黑蓝论坛

标题: 关于奥森威尔斯的东东 [打印本页]

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-5-6 19:11
标题: 关于奥森威尔斯的东东
1.奥森威尔斯：电影魔术师文章地址<a href="http://www.mtime.com/my/moviegoer/blog/172795/">http://www.mtime.com/my/moviegoer/blog/172795/</a>2.肥内整理的奥森威尔斯的丰富资料资料汇总地址<a href="http://blog.pchome.com.tw/search/search_tag.htm?getkey=tvi0y6vCuri0tQ">http://blog.pchome.com.tw/search/search_tag.htm?getkey=tvi0y6vCuri0tQ</a>如果你们谁要看的但是打不开地，请再次求救！[em01]

作者: 胡搞搞 时间: 2008-6-12 18:41
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用边河在2008-05-06 19:11:30的发言： <a href="http://www.mtime.com/my/moviegoer/blog/172795/"></a>2.肥内整理的奥森威尔斯的丰富资料资料汇总地址<a href="http://blog.pchome.com.tw/search/search_tag.htm?getkey=tvi0y6vCuri0tQ">http://blog.pchome.com.tw/search/search_tag.htm?getkey=tvi0y6vCuri0tQ</a>如果你们谁要看的但是打不开地，请再次求救！</div>...... 奥森大叔很多片子都找不到......

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-12 20:26
去淘宝淘！话说奥森叔叔拍的片子本来也不多诶。不是没拍完，就是有纠纷- =，不过我都不是从淘宝上买。因为片子不集中，这个店一张，那个店两张，看的都烦人。我都是从熟络的碟贩小绪手里买的。我收的有《公民凯恩》（这个片子已经太有名了，就跟《乱世佳人》一样如雷贯耳，但是技术上当然不能相提并论）、《阿卡汀先生》、《赝品》（还是CC加MOC）、《上海小姐》、《历劫佳人》（就是《邪恶接触》）、《陌生客》、《伟大的安巴逊家族》（好莱坞把这部片子剪得真的很不够水准，难怪把奥森气跑了）。

作者: 尚方翊剑 时间: 2008-6-12 20:37
《历劫佳人》开场的那个长镜头犹如神助一般，奥逊的场调功夫如何，后辈也只有膜拜的份了。

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-12 20:49
确实。开场一气呵成，气定神怡，多一分腻，少一分淡。话说《历劫佳人》也是被那些好莱坞剪刀过的。费里尼片子有些场景也有类似感觉，不过时间上好像没那么长。

作者: 14 时间: 2008-6-12 23:27
奥森的只看过《公民凯恩》。记得第一次看《公民凯恩》的结局的时候彻底被震呆了~~看到“玫瑰花瓣”滑雪板被扔进火炉，和其他杂物一起燃烧，它的字迹被一点一点烧毁，最终变成了房顶上的烟囱向天空冒出的股股浓烟。靠，啥叫诗意！！

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-12 23:41
阿卡汀先生一定要看！历劫佳人和上海小姐都很不错诶。公民凯恩值得反复揣摩。你不应该只被结局震呆，奥森的电影我个人感觉其实很自大，但是这自大的显形也就只能到公民凯恩为止吧。从这之后他在好莱坞就没好日子过。但是好在这个人天生神力（比喻的好猥琐，嘻嘻），精力旺盛，有着坚韧不拔的毅力和对莎士比亚的狂热，他的脑袋一定是一台缜密了得的机器，感性和理性的完美的矛盾结合。在5月份出的彼得康拉德撰写的奥逊威尔斯人生故事中你可以很详细的了解到其奇特的一生（最后这句很广告诶）。胡搞搞这里也可以看到肥内翻译的采访奥森威尔斯的文章<a href="http://moviegoer.cinepedia.cn/movieblogs/601">http://moviegoer.cinepedia.cn/movieblogs/601</a>

