidence exactly what happens, or precisely how, or really why. Kubrick delivers this uncertainty in a film where the actors themselves vibrate with unease. There is one take involving Scatman Crothers that Kubrick famously repeated 160 times. Was that "perfectionism," or was it a mind game designed to convince the actors they were trapped in the hotel with another madman, their director? Did Kubrick sense that their dismay would be absorbed into their performances? "How was it, working with Kubrick?" I asked Duvall 10 years after the experience. "Almost unbearable," she said. "Going through day after day of excruciating work, Jack Nicholson's character had to be crazy and angry all the time. And my character had to cry 12 hours a day, all day long, the last nine months straight, five or six days a week. I was there a year and a month. After all that work, hardly anyone even criticized my performance in it, even to mention it, it seemed like. The reviews were all about Kubrick, like I wasn't there." Like she wasn't there. (link: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060618/REVIEWS08/606180302/1023)