作者: 胡搞搞 时间: 2008-6-13 03:38
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用边河在2008-05-06 19:11:30的发言： 资料汇总地址<a href="http://blog.pchome.com.tw/search/search_tag.htm?getkey=tvi0y6vCuri0tQ">http://blog.pchome.com.tw/search/search_tag.htm?getkey=tvi0y6vCuri0tQ</a>如果你们谁要看的但是打不开地，请再次求救！</div>

作者: 胡搞搞 时间: 2008-6-13 04:06
天生神力！其实我好像也没那么想看第二个网址的转贴了......我印象最深的就是那个照片拉近，近到梦想照进现实（表吐）。那一刻起是我没有分清是梦想照进了现实还是梦想照进了白日梦，随着不超过十秒剧情发展,才明白原来不是白日梦。还有早餐的餐桌。在青葱的大学时代，我在各大伟大电影排行榜上见多了《公民凯恩》就找来看。片子结束了我就傻了，这叫什么嘛！当时还以为是因为在黑白片时代把美国梦发展到极致才总是被评为最伟大的。直到后来有机会听到学导演的人一个场景一个场景的跟我白话，我才明白什么叫做祖师爷。那次长久而难忘的白话，是我真正看电影不止想看热闹的开始。可能门外汉和门槛，就差个内行点拨的距离。至少拉了我一把到门口看热闹。

[此帖子已经被作者于[lastedittime]1213301266[/lastedittime]编辑过]

作者: 尚方翊剑 时间: 2008-6-13 10:56
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用边河在2008-06-12 20:49:00的发言： 确实。开场一气呵成，气定神怡，多一分腻，少一分淡。话说《历劫佳人》也是被那些好莱坞剪刀过的。费里尼片子有些场景也有类似感觉，不过时间上好像没那么长。</div>再看这场汽车爆炸戏，你有没有感觉，其实奥逊应该在镜头结尾把爆炸的汽车拖住在画格中而不让它出画，因为之前男女和汽车里的人物已经打过照面，完全可以在调度上再让汽车放慢速度突然爆炸引起街头骚乱，这样就可以让这个犯罪长镜头锦上添花地连爆炸后的人物反应也表现出来了，反而切出画面的爆炸效果感就差了许多。 不过，这场戏牛就牛在纵深镜头的串用（当然这是奥逊利用空间的强项），奥逊也没有用推轨，把死谈泥炕架在车子上移拍近4分钟，在1958年实在让人叹为观止。 《历劫佳人》被动过剪刀，在片子开头的字幕里透过奥逊的愤怒已经告诉我们了。http://www.youtube.com/v/0nn1VO1HIPk&hl=en

[此帖子已经被作者于[lastedittime]1213326831[/lastedittime]编辑过]

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-13 11:47

从片头的这些话里似乎奥森已经是很妥协了诶。这个片子是在他去欧洲之前拍的吧。嗯，爆炸场面的确脱节，不和谐。估计这段是奥森跟制片方妥协出来的场务，因为按照要把地板掀起，再更低的地方拍仰角的，用尽全力的人来说这样处理爆炸场面是不太可能的。在接受《电影手册》采访的时候奥森就说了跟安巴逊家族一样，历劫佳人电影里有些场景既不是他写的，也不是他拍的。

作者: 尚方翊剑 时间: 2008-6-13 12:03
如果是一个镜头下来拍仰角当然是不可能，但从成片切出的那个推镜来说，效果真得不理想，要不然怎么会就剪进1秒而且推镜完全被割断的。把地板掀起的效果现在看有些玩反了的感觉，明明应该是爆炸引起汽车的震动导致把车子震起来，反而出来的感觉是汽车从半空爆炸掉下来的意思，完全剪反了。

作者: 林通 时间: 2008-6-13 12:46
http://www.tudou.com/v/uDj8r2hljNU奥逊威尔斯16岁拍的一个短片

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-13 13:32
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用尚方翊剑在2008-06-13 12:03:51的发言： 如果是一个镜头下来拍仰角当然是不可能，但从成片切出的那个推镜来说，效果真得不理想，要不然怎么会就剪进1秒而且推镜完全被割断的。把地板掀起的效果现在看有些玩反了的感觉，明明应该是爆炸引起汽车的震动导致把车子震起来，反而出来的感觉是汽车从半空爆炸掉下来的意思，完全剪反了。</div>啊，我的意思是象奥森这样认真的人，为了拍好想要的镜头，甚至可以把地板都掀起来找角度。所以我推测在拍这个长镜头时，到汽车爆炸，却与上下文有明显的不兼容，不符合他的处理事情的作风。

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-13 13:55
墨西哥警探的未婚妻被困在汽车旅馆的那段总让人想到惊魂记，喧闹版的惊魂记，当然这位未婚妻就是后来1960年惊魂记里面那个倒霉的女主角。哦，我要说的是汽车旅馆的情节也不像出自奥森之手。

作者: andsoon 时间: 2008-6-13 14:12
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用尚方翊剑在2008-06-13 10:56:50的发言： 再看这场汽车爆炸戏，你有没有感觉，其实奥逊应该在镜头结尾把爆炸的汽车拖住在画格中而不让它出画，因为之前男女和汽车里的人物已经打过照面，完全可以在调度上再让汽车放慢速度突然爆炸引起街头骚乱，这样就可以让这个犯罪长镜头锦上添花地连爆炸后的人物反应也表现出来了，反而切出画面的爆炸效果感就差了许多。 </div>其实不切也行吧，我觉得完全可以用两人身后橱窗之类东西映出的火光或是人的影子突然拉长变形来在视觉上表现爆炸[em09]

作者: andsoon 时间: 2008-6-13 14:20
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用尚方翊剑在2008-06-13 12:03:51的发言： 如果是一个镜头下来拍仰角当然是不可能，但从成片切出的那个推镜来说，效果真得不理想，要不然怎么会就剪进1秒而且推镜完全被割断的。把地板掀起的效果现在看有些玩反了的感觉，明明应该是爆炸引起汽车的震动导致把车子震起来，反而出来的感觉是汽车从半空爆炸掉下来的意思，完全剪反了。</div>我觉得这个反打没什么问题，是爆炸发生后两人才扭头看的，所以他们看到的不可能是汽车被炸起来不知我有没有会错你的意

作者: andsoon 时间: 2008-6-13 14:25
尚方和边河两位达人都爱威尔斯啊我在别的论坛上都很少看到有人讨论他了

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-13 14:49
不达不达……以前贴过好些他的东西，很遗憾去年香港的奥森展没看到他主要的几部片子的影院播映，嗨，囊中羞涩- =。

[此帖子已经被作者于[lastedittime]1213339918[/lastedittime]编辑过]

作者: 尚方翊剑 时间: 2008-6-13 17:25
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用andsoon在2008-06-13 14:12:01的发言： 其实不切也行吧，我觉得完全可以用两人身后橱窗之类东西映出的火光或是人的影子突然拉长变形来在视觉上表现爆炸[em09]</div>我的意思就是一个镜头下来（ONE SHOT，不要切），从炸弹的特写开始到汽车爆炸结束。你应该注意到了奥逊在调度上安插了几个推小车的路人横向穿过，男女一路下来整个小镇夜市的繁闹喧哗全表现出来了，所以我想如果在这个段落镜头里完整地表现到爆炸后群众的反应反而更能呼应前面对夜市的铺垫了，不知道奥逊当时拍时是否有这个想法。 在成片里是爆炸声效的先入，当然你说的表现方式也非常不错。但是有个问题，你发现了吗？爆炸发生后，男女跑到现场是转弯的，而且手提跟拍（很了不得）了相当长的时间，说明案发地点离他们是有距离，也就是说后面切到的汽车爆炸的镜头并不是以女方的主观镜头以她为视点的（二人KISS到事后反应时女是转头，男抬头），所以导演要的不是你说他们只看到炸落的视点，男女的反应也只是出于听到爆炸后的本能反应。 所以我觉得切进这个镜头是个小败笔，并且造成了越轴的假象，奥逊是不应犯这个错误的。又因为奥逊曾经在麦卡锡主义时期被限定剥夺过最终剪辑权，这个我们现在看到的重剪版其实还是很神秘的。

[此帖子已经被作者于[lastedittime]1213354517[/lastedittime]编辑过]

作者: 尚方翊剑 时间: 2008-6-13 18:08
http://www.youtube.com/v/3_p66HjTweo&hl=en法籍心理学家让皮亚杰的镜子论说：镜子除了反映出主体自我，还有他的欲望以及所处社会的制约力。此片正是最好解读，不只是因为它影响了李小龙。

作者: 尚方翊剑 时间: 2008-6-13 18:57
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用边河在2008-06-13 13:55:19的发言： 墨西哥警探的未婚妻被困在汽车旅馆的那段总让人想到惊魂记，喧闹版的惊魂记，当然这位未婚妻就是后来1960年惊魂记里面那个倒霉的女主角。哦，我要说的是汽车旅馆的情节也不像出自奥森之手。</div>我查了一下确实不是：环球改了很多     We now come to the first additional dialogue: the new scene between Susan and Vargas. In the light of the decision to deny me permission to direct these scenes, to write the dialogue for them or to collaborate in that writing, or indeed even to be present during your discussions of the matter, I must, of course, face the strong probability that I am the very last person whose opinion will be likely to carry any weight with you. I am, therefore, limiting myself to points which might genuinely interest you - points which seem to me to interfere quite actively with the story itself, and tend to confuse the narrative line. Without going into any question of quality in the actual writing of the dialogue for this added scene in the hotel lobby, I think two points are truly confusing to the simple mechanics of the plot, and this, I suggest, could very probably be fixed by the simple process of dubbing slightly different lines over the scene. To begin with the less important point: Vargas tells his wife to be sure and lock the door to her room. Yet, we will see him later opening this door by a simple turn of the knob. Since she has been genuinely frightened and disturbed, it is a little hard to understand why she has chosen to disregard her husband's good advice. As the film now stands, his injunction about the door locking is the last thing she hears from him before going to the nearby room, and it isn't easy to see how she could possibly have forgotten it during the course of that short walk. In the original version, the question of the door being locked is simply not raised. Bringing Susan to the door to unlock it would have changed the basic action in the scene in the hotel room and made Vargas's semi-comic confusion in the darkness unworkable. Thus, he was through the door and into the room before the audience could have time to think about the question of Susan's locking it at all. Anyone who wished to be sharply analytical could have assumed that she had simply neglected to do this - a foolish but not really an idiotic mistake. However, if her husband has told her to lock the door, her failure to do so is underlined, and the audience, forced to think about the whole door-locking business, is given a choice between blaming the director for carelessness, or considering that the character played by the leading lady is flighty to the point of feeble-mindedness. 　　 　　The second point about this new scene in the hotel lobby is, I think, a more important one and has to do with reference to "those boys." Unfortunately, since this new dialogue was never sent to me, I do not have the exact text and was unable, during a single running of the picture, to write it down in the projection room. The substance, however, of what is said at this point would seem to be that Susan has been impressed by the existence of what she describes as "those boys." or "those kids." I believe Vargas also directly refers to them in some such terms. The purpose here, one presumes, was to establish the gang of delinquents, on the face a good idea. But a real difficulty presents itself in terms of logic: Susan has not seen this gang at all and neither has the audience. True, one boy directed her attention towards the photograph, but he could only impress her (and the audience) as being one of several people in the street. As yet, there has been no impression given at all of a group of "kids." Susan and the audience would remember "

ancho," some old men, a woman with a baby, and Grandi. Of these, of course, Pancho and Grandi will impress themselves as the significant figures. In other words, we have established a middle-aged gangster and his young henchman, and beyond that, a general, rather vague impression of Mexicans of all different ages and types obviously bearing no special meaning in the story. "Sal" will appear later and so will "Risto." Only in the scene in the street between Grandi and these three boys will the actual existence of a gang of youths begin to impress itself. This talk of "boys" and "kids" is almost certainly going to have the effect of confusing the audience. If Susan and Vargas had emphasized Grandi, the conversation would be clear. As it is, the natural reaction will be to wonder, "What kids are they talking about?" 　　 　　The whole problem of the opening reels is one of clarity. There are several different sets of characters and innumerable relationships which must be very clearly established and set off one from the other. I believe that the criticism of my own, unfinished version of these opening reels was entirely justified and, as I told him, Ernie Nims made dramatic progress in reducing this confusion. The added dialogue on the subject of the "kids", however, is the very contrary to clarification. It poses a question in the audiences mind which cannot logically be answered at this point in the story when we must agree that the slightest sense of bewilderment may spark an irritation and produce that chain reaction of bewilderment which leads so often to a lack of interest. Thus, in the strongest terms possible, I want to urge that you consider this point on its merits. 　　 　　Just as in July you were able to look at the pictures with fresh eyes and with reactions uncompromised by an intimate knowledge of the material, so I am now able to see this added scene as something quite new, and can therefore make a fairer judgment perhaps than those responsible for the scene. A few slight word changes can be made and dubbed onto this footage without difficulty by means of which this bewildering emphasis on the "kids" can be sufficiently reduced, and if I could have the text of this new scene, I would be happy to work on it, and present you immediately with suggested alterations in the dialogue. You will prefer, I suppose, to accomplish this on your own and without any direct collaboration on my part. But do please give the question some thought. 　　 　　[Both scenes with the offending dialogue, referring to the "locked door" and "those kids," was changed by Universal]. 　　 　　Some specific problems are posed by the introduction of the new scene in the hotel lobby concerning which I simply cannot bring myself to keep silent. The excuse for this added scene, I take it, is clarification of the plot, and perhaps, too, the value of added footage for Miss Leigh and Mr. Heston. But, in terms of the characters they play, and their relationship to each other, I must insist that, as far as the author is concerned - (and for whatever remnant of interest may be attached to his opinion) - this particular new scene goes directly against the intentions of the script, and the original line of the story. This added dialogue makes the later scene (one of my own), in which Susan packs and stamps out of her hotel room, completely arbitrary. Coming, as this does now, quite without emotional preparation of any kind, we wonder what makes Susan so coldly furious with her husband, and why, when he opens the door, she doesn't simply throw her arms around him and beg him to take her away from this awful place. The new lobby scene leaves our couple in a fairly warm relationship, and with a perfectly rational understanding of each other. True, the young wife states her opposition to hubby's police activities in the course of their honeymoon, but her indignation is expressed in a poutingly "cute" sort of tone (a standard cliché reaction of newlyweds in B pictures). She is, in fact, more hurt than angry; this new scene with her husband actually leaves her fairly well resigned to what, as her husband explains it, is to be a short but necessary operation. Thus, the essential tension between them is totally relaxed: we have nothing "cooking" between these two except a hint of their physical interest in each other and their momentary but inconsequential pang at being parted. The original story line went, briefly, as follows: A honeymoon couple, desperately in love, is abruptly separated by a violent incident (the bombing of the car) - an incident which, although it has no personal bearing on either of them, the man considers as a matter of his urgent professional concern. This feeling of responsibility by Vargas is, of course, an expression of the basic theme of the whole picture; further, his wife's resistance to such masculine idealism, her failure, and even her refusal, to understand is a human and very feminine reaction which any audience can grasp easily and sympathize with. She is, after all, in a foreign country and has been subjected to a series of indignities which irritate and bewilder her and which her husband fails to completely appreciate. Vargas's behavior and her reaction make it necessary to dramatize and underline this temporary misunderstanding between them. By minimizing it, by sweetening their relationship at the wrong moment, and warming it up at precisely that point where the distance separating the man and woman should be at its greatest, there is a sharp loss in dimension, and both Vargas and Susan emerge as stock characters - the sort of routine "romantic leads" to be found in any programme picture. 　　 　　[The added Hotel scene, directed by Harry Keller, remained in both the release and preview versions. It was eliminated from the '98 re-edit].

作者: andsoon 时间: 2008-6-13 22:19
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用边河在2008-06-13 14:49:35的发言： 不达不达……以前贴过好些他的东西，很遗憾去年香港的奥森展没看到他主要的几部片子的影院播映，嗨，囊中羞涩- =。</div>确实可惜，不知在大银幕上看奥森的片儿是啥感觉

作者: andsoon 时间: 2008-6-13 22:24
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用尚方翊剑在2008-06-13 17:25:12的发言： 在成片里是爆炸声效的先入，当然你说的表现方式也非常不错。但是有个问题，你发现了吗？爆炸发生后，男女跑到现场是转弯的，而且手提跟拍（很了不得）了相当长的时间，说明案发地点离他们是有距离，也就是说后面切到的汽车爆炸的镜头并不是以女方的主观镜头以她为视点的（二人KISS到事后反应时女是转头，男抬头），所以导演要的不是你说他们只看到炸落的视点，男女的反应也只是出于听到爆炸后的本能反应。 </div>尚方说的这个问题我也考虑了，不过实在想不出其他更好的拍法[em35]

作者: andsoon 时间: 2008-6-13 22:45
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用尚方翊剑在2008-06-13 18:57:43的发言： 我查了一下确实不是：环球改了很多     We now come to the first additional dialogue: the new scene between Susan and Vargas. In the light of the decision to deny me permission to direct these scenes。。。。。。</div>弱弱地问一下，这些是从那里找到的啊？

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-13 22:54
奥森16岁这个短片在香港展的时候有见过的。里面出现的素描都是出自奥森之手。

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-13 23:07
尚方这个应该是google来的吧，弱弱地猜测一下。看得我好辛苦。奥森真是很纠结。汽车旅馆的情节单独提出来其实拍得还算好。只是人物的发展让故事的情节产生了扭曲。它跟汽车爆炸场面一样让导演很尴尬。再提一句汽车旅馆的守夜人设计得挺神经，这个对于奥森来说是不屑的。在奥森电影里面这种神经兮兮的人从来不曾这样堂而皇之地出现过。而墨西哥坏青年们的所作所为，汽车旅馆里面墨西哥青年们和女主人公之间发生的一系列间接直接的事件，那种类似于内置搭建场景的拍摄，到最后男主人公的迟迟赶到，当你看到那黑漆漆的汽车旅馆外景，你还以为走进了另外一个故事：英雄救美，奥森纠结的自我隐射和自我救赎不得不退让到一边。不过奥森说了尽管如此你还是可以从中看出我的剪辑风格的。

作者: 尚方翊剑 时间: 2008-6-13 23:17
<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder">以下是引用andsoon在2008-06-13 22:24:09的发言： 尚方说的这个问题我也考虑了，不过实在想不出其他更好的拍法[em35]</div>看了半天其实刚才才想到问题的原因是方向，切之前：男女反映告诉我们案发在女的左方也就是女的后背方向（箭头所指方向） 案← 女——男 机位切之后：摄影机越轴到另一边，男女跑向案发现场，因为要前跟拍的原因我们当然以为案发在男人的斜前方 女 男 ↘机位案 整个方向就相反了，不信你们再看一下街道有没有变。这更说明切进这个爆炸镜头也弥补不了越轴造成的错误，况且才1秒钟，根本起不到缓和假象的作用。

[此帖子已经被作者于[lastedittime]1213370816[/lastedittime]编辑过]

作者: andsoon 时间: 2008-6-14 00:04
哦背景的确不同了

作者: 尚方翊剑 时间: 2008-6-14 00:05
不过说到底，以我的能力对奥逊电影的理解实在是杯水车薪，李洋是这么评价他的：“要说威尔斯复杂，他可以大得像天一样复杂，大到古典文学（改编问题）、戏剧（莎士比亚）、美学（电影语言创新）、历史（历史题材）、社会学（黑色电影）、法学（法律与社会正义题材）、语言学（视听语言与文字语言）、现象学（威尔斯现象）和哲学（尼采情结）那么复杂，这个”威尔斯话语”可以无限扩大……但要说简单，他也就简单到那么几部电影，那么几篇访谈录，那么几种简单的脾气和快乐。这可能是我个人感受，或许因为我首先面对的是一个庞大的威尔斯学，而不是简单的威尔斯的一生和他的电影。像这样的、我不是非常敢碰的导演还有库布里克和戈达尔，这仨人现在成了电影显学。如果写一本论著不例举这三人，似乎就不成其学问了。”事实上呢？（李洋引的这段非常好）<blockquote>威尔斯：应该是单纯的，非常单纯…但所有关于那部片的新点子现在看来都旧了。……这就是问题。我有了一个非常纯粹的传奇流浪冒险题材，一系列的片段，而我必须把这些东西拍成一部完整的电影。我觉得我得利用现代世界，然后它变得很平庸，我希望将人物呈现在现代，另一方面，又不会对摩登时代给下太陈腔滥调的批注。……这就是这部影片的重点：他们有了生命而我作为一个影片创造者却也无法阻止他们。是他们「带领」我们。他们不是木偶，而是怪异地独立的。我能想到解决心中关于堂吉坷德的办法—即使它让我忧心，可我却不断地蛮干—就是将人物摆在现代的世界。我明白这一切；只是它让我感觉我或许对现实不够真诚，对于情境的道德真实，因为现代世界得摧毁他。而我还没办法想象他被摧毁。</blockquote>所以这一切只是开个小头。。。。。。

[此帖子已经被作者于[lastedittime]1213373191[/lastedittime]编辑过]

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-14 00:19
如果我们把这个“冷冰冰”的爆炸画面直接去掉如何呢，只保留爆炸的声音。

作者: 胡搞搞 时间: 2008-6-17 22:46
有没有可能飞快地把摄像机从轨道上拿下来，直接改手提？想到奥森的性格，说不定可以这么干。那样的话，我觉得这个爆炸镜头不要倒也没什么，说不定更好。

作者: 胡搞搞 时间: 2008-6-17 22:54
莫非爆炸+手提就是当年的大片效果？神秘的additional scenes？场景都变了。再研究一下造型好了。不知道奥森会不会忽略一幕戏里的场景不同。场子都搭起来了，没道理换的。

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-17 23:34
奥森威尔斯早就说过了，有些场景既不是他写的，也不是他拍的；片头的那一长段话，和他恳求制片方体恤他的劳动成果；再加上我们之前的一部分讨论，乃就应该明白这个爆炸场景怎么看也不该是出自奥森叔叔之手！

作者: 胡搞搞 时间: 2008-6-17 23:37
对!那个手提场景呢？我觉得也没道理是。

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-18 00:16
你说的手提场景是爆炸之后的那部分么

作者: 胡搞搞 时间: 2008-6-18 00:42
恩。不知道该怎么称呼。你不会又觉得我...了吧？

作者: 边河 时间: 2008-6-18 01:04
哦，我吓到你了。待我再看一遍，大家好好一起研究一下挖。现在请睡觉！

欢迎光临黑蓝论坛 (http://www.heilan.com/forum/)